Intensive Virginia Division of Natural Heritage, see http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/nh_plotform_instructions.pdf
Overall Taxon Cover Values are Automatically Calculated?
no
Stem Observation Area
100
m²
Plot Quality Fields:
Plot Validation Level
(2) classification plot: sufficient for inclusion in a classification revision
Overall Plot Vegetation Fields:
Tree Cover
40
%
Shrub Cover
50
%
Field Cover
60
%
Nonvascular Cover
20
%
Misc Fields:
Observation Narrative
Plot captures the same seep as that sampled in plot BUFF009D. Neither Lilium grayi or Liparis loeselii appears to be present. Plot is unavoidably heterogeneous and captures mosaic of characteristic seep and adjacent upland vegetation, the latter prevailing near center of plot. As indicated by diagnostic taxa such as Parnassia grandifolia and Solidago patula, seep vegetation appears neither as extensive or as broad in this tributary branch as occurrence sampled in plot BUFF003P. Although Gary Fleming mapped a relatively large polygon, the downstream and upstream limits should be more precisely determined by GPS. Stand is currently pristine, although large population of Spiraea japonica downstream poses significant threat. Woody cover is more uniformly higher in this stand than in BUFF003P. Partly as a consequence of the co-occurrence in the plot of upland and wetland plants, species richness is extraordinarily high. Rubus cf. hispidus is present on upland edge outside plot; Symplocarpus foetidus also occurs outside plot. Soil collected from several, non-random points, in an effort to capture both upland and wetland microsites; volume kept low to minimize disturbance.
