SUTTER02
|
» Citation URL: http://vegbank.org/cite/urn:lsid:vegbank.org/vegbranch:observation:3250-{7A1A741D-900B-41F6-B766-4234736270E9}
» Citing info |
Plot ID Fields: | |
Author Plot Code ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
SUTTER02
|
Author Observation Code ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
SUTTER02
|
Original Data Location ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA
|
Location Fields: |
MAP:
Google
| Yahoo
| TopoZone
| MapQuest
|
Confidentiality Status ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
exact location
|
Latitude ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
38.4093726792751
º
|
Longitude ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
-120.756818794886
º
|
Author Location ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Private, Champlin property
|
Location Narrative ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Along Sutter Creek Volcano Rd, Amador County: Mixed oak and ponderosa pine with a higher cover of interior live oak than black oak. The area was cleared during the gold rush and has since regenerated, but the understory may have been cleared again, at least once. There are two shrub layers: old Arctostaphylos viscida and younger regenerating Heteromeles arbutifolia.
|
State or Province ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
California
|
Country ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
United States
|
Named Places |
|
Layout Fields: | |
Shape ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Plotless
|
Permanence ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
not permanent
|
Environment Fields: | |
Stand Size ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
large
|
Elevation ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
434
m
|
Slope Aspect ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
108
º
|
Slope Gradient ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
22
º
|
Topographic Position ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Midslope
|
Rock Type ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
metamorphic, unspecified
|
Landscape Narrative ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
upland
|
Percent Rock / Gravel ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
1.2
%
|
Percent Litter ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
90
%
|
Percent Bare Soil ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
6
%
|
Percent Water ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
0
%
|
Percent Other ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
3
%
|
Name Other ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
BasalStemArea
|
Methods Fields: | |
Observation Start Date ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
02-May-2006
|
Project ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills
|
Cover Method ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Percentage (%)
|
Stratum Method ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
CNPS/CDFW RA v. 2005
|
Cover Dispersion ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Entire
|
Overall Taxon Cover Values are Automatically Calculated? ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
no
|
Plot Quality Fields: | |
Plot Validation Level ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
(2) classification plot: sufficient for inclusion in a classification revision
|
Overall Plot Vegetation Fields: | |
Shrub Height ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
1.5
m
|
Field Height ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
0.25
m
|
Shrub Cover ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
6
%
|
Field Cover ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
3
%
|
Dominant Stratum ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Tree
|
Misc Fields: | |
Observation Narrative ![?](http://vegbank.org/vegbank/images/question.gif) |
Quercus wislizeni and Quercus chrysolepis difficult to distinguish at a distance through the canopy and under the lighting conditions. Majority of stand inaccessible due to property boundary.
|
|
|