1. Comparison of Riparian Vegetation Among Impacted
and Minimally-Impacted Sites on Lower St. Regis and
Reference Conditions on Black Pond
Alexander Cummings, Alexander Roache, RobertNuber and Zachary Bird

2. Abstract
Shoreline degradation becomes a problem where human development meets riparian
conditions. Shoreline areas of Lower St. Regis Lake on the Paul Smith’s College have
experienced severe degradation. A restoration project is essential to returning degraded
shoreline conditions to a more productive and natural state. We designed a study that would
produce the critical data needed to initiate a shoreline restoration program. The objective of
our study was to collect data on the diversity of riparian vegetation as it relates to the level of
degradation. Our team collected vegetation diversity data across three levels of impact in
which we defined prior to beginning the study. The levels of impact include impacted,
minimally impacted and reference sites. We collected data on species diversity and
composition, structure, and wetland indicator among levels of impact. Our findings showed
that species diversity and composition, structural attributes, and wetland indicator status of
plants differed substantially between impacted sites and reference shoreline conditions.
These findings are crucial for future restoration because it provides the means for
understanding the importance of riparian vegetation diversity.

3. Introduction
Ecological Restoration is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the
recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability (Society of
Ecological Restoration, 2004). This process is becoming more prevalent in ecosystem
management as well as in communities as people have become more aware of the affects our
everyday actions have on the landscape around us. The riparian zone is defined as the
interface between a terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem (Gregory et al., 1991). Typically, when
people purchase lakefront property, the first instinct is to remove and denude the shoreline
of its vegetation, as is the case in our study. It is this process along with other human
activities that are often responsible for the decline of shoreline quality and terrestrial
biodiversity. Ecosystems that are usually in need of restoration are those that have been
damaged, degraded, transformed or destroyed as the direct or indirect result of human
activity (Society of Ecological Restoration, 2004). A diverse riparian shoreline is very
important to the lake shore to regulate light, water temperature, provide nourishment to
both aquatic and terrestrial biota, create large woody inputs to the lake for fish and aquatic
habitat as well as help retain sediment, maintain bank stabilization, and reduce surface flow
runoff from uplands into the lake (Naiman et al., 1993). In addition riparian zones are very
important because they act like a link between upland forests and aquatic systems. Within
this link is a region that is more diverse and has different species pools than the nearby or
adjacent upland forest or aquatic system (Brooks et al., 2012). These areas are crucial to
providing and controlling energy fluctuation and nutrients between the boundaries of upland
and aquatic systems (Goebel et al., 2003).

4. This fall semester, at Paul Smith’s College, students will be working and focusing on
the different aspects of ecological issues that face Lower St. Regis Lake. Lower St. Regis Lake
and Paul Smith’s College are located in New York’s Adirondack Park, in the County of
Franklin and town of Brighton. Students will be working with the Colleges shoreline to access
the conditions of impact in different areas. Students at this college are fortunate enough to
have the lake resource right in their backyard. This lake has provided students with firsthand
field experience acting as the classroom, as well as a place for recreation. It has become
apparent that this lakes shoreline has become degraded and diminished over the many years
that the school has been here.
In the process of returning the shorelines riparian vegetation to its historic state, it is
necessary to assess the current condition of a variety of areas around Lower St. Regis Lake as
well as a reference shoreline, in this case the nearby Black Pond. In reviewing the SER
International Primer on Ecological Restoration, we found that it is important to have knowledge of
comparable intact ecosystems as a reference to compare the degraded ecosystem to (Society of
Ecological Restoration, 2004). Determining the species richness of each of the determined
sites was crucial to our inventory and assessment of the lakeshore sites. Species richness is
defined as “the total number of species present in a given area, and is the single most widely
used measure of biodiversity in a biological community (Zhang et al., 2014). The damaged
ecosystem to be restored was and still is a woodland shoreline composed of coniferous and
deciduous trees, shrubs, herbaceous perennials and a variety of moss species. Having this as
background knowledge of what once comprised our shoreline will be crucial to the
development of recommendations and restoration efforts in the future.

