My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002 Draft Natural Resources Management
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
Parks and Recreation
>
2002 Draft Natural Resources Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:44:46 PM
Creation date
10/5/2012 3:03:36 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Evaluation of upland sites to deterrnine the natural community type was done usinj methodolo�y <br />outlined in Minnesota's Native Vegetation, A Key to Ncttural Conanunxities (Minnesola <br />Depar[ment of Natural Resources, I993). This key is the best state�vide ;uide to the <br />classification of native plant communities_ <br />Field inspection of some potential sites indicated that all or part of these sites are dominated by <br />non-native vegetation, and are therefore not classified as a(native/remnant) natural community. <br />These types of plant assemblages would be given common descriptive names of "old field" and <br />"canifer plantation" to identify the plant community types. <br />Upland Qualitative Ranking <br />To provide further information about the quality of the upland natural communities in the study <br />area, each natural community was assigned a qualitative ranking. Sites are ranked on a scale <br />from A to D, with "A" quality cammunities being the highest in ecological �uality, and "D" <br />communities being the lowest. <br />Standardized ranking criteria established by MnDNR's Natural Heritage Program were used to <br />evaluate the quality of natural com.m.unities. Somc examples of criteria utilized for ranking are <br />the de�ee of native species diversity, a�e of trees, amount of disturbance, and invasion by non- <br />native plant species. <br />Rankings reflect how closely a given site resembles an intact or "p�istine" community of its type. <br />Those sites that are rrkost like intact natural communities have an "A" ran%; conversely, "D" <br />quality communities have been hi jhly altered. Due to the high Eevel of human activity in <br />urbanizin� landscapes, "A" quality communities are very rare. <br />Communities of A to B quality, generally exhibit iitEle disturbance and are high in species <br />diversity. For example, forest communities would be comprised of old �ro�vth trecs and have a <br />diverse aroup of shrub and �round cover species characteristic of the natural community type. <br />Disturbances from human activities and invasion Uy nonnative shrubs such as buckthorn would <br />be absent or minimal. <br />Ciry of Rose+�ille �p <br />Parks Nattrral Resource ll�la��agenze�tt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.