I easily found the affected
area that Bob pointed out thanks to his excellent directions and my own familiarity with the park.
To map the impact area, I walked around its perimeter while recording the route
on a GPS unit. Much of the cutting was obvious, with square-cut vines out in
the open, whereas other cuts were hidden by a cover of detritus. After some
exploratory prelims, I learned to (a) scan for large trees, (b) check their
bases for accumulations of wrack (dead limbs and living and dead lianas), (c)
walk over to each big tree wrack pile and look for cutting, and (d) look for
cut vines along the way. Veiled cuts were unmasked by pulling on intact-looking
vines to see if they were loose (some of the veiled cuts produced adventitious
roots that made it to the ground and rejuvenated the vine).
Afterward, the route and
waypoints were imported into Google Earth (GE) and I did the best I could
photointerpreting the area’s habitats from GE imagery, county topos, and my GPS
route and notes. It is very difficult to map San Felasco’s upland plant
communities based on aerial imagery, but I think the approximate impact acreage
I got is close enough for current purposes. However, I only looked at the one area that Bob directed me to, and there are many such impacted locations at San Felasco. The red polygon is the area impacted and the white polygons are appx wetland edges:
The cutting was done along
the side slopes of the multiple-sinkhole blind karst valley in the mid-south
region of the park on the north side of Millhopper Road. I estimate this single
affected area at appx 22 ± 5 acres. The impacted slopes are dominated by a mature mesic
oak-hickory-magnolia-sweetgum forest, whereas the karst bottoms are wetland and
aquatic habitats that are essentially absent of lianas. The highlands immediately
surrounding the impact area are also occupied by mesic forest, much of which is
mature, but there is an earlier sere to the southeast. Only rarely did vines appear
to be cut in the highlands and only occasional vine cutting was spotted beyond
the core area.
Within the core area, nearly
all the lianas that had made it up into the canopy were cut. It looked like the
cutter wanted to kill nearly all of the large wild grapes (Vitis aestivalis, vulpina,
and rotundifolia), about half of the large
trumpet creepers (Campsis radicans), and
none of the large poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans) and peppervines (Ampelopsis
arborea). All four of the encircled stems in this photo were grapevines:
There were not as many vines in
San Felasco’s undisturbed mature mesic forest as I had imagined, there being so
few that it would be easy to count every single liana stem that made it up into
the canopy. I counted in the impact area only five trumpet creeper vines and
two individuals each of poison ivy and peppervine, although I could have missed
some, and I counted only the large vines that ran up trees. Some of the areas
peripheral to the impact area appeared to have no lianas or cut wrack whatsoever,
either in wetlands or highlands. Were they naturally without vines or had their
lianas been cut long ago and by now completely rotted away?
Cut vines were in variable
states of decomposition, with some stumps looking like they were cut a year ago
and others up to several, so the cutting appeared to have been done over a multi-year
period. It is possible that the low density of lianas in adjacent highlands is
an artifact of having been cut away so long ago that their remains have completely rotted
away. If so, then the impact area could be significantly larger than my acreage
estimate.
I wonder if the cutter has
(had) a plan. First, deliberately leaving some individuals of all species
indicates that the cutter was not trying to (a) eliminate lianas altogether or
(b) extirpate any species. Rare canopy achievers (poison ivy and peppervine)
were not cut at all, the more common trumpet creeper was occasionally cut, and
grapevines were abundant and slaughtered. That is exactly what one might do if
one wanted to reduce the impacts of lianas and increase their species diversity
without decreasing their species richness. Secondly, liana thickets were left
untouched, which could be due to either wanting to preserve a specialized
wildlife habitat or just not wanting to tackle such a big job.
Third, possibly the healthiest
large trumpet creeper I have ever seen was within the core area but not harmed.
This one vine also provides a protective doorway at the fork of its two main
roots for a small animal burrow. A man with a plan might deliberately spare
such resources:
I wish now that I had paid more
attention to the tree species that the trumpet creeper grew on to see if the
cutter selected for or against vines based on the quality of the tree infested.
For example, although the massive vine pictured above is clearly stressing a
sweetgum, it does not cross over and encumber any other trees and I think many
Florida naturalists would agree that this particular vine is more valuable than
that specific sweetgum.
Clearly, more field work is
required! In addition to looking further at the trumpet creepers, mature mesic
hammock elsewhere in San Felasco needs to be scrutinized to see if the cutter
has more than one haunt. I can justify one more day at San Felasco before
migrating back to the mountains for the muggy hot months.
Unfortunately, I doubt there will be retribution, such as firing employees, for such mismanagement.
ReplyDeletePark management claims staff is not to blame.
DeleteParrot Perches
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.avianavenue.com/index.php?threads%2Fwild-grapevines-for-perches-and-toys.27769%2F