5. With three levels of study sites to focus on, we formed objectives that we felt would be
pertinent to the success of the study. The first step was to develop criteria that defined impacted,
minimally impacted, and reference shoreline conditions. We decided on Black Pond as a reference
site due to its lack of development, human alteration, uninterrupted shoreline and close proximity
to Lower St. Regis Lake. The minimally impacted areas we decided were to be those areas that
showed little human alteration, still comprised of natural trees and vegetation, have sources
capable of adding woody debris inputs into the lake, have woody debris present in lake, shows
limited shoreline erosion, and little human management. Impacted sites were to be those sites that
showed obvious signs of human alteration and management; absence of natural ground vegetation
and trees, shoreline modification, absence of sources capable of adding woody debris inputs into
the lake, absence of woody debris in the lake, the aquatic and terrestrial transition zone is
prominent and signs of shoreline erosion. Inputs of woody debris capable of entering the lake, or
already present in the lake were crucial when defining site criteria. We decided as a group that four
sites for each level of impact would be adequate to represent a respectable sample size. With these
sites laid out and the inventory completed, the data was analyzed and evaluated. Using the
analyzed data, restorationists in the future can create guidelines to reach a reference state, such as
Black Pond. The data collected provides a number of analyses and charts. The analysis we used was a
Kruskal-Wallis test. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test for the comparisons of species richness
among levels of impact. Species richness was divided into comparisons by total species richness,
species richness excluding trees, canopy cover, vegetation class, wetland indicator status (WIS),
and seedling/sapling density. Other comparisons include a bar chart for density of dead or living
trees, and a table showing mean DBH among sites.

6. Objectives
The goal of this project was intended to compare differences between the levels of
impact among study sites. This was achieved by conducting a study on riparian vegetation
diversity. In order to complete this goal we set forth specific and measureable objectives. The
objectives are as follows; compare total species richness, species richness by vegetation
class, species richness by wetland indicator status (WIS), canopy cover by percent, tree
diameter at breast height (DBH), tree WIS, seedling/sapling density, and density of
dead/living trees among levels of impact. These objectives allowed us to conceptualize the
differences among the levels of impact.

7. Table 1. Criteria for Wetland Indicator Status. Retrieved from Army Corps of Engineers'.
(1987)
Indicator Category Wetland Indicator Symbol Definition
Obligate Wetland Plants OBL
Plants that occur almost
always (estimated
probability >99%) in
wetlands under natural
conditions, but which may
also occur rarely (estimated
probability <1%) in non-
wetlands.
Facultative Wetland Plants FACW
Plants that occur usually
(estimated probability >67%
to 99%) in wetlands, but
also occur (estimated
probability 1% to 33% in
non-wetlands).
Facultative Plants FAC
Plants with a similar
likelihood (estimated
probability 33% to 67%) of
occurring in both wetlands
and non-wetlands.
Facultative Upland Plants FACU
Plants that occur sometimes
(estimated probability 1% to
<33%) in wetlands, but
occur more often (estimated
probability >67% to 99%) in
non-wetlands.

8. Criteria for determining level of impact
Level of Impact Criteria
Impacted Obvious sign of human alteration, absence
of natural ground vegetation and trees,
absence of sources capable of adding woody
debris inputs into the lake, absence of
woody debris in the lake, the aquatic and
terrestrial transition zone is prominent,
shoreline modification, signs of shoreline
erosion, and obvious human management.
Minimally Impacted Little human alteration, still comprised of
natural trees and vegetation, has sources
capable of adding woody debris inputs into
the lake, has woody debris present in lake,
shows limited shoreline erosion, and little
human management.
Reference Very minimal or no human alteration,
comprised of many natural trees and
vegetation, many sources of debris capable
of adding woody inputs into the lake, large
amounts of woody debris in the lake, lacks
development, uninterrupted shoreline,
limited erosion and minimal to no human
management.

9. Methods
Site Description
Our study areas are located on the adjacent riparian zones of Lower St. Regis Lake and
Black Pond, in Paul Smiths, New York. In researching how to determine study sites we came
across guidelines put out for vegetation sampling by the BLM or (Bureau of Land
Management). The BLM stresses the importance of proper site selection for success of the
monitoring process. The BLM goes on to say that errors in site selection process will result in
irrelevant data and ultimately the wrong management recommendations (BLM, 1999). We
discussed the implications of this as a group and then decided on our areas. The three
criteria we are studying and comparing are impacted sites, minimally impacted sites and
reference sites. The approximate start of the impacted corridors is located just beyond the
eastern edge of the beach behind the student center on campus of Paul Smiths College
(44°25’58.47”N, 74°15’06.86’’W). The four corridors in this site then extend along the
shoreline NW, to the public boat launch. These sites consist of basic grass lawn species, with
few understory species found within forest areas. Dominant shoreline species remained
consistent throughout the impacted sites, until we reached the areas directly adjacent to the
student center and boat launch due to the existence of a wooden retaining wall; this
prevented the growth of practically all vegetation. For the minimally impacted sites, we
chose areas that met the above criteria, in that there was minimal human alteration. These

