es with new
Idziewicz
ition and
(Ventura
nventory
ory
uring 1991
Park
JORADB).
] of 200,
' on the size
inland Unit
Coch,
atic and
on and plot
orporated
INFO
Is, each
he
) can be
as
th.
ded
oint
used in
y on- screen
ayers such
ition to help
TUs)
s several
generated
lencing
Is,
U polygon
ispect, soil
or the
only where
0 contribute
'ailable
on all
the Arc/Info
maps.
These layers were further processed into an ITU
coverage by polygon overlay.
Since the vegetation types and boundaries were
determined primarily on infrared aerial
photography, two photo interpretation problems
were encountered -- cases with an identified
vegetation type but unclear boundary, or cases
with a determined boundary but uncertain
vegetation type. FLORADB and ITUs combined
played crucial roles in assisting air photo
interpretation (Ventura and He, 1993). Figure 2
shows some of the decision logic used to
incorporate information from these in the
interpretation process. In a GIS environment,
the subjectivity of some interpretation decisions
may be reduced to a minimum by referencing
the information such as ITUs and FLORADB.
before processing
GIS operation on point and polygon coverage
Plot points can be linked with flora database
indicating what species are found on the site
and what species composition can be generated.
ITU boundaries can be used as references when
the vegetation boundaries on the air photo
are difficult to delineate.
Figure 2. GIS operation on ITU polygon and plot point coverage
Vegetation Classification: Compositions,
Communities, and Forests
Species composition, plant community, and
forest stand are the three vegetation
classification levels established for the Apostle
Island National Lakeshore. Species composition
and community, as defined primarily by
overstory tree species, were used in describing
hierarchical southern-mesic forest of
southeastern Wisconsin (Levenson, 1981), and
in most previous vegetation mapping in the
61
Apostle Islands (Anderson et a/., 1979, 1982,
1983; Dobie, 1977; Fraundorf, 1984;
Harrington, 1982; Heidel, 1977; Hildebrandt,
1978; Larsen, 1975; Stadnyk, ef al. 1974).
In this study, the following conventions were
used to establish a species composition, the
lowest (most disaggregated) level in the
classification:
* The first-listed species is the first
dominant, the second-listed species is
the second. Up to three species may be
included in a species composition.