Free Download - HCCREMS

Recommendations

Info

HClNC Vegetation Classification & mapping Project: Volume 1: Vegetation Classification Technical Report Appendix 6: Collated review continued Outliers Action accepted Group undersampled Site cleaning Check Split Merge Remove accepted Further notes No Location Detailed notes Final notes Y N No further comments. Y Merged with Group 46. Group Proposed name change Group Preliminary community name Group 45 Spotted Gum / Red Ironbark shrub / grass open forest Y Cessnock site okay. This community is located on the north-eastern side of the gully – Travis Peake. Group is distinct – Travis Peake. Maybe check to see if Cessnock site is an outlier, Steve Bell thinks that it could be alright but just double check Y Y 1 Site located at ellalong (remsce, qr626p7f). 47 Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaved Ironbark shrub / grass open forest it – Steve Bell. Y Y N Community okay but delete persoonia and Rothbury – Daniel Connolly. 51 Red Ironbark / paperbark shrubby open forest Y Y N Daniel and Teresa sites, located in the upper part of the valley that gets some coastal influence, this is a distinct 52 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Mock Olive shrubby open forest group – Travis Peake. Y Y N Located on higher elevated areas, a distinct group – Travis Peake. Lump with Group 52 single observer David Tierney? – 53 White Box / Silvertop Stringybark shrubby open forest Central Hunter Daniel Connolly. Y Y N This is found in gullies – a distinct group – Travis Peake, Steve Bell. 54 Blakely’s Red Gum / Narrowleaved Ironbark shrubby 188 woodland Y N No further comments. Y 55 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Largefruited Grey Gum shrubby open forest on sandstone Y Y N These sites all exists on basalt – Steve Bell. Distinct group – Travis Peake & Steve Bell. 56 White Box and various overstorey Y Groups 58 and 59 statistically distinct; these acacia scrubs are a bit of a problem; are they actually separate communities. Keep as separate communities. x Is a separate community but not just restricted to this location – Travis Peake. One outlier in the south to see if it fits – Travis Peake. Possibly could lump the Group 59 into acacia scrubs? – Daniel Connolly. Y 1 Site south of main distribution (does it contain A. binervia?) Y Possbly could lump Group 59 into acacia scrubs? 58 Acacia binervia / Native Mock Olive Y N No further comments. Y Acacia bulgaensis has a restricted distribution. Groups 58 and 59 statistically distinct; these acacia scrubs are a bit of a problem; are they actually separate communities. Keep as separate communities. 59 Acacia bulgaensis low closed forest
Appendix 6: Collated review continued Outliers Action Final notes accepted Group undersampled Further notes No Location Site cleaning Check Split Merge Remove accepted Proposed name change Group Preliminary community name Group Y Northern sites dominated by Narrow-leaved Ironbark but no Callitris endlicheri; keep with group on nearest Distinct group – Steve Lewer. The three up in the north might be outliers – Steve Bell. Detailed notes Group Y Y 3 Sites north of main distribution (CRa / lnesites). Black pine in the title but not a diagnostic species. 63 Narrow-leaved Ironark / Black Pine dry shrub / grass woodland neighbours basis. Y Merge groups 64 and 66. Northern sites reallocated to Group 52. Is structurally different to Group 66 – Travis Peake. Sites in the north might be outliers – Travis Peake (MR sites might not belong to this group). Y Y ? Sites north of main distribution (MR sites). 64 Grey Box / Slaty Box shrubby woodland Y N Is structurally different to Group 64 – Tavis Peake. Merge groups 64 and 66. Y N No further comments. Y 66 Grey Box / Slaty Box shrub / grass woodland 70 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Bull Oak shrub / grass open forest Y Y N This is Dave Thomas’s work, out at Singleton army Base. The base does seem to be a separate community, and Travis struggled to know what to do with it in his classification – Travis Peake. Could be a disturbance artefact – Travis Peake; however, other communites influenced by disturbance have remained as a separate community in their own right. 72 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Grey Box / Spotted Gum grassy open forest 189 all agreed with Travis Peake’s comment. Y Y N x The community is there but it could be associated with disturbance – Steve Bell. Travis Peake separated it out in his work – Travis Peake. Keep it as a separate group – all. Don’t leave Warkworth in the title as it occurs in more areas. 73 Bull Oak grassy woodland in the Warkworth area aPPeNDIx 6 Collated review N This was a very disparate group; reallocated or unallocated. Yengo site will be located on a basalt cap with sandstone below. How does this fit in with other sites? – Steve Lewer. all other sites are on alluvial – Steve Lewer. Sites in the far north are on serpentinite (North Coast private property). This is a distinct group. Look at the geology for all sites to determine if they belong to this group; highly disturbed Hunter floodplain probably should lump with River Reds sites – Daniel Connolly. Y Y ? Look at the geology for all sites to determine if they belong to this group. 75 Forest Red Gum / Austrostipa verticellata grassy woodland Y N No further comments. Y Y Definite group – Steve Lewer, Dominic Sivertsen. There should be more plots that exist in with this community – Steve Lewer. 76 Swamp Oak grassy riparian forest of the Central Hunter 82 Yellow Box / Rough-barked apple grassy woodland Y Y Group is missing sites – Hunter Councils to check.
Page 3:
Hunter, Central & Lower North Coast
Page 6 and 7:
Classification Expert Review Panel
Page 8 and 9:
3.4 Vegetation community analysis .
Page 10 and 11:
List of abbreviations API aerial ph
Page 12 and 13:
HClNC Vegetation Classification & m
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
CHaPter 2 Vegetation of the study a
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
CHaPTeR 3 Method of data collection
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
CHaPTeR 4 Results 4.1 Data audit an
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149: BIBLIOGRaPHY Anderson, R. H. (1961)
Page 150 and 151: HClNC Vegetation Classification & m
Page 182 and 183: Appendix 6: Collated review continu
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298:
show all

Free Download - HCCREMS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?