10. sites began adjacent the ropes course on the eastern portion of Lower St. Regis Lake. The
approximate start location is at the mouth of the easy street creek (44°25’52.42”N,
74°14’46.62’’W). From this location, the corridors head south along the shoreline. On this
portion of the lake, we were able to create two of our four minimally impacted study areas.
These sites, although very close in proximity, were considerable different in terms of
biodiversity. The canopy cover closed as we headed south along the shoreline, which
ultimately influenced the species that grew in these areas. Lowland shrubs dominate the
northern end of the ropes course section, while the southern end is dominated by leafy
perennial understory. The other two minimally impacted sites are located toward the
northwestern side of the lake, one site directly east of the Barnum pond outlet, and one
directly west of the Barnum pond outlet. The approximate start location of the easterly site is
(44°26’05.54’’N, 74°15’38.79’’W), continuing east 60 meters. This site varied from thick
riparian shrubbery, to bare conifer understory. The final minimally impacted site is located
adjacent to the alumni campground to the west of the Barnum pond outlet, starting at
approximately (44°26’06.16’’N, 74°15’48.60’’W), proceeding west 60 meters. This site was
similar to the ropes course sites in the fact that there were some areas of low diversity, while
other areas were very diverse. Our reference locations are on the adjacent riparian zones of
neighboring Black Pond. These sites were chosen for their probability to depict natural,
undisturbed native settings due to the lack of human disturbance. Sites begin at
approximately (44°26’08.55”N, 74°17’45.84”W) on the Southeastern shore, then extend 60
meters Northeast, up shore. These study sites are ideal because they are easily accessible by
footpath, but generally these paths do not interfere with the study sites themselves. This

11. leaves us with reference sites ideal for comparing our findings to the impacted and minimally
impacted sites on Lower St. Regis Lake.

13. Sampling Design and Field Procedures
After the study sites, four for each impact level, were determined, each site was
divided into (6) 5x5 meter sub-plots. After literature review, we decided 5x5 meter sub-plots
were appropriate to ensure that we are able to capture the full biological diversity of each
study site. Measurements and data were then collected from within each of the six 5x5 meter
sub-plots. The measurements and collection consisted of tree species and DBH, wetland
indicator status, canopy cover percentage, shrub species identification, herbaceous perennial
species identification and finally moss species identification. For organizational purposes
these species were be divided into four groups; trees, shrubs, herbaceous perennials and
mosses. When sampling herbaceous perennials, we listed species name and the dominant
specie in our sub-plots. We use this method because we were interested in determining the
dominant species of each plot. Each plot began on the shoreline where the water stopped,
and continued back or up the bank into the riparian forest (zone 1). We used a systematic
“zigzag” pattern for our plots to ensure that we included systematically both immediate
riparian vegetation, as well as immediate large woody structures. In researching plot sizes
we came across a vegetative study that suggests that they use equally spaced plots (therefore
recommending a systematic sampling approach) to ensure that if there was any relationship
between level of disturbance and abundance it was captured (Warren & Biittner , 2014). We
reference these sites as zone 1 (0-5 meters up bank from shoreline) and zone 2 (5 meters to
10 meters up bank from shoreline). After the first plot was observed and inventoried, we
measure up the shoreline 5 meters (this is a “skipped” area between subplots). This
measurement is marked, and then a measurement is taken from the waterline back into the

14. forest 10 meters. This gives us the back edge and side edge of our next (zone 2) sub-plot. This
process is continued until we have measured and inventoried six sub-plots from each site.
Data Analysis
Preceding our analyses we grouped plots into three levels of impacts. The levels are as
stated earlier; impacted, minimally impacted, and reference. We divided our species richness
analysis into three comparisons. These comparisons include total vegetation, vegetation
class, and wetland indicator status. For these comparisons we used the Kruskal-Wallis test.
We chose to use the Kruskal-Wallis because we could not assume that the data was normally
distributed (Zenner et al., 2012). Multiple Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to determine
if species richness for each taxonomic group was different among impact levels and to
determine if wetland indicator status numbers were different among impact levels.
Results
Species Richness
A total of 86 different species were identified among all levels of impact over the
course of this study. This count can be divided into trees (19 species), shrubs (15 species),
herbaceous understory (45 species), and mosses (7 species).
Mean species richness was significantly different among impact levels (Kruskal-
Wallis, P=0.036). According to the mean species richness boxplot (Figure 1) minimally
impacted and reference sites show similarity, and both minimally impacted and reference
sites are significantly different from impacted sites. In the analysis for vegetation types, we
found significant and insignificant differences among levels of impact. Species richness for

