University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Historical ecology of the Split Oak Forest in east central Florida

(USC Thesis Other)

Historical ecology of the Split Oak Forest in east central Florida

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF THE SPLIT OAK FOREST IN EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA

by

Valerie Christine Anderson

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY)

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Valerie Christine Anderson

ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis and all of the work it represents to Jessica Sullivan, whose calming
influence kept me typing, and my grandmother, Doris Poe Anderson, who funded it all.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I appreciate all of the great advice and assistance provided by my chair, Dr. Wilson. I would like
to thank my dad, Ronald Anderson, for visiting me often and taking me out to lunch. I’m grateful
to my committee members, Dr. Travis Longcore and Dr. Darren Ruddell for their time, guidance,
and overall good humor.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Questions 2
1.2 Description of the Study Area 3
1.2.1 Hydrology 4
1.3 Motivation 6
1.4 Thesis Organization 8
CHAPTER 2: RELATED WORK 10
2.1 Land Cover Change Analysis using Historical Imagery 10
2.2 Natural Communities 11
2.3 Historical Ecology 13
2.3.1 Historical ecology in the Southeastern US 18
2.3.2 History of the Area 21

v

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 23
3.1 Data 23
3.1.1 Acquisition 23
3.1.2 Quality 24
3.1.2.1 GLO Survey 24
3.1.2.2 Soil Surveys 27
3.1.2.3 Aerial Photography 27
3.1.3 Handling 29
3.2 Natural Communities 32
3.2.1 Definitions 33
3.2.2 Applying the Definition to the GLO Survey 33
3.2.3 Applying the Definition to Historical Aerials 35
3.2.4 Applying the Definition to Modern Satellite Imagery 35
3.3 Change Analysis 35
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 37
4.1 The First Century: 1844 to 1944 40
4.2 The Mid-1940s: 1944 to 1947 48
4.3 The Late-1940s: 1947 to 1951 55
4.4 The Fifties and Sixties: 1951 to 1969 61

vi

4.5 The Seventies: 1969 to 1980 67
4.6 The Eighties and Early 90s: 1980 to 1995 73
4.7 The New Millennium: 1995 to 2011 79
4.8 Recent History: 2011 to 2015 85
4.9 The Full 171 Years: 1844 to 2015 91
4.10 The 71 Years of Photography: 1944 to 2015 98
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 104
REFERENCES 109
APPENDIX A: NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS 126

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 FLUCCS Code – Natural Community Crosswalk 13
Table 2 Data source and quality information 25
Table 3 Soil names on Split Oak from 1922-Present 28
Table 4 Root Mean Square Errors computed for each flight tile 30
Table 5 Cross tabulation matrix, 1844-1944, in hectares 46
Table 6 Summary of change between 1844 and 1944, in hectares 46
Table 7 Cross-tabulation matrix for 1944-1947, in hectares 54
Table 8 Summary of change from 1944 to 1947, in hectares 54
Table 9 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1947-1951, in hectares 60
Table 10 Summary of changes, 1947-1951, in hectares 60
Table 11 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1951-1969, in hectares 66
Table 12 Summary of changes from 1951-1969, in hectares 66
Table 13 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1969-1980, in hectares 72
Table 14 Summary of changes, 1969-1980, in hectares 72
Table 15 Cross tabulation matrix, 1980-1995, in hectares 77
Table 16 Summary of changes, 1980-1995, in hectares 77
Table 17 Cross tabulation matrix, 1995-2011, in hectares 84
Table 18 Summary of changes, 1995-2011, in hectares 84
Table 19 Cross tabulation matrix, 2011-2015, in hectares 89
Table 20 Summary of changes, 2011-2015, in hectares 89
Table 21 Cross tabulation matrix, 1844-2015, in hectares 94
Table 22 Summary of changes, 1844-2015, in hectares 94
Table 23 Cross tabulation matrix, 1944-2015, in hectares 102
Table 24 Summary of changes, 1944-2015, in hectares 102
Table 25 Tropical Storms passing within 20 km of the centroid of Split Oak 105

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map showing the Split Oak Forest study site in central Florida, southeast of Orlando
and just east of the booming Lake Nona area 3
Figure 2 Map showing major hydrologic features, the inset shows how the site it hydrologically
connected to Lake Okeechobee 5
Figure 3 The East-West boundary between townships 24 and 25 shows how inconsistent the
GLO survey maps can be even within the same team 26
Figure 4 Flowchart describing how the data was prepared for analysis 31
Figure 5 Flowchart describing how each data set applies to the Split Oak’s natural community
map for each year 32
Figure 6 Example of recording GLO survey map and note information 34
Figure 7 A clip of page 420 of Volume 125 of the GLO Survey notes written by Benjamin F.
Whitner, Jr. 34
Figure 8 GRASS analysis flowchart for each natural community layer 36
Figure 9 Split Oak communities labeled with descriptive names 39
Figure 10 Natural Community map for the GLO Survey, 1844-1848 41
Figure 11 View looking southwest through baygall into the baygall-ringed marsh, sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense) in foreground 42
Figure 12 Natural Community map, 1944 43
Figure 13 Binary change raster, 1844-1944 45
Figure 14 Complete cross raster, 1844-1944 45
Figure 15 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1844 to
1944 47
Figure 16 The same location, 1844 on the left, 1944 on the right; the center symbology in the
survey map is baygall 48
Figure 17 Natural communities, 1947 49
Figure 18 View of Bonnet Pond from the pier, 2015-02-06, courtesy of Marty Fries 51
Figure 19 Binary change raster, 1944-1947 52
Figure 20 Complete cross raster, 1944-1947 52
Figure 21 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1944 to
1947 53
Figure 22 Bonnet Pond in 1944 on the left, 1947 on the right; 1947 appears to have been wetter.
55
Figure 23 Natural Communities, 1951 56

ix

Figure 24 Manmade lake in the east-center of the property. Slash pines (P. elliottii), vines, and
willows (Salix caroliniana) growing on a small spoil mound block the view 57
Figure 25 Binary change raster, 1947-1951 58
Figure 26 Complete cross raster, 1947-1951 58
Figure 27 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1947 to
1951 59
Figure 28 The same location, 1947 on the left, 1951 on the right; notice the edges of the swamp,
“big swamp 1”expand 61
Figure 29 Binary change raster, 1951-1969 62
Figure 30 Complete change raster, 1951-1969 62
Figure 31 Natural community map, 1969 63
Figure 32 A shot of the marsh that crossed the south boundary, “south marsh”, 2015-08-27 64
Figure 33 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1951 to
1969 65
Figure 34 The same location, 1951 on the left, 1969 on the right; notice the pine trees growing
in the former marsh 67
Figure 35 “Marsh-pasture” area that has been partially restored, 2015-08-16 68
Figure 36 Natural Community map for 1980 69
Figure 37 Binary change raster, 1969-1980 70
Figure 38 Complete change raster, 1969-1980 70
Figure 39 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1969 to
1980 71
Figure 40 The marsh crossing the eastern border, 1969 on the left and 1980 on the right 73
Figure 41 Photos showing “manmade lake 2” dug in the 1980s out of a marsh 74
Figure 42 “Manmade lake 2”, an easy walk from the site entrance. Photo taken 2015-08-16 74
Figure 43 Natural Community map for 1995 75
Figure 44 Binary change raster, 1980-1995 76
Figure 45 Complete change raster, 1980-1995 76
Figure 46 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1969 to
1980 78
Figure 47 “Hammock 1” and an area just north of it is, as of August 2015, horse trailer parking
and is kept mowed; this series show how quickly pines can regenerate on a disturbed site 80
Figure 48 Photo of the canal dug between the two manmade lakes, taken 2015-08-16 80
Figure 49 Natural Community map for 2011 81

x

Figure 50 Binary change raster, 1995-2011 82
Figure 51 Complete cross raster, 1995-2011 82
Figure 52 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1969 to
1980 83
Figure 53 Photos showing the clearing of an area adjacent to “marsh-pasture” 86
Figure 54 Individual bluejack oak (Q. incana) along a walking path in center-south sandhill
patch, 2015-08-16, to demonstrate that not everything changes 86
Figure 55 Natural Community map, 2015 87
Figure 56 Binary change raster, 2011-2015 88
Figure 57 Complete cross raster, 2011-2015 88
Figure 58 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 2011 to
2015 90
Figure 59 The understory of the “sandhill 2” that turned into a hammock 92
Figure 60 Binary change raster, 1844-2015 93
Figure 61 Complete cross raster, 1844-2015 93
Figure 62 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1844 to
2015 95
Figure 63 The “baygall-ringed marsh”, seen (or not) in 1844 on the left and 2015 on the right. 97
Figure 64 Northern tip of “big swamp 2” 2015-08-27 98
Figure 65 Binary change raster, 1944-2015 100
Figure 66 Complete cross raster, 1944-2015 100
Figure 67 Two photos are of “floodplain marsh 2”, chosen to highlight the drastic change in the
character of the floodplain marsh 101
Figure 68 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1944 to
2015 103

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CIR Color Infra-Red
CLC Cooperative Land Cover
DOQQ Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle
EPA US EPA
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FGS Florida Geological Survey
FLUCCS Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System
FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory
FOSS Free and Open Source Software
GDAL Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
GIMP GNU Image Manipulation Program
LABINS Florida Land Boundary Information System
GLO General Land Office
MFL Minimum Flows and Levels
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NRCS US Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI US National Wetlands Inventory
PLSS Public Land Survey System
QGIS Quantum GIS
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
SAF Society of American Foresters

xii

SCS USDA Soil Conservation Service
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SRM Society for Range Management
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
US United States
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USGS US Geological Survey

xiii

ABSTRACT
Restoration and management of ecologically important sites depend on an understanding of
reference conditions and the ability of people to return the site to those historic conditions.
Historical ecology research sifts through the data about a site to be able to offer restoration
options to land managers. This project demonstrates transitions in natural communities of a
protected area in East Central Florida: Split Oak Forest. Natural communities are defined based
on the General Land Office (GLO) survey maps and notes and applied to historical black and
white aerial photos, modern digital orthophotos, and high resolution satellite imagery.
Because of the channelization of the Kissimmee River and the subsequent draining of the
Everglades from 1883 onward, Split Oak, like other areas whose surroundings have been
drained, cannot be returned to the conditions at the time of the GLO survey. Thus, a detailed time
series of eight snapshots over 171 years will be valuable to land managers and restoration
ecologists working in sites that share the hydrologically-modified Northern Everglades
watershed with Split Oak.
Natural community descriptions gleaned from the surveyors maps and notes and their
application to current land cover are a potential backbone to future historical ecology in the
southeast. Seasonally re-hydrating drained wetlands is a priority in this watershed, and is
supported by cost-share funding from the State of Florida. This research affirms that most grassy
wetlands on the site have transitioned to upland communities. Most of the remaining marshes
have been invaded by woody plants and swamps extended their boundaries. Sandhill was used
for orange (Citrus x sinensis) culture and, along with scrub and flat pine, transitioned to
hammock.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Landscapes are affected by human habitation and development. Florida experienced a boom in
population during the 20
th
century and the state's native landscapes were subsequently altered.
Today, land managers attempt to restore or maintain undeveloped areas to a benchmark historical
condition. These historical reference conditions define the goals of restoration and management.
Reference conditions are selected by researchers or land managers by date or an amalgamation of
dates, often limited by documentary sources of land cover data. James M. Darcy wrote about the
changes that Florida was undergoing as Hamilton Disston’s massive ditch-and-drain ‘land
reclamation’ project worked its way around the state:
“The extensive saw grasses, the dread of Government Surveyors along the
[Kissimmee] valley […] are entirely disappearing from the prairies” - Minutes, vol. 3
November 5, 1884
There are available documentary sources of data for Florida's native communities beginning with
European contact in the 15
th
Century (Harisse 1892; Cantino 1502), though the most ecologically
useful data comes later, in the 18
th
and 19
th
Centuries. The earliest explorers and maps describe
the coast quite well but fail in speculating about the interior. M. John Hawkins reported evidence
of unicorns in 1564 (Sparke 1906, 127) and Pedro Menéndez de Avilés wrote about inland
mountain ranges during his travels from 1565 to 1570 (Barrientos 1965, 25). Tristán de Luna y
Arellano walked in Florida’s interior in the 1560s, it seems that he went north from the outpost
Santa Maria, on the panhandle near the present-day city of Pensacola, away from the project site
(Campbell 1892; Hudson et al. 1989).
William Bartram walked and rode parts of Florida from 1774 to 1777. The US
Geological Survey (USGS) divides much of its new land into sections via the Public Land

2
Survey (PLS) system, starting in Florida in 1844. Flights to collect aerial photos were
commissioned by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) starting in 1934 in the Pacific
Northwest and with the earliest photographs of Florida captured in 1939. Black and white aerials
were flown over Split Oak Forest, the study area, in Central Florida in 1944, 1947, 1951, 1954,
1969, 1980, and 1984. Soil surveys were undertaken across parts of the study area in 1922, 1960,
1976, 1989, and 2011. Figure 1 shows the location of the site.
The site is a publicly-accessible county-owned mitigation bank. It covers, and is owned
by two counties: Orange and Osceola. It has been called Split Oak Forest, Split Oak Mitigation
Park, and Split Oak Forest and Wildlife and Environmental Area. It is named after a 200 year old
live oak (Quercus virginiana) was split down the middle many years ago and survived.
1.1 Research Questions
The goal of this project is to track natural community change over nearly two centuries using
spatial data of varying quality. The three research questions that were addressed in this project
are:
1. What natural communities can be identified for the GLO Survey, the five years of black
and white aerial photography, and the three years of modern satellite images?
2. How has the character of the site changed over time?
3. What is the spatial pattern of the change in land cover?
The resulting georeferenced maps, aerial photos and historical land cover will be of interest to
the managers of the site. The land cover change analysis results will be useful to land managers
and researchers from further afar whose sites are bordered by development as well.

3
1.2 Description of the Study Area
The site is located in central Florida, 14.4 km southwest of Orlando International Airport. It
consists of 718 contiguous hectares that straddle Orange and Osceola Counties, as shown in
Figure 1. The site covers Township 25S Range 31E Section 3 and ¾ of the SE ¼ of Section 2.
Figure 1 Map showing the Split Oak Forest study site in central Florida, southeast of
Orlando and just east of the booming Lake Nona area

4
1.2.1 Hydrology
The site’s hydrology is worth discussing because the levels of water in wetlands and ponds in
Florida are often linked with the depth to groundwater. Groundwater in this region is supported
by the Floridan aquifer, which underlies much of the Southeastern US and is pumped for
agriculture, industry, and housing. Before much of Florida’s water was diverted into ditches and
canals, it moved over the land in a manner called sheetflow. Historically, broad, shallow sheets
of water flowed slowly across the surface of the flatwoods, vegetated wetlands, and swamps;
Buckingham Smith, in his report to the US Senate, describes sheetflow across the Everglades:
“The water is pure and limpid, and almost imperceptibly moves, not in partial currents, but, as it
seems, in a mass, silently and slowly southward.” (Smith and Breese 1848, p. 24)
The site is bounded on the north by Lake Hart, a 750 ha tannic lake that is connected
through Lake Ajay to East Lake Tohopekaliga by the South Florida Water Management District's
(SFWMD) C-29 canal. The site is hydrologically connected to Lake Mary Jane, a 400 ha tannic
lake to the northeast that is itself connected to a string of smaller lakes via SFWMD's C-30 canal.
That water eventually reaches the Kissimmee River (USFWS 2013). Some of the maps that have
been created to show Lake Okeechobee's watershed omit Lakes Ajay, Hart, and Mary Jane
(Lodge 2005, p. 106). The three lakes are included in SFWMD's Kissimmee Basic planning area
(VanArman et al. 1998). A correct watershed delineation for Lake Okeechobee is very
significant because the lake is so large and shallow that direct evapotranspiration from the lake
and its littoral zone exceeds on-lake rainfall. The lake is dependent on its watershed (Lodge
2005). Lakes Mary Jane and Hart, the two water bodies that touch the boundaries of Split Oak
are the northernmost water bodies that contribute to Lake Okeechobee. Figure 2 shows the

5
hydrological connection between Lake Okeechobee and Lake Hart. The canals and wetlands that
drain the Split Oak are also shown.
Figure 2 Map showing major hydrologic features, the inset shows how the site it
hydrologically connected to Lake Okeechobee
The canal that connects East Lake Tohopekaliga and Lake Tohopekaliga is called the C-
31 St. Cloud Canal. It was the third canal built by Hamilton Disston in his massive drainage and
development project. The St. Cloud Canal was finished in 1883 and the canals draining Lakes
Mary Jane and Hart were completed a few years later (VanArman et al. 1998, 260). This lowered
the water levels in the lakes and dried peripheral wetlands. James M. Dancy reported to the State

6
of Florida that Lake Tohopekaliga dropped 4.5' below historic lows (McIntosh, Jr. 1904, 243) for
example. East Lake Tohopekaliga was said to have dropped 7’ after the canals were finished
(Beauchamp 1986, 29). By 1891, it was possible to sail from Lake Mary Jane to the Gulf of
Mexico via the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee (Beauchamp 1986, 20).
1.3 Motivation
One application of the project's results will be to inform local residents about their area's history
and bolster the efforts of the Osceola County Historical Society. Florida's ecosystems have been
modified extensively since European contact, most drastically since the drainage campaign of the
late 19
th
and 20
th
centuries. Many Floridians are not aware if the protected areas around them
reflect how Florida used to look. They also don’t understand what the loss of these natural
communities mean in terms of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife, water quality and quantity,
and aesthetics. Florida, like much of the remainder of the American Sun Belt, is a state of recent
migrants (Frey 2014). The population prior to statehood in 1845 was estimated at 34,730. By
1880 it had reached 267,351 (Secretary of the Treasury 1881). Florida is now the third most
populous state, with 19,893,297 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). This project shows and
quantifies the natural community change within a relatively small, but well-known and heavily
visited protected area.
Florida-based historical ecology is discussed at length in 2.3, but a few motivating
examples will be mentioned here. Historic land cover/vegetation research is often done. Amy
Cohen, for example, digitized John Harshberger's 1913 “Phytogeographic Map of South
Florida”, which covers an area from about 27º 30' N to the first few Keys. This coverage starts
~90 km south of Split Oak (Cohen 2009). Brean Duncan and Paul Schmalzer have published

7
several articles that use historical aerial photography, 1913 soil maps, city fire insurance maps,
and 1900s transportation maps to model 1920s land cover on Cape Canaveral (Duncan et al.
1999; Duncan, Larson, and Schmalzer 2000). The project site has even been the subject of some
limited historical ecology: Jacobs and Prenger (2007) constructed a single historical land cover
map using the modern Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) classification system, relying on
the 1844 survey notes by Whitner and 1947 aerial photographs.
Many researchers have tried to estimate the historical extent of longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) forests. Longleaf pine forests used to cover the southeast from Texas to Southern
Virginia and have been greatly reduced in number and geographic extent (Boyer 1990). Van
Lear et al. (2005) provide a very good overview of the longleaf pine ecosystem and broadly
describe its historical ecology. Walker (2000) performed ecological, archaeological and oral-
historic research focusing on pine flatwoods near Ft. Myers on the southwestern coast of Florida.
The 'flat pine' natural community identified in this project is the same as longleaf pine flatwoods.
Flat pine is how all of the hydrological varieties of pine flatwoods (xeric, hydric, and mesic) are
referred to in the 1844 and 1848 GLO surveyor's notes.
Since this thesis project was limited in its resources and time, it focuses on a small area
that has the potential to attract substantial attention. Split Oak is located within the Orlando
metropolitan area, and in the middle of the rapidly growing, upscale Lake Nona community. It is
the nearest hiking to Lake Nona and is popular with geocachers, boy scouts, trail runners, and
horseback riders (Belson 2013). Historical research on Split Oak is valuable not only for the
potential exposure but because it is one of the few protected areas in the vicinity. Deseret Ranch,

8
Split Oak's neighbor, has been attempting get approval to develop a new city within a few miles
of the preserve (Anonymous 2014; Spear 2014).
Restoration and management of publicly-owned lands are drivers for historical ecological
research. The State of Florida owns and manages large areas of conservation land. Its acquisition
program started early, in 1972, and was strong for many years (Farr and Brock 2006; Finnell Jr.
1973). It has declined since 2006 due to the political environment in the Florida capitol (Wyland
2015; Khahaifa 2012; Dunkelberger 2014). Much of Florida’s public land is not open to
recreation, such as the Kennedy Space Center and 21 U.S. military bases (Anderson 2015). Some
of these properties remain in native or semi-native vegetation and are managed as such. The
powerful water management districts also manage and occasionally restore land. Before oranges,
cattle were Florida's predominant agricultural product (Yarlett 1985) and consequently, even
today a 2,000 acre ranch is common in central Florida. Ranches have been purchased for
restoration/preservation by nonprofits and corporations such as the Audubon Society, The Nature
Conservancy, and Forever Florida.
1.4 Thesis Organization
The remainder of this thesis is organized into four chapters: Chapter 2 – Related Work; Chapter
3 - Methodology; Chapter 4 - Results; and Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusions. The next
chapter will contextualize the project, exploring related work on land cover change analysis,
natural communities, and historical ecology. The third chapter, Methodology, addresses the data
used for this project by describing its acquisition, quality, and handling. The plant communities
defined for this project are described briefly in Methodology, their full descriptions are provided
in Appendix A. The second and final part of Chapter 3 describes the methods that were used to

9
analyze change on the site. Chapter 4, Results groups the results by change periods. This chapter
explains the transition in communities for each year and explores overarching ecological themes
over the 171 years. Chapter 5, Discussion and Conclusions reports on the most significant
takeaways from the project, reflects on the use of open source software, and proposes project
extensions and further work.

10
CHAPTER 2: RELATED WORK
As a land cover identification and analysis project, this thesis draws chiefly from the land cover
change and historical ecology fields. Land cover mapping is a mature discipline. Current
research focuses on automatic classification of satellite remotely sensed imagery in order to
understand climate change, identify the cause of land cover changes, and model landscape-scale
events such as fire and human development.
Land cover is sometimes lumped in with land use, as in the USGS’s National Land Cover
Database (NLCD) (Homer, Fry, and Barnes 2012). This and similar systems are not intended for
measuring fine-grained ecological change. Because of this, this project will consider land cover
units at the ecological community scale. Ecological communities that have been minimally
impacted by humans are called natural communities by the FNAI and others (e.g. Whittaker
1962; Garland and Thompson 2011; California Natural Resources Agency 2009; University of
New Mexico Libraries 2015).
2.1 Land Cover Change Analysis using Historical Imagery
Historical aerial imagery is often the most spatially continuous record available of historical land
cover and vegetation (Barnes 1989; Torri et al. 2013; Guariguata 1990; Simpson et al. 1994;
Ross, O’Brien, and Sternberg 1994; Bakker, van den Berg, and Speleers 1994). However, they
are difficult to use in land cover change analysis because the flight and camera information are
often unavailable and the photos must be registered to a coordinate system to be useful (Grip,
Grip, and Morrison 2000). Some researchers have explored automatic and semi-automatic
stitching and registration (Jao, Chu, and Tseng 2014; Necsoiu et al. 2013; Yu, Zhang, and
Holden 2008; Yang and Gao 2009; Li 2010; Xu, Zhang, and Li 2014). Some automatic

11
registration and stitching is available in GRASS 7, ERDAS Imagine, and ArcGIS 10.1 (GRASS
Development Team et al. 2014; Neteler et al. 2005; ERDAS, Inc. 2008; Esri, Inc. 2012). This
project did not employ any form of automatic image registration or stitching. The focus was on
small-scale changes in the landscape, and the task of registering the images manually was
manageable.
Historical imagery is greyscale, and photo interpreters of the time responded to this
limitation by delineating boundaries between land cover or vegetation types (Kadmon and
Harari-Kremer 1999). When this delineation is done by hand, it is extremely time consuming and
limits the analysis to smaller spaces (Scanlan and Archer 1991; Callaway and Davis 1993;
Frelich and Reich 1995; Skinner 1995). Some researchers have avoided this arbitrary and labor-
intensive process by analyzing the historical imagery for texture (Hudak and Wessman 1998,
2001). Awwad (2003) composited the singleband images that were the results of textural analysis
into multiband images. He then subjected those images to automatic classification.
Vegetation survey plots, photo points, and other systematically collected data about
natural communities are often only available for areas that have been managed for conservation.
Locals that were old enough to remember the landscape of the time of the study may be able to
guide historical land cover delineation. Ellis et al. (2006) employed local people trained in
photointerpretation to field-validate land cover maps from 1950 to 2001.
2.2 Natural Communities
A natural community is a system of organisms, their physical environment, and natural processes
that impact them (Clements 1916; Garland and Thompson 2011). A natural community is
defined by its plant species, and thus is useful as a more specific addition to standard land cover

12
classification systems. No two sites have the exact same composition of flora, but this does not
preclude organizing individual plants into associations or assemblages (Gleason 1917). GLO
Survey maps and notes are the most complete of the old documentary sources of data for the site.
These surveyors were not naturalists and described only six land cover categories: pine, marsh,
swamp, pond, lake, and bay gall. They also judged the site for agricultural productivity, calling
most of the site “third rate”. Fortunately, two surveying teams visited the site, the first in 1844 to
mark out the township perimeter and the second in 1848 to delineate the sections. Whitner, the
township surveyor, described the vegetation in greater detail than Loring, the section surveyor.
Natural communities that were not mentioned in the first survey map and accompanying
notes for PLSS Sections 34, 35, or 36 but are present in later years and needed to be described in
a manner appropriate for the survey-level natural community description. The original
communities were described as bay gall, marsh, and flat pine. Between 1848 and 1944, some of
the Samsula and Sanibel muck underlying the flat pine community was removed and spoil piles
were deposited. In the land cover literature, the common identifier of communities resulting from
human activity is ‘cultural’. An additional descriptor is appended to ‘cultural’ describing the type
of community that developed because of human influence. Community definitions are discussed
in depth in Chapter 3.
A soil survey from the early twentieth century is available for the portion of the site that
is in Orange County. The idea of correlating soils data with land cover is very attractive and has
been tried many times in Florida. The surveys themselves list common plants found on each soil.
The "26 Ecological Communities of Florida" report provides a table that matches each 1960s-era
soil type to one or more ecological communities (USDA SCS 1981, A–1). The Society for Range

13
Management (SRM) and the NRCS tried to correlate the modern soil map units with updated
ecological sites, but they never finished the Ecological Site Descriptions (SRM 2014 Orlando
Planning Committee 2014; SRM 2011). Most recently, the NRCS has created forage suitability
groups that are associated with one or more modern soil map units (Williams 2012).
In 1922 each soil was assigned a general vegetation description that is consistent across
Orange County. Peat is associated with sawgrass, Leon with palmetto flatwoods, longleaf pine,
and runner oak, and Portsmouth with broomsedge.
The numeric codes that would have been filled in for the survey-data-scale natural
community categories in the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) are
shown in Table 1.
2.3 Historical Ecology
Historical ecology is an emerging field and active area of research that combines ecology and
historical geography to study lost historic ecosystems. The field is practical as well as
theoretical; historical ecology is often funded in order for a restoration project to have reference
conditions. Because North America had an historical exploration/settlement period that was short
and well documented relative to that of other continents, proposed historical ecology methods

Table 1 FLUCCS Code – Natural Community Crosswalk

Name FLUCCS Number
Flat Pine 1300
Cultural – Spoil 1877
Marsh 21212
Baygall 2231
Pine and Cypress Swamp 2242
Cultural - Palustrine 2400
Cultural - Lacustrine 3200
no data 0

14
have been well documented, for example in The Historical Ecology Handbook (Egan and Howell
2005). Though all of the related work in this section focuses on North America, this does not
discount the extensive work that many researchers have conducted on other continents.
McGovern et al. (2007), for example, did a beautiful job investigating the historical ecology of
Iceland starting in the Viking era.
In my opinion, existing historical data is underutilized in land management. Fortunately,
historical ecology is an active area of research. Longcore and colleagues have authored many
articles on the historical ecology of southern California, frequently providing concrete
recommendations for restoration (Dark et al. 2011; Stein et al. 2007, 2010; Beller et al. 2011;
Jacobs, Stein, and Longcore 2011; Longcore and Rich 1998; Mattoni and Longcore 1997;
Mattoni et al. 1997). The list of important historical ecology projects is long, though some of
note are the now-defunct USGS Land Use History of North America (Bliss et al. 2012) and the
entire Chesapeake Bay restoration project (Chesapeake Bay Program 2015).
The field is not concentrating solely on the vegetation of terrestrial landscapes, scholars
have also looked into individual aquatic species (McClenachan 2009a; Ermgassen et al. 2012)
and entire intertidal ecosystems (Wares and Cunningham 2001). Modeling historical biomass is
an emerging trend, with Ermgassen et al. (2012) looking at wild oysters and Rosenberg et al.
(2005) investigating cod. The majority of the following related work will discuss only landscape
historical ecology.
Data that supports historic ecological research can be divided into two broad categories:
prehistoric/natural and historic/documentary (Bromley 1935; Swetnam, Allen, and Betancourt
1999). Fossil trees and plants, charcoal, coral layers, animal deposits/structures, ice cores, and

