Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area.
Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area. Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area.
61ecosystem .While the activities involved in camping, picnicking,hiking, sight-seeing and related land uses are many and varied, onecommon activity of consequence to vegetation and soils is tramplingby foot traffic . Trampling has therefore been selected as the typeof use on which quantification of our rating is based .The purpose of the rating system isdegree of change which is expected to occur .to describe the type andThe vegetation changesare primarily loss of plant cover and change in species composition .The changes to soils include erosion and the production of puddled,quagmire conditions .The vegetation communities and soil units have been arrangedin order of their susceptibility to damage . It is not possible to definethe precise carrying capacity of each segment of the landscape .However,data from experimental trampling studies provide a quantitativeguide to the relative amount of stress each unit can withstand .DerivationVegetation and soils are interdependent in rating environmentalfragility :soils will not erode unless the protective vegetation cover isremovedBecauseand damaged vegetation will not recover if soils are eroding .the fragility of vegetation may not coincide with the fragilityof soils,the two had to be rated separately and the ratings combined togive a dual index of fragility for each unit .In this way, excessivegeneralization was avoided and a more specific description of thefragility of each unit could be given .A map of the distribution of thefragility classes isincluded in the map pocket,
Vegetation Fragility RatingThe relative susceptibility of vegetation types to damage wasgauged by considering the loss of plant cover when subjected totrampling,the expected rate of regeneration provided there is no soilerosion and the likelihood of changes in species composition . A morecomprehensive account of vegetation fragility isgiven in Landals andScotter (1974) .Experimental trampling was applied at weekly intervals to thefive major communities of the area, Valeriana sitchensis , Vacciniummembranaceum, Cassiope mertensiana, Luetkea pectinata and Carexnigricans . Five, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 walks were applied each weekfor five weeks .Weekly trampling has been used to rate communitiesfor the fragility scale because this most closely simulates visitor useover an entire season .Communities have been ordered according totheir performance after the 100 walks treatment which isthought to beindicative of moderate visitor use .According to cover loss, communities can be ordered, from mostto least fragile, as Vaccinium and Valeriana , Cassiope , Luetkea andCarex .Considering regenerative capacity and tendency for specieschange during the recovery of vegetation, the order of the communitieschanges only slightly to Vaccinium , Valeriana , Cassiope , Luetkea andCarex .Other communities were assimilated into this order by observationof their performance when subjected to visitor trampling or by guidancefrom other research, principally Nagy and Scotter, 1974 .
- Page 16 and 17: METHODS OF INVESTIGATIONField Techn
- Page 18 and 19: 116 . Pyrophosphate-Extractable Alu
- Page 20 and 21: 13FIGURE 2 .DIAGRAM OF A SOIL PROFI
- Page 22 and 23: 15Soils of the Summit AreaThe soils
- Page 24 and 25: MISCELLANEOUS MAPPING UNITSRBedrock
- Page 26 and 27: AhBhf20 cm-Plate l .The Humo-Ferric
- Page 28 and 29: 21extremely sloping land surfaces o
- Page 30 and 31: Soil Map Unit 3(Orthic and Cumulic
- Page 32 and 33: 25These soils have severe limitatio
- Page 34 and 35: 27Horizon Depth (cm) Color Texture
- Page 36 and 37: 295-a20 cm-5 -bPlate 5 .The hummock
- Page 38 and 39: 31stands are made up of Abies lasio
- Page 40 and 41: 6-aAeBfR20 cm-6 -bPlate 6 .The Lith
- Page 42 and 43: 37INTERPRETATIONSSoil Properties an