15. shrubs (Figure 3) was not a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.081) among levels of
impact. Herbaceous understory analysis (Figure 4) also showed that there was not a
significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.142) among levels of impact. The analysis of moss
species shows that there is a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.016) among levels of
impact. In the species richness boxplot for mosses (Figure 5) the numbers of moss species
present are significantly lower than both minimally impacted and reference sites.
Figure 1. Comparison of the average number of mean species present between levels of impact using
a Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Total species includes all tree species, herbaceous, shrub and moss species.

16. Figure 3. Comparison of the mean total number of shrub species among levels of impact.
Figure 4. Comparison of the mean total number of herbaceous species among levels of impact.

17. Figure 5. Comparison of the mean total number of moss species among levels of impact.
Another analysis conducted was species richness by wetland indicator status (WIS).
The four indicator statuses were obligate, facultative wetland, facultative upland, and
facultative. Analyzing the obligate indicator status a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis,
P=0.020) was found among levels of impact. With the boxplot of species richness by obligate
indicator status (Figure 6) we were able to determine where the differences occur between
the levels of impact. The facultative wetland indicator status showed there was not a
significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.111) among levels of impact. In the analysis by
facultative upland indicator status we found that there was a significant difference (Kruskal-
Wallis, P=0.040) among levels of impact. The boxplot for species richness (Figure 7) shows
that these differences appear between impacted and reference sites. Species richness by
facultative indicator status also showed a significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.026)
among levels of impact.

18. Figure 6. Comparison of the average number of obligate species between levels of impact.
Figure 7: Comparison of the average number of Facultative Wetland species between levels of impact.

19. Figure 8. Comparison of the average number of Facultative Upland species between levels of impact.
Canopy Cover
Our analysis of canopy cover was conducted based on the percent value. This analysis
showed a highly significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P<0.0001) among levels of impact.
The bar graph (Figure 2) shows the significant difference among levels of impact. Impacted
sites showed less canopy cover compared to minimally and reference sites.

20. Figure 2. Comparison of the mean canopy coverbetween levels of impact.
Tree Data
The sapling/seedling density analysis was conducted based on the total number of
sapling and seedlings per 5-meter plot. This analysis showed that there was a significant
difference (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.044) among levels of impact. For trees, we also analyzed
living versus dead. Our data showed that living trees was highly significant (Kruskal-Wallis,
P<0.0001) and dead (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.003) was significant among levels of impact. We
did not determine if DBH by tree species was different among impact levels, but we do
present tree DBH data in tables that display species, the WIS, number, mean DBH (in), and
the standard deviation of the trees we found among the levels of impact (Tables 2, 3, and 4).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Impacted Minimally Impacted Reference
Percent(%)
Level of Impact
Percent Canopy Cover Among
Levels of Impact

21. Figure 10. Seedling/Sapling density among levels of impact.
Figure 11. Comparison of standing trees, dead or alive among levels of impact.

22. Table 2. Wetland indicator status, species, number, mean dbh (in), and standard
deviation for trees among impacted sites.
WIS Tree Species N Mean (in) SD
FAC Acer rubrum 2 8 1.061
FACW Alnus incana 6 1 0
FACW Larixlarcina 1 1
Total 9

23. Table 3. Wetland indicator status, species, number, mean dbh (in),and standard
deviation for trees among minimally impacted sites
WIS TreeSpecies N Mean(in) SD
FAC Acer rubrum 17 2.45 2.385
FAC Abies balsamea 8 10.84 8.233
FACU
Amelanchier
canadensis 1 4
FACU Fagus grandifolia 1 1.5
FACU Betula papyrifera 15 6.93 5.705
FACU Picea rubens 49 3.35 3.787
FACU Pinus resinosa 26 5.77 3.575
FACU Pinus strobus 49 6.96 5.317
FACU Tsuga canadensis 12 7.7 4.349
FACW Alnus incana 20 4.6 4.836
FACW Thuja occidentalis 2 3.25 1.768
Total 200