15
fossil pollen are examples of natural archives. Early travelers’, early surveyors’ and early
settlers’ records along with historical written maps, local histories, weather records, insurance
maps, historical aerials and vegetation surveys exemplify documentary archives.
Edmonds (2005) further sorts documentary evidence into eight additional categories: (1)
classic early explorations; (2) the Jesuit Relations; (3) travelers’ accounts; (4) Native American
sources; (5) official US government expeditions; (6) local histories; (7) census schedules; and (8)
early scientific investigations. The Jesuit Relations are not spatially relevant and no Native
American sources or early scientific investigations are readily available for this site. Natural
community descriptions for this project are correlated with travelers’ accounts and the GLO
Survey, an official US government expedition, provides the earliest fine-grained spatial data for
this project. Local history is tapped to explain settlement patterns and densities, as well as to
verify dates and events described in contemporary sources.
Researchers trying to perform historic ecological work on travelers’ records do so
because often these records are absolutely the earliest written observations about their area of
study. The downside is that the traveler is often a casual observer without a set course or a reason
to rigorously sample the vegetation. Frost (2000) used the written observations of George
Washington in 1753 and William Byrd in 1728 to reconstruct historical fire regimes and
vegetation patterns in the Dismal Swamp region of North Carolina. As Frost (2000, 293) points
out, “most of the valuable ecological information available from first settlement to the end of the
Colonial Era is provided by nonscientists”.
The natural community accounts created for this project are backed up by travelers,
botanists, and other observers both before and after the GLO Survey. While none of the

16
individuals listed in any of the communities’ ‘Historical Descriptions’ are known to have
traversed the project site, their descriptions of nearby landscapes reinforce the classifications.
The present day conditions of the natural communities present on the project site are
products of indigenous human actions and a complex cascade of events and conditions that
began at European contact with and subsequent settlement of Florida. It is debates whether Juan
Ponce de Léon was the first European to step on the peninsula or not (Smith and Gottlob 1994;
Cantino 1502). His arrival in 1513 heralded cattle grazing, hog rooting, 16urpentining,
timbering, fire suppression, and landscape fragmentation (Davis 1932; Myers 1990). All of the
historical observations of communities that occur on the project site were made over 250 years
after the first somewhat-accurate map of the Florida peninsula, Carta del Cantino, was
published. These observations must then show landscapes that are at least somewhat altered from
their pre-contact conditions. Even when a landscape was observed by a European at first contact,
it is presumptuous to assume that his description is of a pristine ecosystem unaltered by people:
The indigenous population of the southeastern US was organized into complex, armed chiefdoms
with densely populated towns (Smith 1987).
The US Government was very active in financing rail beds and waging war in the 20
th

century. These surveys and records are often very useful to historical ecologists, but were not
available for this part of Florida (Edmonds 2005). However, land survey data was available and
provides the earliest data set for the project at hand.
Land surveys of North America come in three varieties: (1) irregular metes and bounds
surveys; (2) regular private land surveys; and (3) regular public land surveys (Wang 2005). The
purpose of these surveys was not to accurately sample the vegetation, they were commissioned

17
to enable private and public land transactions. Despite this limitation, much historical ecology
research has been based on these old surveys, and contemporary researchers like Black and
Abrams (2001), Bourdo (1956), Delcourt and Delcourt (1996), Iverson and Risser (1987),
Kronenfeld and Wang (2007), Manies et al. (2001), Manies and Mladenhoff (2000), Mladenhoff,
et al. (2002), Wang (2005), Wang (2008), Kronenfeld and Wang (2008), and Wang and Larsen
(2006) have critically assessed old surveys for inaccuracies, biases, and suitability for
reconstructing pre-settlement vegetation.
Metes and bounds surveys of colonial states contain the earliest systematic vegetation
descriptions in North America (Bourdo 1956). Loeb (1987) compared trees listed in colonial
metes and bounds surveys with the fossil pollen record and estimated historical tree abundance.
However, as Florida was not one of the first colonies, the first surveys conducted in central
Florida were, to the best of my knowledge, the official GLO surveys.
The GLO Surveys were the result of an act of Congress in 1785, starting with Ohio. The
survey program was intended to promote settlement by making land sales and land grants easier.
The townships were intended to be exactly six miles on a side such that they could be divided
into 36 one square mile sections. These parameters did not always become reality, so many
townships are irregular. The corner posts as originally marked remain official (Avery 1967).
Researchers have quantified tree density change using GLO surveys (Nelson, Redmond,
and Sparks 1995), but other researchers argue that absolute density cannot be accurately obtained
from the section line and corner post data (Almendinger 1996; Grimm 1984). Old surveys of all
three types have been used successfully for comparing the relative structure of ecosystems
(Schulte and Barnes 1996; Whitney and DeCant 2005) and for listing tree species and their

18
relative abundance (Lutz 1930; Spurr 1951; Thompson et al. 2013). The number of studies, in
addition to the studies already cited, using the GLO surveys for historical ecology work is
staggering: Dick-Peddie (1955) in Iowa, Fralish et al. (1991) in Illinois, Fritschle (2008) in
California, Sears (1925) in Ohio, and Stearns in (1949) Wisconsin are but a few of the notable
examples of such work.
Researchers like Fagin and Hoagland (2011), He et al. (2006), Larsen et al. (2015), Puric-
Mladenovic (2003), and Tulowiecki (2014) and have used bearing tree and/or line description
data from the GLO survey to create species distribution models.
2.3.1 Historical ecology in the Southeastern US
The 49,104 km
2
of managed conservation land and water has driven historical ecological
research in Florida. This includes research that supports the restoration of the Everglades.
Bousquin et al. (2005) conducted the most comprehensive study of historical ecology on the
Kissimmee River, which indirectly drains the study area and flows into Lake Okeechobee. Other
work has included studies examining urban lakes (Brenner et al. 1995), the loss of trophy fish
(McClenachan 2009b), and the dry prairies and grasslands of the American Southeast (Noss
2013).
Cowell (1995) examined the unique pre-GLO ‘land-lottery’ surveys commissioned by the
State of Georgia to estimate pre-settlement tree abundance in the Piedmont region of Georgia.
Clewell (2011) used a British Colonial road map (Purcell 1778) reconstructed by Boyd (1938),
GLO Surveys (Clements 1824; Smith 1874; Henderson 1878; May 1825), a census report on
Florida cotton production (Smith 1884), and two vegetation surveys (Harper 1914, 1915) to
describe forest succession on previously-farmed land. The report on cotton production is part of

19
a series within the US Census that assesses various soil types and vegetation associations for
their suitability as cotton land. These land cover and soil observations and correlated with this
projects’ natural community descriptions in Appendix A.
Historical documentary data sources that describe the flora and fauna of Florida can be
valuable, depending on their location, extent of travel, the individual’s familiarity with Florida,
and the person’s botanical knowledge.
Bernard Romans, a marine surveyor for the British crown and private companies,
surveyed Florida’s coast from 1766-1772 (Romans 1776). He walked across the state from
Tampa Bay to St. Augustine after a shipwreck in 1769, collecting plant parts and seeds and
recording detailed notes (Braund 2007). He later published A Concise Natural History of East
and West Florida to capitalize on the success of his well-received maps (Phillips 1924).
William Hayne Simmons, touring Florida in 1821 just after it was acquired from the
Spanish, said that the Florida scrub is a concealed desert that is not fit enough for browsing cattle
(1822). He traveled between St. Augustine and the Alachua prairie (now Gainesville). Marjorie
Kinnan Rawlings wrote fiction set in the scrubby lands between the Ocklawaha and St. John’s
rivers. Her stories described vast swaths of flammable vegetation growing on what appeared to
be beach sand interspersed with islands of pine and hardwoods (Rawlings 1933, 1938). These
natural communities are now known as scrub and sandhill, respectively.
George V. Nash, a botanist, recorded some general information about the landscape of
North and North Central Florida from Tampa to Orlando to Titusville to Jacksonville to
Tallahassee. His articles focus on the botanical descriptions of plants, but they still describe the
landscapes in some detail (Nash 1895, 1896). Botanical works such as Flora of the Southern

20
United States (Chapman 1897) list plants by family and their short descriptions of the plants’
locations and habitats can be useful for confirming other historical sources’ species
identification.
Action from the state government has funded some historical ecology research using
similar data as was used for this project. As background, the State of Florida has a program that
designates “special” water bodies as either impaired (really polluted) or outstanding (having
some historical or ecological significance). The State only requires itself to develop standards for
how much nutrient and other pollution can enter a that body of water, and how much water a
lake should have or a spring should put out if that water body is on one of the two lists. These
standards are called the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and the minimum flows and levels
(MFL), respectively (Migliaccio, Li, and Obreza 2014). The State has long resisted (via lawsuits
and congressional legislation) numerical criteria for water quality, insisting that Florida is
different and the narrative standard listed in Florida Administrative Code, Ch. 62-302.530 is
sufficient (National Research Council 2012; EPA 2014; Flowers and Charles 2012; MacCurdy
2011). For example, Florida Senator Mark Rubio wrote “Florida has one of the most aggressive
water-quality protection programs in the nation, implemented by the people who know our state
best, and it's time EPA stop bullying us into accepting another Washington-contrived mandate
that would devastate job creation” (Rubio (2012). To support the development of TMDLs and
MFLs for some of these very special waters, Bukata and Kolasa (2005) generated historical land
cover and hydrography data for the Peace Creek and Lake Wales Ride Basins using GLO survey
maps and notes, 1927 soils data, and military maps.

21
2.3.2 History of the Area
First, we’ll discuss the political boundaries of the area in the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries. Lack
of knowledge of the interior of Florida did not prevent Colonel Robert Butler from dividing
Florida into two counties in 1821: Escambia and St. John’s (Gannon 2013). St. John’s County
included all land south of the Suwannee River, including the project site (Young 1826). The
counties were divided again in 1824 and Mosquito/Musquito County was created (Gannon 2013;
Searcy 1829; Hinton 1832; Drayton 1827). It lasted until 1845, when it was carved up into
Orange and Brevard, with the project site in Brevard. Osceola County was established in 1887,
taken out of Orange County and Brevard (Cody and Cody 1987, 4). That action brings us into the
present with the site being split between Orange and Osceola Counties. At the time that Osceola
County was created it had 815 residents (Beauchamp 1986, 45).
The closest town to Split Oak is the unincorporated Narcoossee. English Army retirees
settled the towns of Narcoossee and Runnymede starting in 1883. Both towns were colonies of
England. Runnymede had a Polo Club, lawn bowling, tennis, horse racing, an ostrich farm,
croquet, a library, afternoon tea, and evening dances. Runnymede attracted Kissimmee residents
and tourists who took the St. Cloud & Sugar Belt Railroad to these parties. Narcoossee’s
population dwindled after a drought in 1908 followed ‘The Great Freeze’ of 1984-5 and it has
never incorporated (Beauchamp 1986, 35).
Between 1910 and 1920 Orange and Osceola Counties together grew 9%. While the rest
of Florida experiences a boom and bust from 1920 to 1925, the 1930 census reports combined
growth of 123% for the counties: There was a rash of development from 1925-1927, creating the
Hendon Park neighborhood in Narcoossee. A category 4 hurricane hit the state in 1926 and a

22
category 5 hurricane killed thousands of people in 1928, Wall Street crashed in 1929, and the
two counties still grew 33% between 1930 and 40. World War II took many lives but the
counties still grew 58% over the next ten years. The two counties have together sustained at least
30% growth over every ten years since 1950. The societal trend of suburbs and exurbs has not
excluded central Florida. The intestinal-shaped developments are visible on the modern aerial in
Figure 1.
The rabid development around the site is another motivator for this research. Areas that
were previously managed as natural areas and rangeland are quickly being replaced by
subdivisions, dollar stores, and gas stations. Education is key to cultivating appreciation for
ecology and fostering responsible environmental behavior (Bogner 1998).

23
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The main goal of this project was to quantify the changes in Split Oak’s natural communities
over time. To do this, natural communities were defined to the level of detail available in the
GLO Surveys. These community definitions were then applied to the imagery captured in later
years so that the historical data could be compared with modern data. This chapter describes the
data and methodology used for this research. The first section describes the data used in this
project, including its quality, sources, and how it was processed. The second section describes
the natural community definitions that were used and how these were applied to the various data
sources that were used, and the final section describes the methodology that was developed and
deployed to conduct the change analysis.
3.1 Data
The various data sources used for this thesis project brought a variety of strengths and
weaknesses to the work at hand because of the information that was included and could be
gathered from each source and because of the quality of the information that was associated with
each of these data sources and the information that was extracted and used to prepare the change
analysis described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
3.1.1 Acquisition
The survey plats were acquired by township from the GLO and the Florida Land Boundary
Information System (LABINS) website (http://www.labins.org). The aerial photos were acquired
from the University of Florida Digital Collections website (http://www.ufdc.ufl.edu). Flights
were conducted on varying numbers of tiles each year, as cameras and flying height varied. The
1995 Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) and the 2011 High Resolution

24
Orthoimagery were acquired from the USGS's EarthExplorer website
(http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov). Soil surveys completed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and its successor, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1960, 1979,
1989, and 2011 were acquired from at the NRCS website (http://nrcs.usda.gov). Only a few
paper copies remain of the 1922 soil survey and this map was digitized for this thesis project
from a copy at the NRCS State Office in Gainesville, FL. Table 2 summarizes the data used.
3.1.2 Quality
The spatial data was used either as a main data source, primary, or as a supporting data source,
secondary, and the quality varied as documented below.
3.1.2.1 GLO Survey
The GLO Survey contains information in four basic formats: (1) survey plat maps; (2) township
summaries; (3) corner boundary tree bearing and distance; and (4) line descriptions (Whitney
1986). The survey maps' land cover description and labeling are minimal. The maps indicate six
distinct natural community classes for the project area: (1) flat pine; (2) marsh; (3) swamp; (4)
pond; (5) lake; and (6) bay gall. They are also consistently symbolized, but unfortunately not
consistently applied (even within the same surveying team). The line descriptions found in the
surveyor’s notes describe the vegetation in more detail than the map. In addition to the bearing
tree positions, directions, names, and diameters the notes contained descriptions of “any thing in
the township worthy of particular notice […] and […] a general notice or description of the
township in the aggregate, as it regards the face of the country, soil, timber, &c”. The surveyors
were also instructed to record the local names of any “rivers, creeks, smaller streams, lakes,
swamps, prairies, hills, mountains, or other natural objects” (Conway 1842, 327).

25

Table 2 Data source and quality information
Name Year 1°/2° Format % Coverage Source Scale Resolution
T.XXV.S R.XXXIE. &
T.XXVI.S_R.XXX.E. by
Whitner
1844 Primary Map in JPEG2000 and
Handwritten Notes
100 glorecords.blm.gov 1:31,680 1 px:1.82m
FL.TXXIVS. R.XXXIE &
FL.TXXVS. R.XXXIE by
Loring
1848 Primary Map in JPEG2000 and
Handwritten Notes
100 glorecords.blm.gov 1:31,680 1 px:1.81m
Soil survey of Orange
County, Florida
1922 Secondary print book - digitized 64.5 NRCS State Office 1:63,360 1 px:11.06
m
Flight 4C & Flight 5C 1944 Primary JPEG2000 100 ufdc.ufl.edu 1:20,000 1 px:1.83 m
Flight 6D 1947 Primary JPEG2000 100 ufdc.ufl.edu 1:20,000 1 px:0.86 m
Flight 4H 1951 Primary JPEG2000 100 ufdc.ufl.edu ? 1 px:0.95 m
Soil Survey Orange County
Florida
1960 Secondary PDF & print book 64.5 Orange County Public Library
(OCPL)
? 1 px:11 m
Flight 1LL 1969 Primary JPEG2000 100 ufdc.ufl.edu 1:40,000 1px:1.77m
Soil Survey of Osceola
County Area Florida
1979 Secondary PDF & print book 35.5 OCPL ? ?
Flight 180 1980 Primary JPEG2000 100 ufdc.ufl.edu 1:40,000 1 px:1.77 m
Soil Survey of Orange
County, Florida
1989 Secondary PDF & print book 64.5 OCPL ? ?
DOQQ 1995 Primary GeoTIFF 100 earthexplorer.usgs.gov 1:12,000 1 px:1 m
Split Oak Mitigation Park
Plant Community Type Map-
ping Analysis Results
2007 Primary PDF 100 myfwc.com ? ?
CLC v1.1 2010 Secondary vector digital data - shp 100 fgdl.org 1:5,000 ?
High Resolution Orthoimage 2011 Primary GeoTIFF 100 earthexplorer.usgs.gov 1:15,000 1 px:1 m
CLC v2.3 2012 Secondary vector digital data - shp 100 fnai.org 1:5,000 ?
CLC v3 2014 Secondary vector digital data - shp 100 myfwc.com 1:5,000 ?
Soil Survey - Orange County 2015 Secondary vector digital data - shp 64.5 gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov 1:12,000 ?
Soil Survey - Osceola County 2015 Secondary vector digital data - shp 35.5 gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov 1:12,000 ?

26
Figure 3 shows the East-West boundary between Townships 24 and 25 South. Township
24S has a pond and a bay gall mapped on Sections 31 and 32 in “FL.TXXIVS. R.XXXIE”
(Loring 1848a) but the adjoining Sections 6 and 5 in “FL.TXXVS. R.XXXIE” (Loring 1848b)
do not show these features, even though it is unlikely they were both cut off neatly at the
township line. This illustrates some inconsistencies present in the GLO Survey. Chapter 5
addresses the consequences of surveyors failing to record every distinct community on a section
line. These two maps are the versions that were acquired from the GLO archive, rather than the
LABINS website. Take note of the lack of continuity of marsh and baygall features that cross the
township line in Figure 3.
Figure 3 The East-West boundary between townships 24 and 25 shows
how inconsistent the GLO survey maps can be even within the same team

27

3.1.2.2 Soil Surveys
Soil classification and nomenclature has changed over time as well. This includes the soil types
that are present within Split Oak, so the way the soils have been named and classified within the
area has changed over time. The 1920 soil survey that covered the portion of the forest in Orange
County listed five different soil types. The next year the area was surveyed the classifications
had changed so that the same land was assigned to 14 different soil types with only one name in
common. The next survey of the area was conducted in 1989 and the 14 were condensed and
reassigned to 11 distinct soil types, with three names in common between the two years. There
were some changes in classification between the 1989 and the present soil map; however, these
changes did not affect the study area. The present soil map is updated continuously at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov and one can download layers and associated data at
http://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov. Most of the soil updates were completed in 2011. Table 3 lists the
soils for each year on the site, note how the classification system changes.
3.1.2.3 Aerial Photography
The aerial photos were flown by contractors Robinson Aerial and Harry Tubis, Inc. Research
into the availability of camera calibration reports returned information about the manufacturer of
the camera for each flight, the lens number(s), and the fit symbol(s) (Luchansky 2015a, b). This
information was not sufficient to perform orthorectification on the aerial photos. The aerials vary
in image quality and environmental parameters, including tilt, brightness, and date of return. The
1944 and 1947 aerials were flown closer to the ground and have significantly higher resolution
with fewer visual imperfections.

28

Table 3 Soil names on Split Oak from 1922-Present
1922 1960 1989 Present
Name Name Type Phase Name Type Hydrology Topography Name Type Hydrology Topography
Portsmouth fine sand Rutledge fine sand Basinger fine sand
depres-
sional Basinger fine sand
depres-
sional
Norfolk fine sand Lakeland fine sand
very gently
sloping Candler fine sand 0-5% slope Candler fine sand 0-5% slope
Peaty muck / Peat Everglades mucky peat shallow Hontoon muck Hontoon muck
Brighton shallow

moderately
deep
very deep
Portsmouth fine sand /
Leon fine sand Immokalee fine sand Immokalee fine sand
Immoka-
lee fine sand
Portsmouth fine sand /
Peat Ona fine sand Ona fine sand Ona fine sand
Leon fine sand Pomello fine sand Pomello fine sand 0-5% slope Pomello fine sand 0-5% slope
Peaty muck / Peat Rutledge
mucky fine
sand Sanibel muck Sanibel muck
Peaty muck / Peat Everglades mucky peat shallow Samsula muck Samsula muck
Leon fine sand Leon fine sand Smyrna fine sand Smyrna fine sand
Plummer fine sand Plummer fine sand St. John's fine sand
St.
John's fine sand
Norfolk fine sand Blanton fine sand level low Zolfo fine sand Zolfo fine sand
*name of lake* Water Water Water

29
3.1.3 Handling
The desktop computer that was used to store and handle all of the data for this project runs
Linux. Most of the computer programs and code used for handling the data were available by
running a Debian system that tracked 'unstable' with some packages from 'experimental'
repositories (Debian Developers 2015a, b). In order to use the Cooperative Land Cover (CLC)
data from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) published as an
Esri file geodatabase, it was necessary to convert it to shapefiles. The Geospatial Data
Abstraction Library (GDAL) began support file geodatabases in Version 1.11, so QGIS 2.8.2
was used for much of this work and was upgraded from the 'Debian-nightly-release' repository
to support GDAL 1.11.2 and geodatabases (Rouault 2015).
The 1944, 1947, 1951, 1969, and 1980 aerial tiles came in JPEG 2000 format lacking
spatial information. The study area was entirely covered by the tiles each year. Prior to
georeferencing, each tile was clipped to remove text and lens error and brightness/contrast were
manually changed in the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) 2.8.14. Each image was
then georeferenced to the 1995 DOQQ using the Georeferencer plugin in QGIS 2.8.2. The USGS
7.5 minute series Narcoossee Quarter Quadrangle from 1953 was used as a reference. Table 3
shows the Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE) for each tile after it was transformed with QGIS's
polynomial 3 algorithm.

30

Table 4 Root Mean Square Errors computed for each flight tile
Month Day Year Flight
Aerial Contrac-
tor
Camera
Make
Cam-
era
Size
Lens
Number
Tile
Numbers
Avg.
RMSE
February 8 1944 5C Robinson Aerial Park 757405 25 11.4658
April 21 1947 6D Harry Tubis 139, 140 4.78
July 6 1951 4H Robinson Aerial Mark Hurd 761445 83 3.58
December 18 1969 1LL
Park Aerial Sur-
veys 6" 37 3.66724
December 12 1980 180
G.R.W. Aerial
Surveys 6" 57 2.8572

31
The survey maps also came in JPEG 2000 format lacking spatial information. Two
survey maps cover the study area. Each image was clipped and rotated in GIMP. The image was
georeferenced using the Thin Plate Spline algorithm, which corrects local deformities and is
well-suited for low-quality images (Zitová and Flusser 2003). The preprocessing methods are
shown visually in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Flowchart describing how the data was prepared for analysis

32
3.2 Natural Communities
In order to understand the changes in plant communities and land cover over time, the site must
be divided into units that are applicable to each data source from 1844-2015 regardless of format
or quality. To do this, the many spatial data sources in Table 2 were curated for this project.
Figure 5 shows how these data were used to support the natural community delineations for each
year.

Figure 5 Flowchart describing how each data set applies to the Split Oak’s natural
community map for each year

33
3.2.1 Definitions
The definitions are supported by soils maps. The oldest soils map of the site comes with basic
vegetation descriptions. Fortunately, researchers working elsewhere in Florida who were using
that era of soil descriptions made the effort to correlate soil type with natural communities.
Laessle (1942), working in Welaka, approximately 100 km NNE of the site was the main source
and Harper’s (1915) map and vegetation descriptions provided additional verification. Over the
course of 171 years, the site was home to 11 communities, eight of them naturally occurring and
three of them directly existing due to human activity: flat pine, scrub, sandhill, hammock, lake,
marsh, swamp, bay gall, cultural-spoil, cultural-palustrine, and cultural-lacustrine.
3.2.2 Applying the Definition to the GLO Survey
Two surveying teams visited the site, the first in 1844 to delineate the township perimeter and
the second in 1848 to delineate the sections. Whitner, the township surveyor, described the
vegetation in detail in his notes. Land cover information from the two team’s maps and notes
were recorded in QGIS. Figure 6 shows the measuring tool and the map in QGIS overlaid with
the line spatialite layer holding the descriptions. The information on the map corresponds to the
digitized notes reproduced in Figure 7.
The left column in Figure 7 records the distance from the SW corner. This distance is in
the unit 'four pole chains' which is 66 feet (Conway 1842). The SW corner of the section is not
shown in Figure 6 so that the labels are legible. The numbers in Figure 6 on the section line are
the distance in chains from the SW corner and the labels for the line are Whitner’s descriptions
in the second column. Notice that not every line segment is labeled with a description. Whitner's

34
survey notes do not indicate land cover for the entire township line, leaving some gaps.
Fortunately, the map and the notes later penned by Fred R. Loring fill these in as flat pine.

Figure 6 Example of recording GLO survey map and note information
Figure 7 A clip of page 420 of Volume 125 of the GLO
Survey notes written by Benjamin F. Whitner, Jr.

35
3.2.3 Applying the Definition to Historical Aerials
In order to maintain consistency in the application of the natural community definitions it was
necessary to understand what these natural communities looked like on historical aerials. Figure
8 is a time series of images showing the south middle of the study area, which in 1848 was marsh
and bay gall, and in 1944 onward was flatwoods and (a different) marsh.
Figure 9 shows the natural community estimate derived from the map and notes. There
are three distinct natural communities (1) pine flatwoods (3
rd
rate) (2) bay gall, and (3) marsh.
The three community types are all referred to by different names within and between the three
surveying teams: (1) is called pine and flat pine, (2) everyone agrees on Bay Gall, and (3) is
called sawgrass, large marsh, and grassy marsh & islands of pine, cypress, and myrtle.
3.2.4 Applying the Definition to Modern Satellite Imagery
The SFWMD’s Photointerpretation Key (Cameron et al. 2011) has analogs to every natural
community description listed in Appendix A. They provide details about how each community
shows up in color infrared and natural color. Each natural community description in Appendix A
has an ‘Identification and Photointerpretation’ section to describe what methods were most
effective in identifying the communities.
3.3 Change Analysis
Finally, the natural community delineations for each year were converted from vector to raster
format, and imported into GRASS, where they were analyzed. Figure 10 shows the process used
for each natural community layer.

