06.04.2013 Views

ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...

ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...

ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS - Brit - Botanical Research ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!