ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...
ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...
ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
NATURAL HISTORY <strong>OF</strong> BIG THICKET/INTRODUCTION 167<br />
Given the high levels of species richness of East Texas as a whole (see page 225) and<br />
the habitat diversity seen in the Big Thicket, relatively high levels of species richness would<br />
be expected for the Big Thicket. Unfortunately, “botanically the entire area is understudied<br />
and underdocumented” (MacRoberts et al. 2002a), and enough data have not been available<br />
to adequately assess levels of diversity. Despite extensive collecting by numerous individuals<br />
(particularly Geyata Ajilvsgi, Larry Brown, Barbara and Michael MacRoberts, Geraldine<br />
Watson, etc.), no complete fully vouchered published plant list exists for the Big Thicket<br />
region or even the Big Thicket National Preserve (MacRoberts et al. 2002a; MacRoberts &<br />
MacRoberts 2004a). However, a few lists have been made that can give some idea of the<br />
diversity present. Examples include the approximately 1,200 species listed for the Big<br />
Thicket National Preserve (National Park Service 1995a, 1995b—based in part on Watson’s<br />
work; Harcombe 2004), the 544 species collected in the Nature Conservancy’s 920 hectare<br />
(2,273 acre) Larsen Sandylands Sanctuary in Hardin County (Matos & Rudolph 1985,<br />
1986), the 485 species collected in the approximately 260 hectares (642 acres) of the Little<br />
Thicket Nature Reserve in San Jacinto County (Peterson & Brown 1983), and the 401 taxa<br />
known from the Hickory Creek Savannah Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve in Tyler<br />
County (MacRoberts et al. 2002a). While each of these lists is valuable and can give some<br />
idea of local scale species richness, they do not provide even an estimate of the plant<br />
diversity of the Big Thicket region as a whole.<br />
Several works by the Nature Conservancy also give indirect information on species<br />
richness in the Big Thicket (Halstead 2002; Nature Conservancy 2003). Two designated<br />
conservation areas within the Big Thicket region, Longleaf Ridge and the Big Thicket-<br />
Sandylands Complex, are considered by the Nature Conservancy to be among the top ten<br />
richest conservation areas in the West Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion (richness in the Nature<br />
Conservancy studies refers to the number of occurrences of conservation targets including<br />
both communities and individual species). Longleaf Ridge is particularly important since it<br />
is considered to be the richest of the ten sites (Nature Conservancy 2003). This nearly<br />
200,000 hectare area is located on the northern margin of the Big Thicket in Jasper, Newton,<br />
Tyler, and Angelina counties, and occupies a line/ridge of eroded sandstone and volcanic ash<br />
hills. As indicated by the name, it supports remnants of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) woodlands,<br />
numerous distinctive embedded plant communities, and a large number of species,<br />
many considered to be of conservation significance (Halstead 2002).<br />
In the absence of any specific study addressing overall species richness in the Big<br />
Thicket, we suggest that a reasonable estimate for the number of plant species in the Big<br />
Thicket region can be made by totaling all those known to occur in the seven and one-half<br />
county area (Fig. 94) comprised of Hardin, Jasper, Liberty (northern half including Trinity<br />
River National Wildlife Refuge), Montgomery, Newton, Polk, San Jacinto, and Tyler counties<br />
(Diggs et al. 2003). While these counties do not exactly coincide with the boundaries of the<br />
“ecological” Big Thicket as delineated by McLeod (1971, 1972), they do correspond reasonably<br />
well (Fig. 94). This artificial delineation (at the county level, except for the northern half<br />
of Liberty County) was chosen because detailed county level distributional data are available<br />
from Turner et al. (2003), supplemented by recent information of which we are aware, (e.g.,<br />
Brown et al. 2002a; MacRoberts et al. 2002a; Harcombe 2004). Southern Liberty County is<br />
excluded, since the extensive area of Coastal Prairie in the southern part of that county would<br />
add coastal and even salt marsh species inappropriately. Western Montgomery County has<br />
some areas of prairie, but because of the numerous prairie inclusions that were well known<br />
in the Big Thicket in presettlement times (particularly on the Beaumont Formation—Watson<br />
1975) and even today (e.g., on the Fleming Formation—Brown et al. 2002b), we do not<br />
believe that including all of Montgomery County inappropriately inflates the number of<br />
species. On the other hand, eliminating Montgomery County would be removing a significant<br />
segment of the Big Thicket. We suggest that, short of a detailed and time-intensive study,