Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and 4.2 respectively) calculated for each area individually. <br />' The riparian community was not sampled to adequacy for <br />' cover. Because the east and west portions of the riparian <br />community are very different, the sample adequacy value was <br />' relatively high (47.4). The west area is much more riparian <br />in nature, and is probably lower in elevation and would <br />therefore be expected to have a higher water table. As a <br />result, cover was much higher in the west than in the east <br />' area (61.1$ vs. ,27.60. <br />1 Eight samples were placed within the west riparian area. <br />' Sample adequacy calculated off those eight samples resulted in <br />a value of 8.5, close to the number actually collected and <br />much lower than 47.4. Seven samples were placed within the <br />east area. A sample adequacy value of 4.2 resulted from these <br />' seven samples. Thus, while the riparian area as a whole is <br />fairly heterogenous, the two subdivisions are fairly <br />consistent within themselves. <br />' As Table 14 shows, production was never sampled to <br />' adequacy in either community, nor even in their subdivisions. <br />This is not unusual as production value variation often tends <br />' to be high even within homogenous community types. Similarly, <br />woody plant density was not sampled to adequacy. This is a <br />' function partially of the low density of stems in the <br />reclaimed areas. Woody stems, when in low densities, tend to <br />be clumped or located in the same areas. Thus, low average <br />1 S <br /> <br />