36

Figure 8 GRASS analysis flowchart for each natural community layer

37
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The results were prepared and compiled as a series of change analyses spanning 10 time periods.
The primary results, themselves, consist of pairs of vector maps, overlaid on images for the same
year in those years for which such images were available, plus two side-by-side raster change
maps, a table showing the community designations cross-tabulated by year, a histogram showing
net change and net change as a percent of initial area by community, and a table summarizing the
changes by period. The commentaries provided for each period summarize the major trends
evident from these materials and introduces additional maps and photographs to help describe
and/or validate the interpretations offered in this chapter.
The changes experienced by the site sit in the greater context of world history. Some
events very clearly affected the extent and distribution of natural communities on Split Oak
Forest. The entirety of the change on the site was not explainable only using the existing data,
the data generated for and analyses used in this project. In general, the site lost a majority of its
marsh to a variety of other communities, swamp replaced marshes in depressions and
floodplains, baygall persisted, and the most xeric sites transitioned to and from hammock.
The site lost 90% of its marsh area between 1844 and 2015. About half of that loss (167
ha) occurred between 1844 and 1944. The site ended up with only 30 ha of marsh in 2015. This
does not equal a 90% loss in wetland, the gain in swamp and manmade wetland slightly offset
the loss. The net wetland loss between 1844 and 2015 was 215 ha, or 60%. Two wetlands were
excavated, ostensibly for the muck soil underneath – this resulted in manmade wetland (cultural
– palustrine), manmade lakes (cultural – lacustrine) and spoil piles (cultural – spoil) that
transition to disturbed areas (cultural – ruderal). The large marsh on the south west boundary of

38
the site was cleared and transitioned into pasture (cultural – ruderal) once dry. The loss of these
marshes is particularly poignant because they were not directly drained, unlike many of the other
marshes in the area. The effect of draining Lakes Mary Jane and Hart had a negative impact on
Lake Hart’s peripheral wetlands. Some of the areas of marsh might be over- or under-represented
in the 1884 map, as discussed next.
The inaccuracies within the GLO survey have been well documented in the literature and
were discussed in Section 2.3. Because many of the critiques were aimed at methodology using
bearing and line trees to ascertain tree species relative abundance, density, and timber quality, I
thought that the notes and maps would be suitable for reconstructing the natural communities of
the time. With the addition of the information from the 1920s soil map covering the north half of
the site, I feel that the 1844 map for some of this area is fairly accurate. However, the surveyors
completely missed Bonnet Pond (in the northeast corner). They also failed to map the swamp in
the southeast corner and the sandhill across the township line, despite being recorded in the
notes. The Loring team says they walked through what is now the not-insubstantial Lake Mary
Jane. In addition to the lapses in community recordkeeping, the sections are not square.
The swamp is the southeast corner was the only recoded swamp on the site in 1848,
though the survey team declined to include it on the map so that it would be possible for me to
map it. Since 1944, swamps expanded at their edges and developed from both depression/basin
marshes and floodplain/strand marshes. Some depression/basin marshes persisted,
The net change in baygall was difficult to quantify across the years, since the large
baygall that rings the large swamp in the east-center of the site was either non-existent or missed

39
by the surveyors in 1944. Nearly all of the baygall ringing Lake Hart transitioned to flat pine
between 1844 and 1944. Descriptive names for some sites on Split Oak are in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Split Oak communities labeled with descriptive names

40

The driest sites, sandhill and scrub, tend to just transition back and forth to and from
hammock. Certainly the specific species abundances and densities change over the years but
these changes are not discernible on aerial imagery. Changes will be easier to describe if some of
the areas on the site have names. To this end, Figure 9 is a map of the site with relevant areas
labeled for ease of reference.
4.1 The First Century: 1844 to 1944
The most striking result of the GLO survey delineation, seen in Figure 10, is that neither
hammocks, scrubs, nor Lake Mary Jane were observed. The namesake of the forest, a 200 year
old live oak (Quercus virginiana) that is split down the middle has been growing in the same
place since before 1815 on an area that the surveyor’s map called marsh. Live oaks are able to
grow to full size if an area is sheltered from fire and not inundated. These conditions usually lead
to the community transitioning from sandhill or scrub into a hammock. This casts doubt upon the
accuracy of their descriptions, especially where the team would have to be carrying a heavy
chain through sawgrass marshes.
The extent of the sandhill, labeled sandhill – hammock on Figure 9, in the 1844 map is
verified by the Norfolk fine sand in the 1922 soil survey. The sandhill, a natural community
situated on very well drained soils, was partially converted to orange grove starting at the
township line and somehow became divided into two sandhills both with a reduced extent.
Obviously, the surveyor’s delineations are smoothed, curvy generalizations, and the shape of the
northern portion of the sandhill could have resembled its shape on the 1944 aerial.

41

Figure 10 Natural Community map for the GLO Survey, 1844-1848

42
An additional inconsistency with the GLO survey is the large marsh crossing the
township line that can be seen in Figure 10. In 1844 it is symbolized on the map as stopping at
the township line. That is unlikely, there is nothing to cut a marsh off in a straight line there
today and there were no roads, ditches, or fences there in 1844. Florida, for example, was the last
state to enact a law to fence rangeland (Florida Legislature 1949).
Figure 11 is a photo taken 2015-08-16 just after crossing the man-made embankment
over the narrowest part of the baygall abutting the eastern boundary. The inset to the photo
shows its location and direction on the 1944 aerial. A view of the marsh is blocked by pines
(Pinus spp.), bays (Gordonia lasianthus, Persea palustris, and Magnolia virginiana), and wax
myrtles (Myrica cerifera).
Figure 11 View looking southwest through baygall into the baygall-ringed marsh, sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense) in foreground

43

Figure 12 Natural Community map, 1944

44
The notes did not indicate how far the marsh extended past the township line and early
soil data is not available south of the line. The marsh in 1944 is quite large (16 ha) and ringed by
a baygall (Figure 12). It is not clear whether this marsh extended to the section line as it does
now – the survey team did not report it if it did. If the marsh did, in fact, extend this far down in
1844 in a similar shape and was also surrounded by baygall, the loss of bay gall and marsh
would be even more severe between 1844 and 1944. As is, the loss in baygall is due primarily to
the retreat of the lake and the transition of that community into flat pine. Some additional baygall
either developed after 1844 or was not reported by the surveyors.
Two very significant swamps, the 12 ha “big swamp 1” and the 21 ha “big swamp 2”
were not recorded on the survey map; the latter is adjacent to a recorded wetland. Bonnet Pond
also developed by 1944. Previously recorded as partly marsh, partly baygall, it became an area of
open water still connected to Lake Hart by 1944. The complete cross and binary change maps
reproduced in Figures 13 and 14 show visually just how much changed over the course of this
first century. Table 6 shows the results presented in Figure 16 in numbers, such that the areas
reported in the diagonal cells from the top left to the bottom right can be followed to see the
persistence of each community and the areal estimates reported in other cells record the changes
from 1844 to 1944.
The total change, gain and loss along with the net change for each community are
summarized in Table 7 and the net change is visualized as a histogram in Figure 15. For context,
the net change as a percentage of the total area of each community in 1844 is indicated and
labeled as an orange circle in the appropriate histogram bar.

45
Figure 13 Binary change raster, 1844-1944 Figure 14 Complete cross raster, 1844-1944

46

Table 5 Cross tabulation matrix, 1844-1944, in hectares
1944
Total
1844
Loss

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill flat pine c- ruderal c - spoil baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1844
1120 0.00
1210 0.00
1240 8.48 3.66 12.54 1.65 0.45 2.56 29.33 25.67
1300 6.20 4.33 224.88 3.46 1.05 18.53 26.03 4.01 26.67 315.15 90.27
1800 0.00
1877 0.00
2231 20.54 10.39 4.72 3.51 39.17 28.77
2242 0.00
2400 0.00
3100 4.23 0.08 6.33 10.64 10.64
3200 0.00
21212 0.67 0.17 158.99 15.98 7.62 14.16 0.33 7.72 1.38 115.76 322.78 207.02
Total
1944
0.00 3.68 19.83 421.18 21.10 1.05 26.63 40.19 0.78 12.44 5.39 154.84
Gain 0.00 3.68 16.16 196.31 21.10 1.05 16.24 40.19 0.78 12.44 5.39 39.08

Table 6 Summary of change between 1844 and 1944, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120
hammock
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1210
scrub
3.68
0.00 3.68 0.00 3.68
1240
sandhill
16.16
25.67 41.83 32.32 -9.51
1300
flat pine
196.31
90.27 286.58 180.54 106.03
1800
cultural – ruderal
21.10
0.00 21.10 0.00 21.10
1877
cultural – spoil
1.05
0.00 1.05 0.00 1.05
2231
baygall
16.24
28.77 45.01 32.48 -12.53
2242
swamp
40.19
0.00 40.19 0.00 40.19
2400
cultural – palustrine
0.78
0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78
3100
lake
12.44
10.64 23.07 21.27 1.80
3200
cultural – lacustrine
5.39
0.00 5.39 0.00 5.39
21212
marsh
39.08
207.02 246.10 78.16 -167.94

total 352.41 362.37 357.39 172.39

47
Figure 15 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1844 to 1944

48
To illustrate the differences along the shore of Lake Hart, Figure 16 places the two data
sources at the same zoom levels adjacent to each other. In 1844, the baygall rings the lake
between 250 and 480 m from the shore. In 1944, the lake had receded and the baygall had
transitioned to flat pine. The highly reflective area in the center of the image is a dry flat pine,
and south of it a two marshes persisted in a depression, marsh: swamp 1 and manmade lake 2.

Figure 16 The same location, 1844 on the left, 1944 on the right; the center symbology in
the survey map is baygall
4.2 The Mid-1940s: 1944 to 1947
The changes between 1944 and 1947 were minimal. The natural community map for 1947
reproduced in Figure 18 is largely unchanged from the 1944 map (Figure 12). This interpretation
was confirmed by the small changes shown in Figures 19 and 20 (the complete and binary
change maps) and the small numbers reported for the off-diagonal cells in Table 8. The
smattering of change pixels in Figures 18 and 19 were compiled by manual photointerpretation.

49

Figure 17 Natural communities, 1947

50
In addition, it seems from Figure 18 that 1947 was a wetter year than 1944. The photos
were taken in January and April, respectively, which are both dry months in central Florida
(UF/IFAS Extension Agents 2015). “Big swamp 1” expanded slightly at the expense of the
lower lake level exposed marsh recorded in 1944. The existence of Bonnet Pond and Lake Mary
Jane are peculiar because neither are mentioned in the survey maps and notes. Researching the
history of Lake Mary Jane and Bonnet Pond were outside of the scope of this project; however,
the survey notes for the section lines that cross Lake Mary Jane talk only of marshes and
baygalls, not a lake. The lake does not appear on maps from 1871-1882 (US War Department
Corps of Engineers 1856; Asher & Adams 1871; Elliott 1888), but is on an 1890 map of Orange
County (Fries 1890), named Lake Fries. Bonnet Pond and Lake Hart are a few feet higher today
than they were in 1947 (Figure 17): the photo reproduced in Figure 18, for example, was taken
on a viewing platform over several feet of water.
As the histogram in Figure 21 shows, the largest magnitude change came from a decrease
in marsh, though it was a small percentage of the prior year’s area, just over 1.2 ha. The binary
change map in Figure 20 shows that the changes were isolated to the shore of Lake Hart,
expansion of big swamp 1, and some additional swamp formation in marsh – swamp 4.

51
Bonnet Pond is particularly interesting because the GLO surveyors recorded marsh in its location
and it is (August 2015) connected to both Lake Hart and Lake Mary Jane by small ditches. It is
shallow, marshy pond whose water level as fluctuated over the last 71 years.

Figure 18 View of Bonnet Pond from the pier, 2015-02-06, courtesy of Marty Fries

52
Figure 20 Binary change raster, 1944-1947 Figure 19 Complete cross raster, 1944-1947

53

Figure 21 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1944 to 1947

54
Table 7 Cross-tabulation matrix for 1944-1947, in hectares
1947 Total 1944

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill
flat
pine
c- rude-
ral
c -
spoil
baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1944
1120 0.00
1210 3.67 0.01 3.68
1240 18.89 0.93 0.00
0.00
19.83
1300 0.02 0.07 416.99 0.01 0.00 0.08 2.57 0.00 0.02 1.39 421.18
1800 0.00 0.03 21.07 0.00
0.00 21.10
1877 0.00 1.04 0.01 1.05
2231 0.08
36.46 0.02
0.07 36.63
2242 0.00 1.41 0.02 38.46 0.29 40.19
2400 0.00 0.00
0.77
0.78
3100 12.38 0.05 12.44
3200 0.02

0.01
5.36 0.00 5.39
21212 2.20 0.01 0.11 0.09 0.62 0.00 151.77 154.84
Total 1947 3.68 18.96 421.69 21.09 1.05 36.66 41.14 0.78 13.01 5.39 153.63

Table 8 Summary of change from 1944 to 1947, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120
hammock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1210
scrub 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00
1240
sandhill 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.14 -0.86
1300
flat pine 4.70 4.20 8.90 8.39 0.51
1800
cultural – ruderal 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 -0.02
1877
cultural – spoil 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
2231
baygall 0.20 0.17 0.38 0.35 0.03
2242
swamp 2.68 1.73 4.40 3.45 0.95
2400
cultural – palustrine 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00
3100
lake 0.63 0.06 0.69 0.11 0.57
3200
cultural – lacustrine 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.00
21212
marsh 1.86 3.08 4.94 3.72 -1.22

total 10.23 10.26 10.24 8.16

55
The comparison photo below shows Bonnet Pond in 1944 and 1947. It does seem as
though 1947 was wetter. If, however, the mechanisms that hydrated a marsh sufficiently enough
to produce a lake were functioning between 1888 and 1890, perhaps similar mechanisms were
functioning between 1944 and 1947.
4.3 The Late-1940s: 1947 to 1951
Change was minimal over this five year period. Marsh lost around the same percentage as over
the last series and swamps expanded slightly. The map of the communities in 1951 is shown in
Figure 24.
Figure 22 Bonnet Pond in 1944 on the left, 1947 on the right; 1947 appears to have been
wetter.

56

Figure 23 Natural Communities, 1951

57
Figure 25 shows a contemporary view of the manmade lake and marsh in the east-center
of the site. The manmade lake is discussed in Section 4.1 and its associated spoil areas are not
news in 1947, but the spoil areas in the center are beginning to regenerate and often form
modified versions of the existing ecosystem, like this spoil pile with slash pine and willow.

Figure 24 Manmade lake in the east-center of the property. Slash pines (P. elliottii), vines,
and willows (Salix caroliniana) growing on a small spoil mound block the view
The old grove is also regenerating, and will eventually become hammock and flatwoods,
but until it fills in significantly (by 1969) it remains cultural – ruderal. As the binary change
raster (Figure 26) illustrates, the loss of lake was pretty significant, 24% of its 1947 area. The
totality of the changes can be viewed on the complete cross map of Figure 27 The summary of
changes is listed in Table 10 and is illustrated in the histogram in Figure 28. The slow expansion
of the “bug swamp 1” is illustrated well by the side-by-side aerials in Figure 29.

58
Figure 25 Binary change raster, 1947-1951 Figure 26 Complete cross raster, 1947-1951

59

Figure 27 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1947 to 1951

60
Table 9 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1947-1951, in hectares
1951 Total 1947
hammock scrub sandhill flat pine c- ruderal
c -
spoil
baygall swamp c – palustrine lake c – lacustrine marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1947
1120
1210 3.68 3.68
1240 18.96 18.96
1300 419.98 1.66 0.05 421.69
1800 21.09

21.09
1877 1.05 1.05
2231 36.66 36.66
2242 2.68 38.40 0.06 41.14
2400 0.78 0.78
3100 9.85 3.16 13.01
3200 5.39 5.39
21212 2.39 0.27 150.97 153.63
Total 1951
3.68 18.96 425.06 21.09
1.05 36.66 40.33 0.78 9.85 5.39 154.24

Table 10 Summary of changes, 1947-1951, in hectares
nc num-
ber nc name gain loss
total
change swap net change
1120
hammock
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1210
scrub
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1240
sandhill
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1300
flat pine
5.08
1.71 6.78 3.41 3.37
1800
cultural – ruderal
0.00
21.04 21.04 0.00 0.00
1877
cultural – spoil
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2231
baygall
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2242
swamp
1.92
0.53 2.46 1.07 -0.82
2400
cultural – palustrine
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3100
lake
0.00
3.16 3.16 0.00 -3.16
3200
cultural – lacustrine
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21212
marsh
3.27
1.68 4.95 3.37 0.61

total 10.27 28.13 19.20 3.92

61
The comparison photo in Figure 28 focuses on the expansion of “big swamp 1”. The swamp’s
hydrologic boundary does not seem to be expanding, yet its edges are becoming denser with
what appears to be cypress and pine.

4.4 The Fifties and Sixties: 1951 to 1969
Between these years “floodplain marsh 1” almost completely transitioned to other communities.
Figures 29 and 30 give you a general sense of the extent of the changes over the time period.
Figure 31 shows how low spots were spared and the “big swamp 1” expanded a little more. The
canopy closed almost completely in what was previously the large sandhill, making it a nearly 10
ha hammock. There remains some sandhill at the northern tip of the hammock. In the years since
it was purchased for conservation site managers have conducted very hot burns in the area to kill
the oaks. Marsh and swamp change significantly during this time period.
Figure 28 The same location, 1947 on the left, 1951 on the right; notice the edges of the
swamp, “big swamp 1”expand

62

Figure 29 Binary change raster, 1951-1969 Figure 30 Complete change raster, 1951-1969

63

Figure 31 Natural community map, 1969

64
Figure 33 is a modern view of the far south marsh that crosses the site’s border and the
section line, “south marsh”. The photo was taken from the road that runs along the section line.
The marsh is still grassy, but it is cut off hydrologically by an earthen dam that can be seen in
1995 (Figure 43). Much of the rest of the marsh has transitioned to swamp since 1969.

Figure 32 A shot of the marsh that crossed the south boundary, “south marsh”, 2015-08-27
The histogram in Figure 34 shows that again, marsh and swamp change significantly:
marsh lost a third of its area and swamp gained 21% of its area. The lake’s gains, while not much
in terms of area, amounted to 56% of its 1951 extent. The raw area for the cross between the two
years can be seen in Table 11 and a summary of the changes can be seen in Table 12.

65

Figure 33 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1951 to 1969

66
Table 11 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1951-1969, in hectares
1969 Total 1951

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill flat pine
c- rude-
ral
c -
spoil
baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1951
1120
1210
3.67

0.01
14.48
1240
9.61

8.97 0.38 0.00

0.00
8.16
1300
1.74 0.01 0.47 415.33 0.02 0.00 0.16 5.19 0.00

0.01 2.06
425.06
1800
0.00 0.02 21.05

0.00

0.01
21.09
1877
0.00

1.04

0.01
1.05
2231
0.06

36.55 0.01

0.03
36.66
2242
0.38

0.01 39.86

0.06
40.33
2400
0.00 0.00 0.00

0.77
0.78
3100
0.00

9.37

0.47
9.85
3200
0.01

0.01 5.37 0.00
5.39
21212
5.06

34.53 0.01 4.03 5.18

6.02 0.00 99.33
154.24
Total 1969 16.42 3.68 9.44 450.80 21.08 1.05 40.77 50.25 0.78 15.40 5.38 102.02

Table 12 Summary of changes from 1951-1969, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120
hammock
16.42
0.00 16.42 0.00 16.42
1210
scrub
0.01
10.81 10.82 0.02 -10.80
1240 sandhill 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.28
1300 flat pine 35.46 9.73 45.19 19.45 25.74
1800
cultural – ruderal
0.03
0.04 0.07 0.06 0.00
1877
cultural – spoil
0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
2231 baygall 4.22 0.12 4.34 0.23 4.10
2242 swamp 10.39 0.46 10.85 0.93 9.92
2400
cultural – palustrine
0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
3100
lake
6.03
0.47 6.50 0.95 5.56
3200 cultural – lacustrine 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00
21212 marsh 2.69 54.90 57.59 5.38 -52.21

total 75.75 76.56 76.16 13.54

67
Since the major loss between these two photos was a great deal of marsh, Figure 32 compares
floodplain marsh 1 between 1951 and 1969. Trees have established over the 18 years in the
former marsh.

Figure 34 The same location, 1951 on the left, 1969 on the right; notice the pine trees
growing in the former marsh
4.5 The Seventies: 1969 to 1980
The site changed a great deal in these 11 years. The swamps continued to expand at the expense
of marsh and flat pine and the property owners did a great deal of land clearing, creating 45 ha of
cultural – ruderal from marsh, flat pine, and scrub. They also dug another shallow marsh, half of
which was later dug out further to make a manmade lake, drying the other half to transition to
uplands. The photo point in Figure 36 shows what the partially-recovered marsh looks like in
August of 2015.

68

Figure 35 “Marsh-pasture” area that has been partially restored, 2015-08-16
Looking below at the vector map in Figure 37, the human activities are very obvious –
large areas are cleared and excavated. Also note the change in Bonnet Pond’s shape, the
development of “hammock 1” and the expansion of “big swamp 1”. Figure 38, the binary change
map, displays the transitions in bright green and Figure 39 shows every category created by the
cross. Tables 13 and 14 show the areas that persisted and transitioned over the 11 years and
Figure 40 shows the changes visually as a histogram.

69

Figure 36 Natural Community map for 1980

70
Figure 37 Binary change raster, 1969-1980 Figure 38 Complete change raster, 1969-1980

71
Figure 39 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1969 to 1980

72
Table 13 Cross-tabulation matrix, 1969-1980, in hectares
1980 Total 1969
hammock scrub sandhill flat pine c- ruderal c - spoil baygall swamp c – palustrine lake c – lacustrine marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1969

1120
14.60

0.00 1.47

0.00

0.35
16.42
1210
3.56

0.12
3.68
1240
0.00 0.83 8.58 0.02 0.00

0.00
9.44
1300
1.32 0.01 0.02 402.57 26.57 0.00
0.21 9.81 5.17

0.01
5.06
450.80
1800
0.00 0.02 21.06

0.00

0.00
21.08
1877
1.04

0.00

0.01
1.05
2231
0.06 0.01

36.65 0.01

4.02
40.77
2242
0.05

2.33 0.00

0.01 45.66

2.18
50.25
2400
0.00 0.00 0.00

0.77
0.78
3100
0.08

1.76

0.27

6.40 0.03 6.86
15.40
3200
0.01

0.01

0.01

5.37
5.38
21212
3.18

13.22 18.77 0.03 8.96 5.74 0.24 0.95 50.89
102.02
Total 1980 19.22 4.40 8.61 421.65 66.41 1.05 36.92 64.73 11.68 6.64 6.36 69.41

Table 14 Summary of changes, 1969-1980, in hectares
1120
hammock
4.62
1.82 6.44 3.63 2.81
1210
scrub
0.84
0.12 0.96 0.24 0.72
1240
sandhill
0.03
0.86 0.89 0.06 -0.83
1300
flat pine
19.09
48.23 67.32 38.18 -29.14
1800
cultural – ruderal
45.35
0.03 45.38 0.05 45.33
1877
cultural – spoil
0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
2231
baygall
0.27
4.11 4.38 0.53 -3.85
2242
swamp
19.07
4.59 23.66 9.18 14.48
2400
cultural – palustrine
10.91
0.01 10.91 0.01 10.90
3100
lake
0.24
9.00 9.24 0.48 -8.77
3200
cultural – lacustrine
1.00
0.02 1.02 0.04 0.98
21212
marsh
18.52
51.13 69.66 37.05 -32.61

total 119.94 119.93 119.93 44.73

73
The comparison photos in Figure 41 also shows the change in marsh-pasture, the marsh
that crossed the western border of the site. At the time the whole property was owned by William
Crowder. It appears that he had been transitioning the area to pasture since the 1950s, as the
water receded due to the ditching to the west. This year was the first that there was enough
cleared and dry that I felt comfortable calling it cultural – ruderal, though the marsh was
impacted before 1980.

Figure 40 The marsh crossing the eastern border, 1969 on the left and 1980 on the right
4.6 The Eighties and Early 1990s: 1980 to 1995
Between 1980 and 1995 the property was sold to a group of LLCs and trusts who were preparing
to develop it. Even more land clearing and digging occurred over these 15 years than the last 11.
The photo point below in Figure 41 is of the most recently dug lake on the property, “manmade
lake 2”, also shown in the comparison photo later in this section. The aerial photo comparison
follows in Figure 42. From a look at Figure 43, the vector map, it is obvious that marsh and

74
swamp again lead the change in net area. The digging of the new pond almost triples the existing
cultural – lacustrine area. Figures 44 and 45, the cross rasters, show the new hammocks along the
shore of Lake Hart. Tables 15 and 17 show the details of the numerical change. Figure 45
displays the changes over the 11 years in a histogram.
Figure 42 Photos showing “manmade lake 2” dug in the 1980s out of a marsh
Figure 41 “Manmade lake 2”, an easy walk from the site entrance. Photo taken 2015-08-16

75

Figure 43 Natural Community map for 1995

76
Figure 45 Complete change raster, 1980-1995 Figure 44 Binary change raster, 1980-1995

77
Table 15 Cross tabulation matrix, 1980-1995, in hectares
1980 Total 1980
hammock scrub sandhill flat pine c- ruderal c - spoil baygall swamp c – palustrine lake c – lacustrine marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1969
1120 8.78 9.36 1.09 0.00 19.22
1210
4.19

0.21 4.40
1240 6.78 1.83 8.61
1300 5.70 0.27 383.37 12.38 3.01 7.09 5.99 0.33 0.40 1.34 1.35 421.65
1800 0.83 25.27 40.21 0.10 66.41
1877 0.31 0.55

0.06 0.07

0.06
1.05
2231 4.17 0.61 0.02 32.12 36.92
2242
0.02
6.05 1.17 0.22

57.09 0.04

0.14
64.73
2400 0.02 0.97 7.22 0.33 3.14 11.68
3100 6.63

0.01
6.64
3200 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.12 3.32 2.61 6.36
21212
0.69
10.30 4.59 0.25 4.61 10.19
6.21 2.82
29.74
69.41
Total 1995 19.37 13.82 8.05 429.80 66.02 4.11 43.82 73.45 4.09 13.24 10.11 31.20

Table 16 Summary of changes, 1980-1995, in hectares
nc num-
ber nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120 hammock 10.59 10.45 21.04 20.89 0.15
1210
scrub
9.63
0.21 9.84 0.42 9.42
1240
sandhill
1.27
1.83 3.10 2.54 -0.56
1300 flat pine 46.44 38.29 84.73 76.58 8.15
1800 cultural – ruderal 25.82 26.20 52.02 51.64 -0.39
1877
cultural – spoil
3.56
0.50 4.06 1.00 3.06
2231
baygall
11.70
4.80 16.51 9.60 6.90
2242 swamp 16.36 7.64 24.00 15.28 8.72
2400 cultural – palustrine 3.76 11.35 15.11 7.52 -7.59
3100
lake
6.62
0.01 6.63 0.02 6.60
3200
cultural – lacustrine
7.50
3.76 11.26 7.51 3.75
21212 marsh 1.46 39.68 41.14 2.93 -38.21

total 144.71 144.71 144.71 97.96

78
Figure 46 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1980 to 1995

79
4.7 The New Millennium: 1995 to 2011
The site was purchased jointly by Osceola and Orange counties in 1994, and so almost all of the
changes seen from 1995 to 2011 are ecologically positive. Figure 47 shows what the spoil areas
surrounding the canal looked like in August 2015. There are mature scrub oaks (Q. inopina) on
the dry areas and willows and bays on the edges of the water. Today, the canal is used as a
firebreak and water source for prescribed fire and the spoil as walking paths.
The comparison graphic, Figure 48, focuses on the area round “hammock 1”. Figure 49 is
a vector map of the communities in 2011. Figures 50 and 51 show the total cross and the binary
change, respectively. The histogram, Figure 52 demonstrates that most of the wetland loss had
ceased by 1995 and does not continue. Swamps expand less when prescribed fire is allowed to
creep into the edges; FFWCC has been allowing fire into the edges of the swamps during
prescribed fires. This being the case, most of the change during these 11 years was flat pine
gaining area by recovering old cut-over sites. Again, Tables 17 and 18 give a good summary of
the exact numerical changes.

80

Figure 47 Photo of the canal dug between the two manmade lakes, taken 2015-08-16
Figure 48 “Hammock 1” and an area just north of it is, as of August 2015, horse trailer
parking and is kept mowed; this series show how quickly pines can regenerate on a
disturbed site

81

Figure 49 Natural Community map for 2011

82
Figure 50 Binary change raster, 1995-2011 Figure 51 Complete cross raster, 1995-2011

83

Figure 52 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1995 to 2011

84

Table 17 Cross tabulation matrix, 1995-2011, in hectares
2011
Total
1995

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill flat pine
c- rude-
ral
c -
spoil
baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1995

1120 19.36 0.01 19.37
1210 13.61 0.21 13.82
1240 8.05 8.05
1300 426.40 0.38 0.20 0.67 1.52 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.54 429.80
1800 20.78 45.12 0.02 0.00 0.10 66.02
1877 0.23 3.74 0.02 0.12 4.11
2231 6.46 0.01 37.32 0.04 43.82
2242 7.41 0.00 64.73 0.03 1.28 73.45
2400 0.16 0.55 3.35 0.04 4.09
3100 0.15 0.01 13.09 13.24
3200 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 9.84 10.11
21212 2.50 1.37
6.60 0.16 20.56 31.20
Total
2011
19.36 13.61 8.05 464.30 45.50 4.08 39.38 73.53 3.48 13.25 10.03 22.51

Table 18 Summary of changes, 1995-2011, in hectares
nc num-
ber nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120 hammock 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01
1210 scrub 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 -0.21
1240 sandhill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1300 flat pine 37.91 3.41 41.31 6.81 34.50
1800 cultural – ruderal 0.38 20.90 21.28 0.76 -20.52
1877 cultural – spoil 0.34 0.37 0.71 0.68 -0.03
2231 baygall 2.06 6.50 8.57 4.13 -4.44
2242 swamp 8.80 8.72 17.52 17.44 0.08
2400 cultural – palustrine 0.13 0.74 0.88 0.27 -0.61
3100 lake 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.31 0.00
3200 cultural – lacustrine 0.19 0.27 0.46 0.38 -0.08
21212 marsh 1.96 10.64 12.60 3.91 -8.68

total 51.93 51.93 51.93 17.35

85

4.8 Recent History: 2011 to 2015
Figure 54 is centered on a rare (for this area) bluejack oak (Quercus incana) among the remnant
sandhill patch in the south-center of the site. It has an understory that is more saw palmetto than
wiregrass but it is still recruiting turkey oaks. The comparison photo for these four years is
reproduced in Figure 54. The “marsh-pasture” has been managed as a dry prairie because the
drainage is offsite and is not under the managers’ control.
The vector map from 2015 is reproduced in Figure 56. From the vector maps reproduced
in Figures 49 and 55 and Tables 19 and 20 you can see that it lost area to many communities,
though it only lost 8% of its existing area. The binary change map in Figure 56 indicates that
hammock gained a lot of acreage, mostly from continual scrub transition and a little pine. Figure
57 uses the same color scheme as all of the full cross maps to show the area and percentage
change for each community.
As mentioned in Section 4.7, the “marsh-pasture” is being managed as a dry prairie. As
such, it would have a lower density of saw palmetto and be dominated by herbaceous species. To
that end, the FFWCC has been roller chopping that area to control the saw palmetto and seeding
appropriate native grasses and forbs. While some bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) remains, the
site seems to be functioning as intended.

