Premium
WETLAND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION IN THE GREAT DISMAL SWAMP USING WEIGHTED AVERAGES 1
Author(s) -
Carter Virginia,
Garrett Mary Keith,
Gammon Patricia T.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1988.tb02987.x
Subject(s) - wetland , swamp , transect , vegetation (pathology) , environmental science , hydrology (agriculture) , boundary (topology) , range (aeronautics) , index (typography) , ecology , geography , physical geography , geology , mathematics , biology , medicine , mathematical analysis , materials science , geotechnical engineering , pathology , computer science , composite material , world wide web
A weighted average method was used to analyze transition zone vegetation in the Great Dismal Swamp to determine if a more uniform determination of wetland boundaries can be made nationwide. The method was applied to vegetation data collected on four transects and three vertical layers across the wetland‐to‐upland transition zone of the swamp. Ecological index values based on water tolerance were either taken from the literature or derived from local species tolerances. Wetland index values were calculated for 25‐m increments using species cover and rankings based on the ecological indices. Wetland index values were used to designate increments as either wetland, transitional, or upland, and to examine the usefulness of a provisional wetland‐upland break‐point. Most increments were designated wetland or transitional when all species were used. Removal of three or five ubiquitous species either gave a wider range of wetland index values with a more variable designation of increments or caused designation of increments to be similar for all layers. The use of locally‐derived rankings showed the sensitivity of the weighted averages method to ecological indices of species with large importance values. The weighted average method did not provide for an objective placement of an absolute wetland boundary, but did serve to focus attention on the transitional boundary zone where supplementary information is necessary to select a wetland‐upland breakpoint.