- Page 44 and 45: 39TABLE 4,GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOIL
- Page 46 and 47: 41TABLE 6 .GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOI
- Page 48 and 49: 43TABLE 8 .GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOI
- Page 50 and 51: 45especially where bedrock is close
- Page 52 and 53: TABLE 10 . DEGREE AND NATURE OF SOI
- Page 54 and 55: 49The soils of map units 1, 8 and 9
- Page 56 and 57: 51compounds thus inhibiting percola
- Page 58 and 59: 53PRODUCTIVITYProductivity ratings
- Page 60 and 61: S4 XTABLE 11 . DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL
- Page 62 and 63: 57BIBLIOGRAPHYAlberta Department of
- Page 64 and 65: 59Terzaghi, K . and R .B . Peck . 1
- Page 68 and 69: TABLE A. CLASSES OF FRAGILITY FOR P
- Page 70 and 71: TABLE B. CLASSES OF FRAGILITY FOR S
- Page 72 and 73: 67than to channel use to a rarer ty
- Page 74 and 75: 69approximately 10 cm thickness and
- Page 76 and 77: 71ANALYTICAL DATA 1HorizonDepthcmCa
- Page 78 and 79: 73several species of common occurre
- Page 80 and 81: 75Soil Map Unit 3The imperfectly to
- Page 82 and 83: 77Soil Classification :Orthic Regos
- Page 84 and 85: 79ANALYTICAL DATA 3BHorizonDepthcmC
- Page 86 and 87: 81Elevation : 6,000 ft . ASL (1,830
- Page 88 and 89: 82ANALYTICAL DATA 4HorizonDepthcmCa
- Page 90 and 91: Aspect :southeastElevation : 6,200
- Page 92 and 93: Soil Map Unit 6Hummocky microrelief
- Page 94 and 95: ANALYTICAL DATA 6HorizonDepthcmCaC1
- Page 96 and 97: Location : S-7Parent Material :glac
- Page 98 and 99: Soil Map Unit 8These soils have med
- Page 100 and 101: Elevation : 6,250 ft . ASL (1,910 m
- Page 102 and 103: orizonPyrophosphate96ANALYTICAL DAT
- Page 104 and 105: Slope : 5%Aspect :northElevation :
- Page 106 and 107: Soil Map Unit 10Map Unit 10 soils h
- Page 108 and 109: Vegetation : Abies lasiocarpa (shru
- Page 110 and 111: 104ANALYTTCAL DATAlOBHorizonDepthcm
- Page 112 and 113: A further separation of sands is ma
- Page 114 and 115: (D1) Rapidly drained - soil moistur
Vegetation Fragility RatingThe relative susceptibility <strong>of</strong> vegetation types to damage wasgauged by considering <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> plant cover when subjected totrampling,<strong>the</strong> expected rate <strong>of</strong> regeneration provided <strong>the</strong>re is no soilerosion and <strong>the</strong> likelihood <strong>of</strong> changes in species composition . A morecomprehensive account <strong>of</strong> vegetation fragility isgiven in Landals andScotter (1974) .Experimental trampling was applied at weekly intervals to <strong>the</strong>five major communities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area, Valeriana sitchensis , Vacciniummembranaceum, Cassiope mertensiana, Luetkea pectinata and Carexnigricans . Five, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 walks were applied each weekfor five weeks .Weekly trampling has been used to rate communitiesfor <strong>the</strong> fragility scale because this most closely simulates visitor useover an entire season .Communities have been ordered according to<strong>the</strong>ir performance after <strong>the</strong> 100 walks treatment which isthought to beindicative <strong>of</strong> moderate visitor use .According to cover loss, communities can be ordered, from mostto least fragile, as Vaccinium and Valeriana , Cassiope , Luetkea andCarex .Considering regenerative capacity and tendency for specieschange during <strong>the</strong> recovery <strong>of</strong> vegetation, <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> communitieschanges only slightly to Vaccinium , Valeriana , Cassiope , Luetkea andCarex .O<strong>the</strong>r communities were assimilated into this order by observation<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir performance when subjected to visitor trampling or by guidancefrom o<strong>the</strong>r research, principally Nagy and Scotter, 1974 .
Change language