86

Figure 53 Individual bluejack oak (Q. incana) along a walking path in center-south sandhill
patch, 2015-08-16, to demonstrate that not everything changes
Figure 54 Photos showing the clearing of an area adjacent to “marsh-pasture”

87

Figure 55 Natural Community map, 2015

88
Figure 56 Binary change raster, 2011-2015 Figure 57 Complete cross raster, 2011-2015

89
Table 19 Cross tabulation matrix, 2011-2015, in hectares
2015
Total
2011

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill flat pine
c- rude-
ral
c -
spoil
baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
2011

1120 19.36 19.36
1210 5.28 2.76 5.57 13.61
1240 8.05 8.05
1300 6.18 5.58 444.69 2.33 2.56 0.15 2.82 464.30
1800 0.08 1.34 39.77 0.25 4.06 45.50
1877 4.08 4.08
2231 0.19 38.82 0.37 39.38
2242 1.26 0.01 0.01 66.92 0.01 5.32 73.53
2400 3.48 3.48
3100 0.00 13.09 0.16 13.25
3200 10.03 10.03
21212 0.01 0.81 2.15 19.55 22.51
Total
2015
30.90 8.34 8.05 453.66 42.30 4.08 39.08 76.06 3.48 13.24 10.03 27.85

Table 20 Summary of changes, 2011-2015, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss total change swap net change
1120 hammock 11.55 0.00 11.55 0.00 11.55
1210 scrub 5.58 10.85 16.43 11.15 -5.27
1240 sandhill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1300 flat pine 8.97 19.61 28.59 17.95 -10.64
1800 cultural – ruderal 2.53 5.73 8.26 5.06 -3.20
1877 cultural – spoil 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2231 baygall 0.26 0.56 0.83 0.53 -0.30
2242 swamp 9.14 6.61 15.75 13.21 2.53
2400 cultural – palustrine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3100 lake 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.31 0.00
3200 cultural – lacustrine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21212 marsh 8.30 2.97 11.27 5.93 5.33

total 46.49 46.49 46.49 27.07

90

Figure 58 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 2011 to 2015

91

4.9 The Full 171 Years: 1844 to 2015
These next two sections compare total change for the site. This section compares the survey data
to the latest available imagery. As discussed in Section 4.1, the GLO survey natural community
map has a low level of accuracy. Crosses between this map and others will not result in highly
accurate quantities of change. Table 21, row 21212, illustrates how marsh transitioned into all
but two of the communities. Not every transition was one-sided. The column “swamp” in Table
22 illustrates that flat pine readily transitions to and from other communities (almost 210 ha of
total swap over the 171 years), and Table 21, row 1300, shows that it has transitioned to every
category except lake and transitioned from sandhill, baygall, lake, and marsh.
One area of change that was not as drastic as the transition might imply is “sandhill 1”.
This area was recorded in 1844 and persisted until 1969 when it transitioned to hammock.
Despite the heavy leaf litter, longleaf pine seedlings germinated and emerged in the former
sandhill shown in the modern photo Figure 60. The overstory is turkey oak with a midstory of
saw palmetto and runner oak. If this project was able to define communities in a more nuanced
way, this area might be more apt to be named ‘turkey oak hammock’ or ‘sandhill hammock’. The
current managers have successfully transitioned the area back from a thick hammock, as seen on
the 1980 (Figure 37) and 1995 (Figure 43) aerial images. The hammock shown in the August
2015 photo below has a low-density turkey oak canopy and sparse wiregrass understory. As of
that date it had not been burned in several years but patches around it have been and are now
sandhill.

92
The binary change map in Figure 60 gives us the impression that the entire north three-quarters
of the property changed. The northern part of the property was identified as mostly marsh
bordering a lake that was drained at least 4’ in depth (but probably 7’ or more). This is not
unreasonable. Taking into consideration that the surveyors may not have accurately identified all
of the upland areas, a map of this time period modified to accommodate the presence of the
hammock where the site’s namesake oak lived at the time of the survey would show a bastion of
persistence across time. The following two maps, Figures 60 and 61, show the complete changes
spatially between 1944 and 2015.
Figure 59 The understory of the “sandhill 2” that turned into a hammock

93
Figure 61 Complete cross raster, 1844-2015 Figure 60 Binary change raster, 1844-2015

94
Table 21 Cross tabulation matrix, 1844-2015, in hectares
2015 Total 1844

ham-
mock
scrub sandhill
flat
pine
c- rude-
ral
c -
spoil
baygall swamp
c – palus-
trine
lake
c – lacus-
trine
marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1844
1120
1210
1240 3.75 3.76 4.20 14.21 0.98 0.25 2.18 29.33
1300 4.66 2.48 3.79 210.25 14.67 3.83 24.03 33.47 1.74 3.58 12.65 315.15
1800
1877
2231 6.88 18.73 6.61 0.83 5.29 0.83 39.17
2242
2400
3100 1.62 8.47 0.28 0.27 10.64
3200
21212 14.00 2.10 0.06 201.99 26.65 8.16 39.96 1.74 12.22 15.91 322.78
Total
2015
30.90 8.34 8.05 453.66 42.30 4.08 39.08 76.06 3.48 13.24 10.03 27.85

Table 22 Summary of changes, 1844-2015, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss
total
change swap net change
1120 hammock 30.90 0.00 30.90 0.00 30.90
1210 scrub 8.34 0.00 8.34 0.00 8.34
1240 sandhill 3.85 25.13 28.98 7.69 -21.28
1300 flat pine 243.41 104.90 348.31 209.80 138.51
1800 cultural – ruderal 42.30 0.00 42.30 0.00 42.30
1877 cultural – spoil 4.08 0.00 4.08 0.00 4.08
2231 baygall 32.47 32.55 65.02 64.94 -0.09
2242 swamp 76.06 0.00 76.06 0.00 76.06
2400 cultural – palustrine 3.48 0.00 3.48 0.00 3.48
3100 lake 13.24 10.64 23.88 21.27 2.61
3200 cultural – lacustrine 10.03 0.00 10.03 0.00 10.03
21212 marsh 11.93 306.87 318.80 23.87 -294.94

total 480.10 480.09 480.10 163.79

95

Figure 62 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1844 to 2015

96

Since “marsh 3” was mapped as two disjunct areas on the GLO survey and should have
been in the path of the Loring team, it is unclear if the entire marsh was extant in the 1840s.
Marsh 3 is particularly interesting because the site managers use it as an example of a healthy
sawgrass marsh, and have built a pier out into the marsh so visitors can view it. The Loring team
omitting Marsh 3 could be completely accounted for by their disinterest in walking into the
section from the section lines; meaning the marsh boundaries to the east and north could be arcs
drawn as assumptions. However, the marsh crosses the east boundary.
Perhaps the team was getting tired. On the 1944 aerial (Figure 12), two marsh crossings
are visible, one at the section line and another 36 m to the east. Presently, there is an
embankment that the walking path on the west crosses (that I was standing on when I took the
photo in Figure 11) that is very obviously and abruptly at a higher elevation from the adjacent
baygall. The vegetation on this area has no invasive plant species, indicating it was not
established with equipment exposed to invasive plant propagules (Gordon and Thomas 1997).
This, combined with lack of evidence of earthmoving activity there, suggests that the crossing
was initially established before 1944. However, the path seems to have been widened and
solidified in 1995, perhaps masking my ability to accurately speculate about the time the
embankment was established and whether or not it had an effect on the marsh/baygall. The
offending area is shown in the comparison image in Figure 64.

97

The failure to map the “big swamp 2” could be due to the fact that the south and east
boundaries were covered by the Loring team, who were less thorough than Whitner, the notes
indicate that the southeast corner was set with all pines as bearing trees. It is hard to imagine the
team slogging through and setting a corner in a thick pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) swamp
covered in low knees. Further, the Bay & Cypress span 9.9 chains (~200 m) in the south border
notes (Loring 1848c, 148:211) but are not listed in the east border notes (1848c, 148:208). The
northern tip of this swamp is shown Figure 64.

Figure 63 The “baygall-ringed marsh”, seen (or not) in 1844 on the left and 2015 on the
right.

98
4.10 The 71 Years of Photography: 1944 to 2015
In contrast to the previous section, this section compares data of similar sources, therefore the
cross data is more likely to represent actual historical change. Unfortunately, 1944 was not that
long ago relative to how long people have been impacting this particular site. Still, there has been
a great deal of change, and not all of it has been due to direct human action. The “big swamp 2”
in the southeast corner of the site from Figure 64 is a good example of persistence; it has been
the same size and shape since 1944. The northern tip of that swamp is shown in Figure 65.

Figure 64 Northern tip of “big swamp 2” 2015-08-27
Other swamps, like “big swamp 1”, have expanded significantly. And even other swamps
have come into existence by taking over marshes, as is the case for “floodplain marsh 2”. This
wetland drains the east side of the site very slowly to the southeast to Holopaw and then

99
southeast again eventually to Lake Kissimmee. Its flow is partially restricted by a utility line
easement north of US Highway 192 and then again by the highway itself. Not all of the marshes
in this strand have transitioned to swamp. Figure 65, the binary change map, shows that once an
area loses marsh, the marsh does not regenerate. Once the water left the northeast and southwest
corners via what are now C-29 and C-30 in the 1880s, the large marshes did not persist. Smaller
disconnected wetlands persisted, some for the whole 71 years. Figure 65, as well as every other
complete cross map in the results section, shows in pale green the amount of flat pine that
persisted.
Flat pine is described in depth in Appendix A, but suffice it to say that it does not really
have a default community to transition to. If fire is suppressed for 50 or more years in flat pine, it
becomes extremely dense, tall, and the catastrophic fire hazard is increased. It is a very different
looking community that does not have a different name. Flat pine that is dry and has an oak
understory can transition to hammock. If it is drained, it does not transition to another
community, but its species composition changes. If it is flooded, it will transition into a marsh or
a swamp, depending on the degree; that did not happen here (the ~1 hectare was due to manual
photointerpretation error).

100
Figure 66 Complete cross raster, 1944-2015
Figure 65 Binary change raster, 1944-2015

101

What does happen to flat pine, though, can be seen in Tables 23 and 24. It lost to almost
every category. Why? Flat pine to swamp occurs by swamp expansion via increased edge
cypress recruitment, very dry flatwoods can be difficult to distinguish from scrub and changes in
local climate can push a community one way or the other, and all of the cultural impacts are
direct human impacts. As Pontius et al. (2004) would point out, the largest category is the one
that is most likely to change.
The transition from herbaceous marshes to swamps is very obvious when comparing the
photos side-by-side, as Figure 67 does.

Figure 67 Two photos are of “floodplain marsh 2”, chosen to highlight the drastic change
in the character of the floodplain marsh
Figure 68 shows a histogram indicating the net change and percent change for each
category from 1944 to 2015.

102
Table 23 Cross tabulation matrix, 1944-2015, in hectares
2015 Total 1944
hammock scrub sandhill flat pine c- ruderal c - spoil baygall swamp c – palustrine lake c – lacustrine marsh
1120 1210 1240 1300 1800 1877 2231 2242 2400 3100 3200 21212
1944
1120 0.00
1210 6.05 2.75 6.55 15.34
1240 6.78 1.38 8.16
1300 11.82 5.59 0.42 366.55 20.00 3.22 1.15 9.66 0.08 0.00 1.55 1.15 421.19
1800 0.83 19.86 0.40 21.09
1877 0.31 0.55 0.17 0.00 0.02 1.05
2231 4.17 0.26 0.19 31.64 0.37 36.63
2242 0.07 0.01 0.01 40.02 0.06 40.19
2400 0.02 0.43 0.33 0.78
3100 0.19 0.01 11.57 0.67 12.44
3200 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.44 3.07 1.61 5.39
21212 8.86 58.30 21.26
0.25 6.28
23.59 1.67 6.85 27.77 154.83
Total 2015 30.90 8.34 8.05 453.66 42.30 4.08 39.08 74.25 3.48 13.24 10.03 29.66
Table 24 Summary of changes, 1944-2015, in hectares
nc number nc name gain loss
total
change swap net change
1120 hammock 30.90 0.00 30.90 0.00 30.90
1210 scrub 5.59 12.60 18.19 11.19 -7.00
1240 sandhill 1.27 1.38 2.65 2.54 -0.11
1300 flat pine 87.12 54.64 141.76 109.28 32.48
1800 cultural – ruderal 41.91 20.69 62.59 41.38 21.22
1877 cultural – spoil 3.53 0.50 4.02 1.00 3.03
2231 baygall 7.44 4.99 12.43 9.98 2.45
2242 swamp 34.23 0.16 34.39 0.33 34.07
2400
cultural – palus-
trine 3.15 0.78 3.93 1.56 2.70
3100 lake 1.67 0.87 2.54 1.74 0.80
3200
cultural – lacus-
trine 8.42 3.77 12.19 7.55 4.64
21212 marsh 1.89 127.06 128.95 3.78 -125.17

total 227.11 227.44 227.28 95.16

103

Figure 68 Histogram displaying net (ha) and percent natural community change from 1944 to 2015

104
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that marsh lost the most area to almost every other community. Direct human impacts,
particularly soil extraction and land clearing, were a significant part of the overall change in the
property. Overall, the site became much drier, most likely because of the draining of the area 40
years after the GLO survey. In the second century, a ditch was dug on the property and manmade
lakes further dried the property. Swamps expand and marshes transitioned into scrub-shrub
wetlands, which are categorized in this project’s methodology as swamps. Hardwoods became
more prevalent on the site in general. As is standard for Florida, the well-drained sandhill in the
southwest center of the property was partially razed for a citrus grove after 1844, yet it was
abandoned long enough before 1944 for mature oak trees to have grown there. Prior to 1944,
enough muck was removed to create a lake in the east center of the site.
The expansion of the swamp at the expense of flatwoods is initially counterintuitive, as a
swamp’s existence is dependent on its soil being inundated for some significant part of the year.
However, a swamp in an agricultural area may appear to be expanding despite a lower
groundwater level and an altered hydrological regime because bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) recruitment is higher at the edges of a swamp (McCauley 2011) and second-growth
bald cypress growth is faster under less-frequent flooding (Dicke and Toliver 1990).
Additionally, the first cutover of old-growth cypress was completed by the 1940s and acreage
began to rebound starting in the 1950s as second-growth trees re-established (Conner and Toliver
1990).
With the hammock containing the site’s namesake as an exception, all of the hammocks
on the site developed after 1951. The composition of hammocks is hypothesized to be governed

105
by the recurring natural disturbances of fires and tropical storms (Platt and Schwartz 1990).
Between 1852 and 1909 there were one tropical depression, three tropical storms, one category
one hurricane, and two category two hurricanes whose eyes’ passed within 20 km of the centroid
of the site. Since 1959 two tropical depressions have passed within the same distance (Table 25)
(NOAA 2015).
Table 25 Tropical Storms passing within 20 km of the centroid of Split Oak
Year Month Name Type
1852 September n/a TS
1858 September n/a TS
1859 October n/a H1
1871 August n/a H2
1880 August n/a H2
1897 September n/a TS
1909 August n/a TD
1959 June n/a TD
1968 June Brenda TD
TS=tropical storm TD=tropical depression H=hurri-
cane #=category

The site has undergone very significant changes since the first spatial data was collected
on it in 1844. Almost all of the marsh that was connected to Lake Hart and (what is now) Lake
Mary Jane’s natural sheetflow outlets south has disappeared. Residual marshes remain in some
depressions, though their lower water levels leave them prone to invasion by woody vegetation.
Individual
Each step of the process was exposed to the potential of error. The GLO survey plats and
the 1944-1980 aerial photos were originally paper and were digitized with undisclosed
methodologies. The GLO survey distances were measured with chains, which could kink, and by
people, who could get tired and/or forget to write something down. The notes themselves could

106
be mis-numbered, the many diagrams correlating page numbers with section lines could be
wrong, and the handwriting is difficult to read. Digitization methods for the notes are also not
disclosed and result in jagged, high-contrast black and white images. Despite repeated requests
for flight information with multiple potentially-involved US agencies, I could not obtain lens,
tilt, and flying height for any of the flights and only the dates and contractors were available for
some of the flights.
After obtaining the flight tiles, I attempted to correct for tilt and lens error with basic
image processing in GIMP, which could exaggerate or hide parts of the landscape in the photo.
The tiles were georeferenced in reverse-chronological order; I hoped to be able to visually
identify as many landmarks as possible. However, I did not have existing correctly-
georeferenced ground points for any of the years prior to 1995. The GLO survey plats were
georeferenced to the existing Public Land Survey System layer based on the original GLO
Survey (Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center 2003), but this too, was manual
and could introduce some error. RMSE values in meters for each flight and GLO map are shown
in Table 5.
I investigated methods like textural analysis that might give credence to some of my
delineations, but the published methodology was skimpy and the skills required to use and
validate the processes is beyond my ability. So, the natural communities are supported by visual
information, modern classifications and field surveys, historical observations, and the probability
that a community would transition to another.
In creating the cross-tabulation and summary tables, data was manually copied and
pasted, cell by cell, from the r.report text files to a programmed libreoffice ‘.ods’ which was then

107
transferred to Excel 365 on the Windows 7 laptop used in writing this document. This was a
lengthy process that required attention to detail. Any uncaught error would be propagated
through to the tables and histograms and then on through to the analysis.
The spatial processing for this project was performed with free and open source software
(FOSS). This presented both opportunities and limitations. I had been running GNU/Linux for
two years when I began to work on this project. I had minimal experience with QGIS, none with
GRASS, and none with the bash shell. Focusing on FOSS allowed me to develop skills in
working with spatial data that the comfort of Esri’s products would dull. I also learned basic
shell scripting to automate processing and learned to compile programs from source.
The time saved in using a dedicated purpose-built desktop for the data processing
allowed time to troubleshoot the many problems that accompany running software with no paid
support. FOSS often has an enthusiastic user and developer community and support is not hard to
come by if you are willing to search for the answer and become familiar with Stack Exchange.
FOSS has downsides. When developers are not necessarily being paid to work on bugs,
sometimes crashing and bad behavior is not explainable or fixable. In pursuit of new release
software, I broke from my stable Debian 7 installation to add the ‘sid’ and eventually the
‘experimental’ repositories. This proved to be a poor decision and broke my GRASS
dependencies, and downgrading in Debian is a professional endeavor. I backed-up my data and
did a full reinstall/ upgrade to the newly stable Debian 8 while deadlines loomed.
Some of the work I did would have been unnecessary if running ArcMap on Windows.
For example, the CLC data was in geodatabase format and some practice with GDAL’s
command-line tools was necessary to translate it into shapefiles. While ArcMap does freeze and

108
crash occasionally, it beats QGIS for stability. I have a still-unresolved problem in QGIS with
vector data and crashing that remains unexplained. FOSS was appropriate for this project’s
timeline and data needs.
A natural extension to this project would be to make the data modified and created for
this project publicly available in an online database as in Dark et al. (2011). I am friends with
people who have georeferenced historical aerials in other parts of Florida who have expressed
interest in uploading their images. The natural community data created for this project could be
used to model historic fire frequency as in Duncan and Schmalzer (2004). It could also be used
to quantify the impact of past management practices as in Duncan et al. (1999). If historical fire
frequency data is available or modeled it could be combined with the community data to model
the impact of anthropogenic edges on the site, as La Puma did (2011, 2013). These community
data could also be used to estimate historical water levels (current data goes back to 1960) and
thus correlate historical wetlands extents, drainage, and groundwater pumping. The community
data could be used to estimate historical habitat suitability for various currently threatened and
endangered species like the red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the Florida panther
(Puma concolor coryi), and the Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum).
Herbacous wetland change on this site could be compared to similarly situated sites that are not
adjacent to a drained lake and/or sites whose wetlands have been directly drained. Hammock
change could also be compared with sites that have had different spatial and temporal patterns of
hurricane strikes.

109
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, Warren G., and David C. Hartnett. 1990. “Pine Flatwoods and Dry Prairies.” In
Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, 103–49. Orlando:
University Press of Florida.
Almendinger, John C. 1996. Minnesota’s Bearing Tree Database. St. Paul, MN, USA: Minn.
Department of Natural Resources. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nhnrp/brgtree.pdf.
Anderson, Daniel. 2015. “Florida Military Bases.” Military Bases.
http://militarybases.com/florida/.
Anonymous. 2014. “North Ranch Sector Plan - Long-Term Master Plan.” Osceola County
Government. http://www.osceola.org/core/fileparse.php/2731/urlt/140820_FullPlan.pdf.
Asher & Adams. 1871. “Asher & Adams Florida, 1871.” Atlas. New York, NY: Asher &
Adams. University of South Florida Libraries.
http://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0024582/00001.
Avery, T. Eugene. 1967. Forest Measurements. The American Forestry Series 2. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Awwad, Waleed Abdulaziz. 2003. “Land Cover Mapping: A Comparison between Manual
Digitizing and Automated Classification of Black and White Historical Aerial
Photography.” Master of Science, Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida.
http://web.pdx.edu/~nauna/awwad_w.pdf.
Bakker, Steven A., Nanja J. van den Berg, and Barbara P. Speleers. 1994. “Vegetation
Transitions of Floating Wetlands in a Complex of Turbaries between 1937 and 1989 as
Determined from Aerial Photographs with GIS.” Vegetatio 114 (2): 161–67.
Barnes, William J. 1989. “A Case History of Vegetation Changes on the Meridean Islands of
West-Central Wisconsin, USA.” Biological Conservation 49 (1): 1–16.
doi:10.1016/0006-3207(89)90109-2.
Barrientos, Bartolomé. 1965. Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Founder of Florida. Translated by
Anthony Kerrigan. Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida Press.
Bartram, William. 1791. Travels Through North & South Carolina, Georgia, East & West
Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek
Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws; Containing An Account of the Soil and
Natural Productions of Those Regions, Together with Observations on the Manners of
the Indians. Embellished with Copper-Plates. Philadelphia: James & Johnson.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bartram/menu.html.
Beauchamp, Catherine W. 1986. Look What’s Happened in Osceola County. Kissimmee, FL,
USA: The Osceola County Arts and Culture Center.
Beller, Erin E., Robin M. Grossinger, M. N. Salomon, Shawna J. Dark, Eric D. Stein, Bruce K.
Orr, Peter W. Downs, et al. 2011. “Historical Ecology of the Lower Santa Clara River,
Ventura River, and Oxnard Plain: An Analysis of Terrestrial, Riverine, and Coastal
Habitats.” SFEI Publication 641. A Report of SFEI’s Historical Ecology Program.
Oakland, CA, USA: San Francisco Estuary Institute.
http://www.sfei.org/projects/VenturaHE.
Belson, Shane. 2013. “Split Oak Mapping Project,” November 1.
Black, Bryan A., and Marc D. Abrams. 2001. “Influences of Native Americans and Surveyor
Biases on Metes and Bounds Witness-Tree Distribution.” Ecology 82 (9): 2574–86.

110
doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2574:IONAAS]2.0.CO;2.
Bliss, Norman P., Patrick J. Comer, Rex C. Crawford, Jonathan M. Friedman, Robert B.
McMilan, Evan Peacock, and Bonnie W. Styles. 2012. “LUHNA Homepage.”
Government. USGS. December. http://landcover.usgs.gov/luhna/.
Bogner, Franz X. 1998. “The Influence of Short-Term Outdoor Ecology Education on Long-
Term Variables of Environmental Perspective.” The Journal of Environmental Education
29 (4): 17–29. doi:10.1080/00958969809599124.
Bourdo, Eric A., Jr. 1956. “A Review of the General Land Office Survey and of Its Use in
Quantitative Studies of Former Forests.” Ecology 37 (4): 754–68. doi:10.2307/1933067.
Bousquin, Stephen G., David H. Anderson, Gary E. Williams, and David J. Colangelo. 2005.
“Establishing a Baseline: Pre-Restoration Studies of the Channelized Kissimmee River.”
Technical Publication ERA 432. Kissimmee River Restoration Studies. West Palm
Beach, FL, USA: South Florida Water Management District.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Williams11/publication/264489030_Establishi
ng_a_baseline_pre-
restoration_studies_of_the_channelized_Kissimmee_River/links/5460c3ae0cf295b56163
77f0.pdf.
Boyd, Mark F. 1938. “A Map of the Road from Pensacola to St. Augustine, 1778.” The Florida
Historical Quarterly 17 (1): 15–23.
Boyer, W.D. 1990. “Pinus Palustris Mill.” In Silvics Manual, edited by Russell M. Burns and
Barbara H. Honkala, 2 - Hardwoods:877. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/palustris.htm.
Braund, Kathryn. 2007. “Bernard Romans.” Encyclopedia of Alabama. Auburn, AL: Alabama
Humanities Foundation. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1074.
Brenner, Mark, Michael W. Binford, and Edward S. Deevey. 1990. “Lakes.” In Ecosystems of
Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, 364–91. Orlando: University Press
of Florida.
Brenner, Mark, Thomas J. Whitmore, Jason H. Curtis, and Claire L. Schelske. 1995. “Historical
Ecology of a Hypereutrophic Florida Lake.” Lake and Reservoir Management 11 (3):
255–71. doi:10.1080/07438149509354207.
Bromley, Stanley W. 1935. “The Original Forest Types of Southern New England.” Ecological
Monographs 5 (1): 61–89. doi:10.2307/1943098.
Bukata, B. J., and Keith Kolasa. 2005. “Generating Predevelopment Land Cover Datasets for
Two Florida Basins.” In 2005 Esri International User Conference Proceedings. San
Diego, California, US: Esri, Inc.
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1791.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.” State of California.
http://drecp.orgwww.drecp.org/sitingcases/genesis_solar/documents/exhibits-406-
424/Genesis_Staff_Exhibit_408.pdf.
Callaway, Ragan M., and Frank W. Davis. 1993. “Vegetation Dynamics, Fire, and the Physical
Environment in Coastal Central California.” Ecology 74 (5): 1567–78.
doi:10.2307/1940084.