24. Table 4. Wetland indicator status, species, number, mean dbh (in),and standard
deviation for trees among reference sites.
WIS TreeSpecies N Mean(in) SD
FAC Acer rubrum 7 6.6785714 1.801
FAC Abies balsamea 75 3.5 1.9
FACU Betula papyrifera 6 6.92 2.154
FACU Picea rubens 12 2.94 3.339
FACU Pinus strobus 3 16.58 0.382
FACU Tsuga canadensis 42 9.95 7.171
FACW Picea mariana 12 8.88 4.231
Total 157
Table 5. Mean canopy coveramong levels of impact.
Level of Impact N Mean SD
Impacted 24 6.25 17.64
Minimally
Impacted
24 57.29 16.87
Reference 24 72.08 15.94

25. Table 6. Dominant species with WIS among levels of impact.
Level of Impact Vegetation
Class
Dominant Species
(Common)
Dominant Species
(Scientific)
WIS
Reference Trees Balsam Fir Abies balsamea FAC
Reference Shrubs Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne
calyculata
OBL
Reference Herbaceous Bulbet Fern Cystopteric bulbifera FACW
Reference Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL
Minimally
Impacted
Trees Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC
Minimally
Impacted
Shrubs Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium
angustifolium
FACU
Minimally
Impacted
Herbaceous Sedge Carex spp. FACW
Minimally
Impacted
Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL
Impacted Trees Speckled Alder Alnus incana FACW
Impacted Shrubs Meadowsweet Spiraea ulmaria FAC
Impacted Herbaceous Fine fescue Festuca spp. FAC
Impacted Moss Pincushion Leucobryum glaucum FACW

26. Discussion
Our study was designed to compare shoreline vegetation among impact levels before
shoreline restoration actually occurs. The study yielded a plethora of specific data in regards
to our goal and objectives. However major findings were narrowed down to plant diversity
between impacted and reference sites, canopy cover, and wetland indicator statuses.
Plant Diversity and Impact levels
We found few studies that examined species richness among levels of impact at a
degraded shoreline. We based many of our study methods from various scientific studies, but
created the framework for the study on our own academic knowledge of the scientific field.
After the study was conducted the data showed that there was a statistically significant
difference among levels of impact. The data suggest that species richness was particularly
high in the reference sites. This was likely due to lack of development, low human impact,
and lack of shoreline degradation (Pollock et al. 1998).
Canopy Cover, Lawn Species, and Plant Diversity
When trees were absent or low in density in impacted sites, species richness was low
with the exception of herbaceous plants. The data for the species richness comparison of
vegetation type showed that it was not significantly different among sites for shrubs (Fig. 3),
and herbaceous understory (Fig. 4). We concluded that species richness was so high in
impacted sites by herbaceous understory (refer to Fig. 4) because of the presence of a highly
diverse lawn. The number of lawn species outweighed that of any other site. If the lawn
species were subtracted from the species richness comparison of vegetation type among

27. levels of impact we determined that the species richness for impacted sites would be lower.
Lawn species were considered those only found in the lawn area as well as species that do
not comprise a natural shoreline. Vegetation type by mosses had significant statistical
difference, (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.016). This was because the moss species we found are
heavily present in very moist conditions, which were present at the reference site locations.
Wetland Indicator Status and Impact level
Species richness by Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) is another comparison that was
conducted which resulted in various levels of significance. The data showed that when
obligate WIS compared to species richness there was a significant difference (P=0.020)
among levels of impact. Using the p-value from the data, it was apparent that there were
more species with an obligate WIS present in reference sites (refer to Fig. 6). The minimally
impacted sites still had more species with the obligate WIS as compared to the impacted
sites, but the impacted and reference sites were the most statistically different. According to
the data when looking at SR compared to facultative wetland WIS there wasn't a significant
difference among levels of impact. However if you look at (Fig. 7) it appears that there are
more species with a facultative wetland WIS in minimally and reference sites compared to
the impacted sites. The comparisons of species richness by facultative upland (P=0.040) and
facultative (P=0.026) both were significantly different among levels of impact. The data
showed heavy presence of species with WIS of facultative upland and facultative in impacted
sites. This indicates that the species present in impacted sites may differ from those typically
found in natural shoreline conditions.