111
Cameron, James, Kurt Saari, Kuang-Yao Lee, Jennifer Barnes, Jim Kramp, Cindy Bowes, and
Gary Krasovetz. 2011. “2009 SFWMD Photointerpretation Key.” South Florida Water
Management District. https://www.mapwise.com/maps/florida/docs/2009_PI-Key.pdf.
Campbell, Richard L. 1892. Historical Sketches of Colonial Florida. Bicentennial Floridiana
Facsimile. Gainesville, FL, USA: The University Presses of Florida.
Cantino, Alberto. 1502. “Carta del Cantino.” Latitude chart/portolan chart. Modena, Italy:
Biblioteca Estense. http://bibliotecaestense.beniculturali.it/.
Casey, William P., and Katherine C. Ewel. 2006. “Patterns of Succession in Forested
Depressional Wetlands in North Florida, Usa.” Wetlands 26 (1): 147–60.
doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[147:POSIFD]2.0.CO;2.
Chapman, Alvan Wentworth. 1897. Flora of the Southern United States: Containing an
Abridged Description of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of Tennessee, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida: Arranged according to the
Natural System. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge botanical supply company.
http://archive.org/details/floraofsouthe00chap.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2015. “A Watershed Partnership - Chesapeake Bay Program.” 2015-
08. Accessed August 25. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/.
Clements, Benjamin. 1824. “Meridean North from Tallahassee.” Survey Plat. Tallahassee, FL,
USA: United States Department of the Interior. Surveys - General Land Office Records.
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=8457&sid=ccqsotok.n
3w&surveyDetailsTabIndex=1#surveyDetailsTabIndex=0.
Clements, Frederic E. 1916. Plant Succession - an Analysis of the Development of Vegetation.
242. Washington, DC, USA: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433010842403.
Clewell, Andre. 2011. “Forest Succession After 43 Years Without Disturbance on Ex-Arable
Land, Northern Florida.” Castanea 76 (4): 386–94.
Cody, Aldus Morill, and Robert S. Cody. 1987. Osceola County: The First 100 Years.
Kissimmee, FL, USA: Osceola County Historical Society.
Cohen, Amy. 2009. Historic South Florida Vegetation Map. JPEG. amy-cohen.com.
http://www.amy-cohen.com/images/LandClass.jpg.
Conner, William H., and John R. Toliver. 1990. “Long-Term Trends in the Bald-Cypress
(Taxodium Distichum) Resource in Louisiana (U.S.A.).” Forest Ecology and
Management 33: 543–57. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(90)90217-Y.
Conway, Valentine Y. 1842. “General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors.” In Florida Instructions
of 1842, 321–28. Tallahassee, FL, USA: Office of the Surveyor General.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979.
“Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.” FWS/OBS
19/31. Washington, DC, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.364.379&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Cowell, C. Mark. 1995. “Presettlement Piedmont Forests: Patterns of Composition and
Disturbance in Central Georgia.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85
(1): 65–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1995.tb01795.x.
Dark, Shawna J., Eric D. Stein, Danielle Bram, J. Oscuna, Joeseph Monteferante, Travis
Longcore, Robin Grossinger, and Erin Beller. 2011. “Historical Ecology of the Ballona

112
Creek Watershed.” 671. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Los
Angeles, California, USA.
ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/671_BallonaHistori
calEcology_ES.pdf.
Davis, John H. 1967. “General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida.” Paper. Circular.
Gainesville, FL, USA: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
http://128.227.24.32:8080/ImageServer/imageserver?res=4&viewwidth=1536&viewheig
ht=1536&rotation=0&filename=UF\00\00\05\05\00001\UF00000505.jp2.
Davis, T. Frederick. 1932. “The Record of Ponce de Leon’s Discovery of Florida, 1513.” The
Florida Historical Society Quarterly 11 (1): 5–15.
Debian Developers. 2015a. “Software Packages in ‘Experimental.’” Software Repository.
Packages. June 3. https://packages.debian.org/experimental/allpackages.
———. 2015b. “Software Packages in ‘Sid.’” Software Repository. Packages. June 3.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/allpackages.
Deevey, Edward S., Jr. 1988. “Estimation of Downward Leakage from Florida Lakes.”
Limnology and Oceanography 33 (6): 1308–20.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt. 1996. “Presettlement Landscape Heterogeneity:
Evaluating Grain of Resolution Using General Land Office Survey Data.” Landscape
Ecology 11 (6): 363–81.
Dicke, Stephen G., and John R. Toliver. 1990. “Growth and Development of Bald-
Cypress/water-Tupelo Stands under Continuous versus Seasonal Flooding.” Forest
Ecology and Management 33–34: 523–30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-
1127(90)90215-W.
Dick-Peddie, William Alexander. 1955. “Presettlement Forest Types in Iowa.” Ph.D., Ames, IA,
USA: Iowa State College.
Doolittle, James A., and Gregg Schellentrager. 1989. Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/florida/orangeFL1989/orangeF
L1989.pdf.
Drayton, Joseph. 1827. “Geographical, Statistical, and Historical Map of Florida, 1827.” Paper.
Philadelphia: Careya and Lea. Florida Studies Center Gallery.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/flstud_gallery/2168/.
Duncan, Brean W., Shannon Boyle, David R. Breininger, and Paul A. Schmalzer. 1999.
“Coupling Past Management Practice and Historic Landscape Change on John F.
Kennedy Space Center, Florida.” Landscape Ecology 14 (3): 291–309.
doi:10.1023/A:1008029831187.
Duncan, Brean W., V. L. Larson, and P. A. Schmalzer. 2000. “Modeling Historic Landcover: An
Evaluation of Two Methodologies for Producing Baseline Reference Data.” Natural
Areas Journal 20 (4): 308–16.
Duncan, Brean W., and Paul A. Schmalzer. 2004. “Anthropogenic Influences on Potential Fire
Spread in a Pyrogenic Ecosystem of Florida, USA.” Landscape Ecology 19 (2): 153–65.
doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000021714.97148.ac.
Dunkelberger, Lloyd. 2014. “Florida Forever Program: Land Conservation Funds Rising.”
Newspaper. The Ledger. June 22.

113
http://www.theledger.com/article/20140622/NEWS/140629820.
Dunn, J.E., Mark Baldwin, and Charles N. Mooney. 1922. Soil Survey of Orange County,
Florida. Edited by W. Edward Hearn. Washington, DC, USA: Government Printing
Office.
Edmonds, Michael. 2005. “The Pleasures and Pitfalls of Written Records.” In The Historical
Ecology Handbook, edited by Dave Egan and Evelyn A. Howell, 73–99. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Egan, Dave, and Evelyn A. Howell, eds. 2005. The Historical Ecology Handbook. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Elliott, D. H. 1888. “A New Sectional Map of Florida Issued by the Land Department of the
South Florida R. R. Co. and the Plant Investment Co.” Paper. Sanford: Plant Investment
Company. https://www.loc.gov/item/98688458/.
Ellis, Erle C., Hongqing Wang, Hong Sheng Xiao, Kui Peng, Xin Ping Liu, Shou Cheng Li, Hua
Ouyang, Xu Cheng, and Lin Zhang Yang. 2006. “Measuring Long-Term Ecological
Changes in Densely Populated Landscapes Using Current and Historical High Resolution
Imagery.” Remote Sensing of Environment 100 (4): 457–73.
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2005.11.002.
EPA. 2014. “Nutrients Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida.” Government. Water:
Regulatory Information. September 25. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida-
index.cfm.
ERDAS, Inc. 2008. IMAGINE AutoSync User’s Guide. Norcross, GA, USA: ERDAS, Inc.
http://faculty.une.edu/cas/szeeman/rs/docs/AutoSync.pdf.
Ermgassen, Philine S. E. Zu, Mark D. Spalding, Brady Blake, Loren D. Coen, Brett Dumbauld,
Steve Geiger, Jonathan H. Grabowski, et al. 2012. “Historical Ecology with Real
Numbers: Past and Present Extent and Biomass of an Imperilled Estuarine Habitat.”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 279 (1742): 3393–
3400. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0313.
Esri, Inc. 2012. Automatic Georeferencing in ArcGIS 10.1. Flash. Redlands, CA, USA: ArcGIS
Video. http://video.arcgis.com/watch/1553/automatic-georeferencing-in-arcgis-101.
Ewel, Katherine C. 1990. “Swamps.” In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and
John J. Ewel, 281–323. Orlando: University Press of Florida.
Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC,
USA: Society of American Foresters.
Fagin, Todd D., and Bruce W. Hoagland. 2011. “Patterns from the Past: Modeling Public Land
Survey Witness Tree Distributions with Weights-of-Evidence - Springer.” Plant Ecology
212 (2): 207–17. doi:10.1007/s11258-010-9815-9.
Farr, James A., and O. Greg Brock. 2006. “Florida’s Landmark Programs for Conservation and
Recreation Land Acquisition.” Government. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. May. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/AcqHistory.htm.
FDOT Surveying and Mapping Office. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms
Classification System. Third. Tallahassee, FL, USA: State of Florida Department of
Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pd
f.

114
FFWCC. 2015. “Special-Use Bear Permit.” Government. Limited Entry / Quota Hunts. August
10. http://myfwc.com/license/limited-entry-hunts/general-info/bear-permit/.
Finnell Jr., Gilbert L. 1973. “Saving Paradise: The Florida Environmental Land and Water
Management Act of 1972.” Urban Law Annual, Journal of Urban and Contemporary
Law, 1973 (1): 103.
Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. 2003. “Florda Public Land Survey
System - Section Level - Statewide.” Vector digital data. Gainesville, FL, USA: Florida
Geographic Data Library. ftp://ftp.fgdl.org/pub/state/plss.zip.
Flowers, Wayne E., and James E. Charles. 2012. “Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria:
Lessons from Florida.” Natural Resources & Environment 26 (3). http://www.llw-
law.com/files/pdfs/NNC_ABA_Journal_Article_00085057.PDF.
FNAI. 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Florida Department of Natural
Resources. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf.
———. 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. 2010 edition. Tallahassee, FL,
USA: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. http://fnai.fsu.edu/PDF/AA_Introduction.pdf.
Fralish, James S., Fred B. Crooks, Jim L. Chambers, and Francis M. Harty. 1991. “Comparison
of Presettlement, Second-Growth and Old-Growth Forest on Six Site Types in the Illinois
Shawnee Hills.” American Midland Naturalist 125 (2): 294. doi:10.2307/2426234.
Frelich, Lee E., and Peter B. Reich. 1995. “Spatial Patterns and Succession in a Minnesota
Southern-Boreal Forest.” Ecological Monographs 65 (3): 325–46. doi:10.2307/2937063.
Frey, William H. 2014. “Sun Belt Migration Revives as Florida Overtakes New York.” The
Brookings Institution. The Avenue / Rethinking Metropolitan America. December 30.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2014/12/30-sun-belt-migration-florida-
new-york-frey.
Fries, J. O. 1890. “Map of Orange County, Florida.” Map. Philadelphia, PA: E. W. Smith & Co.
Map Publishers. https://www.loc.gov/item/2012592407/.
Fritschle, Joy A. 2008. “Reconstructing Historic Ecotones Using the Public Land Survey: The
Lost Prairies of Redwood National Park.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 98 (1): 24–39. doi:10.1080/00045600701734018.
Frost, III, Cecil Carlysle. 2000. “Studies in Landscape Fire Ecology and Presettlement
Vegetation of the Southeastern United States.” Ph.D., Chapel Hill, NC, USA: The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304607683?accountid=10920.
Gannon, Michael, ed. 2013. The History of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Garber, A. P. 1877. “Botanical Rambles in East Florida.” Botanical Gazette 2 (3): 70–72.
Garland, Amanda, and Elizabeth Thompson. 2011. “Natural Community.” The Encyclopedia of
Earth. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154786/.
Gilbert, Terry, and Beth Stys. 2004. “Descriptions of Vegetation and Land Cover Types Mapped
Using Landsat Imagery.” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0016045/george_a.pdf.
Gleason, Henry Allan. 1917. “The Structure and Development of the Plant Association.” Bulletin
of the Torrey Botanical Club 44 (10): 463–81. doi:10.2307/2479596.
Gordon, Doria R., and Kevin P. Thomas. 1997. “Florida’s Invasion by Nonindigenous Plants:
History, Screening, and Regulation.” In Strangers in Paradise: Impact And Management

115
Of Nonindigenous Species In Florida, by Daniel Simberloff, Donald C. Schmitz, and
Tom C. Brown, 21–38. Island Press.
GRASS Development Team, Ivan Michelazzi, Luca Miori, and Markus Metz. 2014.
“I.points.auto.” Software Documentation. GRASS GIS 7.0.1svn Reference Manual. April
10. http://grass.osgeo.org/grass70/manuals/addons/i.points.auto.html.
Grimm, Eric C. 1984. “Fire and Other Factors Controlling the Big Woods Vegetation of
Minnesota in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Ecological Monographs 54 (3): pp. 291–311.
Grip, Wayne M., Randall W. Grip, and Robert D. Morrison. 2000. “Application of Aerial
Photography and Photogrammetry in Environmental Forensic Investigations.”
Environmental Forensics 1 (3): 121–29. doi:10.1006/enfo.2000.0014.
Gruver, Bradley J., and Caly Murphy. 2013. “Florida’s Threatened and Endangered Species.”
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FWCC Media.
http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened_endangered_species.pdf.
Guariguata, Manuel R. 1990. “Landslide Disturbance and Forest Regeneration in the Upper
Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico.” Journal of Ecology 78 (3): 814–32.
doi:10.2307/2260901.
Harisse, Henry. 1892. The Discovery of North America - a Critical, Documentary, and Historic
Investigation. London, UK: Henry Stevens and Son.
Harper, Roland M. 1905. “‘Hammock,’ ‘Hommock’ or ‘Hummock’?” Science, New Series, 22
(561): 400–402.
———. 1914. “Geography and Vegetation of Northern Florida.” In Florida Geological Survey -
Sixth Annual Report, by Elias Howard Sellards, 266–79. Tallahassee, FL, USA: The State
Geological Survey. http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/00/00/00/01/00006/VID00006.pdf.
———. 1915. “Vegetation Types.” In Florida Geological Survey - Seventh Annual Report, by
Elias Howard Sellards, 135–88. Tallahassee: The State Geological Survey.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000001/00007.
———. 1921. “Geography of Central Florida.” In Florida Geological Survey - Thirteenth
Annual Report, by Herman Gunter, 13:71–307. Tallahassee: The State Geological
Survey.
Harshberger, John W. 1914. “The Vegetation of South Florida South of 27° 30´ North, Exclusive
of the Florida Keys.” Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science 7 (3): 50–189.
He, Hong S., Daniel C. Dey, Xiuli Fan, Mevin B. Hooten, John M. Kabrick, Christopher K.
Wikle, and Zhaofei Fan. 2006. “Mapping Pre-European Settlement Vegetation at Fine
Resolutions Using a Hierarchical Bayesian Model and GIS.” Plant Ecology 191 (1): 85–
94. doi:10.1007/s11258-006-9216-2.
Henderson, John A. 1878. “Township No. 3 N Range No. 1 E Meridian.” Tallahassee, FL, USA:
US Department of the Interior.
Henshall, James Alexander. 1884. Camping and Cruising in Florida. Cincinatti: Robert Clarke
& Co. http://archive.org/details/campingandcruis01hensgoog.
Hinton, Isaac Taylor. 1832. “Map of the State of Florida.” Paper. An Atlas of the United States
of North America, Corrected to the Present Period, Accompanied by a Condensed View
of the History & Geography of Each State Compiled from the Latest Official Documents.
London: I.T. Hinton & Simpkin & Marshall.
http://www.library.ufl.edu/spec/pkyonge/dismap/hin1832.html.

116
Homer, Collin H., Joyce A. Fry, and Christopher A. Barnes. 2012. “The National Land Cover
Database.” US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 3020 (4).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3020/.
Hudak, Andrew T., and Carol A. Wessman. 1998. “Textural Analysis of Historical Aerial
Photography to Characterize Woody Plant Encroachment in South African Savanna.”
Remote Sensing of Environment 66 (3): 317–30. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00078-9.
———. 2001. “Textural Analysis of High Resolution Imagery to Quantify Bush Encroachment
in Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa, 1955-1996.” International Journal of Remote
Sensing 22 (14): 2731–40. doi:10.1080/01431160119030.
Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, Chester B. DePratter, and Emilia Kelley. 1989. “THE
TRISTÁN DE LUNA EXPEDITION, 1559-1561.” Southeastern Archaeology 8 (1): 31–
45.
Iverson, Louis R., and Paul G. Risser. 1987. “Analyzing Long-Term Changes in Vegetation with
Geographic Information System and Remotely Sensed Data.” Advanced Space Research
7 (11): 183–94.
Jacobs, David K., Eric D. Stein, and Travis Longcore. 2011. “Classification of California
Estuaries Based on Natural Closure Patterns: Templates for Restoration and
Management.” Technical Publication 619.a. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project.
http://sawpa.org/documents/ClassificationofCaliforniaEstuariesBasedonNaturalClosurePa
tternsTemplatesforRestorationandMa.pdf.
Jacobs, Kori, and Joseph Prenger. 2007. “Split Oak Mitigation Park Plant Community Type
Mapping Analysis Results.” Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
http://myfwc.com/media/121476/Split_Oak_NC_Mapping_Report.pdf.
Jao, Fang-Ju, Hone-Jay Chu, and Yi-Hsing Tseng. 2014. “Historical Image Registration and
Land-Use Land-Cover Change Analysis.” Environments 1 (2): 181–89.
doi:10.3390/environments1020181.
Kadmon, Ronen, and Ruthie Harari-Kremer. 1999. “Studying Long-Term Vegetation Dynamics
Using Digital Processing of Historical Aerial Photographs.” Remote Sensing of
Environment 68 (2): 164–76. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00109-6.
Kawula, Robert. 2014. “Florida Land Cover Classification System.” Final SWG T-13.
Tallahassee, FL, USA: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
http://myfwc.com/media/2815396/LandCoverClassification-2014.pdf.
Khahaifa, Avido. 2012. “State Leaders Must Act to Save Ailing Springs, Rivers.” Newspaper.
The Orlando Sentinel. December 23. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-12-
23/news/os-ed-declining-rivers-122312-20121221_1_septic-tanks-florida-forever-rivers.
Kronenfeld, Barry J., and Yi-Chen Wang. 2007. “Accounting for Surveyor Inconsistency and
Bias in Estimation of Tree Density from Presettlement Land Survey Records.” Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 37 (11): 2365–79. doi:10.1139/X07-068.
Kuchler, August Wilhelm. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States
- Manual to Accompany the Map. American Geographical Society of New York. Special
Publication ; No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society.
Kurtz, Herman. 1942. “Florida Dunes and Scrub, Vegetation and Geology.” Edited by S. E. Rice
and Herman Gunter. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 23: 1–154.

117
Kushlan, James A. 1990. “Marshes.” In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and
John J. Ewel, 324–63. Orlando: University Press of Florida.
Laessle, Albert Middleton. 1942. The Plant Communities of the Welaka Area - With Special
Reference to Correlations Between Soils and Vegeational Succession. Vol. 4. 4 vols.
University of Florida Biological Series 1. Gainesville, FL, USA: The University of
Florida. https://babel.hathitrust.org/shcgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006928538;view=1up;seq=1.
Laessle, Albert Middleton, and Carl D. Monk. 1961. “Some Live Oak Forests of Northeastern
Florida.” Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 24 (1): 39–55.
Landman, George B., and Eric S. Menges. 1999. “Dynamics of Woody Bayhead Invasion into
Seasonal Ponds in South Central Florida.” Castanea, 130–37.
La Puma, Inga P. 2011. “Fire in the Pines:A Landscape Perspective of Human-Induced
Ecological Change in the Pinelands of New Jersey.” Portable Document Format, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, November 17.
http://climatechange.rutgers.edu/docman-list/education/119-ingalapumapresentation.
La Puma, Inga P., Richard G. Lathrop, Jr, and Nicholas S. Keuler. 2013. “A Large-Scale Fire
Suppression Edge-Effect on Forest Composition in the New Jersey Pinelands.”
Landscape Ecology 28 (9): 1815–27. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9924-7.
Larsen, Chris P. S., Stephen J. Tulowiecki, Yi-Chen Wang, and Andrew B. Trgovac. 2015.
“Predicting Historic Forest Composition Using Species Lists in Presettlement Land
Survey Records, Western New York.” Edited by Martin Hermy. Applied Vegetation
Science 18 (3): 481–92. doi:10.1111/avsc.12165.
Leighty, Ralph George. 1960. Soil Survey Orange County Florida. Soil Conservation Service.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/shcgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=pst.000012569250;marker=6e
ae8797718c89bdbb3ebba00d15287f.
Li, Deren. 2010. “Remotely Sensed Images and GIS Data Fusion for Automatic Change
Detection.” International Journal of Image and Data Fusion 1 (1): 99–108.
doi:10.1080/19479830903562074.
Lodge, Thomas E. 2005. The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem. Second.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439802625.
Loeb, Robert E. 1987. “Pre-European Settlement Forest Composition in East New Jersey and
Southeastern New York.” American Midland Naturalist 118 (2): 414.
doi:10.2307/2425798.
Loftin, Cynthia Smith. 1998. “Assessing Pattern and Processes of Landscape Change in
Okeefenokee Swamp, Georgia.” Doctor of Philosophy, Gainesville, FL, USA: University
of Florida. Internet Archive.
https://ia801004.us.archive.org/13/items/assessingpattern00loft/assessingpattern00loft.pd
f.
Longcore, Travis, and Catherine Rich. 1998. “419 Acres: UCLA’s Natural History. 1. Land Use,
2. Biological Homogenization, 3. Island Biogeography.” Poster presented at the
California’s Biodiversity Crisis: The Loss of Nature in an Urbanizing World, Los
Angeles, CA, USA, October. http://urbanwildlands.org/Resources/419acres.pdf.
Loring, Fred R. 1848a. “FL.TXXIVS. R.XXXIE.” Survey Plat. St. Augustine, FL, USA: US
Department of the Interior. Surveys - General Land Office Records.

118
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/ConvertedImages/FL290240S0310E00001.JP2.
———. 1848b. “FL.TXXVS. R.XXXIE.” Survey Plat. St. Augustine, FL, USA: US Department
of the Interior. Surveys - General Land Office Records.
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/ConvertedImages/FL290250S0310E00001.JP2.
———. 1848c. FL.TXXVS. R.XXXIE. Vol. 148. St. Augustine, FL, USA: US Department of the
Interior. www.labins.org.
Luchansky, Gerald. 2015a. “Calibration Information,” March 19.
———. 2015b. “Camera Calibration for Orange Co.and Osceola Co.,Fla.(15-36489/JL),” June
24.
Lutz, H. J. 1930. “Original Forest Composition in Northwestern Pennsylvania as Indicated by
Early Land Survey Notes.” Journal of Forestry 28 (8): 1098–1103.
MacCurdy, Meline. 2011. “EPA Faces Lawsuits Challenging Potentially Far-Reaching Rule
Setting Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida Waters.” Attorney. Marten Law. February
10. http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20110210-florida-water-nutrient-criteria.
Manies, Kristen L., and David J. Mladenoff. 2000. “Testing Methods to Produce Landscape-
Scale Presettlement Vegetation Maps from the US Public Land Survey Records.”
Landscape Ecology 15 (8): 741–54.
Manies, Kristen L, David J Mladenoff, and Erik V Nordheim. 2001. “Assessing Large-Scale
Surveyor Variability in the Historic Forest Data of the Original U.S. Public Land
Survey.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31 (10): 1719–30. doi:10.1139/x01-108.
Mattoni, Rudi, and Travis R. Longcore. 1997. “The Los Angeles Coastal Prairie, a Vanished
Community.” Crossosoma 23 (2): 71–102.
Mattoni, Rudi, Travis R. Longcore, Jeremiah George, and Catherine Rich. 1997. “Down
Memory Lane: The Los Angeles Coastal Prairie and Its Vernal Pools.” Poster presented
at the 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California, Occidental
College, Los Angeles, CA, USA, April 19. http://urbanwildlands.org/prairie.html.
Mattoon, Wilbur R. 1967. Common Forest Trees of Florida - How to Know Them. Florida
Forestry Association.
May, Leroy. 1825. “Township III Range I North & East.” Survey Plat. Tallahassee, FL, USA:
US Department of the Interior.
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/ConvertedImages/FL290030N0010E00001.JP2.
McCauley, Lisa A. 2011. “THE EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON CYPRESS (TAXODIUM
DISTICHUM) IN CENTRAL FLORIDA.” Doctor of Philosophy, Orlando: University of
Central Florida. ResearchGate.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242147381_The_effects_of_urbanization_on_po
nd_cypress_%28Taxodium_distichum_var._imbricarium_%28Nutt.%29_Croom%29_in_
central_Florida.
McClenachan, Loren. 2009a. “Historical Declines of Goliath Grouper Populations in South
Florida, USA.” Endangered Species Research 7 (3): 175–81.
———. 2009b. “Documenting Loss of Large Trophy Fish from the Florida Keys with Historical
Photographs.” Conservation Biology 23 (3): 636–43. doi:10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2008.01152.x.
McGovern, Thomas H., Orri Vésteinsson, Adolf Friđriksson, Mike Church, Ian Lawson, Ian A.
Simpson, Arni Einarsson, et al. 2007. “Landscapes of Settlement in Northern Iceland:

119
Historical Ecology of Human Impact and Climate Fluctuation on the Millennial Scale.”
American Anthropologist 109 (1): 27–51. doi:10.1525/aa.2007.109.1.27.
McIntosh, Jr., William M. 1904. Minutes, Vol. 3. 39 vols. Tallahassee, FL, USA: I.E. Hilson,
State Printer of Florida.
http://digitalcollections.fiu.edu/iif/volumes/volume3/FI06013203_body.pdf.
Migliaccio, Kati W., Yuncong Li, and Thomas A. Obreza. 2014. “ABE 381/AE431: Evolution of
Water Quality Regulations in the United States and Florida.” UF/IFAS Extension. EDIS.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae431.
Mladenoff, David J, Sally E. Dahir, Erik V Nordheim, Lisa A. Schulte, and Glenn G.
Guntenspergen. 2002. “Narrowing Historical Uncertainty: Probabilistic Classification of
Ambiguously Identified Tree Species in Historical Forest Survey Data.” Ecosystems 5
(6): 539–53. doi:10.1007/s10021-002-0167-8.
Myers, Ronald L. 1985. “Fire and the Dynamic Relationship between Florida Sandhill and Sand
Pine Scrub Vegetation.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 112 (3): 241–52.
doi:10.2307/2996539.
———. 1990. “Scrub and High Pine.” In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and
John J. Ewel, 150–93. Orlando: University Press of Florida.
Myers, Ronald L., and John J. Ewel, eds. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando: University Press
of Florida.
Nash, George Valentine. 1895. “Notes on Some Florida Plants.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical
Club 22 (4): 141–61. doi:10.2307/2477851.
———. 1896. “Notes on Some Florida Plants.-II.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 23 (3):
95–108. doi:10.2307/2478121.
National Plant Data Team. 2015. “Plants Profile for Quercus Marilandica (blackjack Oak).”
USDA NRCS. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=QUMA3.
National Research Council. 2012. “Review of the EPA’s Economic Analysis of Final Water
Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.” Expert
Consensus Report. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academy of Sciences.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-
brief/EPA-Econ-Analysis-Florida-Final.pdf.
Necsoiu, Marius, Cynthia L. Dinwiddie, Gary R. Walter, Amy Larsen, and Stuart A. Stothoff.
2013. “Multi-Temporal Image Analysis of Historical Aerial Photographs and Recent
Satellite Imagery Reveals Evolution of Water Body Surface Area and Polygonal Terrain
Morphology in Kobuk Valley National Park, Alaska.” Environmental Research Letters 8
(2): 025007.
Nelson, John C., Anjela Redmond, and Richard E. Sparks. 1995. “Impacts of Settlement on
Floodplain Vegetation at the Confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers.”
Transaction of the Illinois State Academy of Science 87 (3 & 4): 117–33.
Neteler, Markus, Daniel Grasso, Ivan Michelazzi, Luca Miori, Stefano Merler, and Cesare
Furlanello. 2005. “An Integrated Toolbox for Image Registration, Fusion and
Classification.” Int J Geoinformatics 1: 51–61.
NOAA. 2015. “Historical Hurrican Tracks.” Government. Hurricanes. August 9.
http://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/?redirect=301ocm.
Noss, Reed F. 2013. Forgotten Grasslands of the South. Washington, DC, USA: Island

120
Press/Center for Resource Economics. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-
61091-225-9_5.
Peroni, Patricia A., and Warren G. Abrahamson. 1986. “Succession in Florida Sandridge
Vegetation: A Retrospective Study.” Florida Scientist 49: 176–91.
Phillips, Philip Lee. 1924. Notes on the Life and Works of Bernard Romans. Publication of the
Florida Historical Society 2. Deland, FL, USA: Florida Historical Society.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/shcgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015039795284;marker
=fdd7329f94dc95180263d2efcbaa1717.
Platt, William J., and Mark W. Schwartz. 1990. “Temperate Hardwood Forests.” In Ecosystems
of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, 194–229. Orlando: University
Press of Florida.
Pontius, Robert G., Emily Shusas, and Menzie McEachern. 2004. “Detecting Important
Categorical Land Changes While Accounting for Persistence.” Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment, From pattern to process: Landscape Fragmentation and the analysis of
land use/land cover change, 101 (2–3): 251–68. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.008.
Purcell, Joseph. 1778. “A Map of the Road from Pensacola in West Florida to St. Augustine in
East Florida. From, a ,Survey Made by Order of the Late Hon. Col. John Stuart, Esq. His
Majesty’s Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Southern District in 1778.” Paper. London:
Public Records Office.
Puric-Mladenovic, Danijela. 2003. “Predictive Vegetation Modeling for Forest Conservation and
Management in Settled Landscapes.” Ph.D., Canada: University of Toronto (Canada).
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305255827/abstract/5F6E7AB37A44C39PQ/1?accou
ntid=10920.
Rawlings, Marjorie Kinnan. 1933. South Moon Under. New York, NY, USA: Scribner’s Sons.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055164.
———. 1938. The Yearling. New York, NY, USA: Grosset & Dunlap.
Readle, Elmer L. 1979. Soil Survey of Osceola County Area Florida. USDA Soil Conservation
Service.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/florida/FL097/0/Osceola.pdf.
Romans, Bernard. 1776. A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. New York: R.
Aitken. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/UF00000163.
Rosenberg, Andrew A., W Jeffrey Bolster, Karen E. Alexander, William B. Leavenworth,
Andrew B. Cooper, and Matthew G. McKenzie. 2005. “The History of Ocean Resources:
Modeling Cod Biomass Using Historical Records.” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 3 (2): 78–84. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0078:THOORM]2.0.CO;2.
Ross, Michael S., Joseph J. O’Brien, and Leonel da Silveira Lobo Sternberg. 1994. “Sea-Level
Rise and the Reduction in Pine Forests in the Florida Keys.” Ecological Applications 4
(1): 144–56. doi:10.2307/1942124.
Rouault, Even. 2015. OpenFileGDB. Cross-platform. Python. Paris, France: Spatialys.
http://www.gdal.org/drv_openfilegdb.html.
Royse, David. 2011. “Florida Fish and Wildlife Approves Delisting of Black Bear, Other
Species.” News. Sunshine State News. June 8.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-fish-and-wildlife-approves-delisting-
black-bear-other-species.