28. Implications
Our findings indicate that species diversity and composition on impacted shorelines is
quite different from than that of reference conditions, and suggest how the diversity and
composition of vegetation on a shoreline might appear if restored. There was not a
significant difference in native species composition between minimally impacted and
reference shoreline conditions. The real difference occurs in the impacted area. The removal
of trees and the canopy associated with those trees has greatly altered what is growing on
the ground of this riparian area. Another factor to consider was human management such as
mowing and shoreline modification, which has greatly altered the species that can grow here.
We saw a significant increase in herbaceous activity but they were mostly lawn-associated
species. This is not natural for a Northern Lake shoreline. These herbaceous lawn species do
not provide the same function or inputs to the aquatic ecosystem that the native species once
did. Returning this area to more natural conditions would not only aid in riparian vegetation
but would also improve the aquatic ecosystem. The lack of species in the impacted areas that
could contribute inputs to the adjacent aquatic system (Lower St. Regis) is very obvious.
When walking along this area of shoreline it is easy to see the lack of woody debris both on
shore as well as in the water. These woody debris inputs can provide habitat for juvenile fish
species and aquatic macro invertebrates, protection for small amphibians both onshore and
in the lake, as well as offer protection to the shoreline by breaking and slowing wave action.
In addition, having a diverse riparian zone that includes transitional areas between the
aquatic and terrestrial environments with trees and shrubs of various sizes, as well as

29. herbaceous understory would likely provide habitat for other vertebrates and invertebrates,
both aquatic and terrestrial. For example, woody debris not only provides substrate and
covers for aquatic organisms, but woody debris gives ducks a place to come up out of the
water and herons a place to watch their prey. It is apparent that these areas of lake bottom
do not have the same amount of leaf-litter that many aquatic invertebrates use as habitat.
Planting native trees and restoring natural ground cover on the impacted shoreline
could also help hold sediment and improve soil condition. The soils in this area appeared
much dryer than both minimally impacted and reference shoreline conditions. The moisture
retention in these soils can lead to the conditions needed to bring back the natural
understory species that once occurred here. The need for a shoreline restoration program
becomes evident when data is provided that shows a difference of diversity among levels of
degradation. Our study provided this data, which should be used when considering future
shoreline restoration programs.
Acknowledgements
We would like to recognize and thank all whom have made this project possible. Thank you Dr. Craig
Milewski, Randall Swanson, Bob MacAleese, Dr. Celia Evans, and Dr. Elizabeth Harper, your help is
much appreciated.

31. Literature Cited
Army Corps of Engineers'. (1987). Wetland delineation manual. Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report Y-87-1.
Brooks, T. R., Nislow, H. K., Lowe, H. Winsor., Wilson, K.M., King, I.D., (2012). Forest
Succession and Terrestrial - Aquatic Biodiversity in Small Forested Watersheds: A Review of
Principles, Relationships and Implications for Management. Forestry. accessed:
http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 19, 2014
Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Sampling Vegetation Attributes. U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Eastman J. (1995). Swamp and Bog. Stackpole Books.
Fay Hyland, B. H. (1981). The Woody Plants of Sphagnous Bogs of Nothern New England and
Adjacent Canada. Orono, Maine: University of Maine at Orono Press.
Goebel C.P, Palik B.J, and Pregitzer K.S. (2003). Plant Diversity Contributions of Riparian
Areas in Watersheds of the Northern Lake States, USA. Ecological Applications, 13(6) 1595-
1609
Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, A., and Cummins, K.W. (1991). An Ecosystem Perspective
of Riparian Zones. Focus on links between land and water. Bioscience, 41(8) 540-551.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and Pollock, M. (1993). The Role of Riparian Corridors in
Maintaining Regional Biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 3(2) 209-212.
Pollock, M. M., Naiman, J. R., and Hanley, A. T. (1998). Plant Species Richness in Riparian
Wetlands - A Test of Biodiversity Theory. Ecology, 79(1). pp. 94-105
Ryan, A. G. (1978). Native Trees and Shrubs. St. Johns, Newfoundland: Hon. Len Simms,
Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Society of Ecological Restoration. (2004). SER International Primer on Ecological
Restoration. From Society for Ecological Restoration International science and Policy Working
Group, (version 1).
Warren, S. D., & Biittner, R. (2014). Restoration of Heterogeneous Disturbance Regimes for
the Preservation of Endangered Species. Ecological Restoration, 32(2) 189-196.
Zenner, K. E., Martin, A. M., Palik, J. B, Peck, E. J., and Blinn, R. C. (2012). Response of
Herbaceous Plant Community Diversity and Composition to Overstorey Harvest Within
Riparian Management Zones in Northern Hardwoods. Forestry. 2013; 86, 111-117

32. Zhang, J., Nielsen, S.E., Grainger, T.N., Kohler, M., Chipchar, T., and Farr. D.R. (2014). Sampling
Plant Diversity and Rarity at Landscape Scales: Importance of Sampling Time in Species
Detectability. Plos One, 9(7) 1-11.