121
Rubio, Marco. 2012. “Rubio Introduces Legislation to Stop EPA’s Regulatory Interference in
Florida.” Senator. Press Releases. February 16.
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=51ae32b3-c4d5-49c6-
9f57-2b4129dc6f28.
Scanlan, J. C., and Steve Archer. 1991. “Simulated Dynamics of Succession in a North American
Subtropical Prosopis Savanna.” Journal of Vegetation Science 2 (5): 625–34.
doi:10.2307/3236173.
Schulte, Lisa A., and William J. Barnes. 1996. “Presettlement Vegetation of the Lower
Chippewa River Valley.” Michigan Botanist 35 (1): 19–38.
Searcy, I. G. 1829. “Map of Florida : Constructed Principally from Authentic Documents in the
Land Office at Tallahassee /.” Map. Tallahassee & Baltimore: I. G. Searcy & F. Lucas Sr.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2005625323/.
Sears, Paul Bigelow. 1925. “The Natural Vegetation of Ohio.” Ohio Journal of Science 25 (3):
139–49.
Secretary of the Treasury. 1881. “Statistical Abstract of the United States - 1800.” Government
Printing Office. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1880-01.pdf.
Simmons, William Hayne. 1822. Notices of East Florida, with an Account of the Seminole
Nation of Indians. Bicentennial Floridiana Facsimile. Gainesville, FL, USA: University
Press of Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/AM00000176.
Simpson, John W., Ralph E. J. Boerner, Michael N. DeMers, Leslie A. Berns, Francisco J.
Artigas, and Alejandra Silva. 1994. “Forty-Eight Years of Landscape Change on Two
Contiguous Ohio Landscapes.” Landscape Ecology 9 (4): 261–70.
doi:10.1007/BF00129237.
Skinner, Carl N. 1995. “Change in Spatial Characteristics of Forest Openings in the Klamath
Mountains of Northwestern California, USA.” Landscape Ecology 10 (4): 219–28.
doi:10.1007/BF00129256.
Smith, Buckingham, and Sidney Breese. 1848. “To Authorize Draining of Everglades in Florida,
Etc.” Senate Report 242. Washington, DC, USA: United States Senate. FI07020101.
Everglades Online. http://everglades.fiu.edu/archive/FI07020101_final.pdf.
Smith, Charles F. 1874. “The Watson, McNeil, and Orr&Whitner Lines.” Survey Plat.
Tallahassee, FL, USA: US Department of the Interior.
Smith, E. A. 1884. “Report on the Cotton Production of the State of Florida with an Account of
the General Features of the State.” In 10th Census of the United States. Vol. 6.
Washington, DC, USA: General Printing Office.
Smith, Eugene Allen. 1884. “Report on the Cotton Production of the State of Florida, with an
Account of the General Agricultural Features of the State.” In Report on Cotton
Production in the United States; Also Enbracing Agriculture and Physico-Geographical
Descriptions of Several Cotton States and of California - Part II: Eastern Gulf, Atlantic,
and Pacific States, 6:175–214. 1880 United States Census 10. Washington, DC: General
Printing Office. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v6-04.pdf.
Smith, Hale G., and Marc Gottlob. 1994. “Spanish-Indian Relationships: Synoptic Hisotry and
Archaeological Evidence, 1500-1763.” In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida
and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and
Samuel Proctor. Florida Museum of Natural History: Ripley P. Bullen Series 7.

122
Gainesville, FL, USA: University Press of Florida.
Smith, Marvin T. 1987. Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast:
Depopulation during the Early Historic Period. Florida Museum of Natural History:
Ripley P. Bullen Series 9. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Snedaker, Samuel C., and Ariel E. Lugo, eds. 1972. Ecology of the Ocala National Forest.
Atlanta, GA: USFS.
Sparke, John. 1906. “The Voyage Made by M. John Hawkins Esquire, 1565.” In Early English
and French Voyages, Chirfly from Haklyut, 1534-1608, edited by Henry S. Burrage, 113–
32. New York, NY, USA: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
http://www.americanjourneys.org/pdf/AJ-030.pdf.
Spear, Kevin. 2014. “Osceola, Deseret Plan for Metropolis near OIA.” Newspaper. The Orlando
Sentinel. August 19. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-08-19/news/os-deseret-
osceola-massive-city-20140819_1_deseret-ranches-erik-jacobsen-central-florida.
Spurr, Stephen H. 1951. “George Washington, Surveyor and Ecological Observer.” Ecology 32
(3): 544–49. doi:10.2307/1931731.
SRM. 2011. “ESD Florida Workshop - Registration Opens Monday, September 26, 2011!”
Professional Organization. Society for Range Management Blog. September 22.
http://srmoutreach.blogspot.com/2011/09/esd-florida-workshop-registration-opens.html.
SRM 2014 Orlando Planning Committee. 2014. “Program.” Professional Organization. The
Society for Range Management. April 25.
http://rangelands.org/orlando2014/program_at_a_glance.html.
Stearns, Forest W. 1949. “Ninety Years Change in a Northern Hardwood Forest in Wisconsin.”
Ecology 30 (3): 350–58. doi:10.2307/1932615.
Stearns, Robert Edwards Carter. 1869. “Rambles in Florida - Part II.” The American Naturalist 3
(7): 349–56.
Stein, Eric D., Shawna J. Dark, Travis R. Longcore, Robin M. Grossinger, Nicholas Hall, and
Michael Beland. 2010. “Historical Ecology as a Tool for Assessing Landscape Change
and Informing Wetland Restoration Priorities.” Wetlands 30 (3): 589–601.
Stein, Eric D., Shawna J. Dark, Travis R. Longcore, Nicholas Hall, Michael Beland, Robin M.
Grossinger, Jason Casanova, and Martha Sutula. 2007. “Historical Ecology and
Landscape Change of the San Gabriel River and Floodplain.” SCCWRP Technical
Report 499. Los Angeles, California, USA: Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project. http://greenvisions.usc.edu/documents/SGRreport.pdf.
Swetnam, Thomas W., Craig D. Allen, and Julio L. Betancourt. 1999. “Applied Historical
Ecology: Using the Past to Manage for the Future.” Ecological Applications 9 (4): 1189–
1206. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[1189:AHEUTP]2.0.CO;2.
Thompson, Jonathan R., Dunbar N. Carpenter, Charles V. Cogbill, and David R. Foster. 2013.
“Four Centuries of Change in Northeastern United States Forests.” PLoS ONE 8 (9):
e72540. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072540.
Torri, D., E. Santi, M. Marignani, M. Rossi, L. Borselli, and S. Maccherini. 2013. “The
Recurring Cycles of Biancana Badlands: Erosion, Vegetation and Human Impact.”
CATENA, Updating Badlands Research, 106 (July): 22–30.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2012.07.001.
Tulowiecki, Stephen J. 2014. “Using Vegetation Data within Presettlement Land Survey Records

123
for Species Distribution Modeling: A Tale of Two Datasets.” Ecological Modelling 291
(November): 109–20. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.025.
UF/IFAS Extension Agents. 2015. FAWN Archive Data. Eng. Florida Automated Weather
Network. ftp://agrofawn-prod01.osg.ufl.edu/fawnpub/data/.
University of New Mexico Libraries. 2015. “The Natural Heritage Network.” Public University.
New Mexico Conservation Information System. https://nhnm.unm.edu/about/network.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “Florida QuickFacts.” Government. State & County QuickFacts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html.
USDA SCS. 1981. 26 Ecological Communities of Florida. Fort Worth, TX, USA: US
Department of Agriculture. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000110/00001/1j.
USFWS. 2013. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Florida. Cross-platform. Vector digital
data. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-
79/31. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and
Resource Conservation. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html.
———. 2015. “Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in Florida.” Government.
Environmental Conservation Online System. February 13.
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-listed-by-state-
report?state=FL&status=listed.
US War Department Corps of Engineers. 1856. “Map of the State of Florida.” Map.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2006628339/.
VanArman, Joel, Winnie Park, Patti Nicholas, Patricia Strayer, Agnes McLean, Barry Rosen,
and Jim Gross. 1998. “South Florida Water Management District.” In Water Resources
Atlas of Florida, edited by Edward A. Fernald and Elizabeth D. Purdum, Second, 260–
84. Tallahassee, FL, USA: Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State
University.
Van Lear, David H., W.D. Carroll, P.R. Kapeluck, and Rhett Johnson. 2005. “History and
Restoration of the Longleaf Pine-Grassland Ecosystem: Implications for Species at Risk.”
Forest Ecology and Management 211 (1-2): 150–65. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.014.
Vignoles, Charles Blacker. 1823. Observations on the Floridas. New York: E. Bliss & E. White.
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23366324M/Observations_upon_the_Floridas.
Wade, Dale, John J. Ewel, and Ronald Hofstetter. 1980. “Fire In South Florida Ecosystems.”
General Technical Report SE-17. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Southeastern Research Station Publications.
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_se017.pdf.
Walker, Karen. 2000. “Historical Ecology of the Southeastern Longleaf and Slash Pine
Flatwoods: A Southwest Florida Perspective.” Journal of Ethnobiology 20 (2): 269–99.
Wang, Yi-Chen. 2005. “Presettlement Land Survey Records of Vegetation: Geographic
Characteristics, Quality and Modes of Analysis.” Progress in Physical Geography 29 (4):
568–98. doi:10.1191/0309133305pp463ra.
Wang, Yi-Chen, Barry J. Kronenfeld, and Chris P.S. Larsen. 2008. “Spatial Distribution of
Forest Landscape Change in Western New York from Presettlement to the Present.”
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39 (1): 76–88. doi:10.1139/X08-161.
Wang, Yi-Chen, and Chris P. S. Larsen. 2006. “Do Coarse Resolution U.S. Presettlement Land

124
Survey Records Adequately Represent the Spatial Pattern of Individual Tree Species?”
Landscape Ecology 21 (7): 1003–17. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-6221-0.
Wares, John P., and Clifford W. Cunningham. 2001. “Phylogeography and Historical Ecology of
the North Atlantic Intertidal.” Evolution 55 (12): 2455–69. doi:10.1111/j.0014-
3820.2001.tb00760.x.
Wells, Bertram Whittier, and Ivan Vaughan Detweiler Shunk. 1931. “The Vegetation and
Habitat Factors of the Coarser Sands of the North Carolina Coastal Plain: An Ecological
Study.” Ecological Monographs 1 (4): 465–520. doi:10.2307/1943080.
Wharton, C. H., H. T. Odum, Katherine C. Ewel, M. Duever, A. Lugo, R. Boyt, J. Bartholomew,
et al. 1977. “Forested Wetlands of Florida - Their Management and Use.” Final.
University of Florida, Gainesville: Center for Wetlands - Phelps Lab.
Whitney, Gordon G. 1986. “Relation of Michigan’s Presettlement Pine Forests to Substrate and
Disturbance History.” Ecology 67 (6): 1548–59. doi:10.2307/1939085.
Whitney, Gordon G., and J. DeCant. 2005. “Government Land Office Survey and Other Early
Land Surveys.” In The Historical Ecology Handbook - A Restorationist’s Guide To
Reference Ecosystems, edited by Dave Egan and Evelyn A. Howell, 2nd ed., 147–72. The
Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series. Covelo, CA, USA: Island Press.
Whitney, Milton. 1898. “A Preliminary Report on The Soils of Florida.” Division of Soils S. 15.
Washington: General Printing Office.
Whittaker, Robert H. 1962. “Classification of Natural Communities.” Botanical Review 28 (1):
1–239.
Williams, M.J. 2012. “General Information about Forage Suitability Groups.” USDA NRCS
Florida. Section 2. Field Office Technical Guide.
http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/FL/READ_First_How_to_find_your_FSG
_description.pdf.
Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2008. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. University of South
Florida, Tampa: Institute for Systematic Botany.
http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=991.
Wyland, Scott. 2015. “Scott Gutted Florida Forever in Recession, When Prices Were Lowest.”
Newspaper. TCPalm. February 18. http://www.tcpalm.com/franchise/indian-river-
lagoon/mobile-scott-gutted-florida-forever-in-recession-when-prices-were-
lowest_08610106.
Xu, Qizhi, Yun Zhang, and Bo Li. 2014. “Improved SIFT Match for Optical Satellite Images
Registration by Size Classification of Blob-like Structures.” Remote Sensing Letters 5
(5): 451–60. doi:10.1080/2150704X.2014.917774.
Yang, Ying, and Xin Gao. 2009. “Remote Sensing Image Registration via Active Contour
Model.” AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications 63 (4): 227–
34. doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2008.01.003.
Yarlett, Lewis L. 1985. “History of the Florida Cattle Industry.” Rangelands Archives 7 (5):
205–7.
Young, J. H. 1826. “Map of Florida According to the Latest Authorities.” Paper. Philadelphia: A.
Finley. Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials - State University Libraries
of Florida.
http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/34173/Map_of_Florida_According_to_the_Lates

125
t_Authorities/Finley.html.
Yu, Le, Dengrong Zhang, and Eun-Jung Holden. 2008. “A Fast and Fully Automatic
Registration Approach Based on Point Features for Multi-Source Remote-Sensing
Images.” Computers & Geosciences 34 (7): 838–48. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2007.10.005.
Zitová, Barbara, and Jan Flusser. 2003. “Image Registration Methods: A Survey.” Image and
Vision Computing 21 (11): 977–1000. doi:10.1016/S0262-8856(03)00137-9.

126
APPENDIX A: NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS
The full natural community definitions below were created for this project as vegetation
descriptions that are applicable to observations made beginning with government surveyors in
1844 through time to modern ecosystem taxonomies created using vegetation sampling and
satellite imagery. Most sources for each natural community are listed in their respective
classification schemes table. Federally threatened and endangered species listing status was
obtained using the USFWS’s listing database (2015) and is indicated in the species tables as a
superscript “federal threatened” and “federal endangered” next to the common name. If the
species isn’t federally listed but Florida has assigned it a status it will have one of the following
labels: “state concern” for Species of Special Concern and “state threatened” for state-designated
threatened (Gruver and Murphy 2013). Identification and photointerpretation are based on
SFWMD’s Photointerpretation Key (Cameron et al. 2011) and personal plant identification and
photointerpretation experience. The correlation between natural communities and their soils are
backed up by Laessle (1942), Harper (1914; 1915), Dunn et al. (1922), Leighty (1960), Readle et
al. (1979), SCS (1981), and Doolittle and Schellentrager (1989).
Not every square meter of the site is covered with natural vegetation, or even vegetation
at all. The lake category catches all open water except that which was dug out by man, which is
called cultural – lacustrine. The areas where man dumped the spoil from digging a new lake or
wetland are called cultural – spoil. The areas that were dug out but are covered with emergent
aquatic vegetation rather than open water are called cultural – palustrine. The upland areas
whose vegetation was removed or otherwise significantly adversely affected by man and not yet
recovered are called cultural – ruderal.

127
Hammock (1120)

Synonyms:
Hardwood forest, oak hammock, hummock, hommock, hardwood hammock

Summary:
Hammocks in central Florida are hardwood forests limited to bands and clumps in fire-restricted
areas, historically slopes between sandhills and lakes.

Historical Descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 17): “The hammock land ſo called from its appearing in tufts among the
lofty pines; ſome ſmall ſpots of this kind, if ſeen at a diſtance, have a very romantick appearance;
the large parcels of it often divide ſwamps, creeks, or rivers from the pine land, this is indeed its
moſt common situation;”

William Bartram (1791, 117): “this grand sweep of high forests encircles, as I apprehend, at least
twenty miles of these green fields, interspersed with hommocks or islets of evergreen trees,
where the sovereign Magnolia and lordly Palm stand conspicuous.”

James A. Henshall (1884, 25): “ hamak
1
|
1
The orthography of this word varies greatly. I prefer
this form of it, as it is, no doubt, of Indian derivation. It is variously spelled hammock,
hommock, and hummock. In Florida it denotes land covered with hard-wood timber, in
contradistinction to pine land.”

Roland M. Harper (1905, 401): “It is used for quite a variety of conditions, but from all the evi-
dence obtainable it may be defined broadly as a limited area, with comparatively dry soil (at least
never inundated, and thus distinguished from a swamp), containing a large proportion of trees
other than pines, and located in a region where 'prairies,' marshes or open pine forests predomi-
nate. Topographically a hammock may be either a slight elevation, or a depression, or a slope,
and its soil may be sandy, clayey or rocky. The soil is usually rather rich, and the trees growing
in it are usually mostly evergreens though there is probably no one tree which characterizes all
hammocks - and they usually grow so close together as to shade the ground and allow the for-
mation of humus, which is almost wanting in adjacent areas.”

John W. Harshberger (1914, 118): “A hammock from the standpoint of the physiognomy of the
vegetation is a group of hardwood trees, shrubs, vines, terrestrial and epiphytic herbs scattered as
islands about the country, usually in a rather deep soil, rich in humus, or vegetable matter, and
more retentive of water than the adjacent pineland.”

128
Albert Laessle and Carl Monk (1961, 54): “On the inland areas, live oak stands may be
encountered on sandhill sites, on better drained pine flatwoods areas, scrub sites, and fringing
lakes, streams, and sinkholes.”

Dominant Flora:

Overstory of live oak (Q. virginiana), turkey oak (Q. laevis), laurel oak (Q. haemispherica),
white ash (Fraxinus americana), pines (P. palustris, P. elliottii, P. taeda, P. glabra) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Midstory includes American holly (Ilex opaca), winged
elm (Ulmus alata), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and basswood (Tilia americana). Understory
of Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), woodsgrass (Oplismenus hirtellus), and other
shade-tolerant low-growing grasses and sedges.

Soils:

1922 (Orange) –
1960 (Orange) –
1979 (Osceola) –
1989 (Orange) –
2011/Present (Orange) –
2011/Present (Osceola) –

Succession:

Hammocks may emerge out of long unburned scrubby flat pine, scrub, sandhill, and even mesic
or hydric flat pine. A hammock burned over catastrophically may transition into any of the
aforementioned communities if the underground oak roots are killed to prevent resprouting.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Hammocks appear heterogeneous on both CIR and natural color imagery. The pines or cypress
in the canopy appear fluffy and brick red on CIR. Hardwoods have large round crowns that
appear textured and will show bright red on CIR or a variety of greens on natural color. Though
historical extent of hammocks has been limited to strips between sandhills and lakes where they
have been sheltered by fire they can be found on modern imagery anywhere that hydrology and
fire allow.

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
US Census (E. A. Smith 1884)
Long-Leaf Pine
Region
Hammock lands
High hammocks
FGS (Harper 1914)
Middle Florida
Hammock Belt
upland oak woods

129

hammocks
Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
High Hammock
Formation
FGS (Harper 1915) red oak woods
sandy hammocks
high hammocks
Laessle (Laessle 1942) Hammock
Communities
Xeric Hammock Quercus virginiana [Live
Oak] Association
Mesic Hammock Magnolia grandiflora
[Southern magnolia]-Ilex
opaca [American holly]
Association
Hydric Hammock Quercus nigra [water oak]-
Liquidambar [L. styraciflua
sweetgum]-Sabal palmetto
[cabbage palm] Association
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964) Southern Mixed Forest
Davis (Davis 1967) Mixed Hardwoods and
Pines
Hardwood Forests
SAF (Eyre 1980) Shortleaf pine - Oak
SCS (USDA SCS 1981) Upland Hardwood
Hammocks
Oak Hammocks
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Upland
Ecosystems
Upland Forest Temperate Hardwood
Forests
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Terrestrial Xeric Uplands Xeric Hammock
Mesic Uplands Upland Hardwood Forest
Upland Mixed Forest
Mesic Flatlands Mesic Hammock
Palustrine Wet Flatlands Hydric Hammock
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Upland Forests Beech-Magnolia
Hardwood-Conifer Mixed
Mixed Hardwoods

130
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Mesic Uplands Mixed Hardwood-Pine
Forests
Hardwood Hammocks
and Forests
Cabbage Palm-Live Oak
Hammock
FNAI (FNAI 2010) Pine Flatwoods
and Dry Prairie
Mesic Flatwoods
Wet Flatwoods
Scrubby Flatwoods
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Upland Non-
Forested
Herbaceous – Dry Prairie
Upland Forests Upland Coniferous
Forests
Pine Flatwoods
Pine – Mesic Oak
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Uplands Terrestrial Pine Flatwoods
and Dry Prairie
Dry Flatwoods
Mesic Flatwoods
Scrubby Flatwoods
Dry Prairie
Palmetto Prairie

Flora:

Common Name Botanical name
red oak Quercus falcata
live oak Q. virginiana
sand live oak Q. geminata
laurel oak Q. laurifolia
water oak Q. nigra
Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora
longleaf pine Pinus palustris
slash pine P. elliotii var. elliottii
loblolly pine P. taeda

131
spruce pine P. clausa
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
white ash Fraxinus americana
red bay Persea borbonia
pignut hickory Carya glara
mulberry Morus rubra
American olive Osmanthus americana
American holly Ilex opaca
Dahoon holly I. cassine
red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Michaux’s hawthorne Crataegus michauxii
Hercules-club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis
sparkleberry Vaccinium arboreum
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
winged sumac Rhus copallinum
saw palmetto Serenoa repens
sabal palm Sabal palmetto
scrub palmetto Sabal etonia
black haw Viburnum rufidulum
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
American beautyberry Callicarpa americana
Carolina laurelcherry Prunus caroliniana
Devil’s walking stick Aralia spinosa
greenbriar Smilax spp.
yellow jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens

132
tillandsia Tillandsia spp.
wiregrass Aristida stricta

Fauna:

Hardwood hammocks are used by the same mammals that are present in flat pine, with the
exclusion of species that are hampered by the presence of a closed canopy, like the bobwhite
quail and the crested caracara, or by places for predatory birds to perch, like the Florida scrub
jay.

Common Name Zoological name
bobcat Lynx rufus
armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvagus floridanus
gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
opossum Didelphis virginiana
white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
raccoon Procyon lotor
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus
Florida panther
federal endangered
Felix concolor coryi
cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
bald eagle Haliaeeutus leucocephalus
Bachman’s sparrow
federal threatened
Aimophila aestivalis
pileated woodpecker Drycopus pileatus
red bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
eastern diamondback rattlesnake

Crotalus adamanteus
eastern indigo snake
federal endangered
Drymarchon couperi

133
pygmy rattlesnake Sisturis miliarius
box turtle Terrapine carolina
Kirtland’s warbler
federal endangered
Dendroica kirtlandii
ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus
solitary vireo Vireo solitarus
black-whiskered vireo V. atiloquus
white-eyed vireo V. griseus
grey kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis
white-crowned pidgeon
federal threatened
Columba leucocephala
great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus
cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
pine warbler Dendroica pinus
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinus floridanus
Schaus swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus

134
Scrub (1210)

Synonyms: scrub, rosemary scrub, sand pine scrub, barren sand hills

Summary: Scrub is a collection of xeric plant associations situated on excessively drained sands.
Sand pine, oaks, scrub rosemary, and saw palmetto are diagnostic. Scrub supports many xeric
animal species and is used by many others. It undergoes stand-replacing fires every 10-50 years.

Historical descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 35): “In my journey by land from the Bay of Tampe acroſs the Peninſula
to St. Auguſtine, I croſſed twenty three mile ſrom eaſt to weft of miſerable barren ſand hills, the
grain of the land is very ſmall and ferrugineous ; theſe hills rife a conſiderable height ; on them is
ſome growth of very ſmall pines, and a very humble kind of oak grows ſo thick, that with the
addition of ſome wythes and other plants, to me utterly unknown, they render it abſolutely
impenetrable.”

William Bartram (1791, 163–4) on an area near Salt Springs, now in the Ocala National Forest
(60 km NW of Split Oak): “we behold an endless wild desert, the upper stratum of the earth of
which is a fine white sand, with small pebbles, and at some distance appears entirely covered
with low trees and shrubs of various kinds, and of equal heighth, as dwarf Sweet Bay (Laurus
borbonia) [classified as facultative wetland, Bartram’s correct identification of red bay is
possible, Persea borbonia, more likely silk bay, P. borbonia var. humilis] Olea Americana
[American olive, Osmanthus americanus], Morus rubra [red mulberry], Myrica cerifera [wax
myrtle], Ptelea [common hoptree, Ptelea trifoliata], Æsculus pavia [red buckeye], Quercus Ilex
[evergreen oak native to the Mediterranean, instead probably myrtle oak, Q. myrtifolia] Q.
glandifer [perhaps Chapman’s oak, which has large acorns, Q. chapmanii], Q. maritima foliis
obcunciformibus obsolete tribobis minoribus [laurel oak, Q. laurifolia], Q. pumila [running oak],
Rhamnus frangula [Carolina buckthorn, Rhamnus caroliniana], Halesia diptera, & Tetraptera
[two-wing silverbell], Cassine [Dahoon holly, Ilex cassine], Ilex aquifolium [European holly,
incorrectly identified, probably American holly I. opaca], Callicarpa Johnsonia [American
beautyberry, C. americana], Erythryna corallodendrum [coral bean, E. herbacea], Hibiscus
spinifex [gingerbush, Pavonia spinifex], Zanthoxilon [any of five native species of the genus
Zanthoxylum], Hopea tinctoria [common sweetleaf, Symplocos tinctoria], Sideroxilum [any of
the eleven native bullys of the genus Sideroxylon], with a multitude of other shrubs, many of
which are new to me, and some of them admirably beautiful and singular. One of them
particularly engaged my notice, which, from its fructification I take to be a species of Cacalia
[garberia, Garberia heterophylla]. It is an evergreen shrub, about six or eight feet high.”

Charles Vignoles (1823, 77, 89): “The scrub lands have been particularly described before in
page 68 : they vary but very little in their general appearance wherever found […] These scrubs
and undulating grounds, consist of a sand of a very small and ferruginous grain, producing an
infinite variety of dwarf oaks and a number of parasitical plants ; where the land swells to a
considerable elevation, there is generally to be seen a growth of small spruce pines, most of

135
which however seem to die, after springing up to the height of twenty or thirty feet. The wythes
and other creeping shrubs which interweave with the humble species of oaks, renders a passage
very difficult.”

William H. Simmons (1822, 34): “nothing could be more sterile than the soils; and these tracts
are, in fact, concealed deserts, as they […] afford nothing that is fit, even for the browsing of
cattle. The growth upon these places, form its tough and stunted character, forms a complete live
fence, which, probably, would never have been penetrated through, but by the Indians, who
made the present trail, for the purpose of hunting bear.”

George V. Nash (1895, 144): “The scrub flora is entirely different from that of the high pine
land, hardly a single plant being common to both ; in fact these two floras are natural enemies
and appear to be constantly fighting each other.”

Marjorie K. Rawlings (Rawlings 1933, 2): “The growth repelled all human living. The soil was a
tawny sand, from whose parched infertility there reared, indifferent to water, so dense a growth
of scrub pine-the Southern spruce-that the effect of the massed thin trunks was of a limitless,
canopied stockade. It seemed impenetrable, for a man-high growth of scrub oak [Q. inoptina],
myrtle [Myrica cerifera], sparkleberry [Vaccinium arboretum], and ti-ti [Cyrilla racemiflora]
filled the interstices.”

Herman Kurtz (1942, 9): “a special plea for the conservation of scrubs seems superfluous.
Remoteness from and disrelation to salt water surf as well as undesirability for cultivation
constitutes ample protection.”

Dominant Flora: Several xeric oak species (Q. chapmanii, Q. geminata, Q. inopina, and Q.
myrtifolia), sand pine (P. serotina), and Florida rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides) are most of the
overstory and midstory. The understory is often a mixture of rare plants, saw palmetto (Serenoa
repens), and grasses.

Soils: The soils look like beach sand, are well drained, often white, and have minimal organic
matter. Large and small patches of bare soil abound.

1922 – St. Lucie fine sand (Sf)
1960 – Pomello fine sand (Pc),
1979 – Pomello fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (34)
1989 – Pomello fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (34)

Succession: Sand pine scrubs that have their fire return intervals lengthened grade more
smoothly into high pine and eventually both communities will transition into xeric hardwood
forest (Myers 1985), which in this classification system is merged into scrub. Some scrubs, like
those dominated by Florida rosemary, can self-maintain without fire for centuries via windthrow,
natural shrub mortality, and animal trails, though perhaps with a different vegetation distribution.
Sandhill may transition to scrub if its fire return interval is lengthened.

136

Identification and Photointerpretation: Since the light-colored soil is often exposed, that can be
seen on aerial photos. Sand pines have a variety of fungal root infections, their dark, wilty
crowns can separate them from longleaf and slash pines. The overstory varies from extremely
dense to absent. The rolling topography is usually visible on CIR and true color photos. The
boundaries between scrub and other upland (flat pine and sandhill) are distinct.

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
U. S.
Census
(E. A. Smith 1884)
Long-leaf pine
region
Hummock lands
High hummocks
FGS (Harper 1914)
Peninsular lake
region
Scrub
Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
Sand-pine Formation
(Rosemary Scrub)
FGS (Harper 1915) The Scrub
Laessle (Laessle 1942) Non-Hammock
Communities of
Well Drained
Soils
The Scrub St. Lucie Scrub: Pinus
clausa-Quercus spp.
Association
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964) Southern Mixed Forest
Davis (Davis 1967) Sand Pine, Pinus clausa,
Scrub Forests
SAF (Eyre 1980) Sand pine
Longleaf pine – scrub oak
Southern scrub oak
SCS (USDA SCS 1981) Sand pine scrub
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Scrub and High
Pine
Scrub
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Terrestrial Xeric Uplands Scrub
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Upland Forests Upland Coniferous
Forests
Sand Pine
Xeric Oak
Upland Hardwood
Forests
Sand Live Oak
Upland Scrub, Pine and
Hardwoods
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Xeric Uplands Xeric Oak Scrub
Sand Pine Scrub
FNAI (FNAI 2010) High Pine and
Scrub
Scrub Rosemary Scrub

137
Sand Pine Scrub
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Upland Forests Upland Coniferous
Forests
Sand Pine
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Uplands Terrestrial High Pine and
Scrub
Scrub
Oak Scrub
Rosemary Scrub
Sand Pine Scrub

Flora:

Common Name Botanical Name
sand pine Pinus clausa
sand live oak Quercus geminata
myrtle oak Q. myrtifolia
scrub oak Q. inopina
Chapman oak Q. chapmanii
Florida rosemary Ceratiola ericoides
rusty lyonia Lyonia ferruginea
saw palmetto Serenoa repens
scrub palmetto Sabal etonia
scrub hickory Carya floridana
pygmy fringetree
T&E
Chionanthus pygmaeus
scrub plum
T&E
Prunus geninculata
gopher apple Licania michauxii
beak rush Rhynchospora megalocarpa
milk pea Galactia spp.
Florida bluestem Andropogon floridanus
hemlock witchgrass Dichanthelium portoricense

138
British soldier moss Cladonia leporina
prostrate cup lichen C. prostrata
Evan’s reindeer lichen C. evansii
reindeer lichen C. subtenuis
American holly Ilex opaca
scrub holly I. opaca var. arenicola
silk bay Persea borbonia var. humilis
garberia Garberia heterphylla
Feay’s palafox Palafoxia feayi
sparkleberry/farkleberry Vaccinium arboretum
Curtiss’ milkweed Asclepias curtisii

Fauna: Most animal species that use scrub aren’t endemic there, but there’s a fair number of
species that are adapted to xeric habitats.

Common Name Zoological name
gopher tortoise
federal threatened
Gopherus polyphemus
pocket gopher Geomys pinetis
Florida sand skink
federal threatened
Neoseps renoldsi
blue-tailed mole skink
state threatened
Eumeces egregius lividus
Florida mouse Podomys floridanus
Florida scrub jay
federal threatened
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Florida scrub lizard
federal under review
Sceloporus woodi
common nighthawk Chordeiles minor
common ground dove Columbina passerina
northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus

139
loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicanus
palm warbler Dendroica palmarum
flying squirrel Glaucomys volans
red bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens
hairy woodpecker P. villosus
great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus
blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
pine warbler Dendroica pinus
Eastern screech owl Otus asio

140
Sandhill (1240)

Synonyms:

black jack ridge, sandhill, ridge sandhill, high pine, high pine land, pine barrens, pine ridge lands

Summary:

Rolling hills with a sparse canopy of pine and oak, a diverse midstory and an understory
dominated by wiregrass and silkgrass. Low intensity fire returns frequently to the sandhill and
there is little organic matter accumulation. Rain is the sandhill’s main water source. Black jack
oak (Quercus marilandica) are common throughout the United States, however no individuals
have been vouchered within 150 miles from the site (National Plant Data Team 2015; Wunderlin
and Hansen 2008) and no ecosystems containing that species currently exists on the site. Sand
post oak (Q. margaretta) and post oak (Q. stellate) are easily misidentified as black jack oak.
Black jack could also be misnamed but correctly identified blue jack oak (Q. incana). Some
references (Myers 1990, 183; Mattoon 1967, 36) assert that blackjack was the former name of
turkey oak (Q. laevis). Q. marilandica is present on sandhill starting in the panhandle of Florida
and north.

Historical descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 15–16): “the pine land […] conſiſts of a grey, or white ſand […] ; it
produces a great variety of ſrubs or plants, the principal produce from whence it derives its name
is the pinus foliis longiffimis ex una theca ternis. […] It is on this kind of land, that immenſe
flocks of cattle are maintained, although the moſt natural graſs on this foil is of a very harſh
nature, and the cattle not at all fond of it, it is known by the name of wire graſs; […] the woods
are frequently fired, and at different ſeaſons, in order to have a ſucceſſion of young graſs. […]
Some high pine hills are ſo covered with two or three varieties of the quercus or oak ſo as to
make an underwood to the lofty pines; and a ſpecies of dwarf cheſnut is often found here.”

William Bartram (1791, 173, 303, 386): “The Pine groves passed, we immediately find ourselves
on the entrance of the expansive airy Pine forests, on parallel chains of low swelling mounds,
called the Sand Hills, their ascent so easy, as to be almost imperceptible to the progressive
traveller, yet at a distant view, before us in some degree exhibit the appearance of the
mountainous swell of the ocean immediately after a tempest; but yet, as we approach them, they
insensibly disappear, and seem to be lost, and we should be ready to conclude […] After
breakfasting, having each of us a Siminole horse completely equipped, we sat off: the ride was
agreeable and variously entertaining; we kept no road or pathway constantly, but as Indian
hunting tracks, by chance suited our course, through high, open Pine forests, green lawns and
flowery savannas in youthful verdure and gaity, having been lately burnt, but now overrun with a
green enamelled carpet. […] We halted at noon […] on the acclivity of a high swelling ridge
planted with open airy groves of the superb terebenthine Pines, glittering rills playing beneath,

141
and pellucid brooks meandering through an expansive green savanna, their banks ornamented
with coppices of blooming aromatic shrubs and plants perfuming the air.

William Simmons (1822, 35): “Beyond the scrub, a region of high rolling pine land occurs, […]
it is often mingled with the black-jack ; and the soil, when it is turned up, (as is frequently is in
heaps, by a reptile, here called the salamander,) exhibits a yellow appearance”

Charles Vignoles (1823, 77, 89): “Another kind of land, are the ridges of white sand covered
with the small black or post oak, commonly called black jacks. These are sometimes so thick as
to exclude the pines, and when this is the case there is scarcely any grass found on the sand hills
[…] The oak and hickory lands produce almost exclusively those two kinds of forest trees, with
occasionally gigantic pines : the under-brush is generally composed of sucker saplings of the oak
and hickory ; this description of land is generally disposed on the exterior edges of the high
hammocks, and separate them from the pine lands. The black oak is the species most general
here ; the soil a rich deep yellow sandy loam.”

A. P. Garber (1877, 72): “On this elevated or salamander land, where these vigilant miners
display wonderful activity in the construction of a great number of diminutive mounts, I added to
my list Helianthemum Carolinianum, Mx. [Carolina frostweed], Stipulicida setacea, Mx.
[pineland scalypink], Polugala grandiflora, Walt. [showy milkwort], Rhynchosia tomentosa, var.
monophylla, T. & G. [now Rhynchosia reniformis DC., dollarleaf], and Desmodium triflorum
[threeflower ticktreefoil].”

Milton Whitney (1898, 8): “It is a very light, rather coarse, sandy soil. […] The characteristic
growth is the long-leaf pine. The trees are sparsely set and often of quite large size. There is very
little undergrowth, and a wagon or carriage can be driven through the forest in almost any
direction. There is generally a good growth of grass, and these lands are very extensively used
for grazing. […] The country is generally rolling, with differences of elevation of from 25 to 50
feet.”

Roland Harper (1915, 146): “On the vegetation map three types of high pine land are
distinguished, namely, open pine woods, pine with black-jack oak, and pine with turkey oak; but
the herbaceous vegetation of all these types is so similar that it did not seem worth while to make
three separate lists.”

Bertram Wells and Ivan Shunk (1931, 467): “To one who travels in the coastal plain of the
Southeastern United States, one of the most distinctive vegetation-habitat complexes is that of
the erect, tenuous-bladed wire grass (Aristida stricta) in scattered tussocks on the dry loose sand
hills and ridges. If trees are present they will in the most xeric areas be the long leaf pine (Pinus
palustris and the turkey oak (Quercus Catesbaci). On the more favorable sites, black jack oak
(Q. Marylandica), blue jack oak (Q. brevifolia), or the scrub post oak (Q. Margaretta).”

Dominant flora:

142
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus geminata), bluejack oak (Q. incana), sand
post oak (Q. margaretta), and wiregrass (Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana)

Soils:

Rolling to undulating areas with a gray fine sand overlaying a grey or yellow fine sand that
extends below three feet. The soil is excessively drained, highly permeable, and low in nutrients.
The soil pH ranges from highly acidic to neutral.

1922 (Orange) – Norfolk fine sand (Ns)
1960 (Orange) – Lakeland fine sand, very gently sloping (Lb)
1979 (Osceola) – Candler fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (7), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (44)
1989 (Orange) – Candler fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (46) Zolfo fine sand (54)
2011/Present (Orange) – Candler fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4), Zolfo fine sand (54)
2011/Present (Osceola) – Candler sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (7), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes (44)

Succession:

Sandhill requires a fire return interval between one to ten years with short flame lengths to
persist. Longer return intervals allows sand live oaks to create nonflammable clonal domes and
for turkey oak, bluejack oak, and/or sand post oak seedlings to reach an age at which they can
tolerate fire. An oak-dominated sandhill is visited less frequently by fire and other hardwoods
like black cherry (Prunus serotina), scrub hickory (Carya floridana), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) are able to thrive. An increased fire return interval
also diminishes the reproductive capability of wiregrass, it rarely flowers any other time except
soon after a growing-season burn or other defoliation (such as by grazing or mowing).

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Sandhill is the upland cousin of flat pine and is situated on deep, well drained sands within flat
pine. On the landscape, it transitions abruptly into scrub and grades slowly into hammocks.
Sandhill is characterized by sparse and irregular vegetation overstory closure above 25%. The
midstory is a textured blue-green, usually visible through the pine overstory. The sand is usually
visible through the canopy. Bright green grasses may be visible, depending on the site’s history.
Sometimes remnant sandhill exists within a pasture (Cameron et al. 2011).

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source
Top-
Level
Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name

143
US Census (E. A. Smith 1884)
The Oak, Hickory,
and Pine Upland
Region
The brown loam lands,
with oak and hickory and
short-leaf pine

The long-leaf pine ridge
lands

Long-Leaf Pine
Region
Rolling pine lands
FGS (Harper 1914)
East Florida
flatwoods
High pine land
Bellair sand region
Sandhill
Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
Long-leaf Pine
FGS (Harper 1915) Rolling pine lands Open pine
Pine with black jack
undergrowth
Pine with turkey oak
undergrowth
Laessle (Laessle 1942) Non-Hammock
Communities of
Well Drained Soils
The Sandhills The Pinus australis [P.
palustris]-Quercus laevis
Association
The Pinus australis [P.
palustris]-Quercus cinerea
Association
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964) Southern Mixed Forest
Davis (Davis 1967) Forests of Longleaf Pine
and Xerophytic Oaks
SAF (Eyre 1980) Longleaf Pine & Scrub Oak
SCS (USDA SCS 1981) Longleaf Pine Turkey Oak
Hills
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
High Pine
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Terrestrial Xeric Uplands Sandhill
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Upland Forests Longleaf Pine & Xeric Oak
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Xeric Uplands Sandhill
FNAI (FNAI 2010) High Pine and
Scrub
Sandhill
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Upland
Forests
Upland Coniferous
Forests
Longleaf Pine & Xeric Oak
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Terrestrial High Pine and
Scrub
Sandhill

Flora:

144
Common Name Botanical Name
longleaf pine Pinus palustris
wiregrass Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana
turkey oak Quercus laevis
bluejack oak Q. incana
sand live oak Q. geminata
sand post oak Q. margarettae
saw palmetto Serenoa repens
sparkleberry Vaccinium arboreum
dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa
prickleypear cactus Opuntia humifusa
gopher apple Licania michauxii
earleaf greenbriar Smilax auriculata
pineywoods dropseed Sporobolus junceus
lopsided indiangrass Sorhastrum secundum
bluestems Andropogon spp.
three-awns Aristida spp.
little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium
bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum
narrowleaf silkgrass Pityopsis graminifolia
blazing stars Liatris spp.
coastalplain honeycomb head Balduinia angustifolia
sweet goldenrod Solidago odora
sidebeak pencilflower Stylosanthes biflora
sensitive briar Mimosa quadrivalvis var. angustata

145
summer farewell Dalea pinnata
spurred butterfly pea Centrosema virginianum

Fauna:

Sandhill shares animal species with many other vegetation communities. Some of these species
are specifically adapted to dry habitats with scrub and drier flat pine, such as Gopher tortoises
(Gopherus polyphemus), pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis), and the Florida sand skink (Neoseps
renoldsi). These species plus the Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), the endangered
Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani), the Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
pratensis) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) characterize sandhill fauna.

Common Name Zoological name
gopher tortoise
federal endangered
Gopherus polyphemus
pocket gopher Geomys pinetis
Florida sand skink
federal endangered
Neoseps renoldsi
Florida mouse Podomys floridanus
Sherman’s fox squirrel
state special concern
Sciurus niger shermani
sandhill crane
Federal endangered
Grus canadensis pratensis

146
Flat Pine (1300)
Synonyms:
flatwoods, pine flatwoods, pine savanna, pine barrens, longleaf pine savanna

Summary:
Flat pine is the most extensive of these natural communities in Florida and it is characterized by
flat topography and fine sands underlain by a thin restrictive soil horizon that impedes drainage.
Pine flatwoods are maintained by frequent low to moderate intensity fires, and all species in the
community are adapted to a 2-4 year fire return interval. This community description catches
several flat pine divisions like wet flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, and cabbage palm flatwoods.
Older nomenclatures tended to lump communities rather than split them, for example
Harshberger’s (1914) “Long-leaf Pine Formation” grouped Flat Pine with Sandhill.

Historical Descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 15–16): “the pine land […] conſiſts of a grey, or white ſand […] ; it
produces a great variety of ſrubs or plants, the principal produce from whence it derives its name
is the pinus foliis longiffimis ex una theca ternis. […] It is on this kind of land, that immenſe
flocks of cattle are maintained, although the moſt natural graſs on this foil is of a very harſh
nature, and the cattle not at all fond of it, it is known by the name of wire graſs; […] the woods
are frequently fired, and at different ſeaſons, in order to have a ſucceſſion of young graſs.”

William Bartram (1791, 170): “For the first four or five miles we travelled West-ward, over a
perfectly level plain, which appeared before and on each side of us, as a charming green
meadow, thinly planted with low spreading Pine trees (P. palustri.) [Pinus palustris]. The upper
stratum of the earth is a fine white chrystaline sand, the very upper surface of which being mixed
or incorporated with the ashes of burnt vegetables, renders it of sufficient strength or fertility to
clothe itself perfectly, with a very great variety of grasses, herbage and remarkably low shrubs,
together with a very dwarf species of Palmetto (Corypha pumila stipit. serratis.) [Sabal minor,
dwarf palmetto]”

Robert E.C. Stearns (1869, 350): “The forest scenery has neither tropical beauty nor the grandeur
of the pineries of Maine, Michigan or California, which so impresses the beholder; the prevailing
timber is the Pinus palustris, or pitch-pine; the trees are hot above medium size and stand many
paces apart; hundreds may be seen whose sides are defaced by the rough scars or notches made
by the ruthless axes of the pitch gatherers, and some trees have many of these wounds. At one
place there is an extensive establishment or the distillation of the spirits of turpentine, which
employs several persons; at other points saw-mills may be seen.”

John W. Harshberger (1914, 100): “Here Pinus palustris Mill. [longleaf pine] forms pure forest.
The trees are draped with festoons of the Spanish moss, Dendropogon (Tillandsia) usneoides (L.)
Raf. […] The pineland alternates with hammock-land, branch swamps and cleropyllous scrub

147
with rounded clumps of saw-palmetto. The saw-palmetto, Serenoa serrulata (Michx.) Hook.
[Serenoa repens] is the prevailing undergrowth in the long-leaf pine formation.”

Roland M. Harper (1921, 138): “The principal vegetation types are palmetto flatwoods, prairies
of several kinds, cypress ponds, low hammocks, swamps, fresh marshes, and a few patches of
scrub. The prairies are several miles wide along the two largest rivers, and those along the Kis-
simmee (which the writer has not yet had opportunity to explore) are said to have an abundant
and varied native fauna and to be great cattle ranges, thus resembling some of the western plains
Other and probably different prairies border the lakes near Kissimmee, and there are numerous
small wet prairies in shallow depressions.”

Dominant Flora:

A scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) overstory and a saw palmetto (Serenoa repens)
understory dominate the community. Gallberry (Ilex glabra), wiregrass (Aristida spp.), and
tarflower (Befaria racemosa) round out the most common plants.

Soils:

1922 (Orange) – Leon fine sand (Ls), Plummer fine sand (Pf), Portsmouth fine sand (Ps)
1960 (Orange) – Immokalee fine sand (Ia), Leon fine sand (Lf), Ona fine sand (Oa)
1979 (Osceola) – Immokalee fine sand (20), Myakka fine sand (22), Ona fine sand (27), Smyrna
fine sand (42)
1989 (Orange) – Immokalee fine sand (20), Ona fine sand (26), Smyrna fine sand (44)
2011/Present (Orange) – Immokalee fine sand (20), Ona fine sand (26), Smyrna fine sand (44)
2011/Present (Osceola) – Immokalee fine sand (16), Myakka fine sand (22), Ona fine sand (27),
Smyrna fine sand (42)

Succession:

Flatwoods is maintained as a community by frequent fire. Individual species abundance is
controlled by the season of fire (ie. growing season versus dormant), and, for wetland or
facultative wetland plants, the presence or absence of water. The hydroperiod and landscape
position of the flat pine controls succession in the absence of fire: A wet flat pine community
will increase in swamp hardwoods like red maple, titi, and bays. A scrubby flat pine community
will transition very slowly into xeric live oak hammock or scrub. A mesic flat pine community
will increase in hardwoods and the saw palmetto is likely to become impenetrable. Gallberry
sprouts from the roots and will form thickets with the lyonias. When flat pine are invaded by
hardwoods, the new trees may penetrate the spodic horizon, making it more water permeable
(Snedaker and Lugo 1972). This would dry the community and alter the hydrology of nearby
depressions, making them wetter. Some authors have proposed that this hardwood invasion of
flatwoods is a contributing factor in the statewide expansion of bayhead species (Laessle 1942;
Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990; Landman and Menges 1999; Peroni and Abrahamson 1986).

148
Identification and Photointerpretation:

Pine trees are shown as rounded “feathered” medium green canopies which appear brick red on a
color infrared photo. Saw palmetto appears as irregularly shaped patches that are pink to pink-
red on a color infrared photo. The grassy understory is pale green and rather smoothly textured
that is pale pink on color infrared photos.

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
US Census (E. A. Smith 1884)
Long-Leaf Pine
Region
Pine flats, or flatwoods
FGS (Harper 1914)
East Florida
flatwoods
Flatwoods

Low pine land

Pine lands

Middle Florida
Flatwoods

Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
Long-leaf Pine Formation

Slash-pine Formation
FGS (Harper 1915) Flatwoods Palmetto flatwoods
Open flatwoods
FGS (Harper 1921) Peninsular
Flatwoods- Eatern
Division

Laessle (Laessle 1942) Flatwoods
communities of
poorly drained
soils
The Longleaf-Pine
Flatwoods
Pinus australis [P.
palustris]-Artistida stricta
Association
The Black-Pine
and Fetterbush
Flatwoods
Pinus serotina-
Desmothamnus [Lyonia
lucida] Association
The Slash-Pine
Flatwoods
Pinus palustris [P. elliotii
var. elliotii] Association
Non-hammock
communities of
well drained soils
The Scrub Scrubby Flatwoods:
Quercus v. geminata
[Quercus geminata]-Q.
myrtifolia-Q. chapmanii
Association
The Serenoa
Association
Serenoa repens
The Slash-Pine Flatwoods
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964) Southern Mixed Forest

149
Davis (Davis 1967) Pine Flatwoods
SAF (Eyre 1980) Longleaf Pine Longleaf Pine
Longleaf Pine – Slash
Pine
Slash Pine
SCS (USDA SCS 1981) South Florida Flatwoods
Cabbage Palm Flatwoods
North Florida Flatwoods
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Upland
Ecosystems
Pine Flatwoods
and Dry Prairies
Pine Flatwoods
Dry Prairies
Scrubby Flatwoods
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Terrestrial Mesic Flatlands Mesic Flatwoods
Scrubby Flatwoods
Palustrine Wet Flatlands Wet Flatwoods
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Upland Forests Pine Flatwoods
Pine – Mesic Oak
Cabbage Palm
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Mesic Uplands Pinelands
FNAI (FNAI 2010) Pine Flatwoods
and Dry Prairie
Mesic Flatwoods
Wet Flatwoods
Scrubby Flatwoods
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Upland Non-
Forested
Herbaceous – Dry Prairie
Upland Forests Upland Coniferous
Forests
Pine Flatwoods
Pine – Mesic Oak
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Uplands Terrestrial Pine Flatwoods
and Dry Prairie
Dry Flatwoods
Mesic Flatwoods
Scrubby Flatwoods
Dry Prairie
Palmetto Prairie

150
Flora:

Common Name Botanical name
longleaf pine Pinus palustris
slash pine P. elliotii var. elliottii
South Florida slash pine P. elliotii var. densa
pond pine P. serotina
saw palmetto Serenoa repens
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto
gallberry Ilex glabra
fetterbush Lyonia lucida
rusty lyonia L. ferruginea
staggerbush L. fruticosa
dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa
blueberries Vaccinium spp.
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
dwarf live oak Quercus minima
runner/running oak Q. pumila
tarflower Befaria racemosa
wiregrass Aristida stricta
bottlebrush three-awn A. spiciformis
arrowfeather A. purpurescens
broomsedge Andropogon virginicus
love grasses Eragrostis spp.
coontie

Zamia integrifolia pigmaea

Fauna:

151

As the most extensive terrestrial ecosystem, flat pine has an extensive animal species list that
overlaps significantly with all of the other vegetative communities. The bird population
fluctuates throughout the year because of winter migrants. Since the flat pine community covers
much of the US Southeast, few species are endemic to Florida.

Common Name Zoological name
bobcat Lynx rufus
armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvagus floridanus
gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
opossum Didelphis virginiana
white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
raccoon Procyon lotor
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus
1

Florida panther
federal endangered
Felix concolor coryi
cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus
bald eagle Haliaeeutus leucocephalus
crested caracara
T&E
Polyborus plancus audubonii
Bachman’s sparrow
T&E
Aimophila aestivalis
pileated woodpecker Drycopus pileatus
red bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
red cockaded woodpecker
T&E
Picoides borealis
eastern diamondback rattlesnake

Crotalus adamanteus

1
The first Florida black bear hunting permits were sold by the FFWCC in August 2015 (FFWCC 2015). The species
was taken off of the threatened list in 2012 (Royse 2011).

152
eastern indigo snake
T&E
Drymarchon couperi
pygmy rattlesnake Sisturis miliarius
box turtle Terrapine carolina
scrub lizard Sceloporus woodi
sand skink
T&E
Neoseps reynoldsi
pinewoods tree frog Hyla femoralis
flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum

153
Cultural – Ruderal (1800)
Synonyms:

Ruderal, pasture, improved pasture, unimproved pasture, clearing, rural open
Summary:

Any disturbed upland area that has been revegetated but not restored to a recognized natural
community.

Dominant Flora:

Early successional vegetation, unless managed as a pasture.

Soils:

May be underlain by any soil. Community characteristics depend on the nature of the disturbance
and the type of management.

Succession:

A ruderal area may transition to any of the upland communities depending on the soil,
hydrological regime, fire frequency, and source of vegetative propagules.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Cleared and ruderal land may be old spoil piles, tilled areas, cut-over timber, drained marshes,
etc. Past photos indicate that the area has been disturbed. Once it’s revegetated it is considered
cultural-ruderal until it transitions into another community.

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level Community Name
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Barren
Land
Disturbed Land
Agriculture Cropland and
Pastureland
Improved Pasture
Unimproved Pastures
Other Open Lands - Rural
Tree Crops Abandoned Groves
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Disturbed
Communities
Transitional Shrub and Brushland

154
Grassland
Bare Soil/Clearcut
Agriculture Improved Pasture
Unimproved/Woodland
Pasture
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Barren
Land
Disturbed Land
Agriculture Cropland and
Pastureland
Improved Pasture
Unimproved Pasture
Other Open Lands - Rural
Tree Crops Abandoned Groves
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Uplands Terrestrial Cultural-
Terrestrial
Mowed grass
Rural Open
Cropland/Pasture

155
Cultural – Spoil (1877)
Synonyms:

Spoil pile, dirt pile
Summary:

Elevated mounds created by human deposition of excavated soil or rocks.

Dominant Flora:

Spoil piles are classified as such only as long as they are barren.

Soils:

May be underlain by any soil. Community characteristics depend on the size of the pile, its
materials, and its slope.

Succession:

The piles revegetate to cultural -ruderal, but may transition into another community over time.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Spoil piles are often near the excavated area and are generally round and always elevated
(Cameron et al. 2011).

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source
Top-
Level
Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Barren
Land
Disturbed Lands Spoil Areas
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Disturbed
Communities
Mining Extractive
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Barren
Land
Disturbed Land Spoil Areas
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Uplands Cultural -
Terrestrial
Extractive Spoil Area

156
Baygall (2231)

Synonyms:

bay gall, bayhead, bay swamp, sweetbay

Summary:

Evergreen forested wetland in a depression. Overstory of Loblolly bay, sweetbay, and/or Swamp
bay. Diverse but indicative understory. Acidic peat soil.

Historical Descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 31): “I ſhall next deſcribe the bay and cypreſs galls ; theſe interſect the
pine lands, and are ſeldom of any breadth ; the bay galls are properly water courſes, covered with
a ſpungy earth mixed with a kind of matted vegetable fibres ; they are ſo very unſtable […] their
natural produce is a ſtately tree called loblolly bay, and many different vines, briars, thorny withs
[…] this ground is ſo replete with vitriolic principles, that the water ſtanding in them is
impregnated with acid”

William Bartram (1791, 11, 173, 469): “Towards the evening we made a little party at fishing.
We chose a shaded retreat, in a beautiful grove of magnolias, myrtles, and sweet bay trees […]
then the path descends to a wet bay-gale; the ground a hard, fine white sand, covered with black
slush, which continued above two miles […] several of his servants came home with horse loads
of wild pigeons (Columba migratoria) [passenger pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius] which it seems
that they had collected in a short space of time at a neighboring Bay swamp.”

William H. Simmons (1822, 33): “[…] an immense cypress swamp, which presents a novel and
picturesque object, from the amazing altitude of the trees, and the almost palpable darkness of its
recesses, which, being thickly crowded with bays, has an unusually benighted and even awful
appearance.”

Charles Vignoles (1823, 76, 91): “The pine lands however are not all of the same elevated
character : […] sometimes interspersed with cypress ponds and bay galls. […] While we are on
the subject of wooded lowlands it may be observed, that in the pine lands, the early courses of
the creeks and streams are through two sorts of channels, bay galls and cypress galls. The bay
galls are spongy, boggy, and treacherous to the foot, with a coat of matted vegetable fibres : the
loblolly bays spread their roots, and the saw palmetto crawls on the ground, making them
altogether unpleasant and even dangerous to cross.”

Eugene Allen Smith (1884, 28): “Galls or sour-lands are spongy tracts, where the water
continually ooze through the soil and finally collect in streams and pass off. […] These galls are

157
usually covered with titi (Cliftonia ligustra) [Cliftonia monophylla, buckwheat tree, black titi],
loblolly bay, and others, vacciniums and vines.”

George V. Nash (1895, 145–6): “The large swamps, lying generally along the low pine land,
have a peculiar flora and one quite interesting. These are locally known as “bayheads,” so called,
I presume, from the large number of bay trees, Magnolia Virginiana [sweetbay], that occur in
them. The shrubs most prominent are Pieris nitida [fetterbush, Lyonia lucida] and Leucothoe
racemose [swamp doghobble, Eubotrys racemose]. Gordonia Lasianthus [loblolly bay], with its
large white showy flowers, occurs in quantity along the margins. It ranges in height from ten to
thirty feet, and when in full bloom is a very pretty sight. The plant most common, and which
attracts the eye above all others, is the ever prevailing Smilax laurifolia [laurel greenbriar]. It
climbs and clambers over all the shrubs and bushes, and makes the “bayheads” almost
impenetrable.”

Dominant Flora:

Swamp bay (Persea palustris), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus) with assorted vines.

Soils:

Peat-filled depressions, sometimes on deep sands.

1922 (Orange) – Norfolk fine sand (Ns), Portsmouth fine sand (Pf)
1960 (Orange) – Plummer fine sand (Pb), Rutledge fine sand (Ra), Rutledge mucky fine sand
(Rc)
1979 (Osceola) – Hontoon muck (15), Samsula muck (40)
1989 (Orange) – Hontoon muck (19), Samsula muck (40)
2011/Present (Orange) – Hontoon muck (19), Samsula muck (40)
2011/Present (Orange) – Hontoon muck (19), Samsula muck (40)

Succession:

The bay species will spread from their roots and colonize other natural communities if fire does
not regularly set them back (Casey and Ewel 2006). If the bay species’ roots and the underlying
peat are destroyed in a fire, the depression will be recolonized by grassy marsh, tupelo/cypress,
or willow (Salix caroliniana; (Wade, Ewel, and Hofstetter 1980; Loftin 1998). The conditions
that support bay swamps would be strongly modified by drainage canals in or anywhere upslope
from them (Wharton et al. 1977).

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Baygalls are always small units on hillsides, in depressions in pine flatwoods, in ravines, or as
strips along the edge of creeks. They are characterized by dense vegetation with overstory

158
closure between 67 and 90%. Pines, particularly slash (Pinus elliottii) may be interspersed. There
is a stippled texture of medium to tall dense trees. This community consistently appears bright
scarlet red on Color Infra-Red (CIR) photos and dark green on natural color photos year-round
(Cameron et al. 2011).

Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source
Top-
Level
Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
US Census (E. A. Smith 1884)
Long-Leaf Pine
Region

Low hummocks

Pitch pine,
Treeless, and
Alluvial Region
Swamps
Galls or sour lands
FGS (Harper 1915)
Low Hammocks
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964)
Southern Mixed Forest
Laessle (Laessle 1942)
Hydric
Communities
Dominated by
Trees
Bayhead
Gordonia [G. lasianthus]-
Tamala pubescens [Persea
palistrus]-Magnolia
virginiana Association
Davis (Davis 1967)
Swamp Forests, mostly of
hardwoods
NWI (Cowardin et al. 1979) Palustrine Forested Wetland
Broad-leaved evergreen
SAF (Eyre 1980)
Sweetbay - Swamp Tupelo
- Redbay

Slash Pine - Hardwood
SCS (USDA SCS 1981)
Wetland Hardwood
Hammocks
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Swamps Stillwater swamps
Bay swamp
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Palustrine Seepage Wetlands
Baygall
FLUCCS
(FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Wetlands
Wetland
Hardwood Forests
Bay Swamps
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys 2004) Wetlands Palustrine
Bay Swamp
FNAI (FNAI 2010)
Freshwater
Forested Wetlands
Hardwood
Baygall
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Wetlands
Wetland
Hardwood Forests
Bay Swamps
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Wetlands Palustrine
Freshwater
Forested Wetlands
Baygall

Bay Swamp

Common plant species:

159
Common Name Botanical Name
loblolly bay Gordonia lasianthus
sweetbay Magnolia virginiana
swamp bay Persea palustris
loblolly pine Pinus taeda
slash pine P. elliottii
pond pine P. serotina
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
swamp tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
pond cypress Taxodium ascendens
fetterbush Lyonia lucida
laurel greenbriar Smilax laurifolia
coral greenbriar S. walteri
muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia
cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Virginia chain fern W. virginica
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp.

Fauna: Baygalls provide forage, food, cover, and den/nest sites for most flatwoods animals, so
instead of reiterating that here, the list will include the species that use baygalls the most.

Common Name Zoological name
Florida black bear

Ursus americanus floridanus
Florida panther
federal endangered
Felix concolor coryi
Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris
cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus

160
yellow-rumped warblers Dendroica coronata
pine warblers D. pinus
limpkin Aramus guarauna
white ibis Eudocimus albus
glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus
wood storks
federal threatened
Mycteria americana
short-tailed hawk Buteo brachyurus
southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
osprey Pandion haliaetus
nonbiting midges family Chironomidae

161
Swamp (2242)
Synonyms:

Hydric hammock, forested wetland, low hammock, cypress swamp, cypress dome

Summary:

Forested wetlands in depressions, along flow-ways, or along bodies of water. The soil is
saturated and standing water is present much or all of the year.

Historical Descriptions:

Bernard Romans (1776, 27): “Swamps are alſo found of two kinds, river and inland ſwamps,
thoſe on the river as eſteemed the moſt valuable, and the more ſo, in they are in the ride way,
becauſe then the river water may be at pleaſure let on or kept out, with much leſs labour and
expence than in the other kinds.”

William Bartram (1791, 93): “After leaving this village, and coasting a considerable cove of the
lake, I perceived the river before me much contracted within its late bounds,but still retaining the
appearance of a wide and deep river, both coasts bordered, for several miles,with rich deep
swamps, well timbered with Cypress, Ash, Elm, Oak, Hiccory, Scarlet Maple, Nyssa aquatic,
Nyssa tupelo, Gordonia lasianthus, Corypha palma, Corypha pumila, Laurus Borbonia, &c.”

William H. Simmons (1822, 6, 33): “a Cabbage Swamp, or region of low hammock, which
might be easily drained and reduced to cultivation […] This district of country […] was
terminated by an immense cypress swamp, which presents a novel and picturesque object, from
the amazing altitude of the trees, and the almost palpable darkness of its recesses, which, being
thickly crowded with bays, has an unusually benighted and even awful appearance.”

Charles Vignoles (1823, 90–1): “ The word swamp is, in the signification now adopted, peculiar
to America ; by it is understood a tract of land lying low, but with a sound bottom, covered in
rainy seasons and high water with that element. […] The cypress galls have firm sandy bottoms,
and are only troublesome from the multitude of sprouting knees.”

Eugene Allen Smith (1884, 24): “Along the margins of many of the lakes and streams of the
longleaf pine regions, and in some of the low swampy areas not connected with any running
water or lake, are the low hummocks, with cypress, cabbage palmetto, saw palmetto, hickory,
liveoak, water oak, bay, evergreen, etc.”

George V. Nash (1895, 108): “PLUCHEA LONGIFOLIA n. sp. (longleaf camphorweed) […] coming
in an open swamp just back of Titusville, Brevard Co., No. 2293.In the field the tawny white
pappus makes the plant very conspicuous.”

162
Dominant Flora:

Conifers and hardwoods with a significant midstory of bushes and vines. Extensive plant list,
please see Common plants.

Soils:

Poorly drained, very acidic mineral soils with minimal to several feet of muck accumulation.

1922 (Orange) – Peaty muck (Pm)
1960 (Orange) – Samsula muck (40), Sanibel muck (42)
1979 (Osceola) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (6), Samsula muck (40), Smyrna fine sand
(42)
1989 (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (3), Samsula muck (40), Hontoon muck (19),
Sanibel muck (42)
2011/Present (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (3), Hontoon muck (19), Samsula
muck (40), Sanibel muck (42)
2011/Present (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (6), Hontoon muck (19), Samsula
muck (40), Smyrna fine sand (42)

Succession:

The species distribution and diversity in a given swamp is dependent on hydroperiod, fire
frequency, and organic matter accumulation (Ewel 1990). Because swamps come in so many
varieties, it is not feasible to list each potential succession pathway.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Swamps occupy low positions in the landscape. Since this community has such a variety of
representations, its visibility on imagery is highly variable (Cameron et al. 2011). The
characteristic overstory species, bald and pond cypress appear fluffy and gray-gray green on CIR
photography.
Classification schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
US Census
Bureau
(Eugene Allen Smith
1884)

Pitch pine,
Treeless, and
Alluvial Region
Swamps
Banks of rivers and lakes

The pine barrens swamps
FGS (Harper 1914)
West Florida
lime-sink or
cypress pond
region
cypress pond
FGS (Harper 1915)
Swamps and
Streams
Swamp

163
Low Hammocks
low hammock
Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
Low hammock

cypress swamp
Laessle (Laessle 1942)
Hammock
Communities
Hydric Hammock
The Quercus nigra-
Liquidambar
[L.styraciflua]-Sabal
palmetto association

Hydric
Communities
Dominated by
Trees
River Swamp
The Taxodium distichum-
Nyssa biflora association
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964)
Southern Mixed Forest
Davis (Davis 1967)
Swamp forests, mostly of
hardwoods

Cypress swamp forests
NWI
(Cowardin et al.
1979)
Palustrine Forested Wetland
Needle-leaved deciduous
Lacustrine
Needle-leaved evergreen
SCS (USDA SCS 1981)
Cypress swamp

Swamp hardwoods
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Swamps Stillwater swamps
Cypress pond

Cypress savanna

Cypress strand

Hydric hammock

Lake fringe swamp

Temperate
Hardwood Forests

Hydric hammock
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying
and Mapping Office
1999)
Wetlands Wetland
Hardwood Forests
Stream and Lake Swamps
Inland Ponds and Sloughs
Mixed Wetland
Hardwoods
Wetland
Coniferous
Forests
Cypress
Pond Pine
Cypress – Pine – Cabbage
Palm

164
Slash Pine Swamp Forest
Wetland Forested
Mixed
Wetland Scrub
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Wetland
Plant
Communities
Palustrine Shrub Swamp
Cypress Swamp
Cypress/Pine/Cabbage
Palm
Mixed Wetland Forest
Hardwood Swamp
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Wetland Wetland
Hardwood Forests
Mixed Wetland
Hardwoods
Mixed Shrubs
Cabbage Palm
Wetland

Wetland
Coniferous
Forests
Cypress Cypress Domes/Heads
Cypress Mixed
Hardwoods
Cypress – Pine –
Cabbage Palm

Wet Pinelands –
Hydric Pine

Wetland Forested
Mixed

FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Wetlands Palustrine Freshwater
Forested
Wetlands
Cypress/Tupelo
Dome Swamp
Stringer Swamp
Basin Swamp
Strand Swamp
Floodplain Swamp
Other Coniferous
Wetlands
Cabbage Palm Hammock
Mixed Wetland
Hardwoods
Other Wetland
Forested Mixed
Cypress/Hardwood
Swamps
Cypress/Pine/Cabbage
Palm

Common plant species:

165
Common Name Botanical Name
bald cypress Taxodium distichum
pond cypress T. ascendens
pond pine Pinus serotina
slash pine P. elliottii
pond pine P. serotina
southern red cedar Juniperus silicola
southern red maple Acer rubrum
pignut hickory Carya glabra
sweetgum Liquidambar styracuflua
loblolly bay Gordonia lasianthus
southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora
sweet bay M. virginiana
swamp laurel oak Quercus laurifolia
water oak Q. nigra
black tupelo Nyssa sylvatica
water tupelo N. aquatica
Ogeechee lime N. ogeche
sabal palm Sabal palmetto
dwarf palmetto S. minor
buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia
gallberries/haws/hollies Ilex spp.
lyonias Lyonia spp.
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera

166
northern bayberry M. heterophylla
wild coffee Psychotria spp.
elderberry Sambucus canadensis
blueberries Vaccinium spp.
viburnums/haws Viburnum spp.
strangler fig Ficus aurea
yellow jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens
grapes Vitis spp.

Fauna:

The same animal species use swamp as use baygall. Please refer to the Fauna section of Baygall.

167
Cultural – Palustrine (2400)
Synonyms:

Manmade wetland
Summary:

Herbaceous wetlands that are noted for their fluctuating water levels, frequent fires, and mineral-
rich water. Occurring anywhere people dug them out or impounded water for them.

Dominant Flora:

Plant species will vary widely depending on water level, wetland size, connection to other water
bodies, and invasive species introduced. Expect plants on the Common plant species list in
Marsh (21212).

Soils:

May be underlain by muck or sand. If soil was mined the muck or the sand could have been
removed. No consistent soils are able to be listed

Succession:

A manmade wetland is subject to the same succession factors as a natural wetland is.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Manmade wetlands are borrow areas that have filled with water and revegetated with emergent
aquatic vegetation. The textures and colors will be similar to Marsh (Cameron et al. 2011).

168
Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source Top-
Level
Mid-Level Low-Level Community Name
NWI (Cowardin et al. 1979) Lacustrine Unconsolidated
Bottom
Excavated
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Barren
Land
Disturbed Land Spoil Areas
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Disturbed
Communities
Mining Extractive
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Barren
Land
Disturbed Land Borrow Areas
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Wetlands Lacustrine Cultural - Lacustrine

169
Lake (3100)
Note: Limnology is a deep and fascinating field and I’m not capable of giving it the treatment it
deserves in this section. Since this schema doesn’t differentiate between any types of lake, the two
open water bodies larger than 0.4 ha were called lakes.

Synonyms:

lake

Summary:

Bodies of open water, usually larger than 0.4 ha, that may have some emergent vegetation in the
shallow areas and are often ringed by marshes, swamps, and baygalls.

Dominant Flora:

Lakes in Florida support many species of phytoplankton. Invasive aquatic plants dominate most
Florida lakes at present. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) choke many nutrient-laden lakes (and streams and ponds).

Soils:

May be underlain by muck or sand. Sedimentation depends on water fluctuation and nutrient
inflows.

1922 (Orange) – Lake name
1960 (Orange) – Water
1979 (Osceola) – Water (99)
1989 (Orange) – Water (99)
2011/Present (Orange) – Water (99)
2011/Present (Osceola) – Water (99)

Succession:

Lakes may form if an outflow is dammed or a low area is shunted water. Lakes recede if drained
and could be drained enough that they transition to marshes, swamp, or even an upland
community. Lake levels are highly correlated with water levels in artesian well and therefore
with the aquifer levels (Deevey 1988; Brenner, Binford, and Deevey 1990).

Identification and Photointerpretation:

170
Natural lakes have curved shorelines and usually very low reflectance if not eutrophic or
hypereutrophic. The natural lakes on the property have all been drained and have control
structures. Undrained lakes will show evidence of fluctuating water levels (Cameron et al. 2011).

171
Cultural – Lacustrine (3200)
Synonyms:

Manmade lake, mine
Summary:

Bodies of open water that were not open water until excavated by people to a depth that prevents
emergent aquatic vegetation from growing.

Dominant Flora:

Just like natural lakes, manmade lakes in Florida support many species of phytoplankton.
Invasive aquatic plants may dominate manmade lakes. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) choke many nutrient-laden lakes (and streams and ponds).

Soils:

May be underlain by muck or sand. Sedimentation depends on water fluctuation and nutrient
inflows.

1922 (Orange) – Lake name
1960 (Orange) – Water
1979 (Osceola) – Water (99)
1989 (Orange) – Water (99)
2011/Present (Orange) – Water (99)
2011/Present (Osceola) – Water (99)

Succession:

Manmade lakes would recede if drained and could be drained enough that they transition to
marshes, swamp, or even an upland community. Manmade lake levels correlate with
groundwater levels, which are affected by soil type, depth to restrictive layer, local rainfall, and
aquifer levels. A shallow manmade lake could sediment and become a manmade wetland
(cultural – palustrine).

Identification and Photointerpretation:

Manmade lakes will appear to have straight or blocky shorelines and are often accompanied by
dykes, impoundments, control structures, and spoil piles (Cameron et al. 2011).

172
Classification Schemes:

Scheme Source
Top-
Level
Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
NWI (Cowardin et al. 1979) Lacustrine Unconsolidated
Bottom
Excavated
FLUCCS (FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Barren
Land
Disturbed Land Spoil Areas
FFWCC (Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Disturbed
Communities
Mining Extractive
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Barren
Land
Disturbed Land Borrow Areas
Water Reservoirs
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Wetlands Lacustrine Cultural - Lacustrine

173
Marsh (21212)
Synonyms:

Grassy marsh, basin marsh, depression marsh, wet prairie, sawgrass marsh, freshwater marsh,
flatwoods marsh, savanna
Summary:

Wetlands dominated by herbaceous plants that are rooted in standing water most of the year.
Community is dfor their fluctuating water levels, frequent fires, and mineral-rich water.
Occurring anywhere local topography, hydrology, and impermeable soils allow; often on
depressions and floodplains.

Historical Descriptions:
Bernard Romans (1776, 30–1): “The marſhes are next to be conſidered, they are of four kinds,
two in the ſalt, and two in the ſreſh water ; they are either ſoft or hard, the ſoft marſhes conſiſting
of a very wet clay or mud, are as yet of no uſe, without a very great expence to drain them ; the
hard ones are made up of a kind of marly clay, which in dry ſeaſons is almoſl burned up, true it is
they afford a paſture ſuſſicient to keep any gramenivorous animals in good order; […] The
marſhes on freſh water are in every reſpect ſimilar to thoſe on the ſalt, except, that they are not
impregnated with the ſaline particles, of which the ſirſt are very replete, therefore the hard ones,
with little trouble, are adapted to cultivation; the ſoft ones coſt a conſiderable deal more of ex-
pence, to render them fit to anſwer this purpoſe, but when ſo drained as to anſwer this end, they
certainly are by no means inferior to any land in this country ; in the lower part of theſe marſhes
grows a kind of hitherto undeſcribed grain, of which the weſtern Indians make a great uſe for
bread.”

William Bartram (1791, 181): “We now rise a little again, and pass through a narrow Pine forest,
when suddenly opens to view, a vastly extensive and sedgy marsh, expanding Southerly like an
open fan, seemingly as boundless as the great ocean: our road crossed the head of it, about three
hundred yards over, the bottom here, was hard sand, a foot or more under a soft muddy surface”

William H. Simmons (1822, 36): “The Ocklewaha [Ocklawaha river, ~60km NW of the site],
runs, for a great part of its course, though a fresh marsh, which is very wide in many places, and
would afford fine rice fields, if sufficient embankments can be formed against the inundations of
the river.”

Charles B. Vignoles (1823, 91): “The fresh water marshes are of two kinds, hard and soft ; the
hard marsh is made up of a kind of marly clay whose soil has too much solidity for the water to
disunite its particles : and therefore, being also generally higher above the water,may be with lit-
tle trouble adapted to proper cultivation : the soft marshes lie lower and are more subject to over-
flow and require in the embankments, earth from the high land to make them substantial, and

174
consequently are more expensive in their redemptions ; but this once accomplished they are un-
doubtedly the most fruitful ; affording in the dry culture means of raising sugar, hemp, corn, cot-
ton, and indigo.”

Eugene A. Smith (1884, 28): “On the peninsula, and especially in the lower part, where the
limestone is close to the surface and the soil thin, there are large areas of treeless country, called
prairies, and, when rather wet, savannahs. Savannas are no more than natural reservoirs, like
swamps, except that they are covered with grass and herbs instead of with trees and vines. They
are usually founded on clay or marl, but sometimes on hard sand. There are frequently extensive,
and form excellent grazing land.”

Dominant Flora:

Marshes are dominated by flooding-tolerant herbaceous broadleaf species such as white water
lilies (Nymphaea odorata), cattails (Typha spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), and grasses
like sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), muhlygrass (Muhlenbergia filipes), and cordgrass (Spartina
bakeri).

Soils:

Poorly drained mucky soils.

1922 (Orange) – Portsmouth fine sand (Ps), Peat (P), Muck (M)
1960 (Orange) – Everglades mucky peat, shallow (Ec)
1979 (Osceola) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (6), Samsula muck (40), Smyrna fine sand
(42)
1989 (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (3), Samsula muck (40), Hontoon muck (19),
Sanibel muck (42)
2011/Present (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (3), Hontoon muck (19), Samsula
muck (40), Sanibel muck (42)
2011/Present (Orange) – Basinger fine sand, depressional (6), Hontoon muck (19), Samsula
muck (40), Smyrna fine sand (42)

Succession:

Marsh-adapted herbaceous species are adapted to narrow ranges of hydroperiods and fire
frequencies. This leads to seasonal dominance and flowering that is dependent on water level.
Long hydroperiod species like sawgrass, pickerelweed, arrowhead, and maidencane diminish
when marshes are drained. These species are also very competitive following fire. Drainage and
reduction in fire frequency leads to the invasion of wax myrtle, buttonbush, and woody species
within ten years (Kushlan 1990). Of course, marshes are not exempt from primary succession
due to sedimentation. Their organic soil layers may also be destroyed by smoldering muck fires.

Identification and Photointerpretation:

175

Marshes occupy low positions on the landscape and are often drained by people. They also
usually have lower reflectivity on both CIR and true color photos. Less diverse sawgrass and
cattail marshes appear smooth while more diverse assemblages may have heterogeneous textures
and colors.
Classification schemes:

Scheme Source Top-Level Mid-Level Low-Level
Community Name
US Census
(Eugene Allen Smith
1884)

Pitch pine,
Treeless, and
Alluvial Region
Prairies and
savannas
savannas
Marshes
fresh
FGS (Harper 1915)
East Florida
Flatwoods
Ponds

Marshes
Harshberger (Harshberger 1914)
Freshwater Marsh
Laessle (Laessle 1942)
Flatwoods
Communities of
Poorly Drained
Soils
The Grassy Pond-
Margins
The Spartina bakeri
Association of Pond
Margins

The Andropogon
brachystachys [A.
brachystachyus]-A.
capillipes [A. virginicus
var. glaucus] Association

Herbaceous
Communities of
Flatwoods Ponds
and Bogs

The Castalia lekophylla
[Nymphaea odorata]
Association

The Panicum hemitomon
Association

The Pontederia
lanceoloata [Pontederia
cordata] Association

The Anchistea
[Woodwardia virginica]-
Sphagnum Association
Kuchler (Kuchler 1964)
Southern Mixed Forest
Davis (Davis 1967)
Fresh Water Marshes
NWI (Cowardin et al. 1979) Palustrine Emergent Wetland
Persistent

Scrub-Shrub
Wetland
Broad-leaved deciduous

Broad leaved evergreen

176
SCS (USDA SCS 1981)
Freshwater Marshes and
Ponds

Slough
Myers and
Ewel
(Myers and Ewel
1990)
Freshwater
Wetlands
and
Aquatic
Ecosystems
Marshes
Water lily

Submersed

Cattail

Flag

Saw grass

Wet prairie
FNAI (FNAI 1990) Palustrine
Floodplain
Wetlands
Slough
Basin Wetlands
Basin Marsh

Depression Marsh
FLUCCS
(FDOT Surveying and
Mapping Office 1999)
Wetlands
Vegetated Non-
Forested Wetlands
Freshwater Marshes

Wet Prairies

Emergent Aquatic
Vegetation
FFWCC
(Gilbert and Stys
2004)
Wetlands Palustrine
Freshwater Marsh and Wet
Prairie

Sawgrass Marsh

Cattail Marsh
FNAI (FNAI 2010)
Freshwater non-
Forested Wetlands
Marshes
Depression Marsh

Basin Marsh

Slough Marsh
SFWMD (Cameron et al. 2011) Wetlands
Vegetated Non-
Forested Wetlands
Freshwater
Marshes/Graminoid
Prairie-Marsh
FLCCS (Kawula 2014) Wetlands Palustrine
Freshwater Non-
Forested Wetlands
Prairies and Bogs

Wet Prairie

Marshes – Depression
Marsh, Basin Marsh,
Slough

177
Common plant species:

Common Name Botanical Name
white water lily Nymphaea odorata
neverwet Orotium aquiaticum
yellow lotus Nelumbo lutea
naiad Najas guadalupensis
bladderwort Urtricularia spp.
pondweed Potamogeton spp.
cattail Typha spp.
pickerelweed Pontederia lanceolata
arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia
spikerush Eleocharis spp.
maidencane Panicum hemitomon
blue maidencane Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum
fire flag Thalia geniculata
bulrush Scirpus spp.
Tracy’s beakrush Rynchospora tracyi
sawgrass Cladium jamaicense
muhlygrass Muhlenbergia fillips
cordgrass Spartina bakeri
torpedograss Panicum repens
smartweed Polygonum spp.
white-topped sedge Dichromena colorata
St. John’s wort Hypericum fasciculatum
primrose willow Ludwigia repens

178
string lily Crinum americanum
cutgrass Leersia hexandra
cutthroat grass Panicum abscissum
rush Juncus acuminatus
rush J. effusus
horsehair sedge Eleocharis equisetoides
swamp hibiscus Hibiscus grandiflorus
redroot Lachnanthes caroliniana
yellow-eyed grass Xyris spp.

Flora:

Common Name Zoological name
white-tailed deer

Odocoileus virginianus
Florida panther
federal endangered
Felix concolor coryi
Florida alligator Alligator mississipiensis
green water snake Nerodia cyclopion
swamp snake Seminatrix pygaea
cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus
mud snake Kinosternon bauri
mud turtle Sternotherun odoratus
Florida cooter Chrysemys floridana
chicken turtle Deirochelys reticularia
apple snail Pomacea paludosus
livebearing mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
least killfish Heterandria formosa

179
golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus
dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus
leopard frog Rana sphenocephala
pig frog R. grylio
fire-bellied newt Notophthalamus viridescens
least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
green-backed heron Butorides striatus
limpkin Aramus guarana
marsh wren Cistothorus palustris
snail kite Rostrahamus sociabilis
wood stork
Federal endangered
Mycteria americana
sandhill cranes
Federal endangered
Grus canadensis pratensis
fulvous whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor
mottled duck Anas fulvigula
canvasback duck Aythya valsineria
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Restoration and management of ecologically important sites depend on an understanding of reference conditions and the ability of people to return the site to those historic conditions. Historical ecology research sifts through the data about a site to be able to offer restoration options to land managers. This project demonstrates transitions in natural communities of a protected area in East Central Florida: Split Oak Forest. Natural communities are defined based on the General Land Office (GLO) survey maps and notes and applied to historical black and white aerial photos, modern digital orthophotos, and high resolution satellite imagery. ❧ Because of the channelization of the Kissimmee River and the subsequent draining of the Everglades from 1883 onward, Split Oak, like other areas whose surroundings have been drained, cannot be returned to the conditions at the time of the GLO survey. Thus, a detailed time series of eight snapshots over 171 years will be valuable to land managers and restoration ecologists working in sites that share the hydrologically-modified Northern Everglades watershed with Split Oak. ❧ Natural community descriptions gleaned from the surveyors maps and notes and their application to current land cover are a potential backbone to future historical ecology in the southeast. Seasonally re-hydrating drained wetlands is a priority in this watershed, and is supported by cost-share funding from the State of Florida. This research affirms that most grassy wetlands on the site have transitioned to upland communities. Most of the remaining marshes have been invaded by woody plants and swamps extended their boundaries. Sandhill was used for orange (Citrus x sinensis) culture and, along with scrub and flat pine, transitioned to hammock.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Modeling open space acquisition in Boulder, Colorado

PDF

3D visualization models as a tool for reconstructing the historical landscape of the Ballona Creek watershed

PDF

Modeling burn probability: a Maxent approach to estimating California's wildfire potential

PDF

Predicting archaeological site locations in northeastern California’s High Desert using the Maxent model

PDF

Assessing woody plant encroachment in Marin County, California, 1952-2018

PDF

Exploring land use changes in the city of Irvine’s master plan

PDF

Using Landscape Integrity Index to evaluate the cumulative impacts of BLM resource management programs

PDF

Predicting the presence of historic and prehistoric campsites in Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay counties

Asset Metadata

Creator Anderson, Valerie Christine (author)

Core Title Historical ecology of the Split Oak Forest in east central Florida

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Geographic Information Science and Technology

Publication Date 09/29/2015

Defense Date 09/03/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag American Southeast,Florida,GLO Survey,historical aerial photography,historical ecology,land cover,landcover change,natural communities,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wilson, John P. (committee chair), Longcore, Travis (committee member), Ruddell, Darren (committee member)

Creator Email vca@hush.com,vcanders@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-188127

Unique identifier UC11276200

Identifier etd-AndersonVa-3959.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-188127 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AndersonVa-3959.pdf

Dmrecord 188127

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Anderson, Valerie Christine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA