Texas Piney Woods-II

Forest Range Types of Eastern North America

The fundamental and practical distinction between coniferous and deciduous forests is useful (and was used herein), but precise, non-arbitrary "lines" are impossible when presenting and discussing forest range types in the eastern half of the continent. This is especially the case when climax or potential natural vegetation is used as the basis for forest types (ie. when cover types, or the more specific management cover types, are discussed as being more or less synonymous with permanent forest types). As discussed in detail below, the epic work of Lucy Braun (1950) is still the definitive basis for the ecological discussion and classification of those North American forests which extend from the Atlantic Coast to slightly beyond the Missouri and Mississippi River drainages. Braun (1950) included all the coniferous forests (forest types, regions, etc.)-- the generic "southeastern pine region"--as part of her one Deciduous Forest Formation.

The forest range types included in the following section include coniferous, deciduous, and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests. This is confusing but unavoidable given the nature of the vegetation and the standard understanding (the Braun interpretation) of ecological relations and classification of this forest vegetation. Most of the southeastern pine types presented are management cover types maintained silviculturally as more economically valuable coniferous forests rather than as the climax mixed hardwood-pine forest types. In other words, efforts were made to fit the Society of American Foresters (1980) cover types with the climax types of Braun (1950) and the potential natural vegetation units of Kuchler (1966).

The major forest communities or forest zones of eastern North America are broad or wide in their spatial patterns unlike the narrow zonation characteristic of the forests of western North America. The "young" mountains of the western part of the continent are taller (in fact, still getting taller) and as a result have more elevation-based zonation of vegetation than do the geologically older and more eroded (lower) eastern mountains such as the Applachians or Ozarks. So too, are the soils of the Atlantic Coast more zonal (ie. major soil units are larger or broader in spational dimension like those of the vast continental interior whereas soils of the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Slope ranges are more of the intrazonal spatial scale. See for illustration the national soil map of dominant soil orders and suborders (Soil Survey Staff, 1998).

Vankat (1979, p. 137) wrote that relief within the eastern deciduous forest "is quite variable" yet earlier Vankat (1979, p. 41) had also correctly noted that "low hills" were characteristic of much of this deciduous forest region. Again, contrast this with the extreme physiography of the Rockys or Sierra Nevada-Cascade Ranges.

The classic and still-definitive work on forests of eastern North America (approximately east of the 98^th meridian) is the life's work of Dr. Lucy Barun (1950). Braun interpreted this entire vegetation as one great forest formation existing as a mosaic of forest regions which in turn were made up of community units that she labeled variously as belts, areas, districts, sections, divisions, etc.

"The Deciduous Forest Formation of eastern North America is a complex vegetation unit most conspicuously characterized by the prevalence of the deciduous habit of most of its woody constituents. This gives to it a certain uniformity of phsiognomy, with alternating summer green and winter leafless aspects. Evergreen species, both broad-leaved and needle-leaved, occur in the arboreal and shrub layers, patticularly in seral stages and in marginal and transitional areas. They are not, however, entirely lacking even in some centrally loocated climax communities" (Braun, 1950, p. 31). "The Deciduous Forest Formation is made up of a number of climax associations differing from one another in floristic compositon, in physiogonomy, and in genesis or historical origin. While the delimitation of associations may be made on a basis of dominant species, and it is from these that the climax is named, dominants alone fo not suffice for the recognition of these units. … Although the delimitation in space of an association is difficult, if not impossible, it is entirely possible to recognize and to map forest regions which are characterized by the prevalence of specific climax types, or by mosaics of types. These regions are natural entities, generally with readily observable natural boundaries based on vegetational features. … Forest regions must not be confused with climax associations. Even though a region is named for the climax association normally developing within it, it should not be assumed that the region is coextensive with the area where that climax can develop. Each of the several climaxes, although characterizing a specific region, nevertheless occurs in other regions." (Braun, 1950, p. 33-34). Braun (1950, ps. 35-37) listed nine forest regions making up the Deciduous Forest Formation of eastern North America:

Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region,
Western Mesophytic Forest Region,
Oak-Hickory Forest Region,
Oak-Chestnut Forest Region,
Oak Pine Forest Region,
Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region,
Beech-Maple Forest Region,
Maple-Basswood Forest Region, and
Eastern Hemlock-Eastern White Pine-Northern Hardwoods Region.

Braun (1950, ps. 11-12) interpreted these same combinations of species as forest communities at the scale (both spatial, mostly, and, also, temporal) of climax association from which, as quoted immediately above, Braun derived the names of forest regions. Braun (1950, ps. 11-12) distinguished between the association-abstract and the association-concrete, a distinction discussed in the review of the derivation of vegetation cover type from the concept of plant association. The Braun association is the association of F.E. Clements. Indeed the entire ecological paradigm on which Braun (1950, ps. 10-15) based her monographic treatment of the North American Deciduous Formation is Clementisan except allowance for and inclusion of edaphic and physiographic climaxes of Cowles, Tansley, etc. Vankat (1979, ps. 137-150) and Delcourt and Delcourt in Barbour and Billings (2000, ps. 365-378) described eastern deciduous forest vegetation under the Braun (1950) associations of the Clementsian model.

It is important to bear in mind that the Braun associations can occur in more than the one forest region bearing the name of the association (eg. the Oak-Pine Association commonly occurs and the Maple-Basswood Association infrequently occurs in parts of the Oak-Hickory Forest Region).

Several of the species combinations that delineate deciduous forest regions and associations were also used as forest cover types by the Society of American Foresters (Eyre, 1980) as for example White Pine-Hemlock (SAF 22), White Pine-Northern Red Oak-Red Maple (SAF 20), Sugar Maple-Basswood (SAF 26), and Beech-Sugar Maple (SAF 60). The Society of American Foresters emphasized that it's forest cover types were "based on existing tree cover" ("… forest as they are today…") and that some types may be climax while others are "transitory" (ie. seral stages leading to another climax).

Braun (1950, p. xiii) specified: "Some of the communities for which composition is given are readily referable to 'forest cover types' as defined by the Society of American Foresters". She then added, "However, an attempt to classsify all communities as to 'cover types' would be artificial" and often impossible. Undoubtedly this was due to the differences in classification by Braun's climax basis (with seral communities clearly specified) versus the existing or present-day forest communities basis of the SAF.

The Society for Range Management (Shiflet, 1994, p. xi) also specified the criterion of "existing vegetation" and that some rangeland cover types are climax and others are seral. The author of this collection of photographs and descriptions repeatedly reminded readers of this situation, but specified that most of the rangeland and forest cover types included herein were climax vegetation. That criterion exist for forest range types of the Eastern Deciduous forest Formation with most photographs being of either old-growth or second-growth forest with climax species composition as described in the classic literature such as Braun (1950) or Shelford (1963, ps. 17-119).

The nine forest regions of Braun (1950, ps. 35-37) were retained with little modification as series in the fairly comprehensive suystem of vegetation (primarily, climax; secondly, disclimax or subclimax) used in A Classification of North American Biotic Communities by Brown et al. (1998). Their organization of the Eastern Deciduous Forest Formation was: Oak-Hickory Series, Oak-Chestnut Series, Beech-Maple Series, Oak-Pine Series, Maple-Basswood Series, and Hemlock-white Pine-Mixed Hardwood Series within the Northeastern Deciduous Forest biotic community and Mixed Mesophytic Series and Pine Series within the Southeastern Deciduous and Evergreen Forest biotic community. The Brown et al. (1998) series were included following SAF and/or SRM cover type designations. Additional designations as for forest wetlands were shown as required.

Historical Footnote and Editorial

The consistent and persistent use of the eastern deciduous forest associations of Braun (1950) by the foremost contemporary ecologists provides the beginning student of Ecology with a textbook example of the necessity of learning the fundamental concepts— and the language(s) thereof —that are the foundation of his selected field of Biology. No ecological monograph, including those of John E. Weaver or Victor E. Shelford, ever used Clementsian concepts and terminology any more consistently or with any more practical application than did Braun (1950). All three of these (and there were others besides these) patriarchal ecologists of North American vegetation left future generations with not only the seminal but also the definitive treatises of the communities to which they devoted their professional lives.

Their like, their genre of comprehensive, panaramic, descriptive, first-hand accounts of vegetation on this grand scale, will not likely appear again before icicles hang in Hell. The contemporary research world is hung up on numbers, even generated or simulated (vs. real data) numbers often for numbers-sake alone, and especially numbers of publications. This has gone beyond Lord Kelvin's admonition to "express it in numbers", (indeed Kelvin used actual numbers derived from physical experiments) to the point that quantity is everything and quality (always subsidary to quantity) itself is based on numbers. Not only is there little room for Descriptive Ecology, but there is hardly more for descriptive analysis of experiments and observations because the gold-standard of refereed publications has descended, has been perverted, to the quantitative entity of LPU (Lowest Publishable Unit). A natural length paper based on objectives of the study is split into as many LPUs as possible to extend the author's bibliography. This procedure does not allow enough results to be included in any one paper to allow a discussion of findings from a comprehensive perspective. Besides the experimental procedure (complete with lots of numbers and split-nine-ways-to-Sunday replications) is the most important part according to anonymous peer-reviewers

In an institutional culture where "Publish or Perish" has become prostituted to a realm of pot-boiler papers written from predictable-outcome, piss-ant projects the next generation of Brauns, Weavers, Shelfords are "dead meat" if they devote (ie. sacrifice) their careers to document for eternity the kind of knowledge their "takes a lifetime" research produced. Such incredible work is left to not only the fully vested or tenured but the tenured full professor of independent financial means at career's end (and then there is not enough time left to do the work). A key factor in the creative genius and amazing productivity of Frederic E.Clements was that he was able to spend most of his career working for the rich Carnegie Foundation which freed him from the routine of classroom teaching and daily chores of academia thereby enabling him the luxury of a self-proclaimed "escaped professor" (Brewer, 1988, p. 503). Alternatively, the most lasting and useful research is the province of the academic martyr to whom pursuit of knowledge or satisfaction of curiosity are of higher utility than organizational rank and its financial renumeration.

Thus the Ecology student is left with the classical works of those "giants in the earth" who reigned when knowledge was the domain of a more leisurely, honest, genteel, and collegial time and culture.

The scholar of biblical texts cannot read just the several English translations of the Holy Bible. He must also understand the native tongues of Hebrew, Arabic, or Greek in which Holy Writ was written. So too with the "scripture" of Ecology. And the language of vegetation, at least North American vegetation, is Clementsian. The serious student of vegetation must be knowledgable and conversant in this language given that so much of the all-encompassing vegetation literature was written predominately from the view of Clementsian Ecology (and vocabulary). These original, monographic works remain the basis, however distant, of current investigations or even classifications of vegetation. The basic ecological concepts in such natural resource fields as Range Management and Forestry remain Clementsian at root (eg. the Clementsian association is the basis of the forest and range cover types as used in North America).

Any who would refuse to familarize themselves with Clementsian Ecology because there are exceptions to and alternative models for some of its general, long temporal-large spatial scales traverse the terrain of ecological literature half blind. In their zeal to reform the basic vegetation paradigm to include, justifiably, the exceptions they end up "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

For the Record

Though the designation of Texas Piney Woods (usually written as one word, Pineywoods) clearly indicated a geopolitical unit this was not the most important reason for the specifiction or distinction. (And it was certainly not intended as a prideful or chauvistic usage.) Rather there were ecological, historical, and logistical justifictions for the inclusion of the state name as a specifying noun. Obviously that part of the eastern deciduous forest formation (Braun, 1950; see above) historically known as Pineywoods includes portions of other states including conterminous parts of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Ecologically, the Texas segment of the Pineywoods is, in biologically important aspects, unique and distinct from those parts of Pineywoods in other states. This is due largely to history and politics whereby the natural boundaries formed by rivers (Red and Sabine) were used as state lines. For example, slash pine (Pinus elliotii), which extends from the Atlantic Ocean on across the Gulf Coast, does extend west of the Sabine River (ie. slash pine does not cross the state line from Louisiana into Texas). In other words, the Texas portion of the Southeastern Pineywoods lacks one of the four major native yellow pines of southeastern (Gulf Coastal) North America. Likewise, those parts of the traditional Pineywoods that extend across the Red River into southeastern Oklahoma and beyond the surveyor-drawn state line into Arkansas do not include longleaf pine (P. palustris) as a native species. The Pineywoods of Arkansas and Oklahoma include only two of the four major species of pines native to the Southeastern Pineywoods. Likewise, the extensions of Pineywoods into these states to the north include no forest communities that even faintly resemblethe Big Thicket part of the Texas Pineywoods.

Logistically, the author as a state employee of Texas had personal, cultural, and political connections to parts of the Texas Pineywoods while he lacked equivalent contacts in neighboring states (even though he was an Okie and as much Arkansawyer as Texan). So again, the designation of Texas Pineywoods was a meaningful distinction.

The above specifics notwithstanding, this chapter on the Texas Pineywoods included examples of forest range vegetation from neighboring states that were equivalent to or the same as those to their south or west. For example, Oklahoma has (for various reasons, including shorter time of occupation by white man) forests that are generally in substantially higher successional status than those of the older Lone Star State.

Swamps and Related Wetland Forests

Dispersed widely, though sometimes extensively, the eastern deciduous forest complex there are various forest cover types on wetlands. Most commonly these forested wetlands are swamps or riparian forests or woodlands. Swamp was defined by the Society of American Foresters (Helms, 1998) as "a tree- or tall shrub-dominated wetland, characterized by periodic flooding and nearly permanent subsurface water flow through mixtures of mineral sediments and organic materials, essentially without peat accumulation". Much of the wetland forest vegetation furnishes little or no herbage or woody material for forage and browse due to either absence of an understorey or nearly permanent water inundation. While such forests are of limited value (at best) as grazing land per se their vegetation is part of the overall range landscape and does provide water and shade for livestock; serves as sources of water, cover, and space as habitat factors for wildlife, contributes biodiversity to the general forest range ecosystem; and, probably most important of all, serves as essential watershed including the role of flood protection.

A short sample of these wetland forest types was provided below.

1. Pine Island Bayou- Portion of bayou along which bald cypress dominated (almost exclusively) the riparian zone. Example of a slough-swell system. Manco soil series.

Big Thicket National Preserve, Pine Island Bayou, Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A co-dominant variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 102 (Baldcypress-Tupelo). Bald Cypress Association (if and when recognized), Tupelo-Cypress Series in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

2. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) backwater swamp-Consociation of bald cypress but local associates are water oak (Quercus nigra) and water elm (Planera aquatica). No understory at all; standing water most of the year. Big Thicket National Preserve, Maple Creek, Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. FRES No.16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). The bald cypress variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 102 (Baldcypress-Tupelo). Tupelo-Cypress Series in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community of Brown et al. (1998). Would be Taxodium distichum Association (if such is recognized). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

3. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)- Leaves and cones of bald cypress. Hardin County, Texas. September.

Presented immediately were a series of eight photographs of bald cypress, bald cypress-water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), and bald cypress-red gum (Persea borbonia) swamps in Big Thicket National Preserve, Hardin County County, Texas. These various stands were used to represent forest cover types recognized by the Society of American Foresters (Eyre, 1980). The overall forest vegetation was bald cypress-water tupelo bottomland forest on soils that are more-or-less permanently inundated with water. Such wetlands that are dominated by trees have traditionally been defined and described as swamps.

4. Bald cypress- Consociation of bald cypress, including knees and regeneration of bald cypress. Water tupelo was an associate species in this stand of slightly deeper water. Water oak was also "among the numbered", but the number of species was extremely limited. Slough of Beech Creek, Beech Creek Unit, Big Thicket National Preserve, Hardin County, Texas. May, later vernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 101 (Baldcypress). Taxodium distichum Association (if and when recognized), Tupelo-Cypress Series (223.11) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community (223.1) of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

5. Big Thicket Cypress-Tupelo Swamp- General view of a bald cypress-water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) swamp deep in the Big Thicket portion of Texas Pineywoods. Structure, architecture, and species composition typical of this forest type.Second-growth forest so that trees lack size of old-growth patriarchs, but species composition was that of the climax forest. There was abundant regeneration of these two climax tree species. Understorey shrub was swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemiflora) which was also regenerating. Did not take long to describe this simple wetland forest community. Obviously the only range feed available was browse provided by the swamp cyrilla.

Along margins of this tract of swamp an adjoining forest on slightly higher land and less hydric soil another forest community had developed that consisted of swamp chestnut oak or, as also known, cow oak and basket oak (Quercus michauxii), shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, sugar maple, red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum, and the small tree or shrub of the tallest lower layer known variously as musclewood, blue beech, or American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Soil association was a Caneyhead-Kenefick.

Big Thicket National Preserve, Maple Creek Unit, Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A co-dominant variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 102 (Baldcypress-Tupelo). Nyssa aquatica Association (if and when recognized), Tupelo-Cypress Series (223.11) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community (223.1) of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

6. Deep in the swamp; thick in the Big Thicket- In the deep interior of the legendary Big Thicket bald cypress and water tupelo formed a forbidding, mysterious, erie, etc. (adjectives and explectives abound) wetland forest. These two vertical photographs showed representative samples of this forest vegetation. The shrub in center foreground of second slide was swamp cryilla.

7. Water tupelo-bald cypress swamp- Healthy natural regeneration but perennially standing water undoubtedly prevents other than rare browsing by white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Big Thicket National Preserve, Maple Creek, Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A co-dominant variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 102 (Baldcypress-Tupelo). Nyssa aquatica Association (if and when recognized), Tupelo-Cypress Series (223.11) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community (223.1) of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Floodplains and(223.11) Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

8. Local stand of bald cypress and redbay (Persea borbonia)- There was some water tupelo present, but redbay was clearly co-dominant with water tupelo a "dim and distant" third among tree species while red maple limped in at fourth place. The major species of shrubs were sqamp cyrilla and swamp or dwarf palmetto. Little Pine Island Bayou, Big Thicket National Preserve, Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). Variant of SAF 104 (Sweetbay-Swamp Tupelo-Redbay). Tupelo-Cypress Series (223.11) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community (223.1) of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., (2004).

9. Black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) swamp- Blackgum dominated a small swamp formed by backwater of the San Jacinto River. Yaupon and swamp or dwarf palmetto formed one to two shrub layers (depending on height of yaupon at different locations) in this wetland forest. Adjacent to this swamp were larger areas of less wet soils on which loblolly pine-mixed hardwood-palmetto forest developed. That forest range vegetation was covered under loblolly pine forests earlier in this chapter.

Montgomergy County, Texas (backwater of the San Jacinto River). February, later hibernal aspect. FRES No.16. (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest). SAF 102 (Baldcypress-Tupelo). Nyssa sylvatica Association (if and when recognized), Tupelo-Cypress Series (223.11) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community (223.1) of Brown et al (1998). South Central Plains- Flatwoods Ecoregion, 35f (Griffith et al., 2004).

10. Blackgum in the backwater- More detailed view of a black tupelo swamp showing species composition and structure of a fairly restricted cover type in the Pineywoods. In addition to the trunks of blackgum "spotlighted" there were various twisted woody vines of rattan or Alabama supplejack, yaupon holly, and swamp or dwarf palmetto in this wetland forest vegetation.

Spanish moss or black moss (Tillandsia usneoides = Dendropogon usneoides) is a common--and conspicuous--component species of the wetland forests (both swamps and riparian forests) as well as surrounding upland forests and savannahs. It was included at this juncture for purposes of interest, variety, and as it seemed "fitting".

11. "Moss"-festooned limb in the Pineywoods- Trees in more southern portions of the eastern deciduous forest complex "sport" numerous species of epiphyte, " a plant that uses another plant, typically a tree, for its physical support, but which does not draw nourishment from it" (Allaby, 1998). Perhaps the most common and widely distributed epiphytic species of forests in southern North America is Spanish moss or, sometimes, black moss or blackmoss, or old-man's beard (Tillandsia usneoides = Dendropogon usneoides).

Contrary to the misleading designation "moss" this epiphyte is not only not a moss but it is, in fact, an advanced vascular plant, a monocotyledon in the Bromeliaceae (the pineapple family). Other forests--the Olympic Peninsula rain forest is the classic case--do have true mosses elegantly draped (="festooned" is the popular word) from limbs and branches of trees. Other forest communities have hanging wisply from their branches so-called "moss" that are species of lichen. The California oak woodland is the classic example. Still yet other forest range types (eg. Oregon white oak forest and the Olympic rain forest) have both actual moss and lichen species as distinct components or even layers of their vegetation.

Where Spanish moss is a member of various eastern deciduous forest cover types it is a conspicuous, even prominent, botanical component of the vegetation, especially given the species' rather indistinctive, "bland" arrangement of thread-like, gray-colored leaves and stems. In popular imagination Spanish moss figures more picturesquely in erie, deep woods like cypress and tupelo swamps as in the mystic Big Thicket. Actually the densest populations of this bromeliad are in trees growing not in forests but in the open and that have large, spreading crowns and where there is plenty of light for this chlorophyllous epiphye. This set of photographs was taken from ancient post oak and willow oak growing in open fields (but still in the area of the historic Big Thicket of Texas' Pineywoods).

Liberty County, Texas. February.

12. Making a habit ot it- Habit (general or outer physical form) of Spanish moss. Strands of thread-like (filiform), grayish stems and leaves of Spanish moss form festoons of considerable size (attaining lengths measured in feet or even yards or meters) as they hang from branches of trees and sway in the slightest breeze. This lichen-resembling species generally lacks roots and instead uses scaly hairs on leaves to absorb water and mineral nutrients from the air (hence, another common name of "airplant"). Spanish moss is regarded as an atmospheric or atmospheric-type eipphyte. It is also a xerophyte (plants living in arid or extremely dry [xeric] habitats) having such xerophytic features as the Crassulacean Acid Metabolism pathway of photosynthesis and multicellular hairs on leaves that reflect excess light and reduce water loss in addition to capturing air-borne nutrients (Diggs et al., 2006, ps. 478, 480).

Ephphytes provide one of the textbook examples of commensalism, a symbiotic relationship in which one organism or species benefits (positive effect) from the association (the commensal; in this instance, Spanish moss) while the other "pardner" (the host), trees or other plants functioning as support and growing space, is unaffected (neutral or no effect) by the relationship. The Spanish moss specimen introduced in the first photograph was growing on a willow oak whereas the Spanish moss plant in the second photograph was hosted by an ancient post oak.

Liberty County, Texas. February.

13. In the thick of it- A sample of portions from three plants of Spanish moss showing the tangled arrangement of gray, filiform (thread-like; linear, slender and circular in cross-section) stems and leaves within the festoon produced by plants of this epiphytic and xerophytic monocotyledon.

Spanish moss is frequently used as nesting material by various species of birds, reptiles, and mammals (from smaller rodents to farrowing sows of free-ranging, feral swine). Indians in both North and South America made miscellaeous uses of this widely distributed bromeliad. Industrial Age man has used Spanish moss for everything from floral decoration to stuffing and packaging material. Anecdotal and empirical evidence has indicated that Spanish moss can be a component of deer diets.

Liberty County, Texas. February.

14. Strands of thread-like leaves- Two close-up views of Spanish moss to show the filiform shoots and individual leaves of this xerophytic epiphyte. These adult plants were of large, mature size but at pre-bloom phenology.

Liberty County, Texas. February.

15. Two distinct plant communities comprising locally restricted vegetation types: 1) a swamp of water oak with bald cypress as an associate and 2) a maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) marsh designated as a lowlands range site. These two types together constitute a flat woods pond. FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem) and corresponding K-101 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest) and FRES No.41 (Wet Grasslands Ecosystem) with with no Kuchler units small enough to pick up the maidencane type. Maidencane would be included with Kuchler-83 (Everglades) in Florida. The maidencane marsh type is SRM 819. Mixed Hardwood Series in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest biotic community and Maidencane Series (if and when such is recognized) in Southeastern Interior Marshland biotic community, respectively, of Brown et al. (1998). South Central Plains- Flatwoods Ecoregion, 35f (Griffith et al., 2004).

16. Edge of two wetland range communities- Boundary between the water oak-bald cypress swamp and maidencane swamp introduced in the preceding slide. The swamp portion of this flatwoods pond was FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Ecosystem) and corresponding K-101 (Southern Flood-Plain Forest) while maidencane marsh was FRES No.41 (Wet Grasslands Ecosystem) with with no Kuchler units small enough for this region so that instead maidencane would be included with Kuchler-83 (Everglades) in Florida. Maidencane rangeland cover type was SRM 819 (Freshwater Marsh and Ponds). Swamp with water oak dominant and bald cypress the associate species comprised a combination or "hybrid" of SAF and SRM.

17. Maidencane in the spring- Hardin County, Texas. May, late vernal aspect. Maidencane Series (if and when such is recognized) in Southeastern Marshland biotic community, respectively, of Brown et al. (1998). South Central Plains- Flatwoods Ecoregion, 35f (Griffith et al., 2004).

18. Plant on a Pineywoods pond- Grassleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea) on a local ponded habitat in natural forest clearing in the Big Thicket of Texas Pineywoods. There are several Saggitaria species in North America. These are in the monocotyledon family, Alismaceae (arrowhead family). Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

19. Flowers and young fruits on a Pineywoods pond- Inflorescence on the specimen of grassleaf arrowhead introduced in the preceding slide. This provided a very good example of an indeterminate inflorescence, one that matures "top-down and outside-in" (flowering begins at apices of inflorescence, or on the upper- and outer-most floral tips, al-most and progresses downward and inward). Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

20. Common pitcherplant or yellow trumpets (Sarracenia alata)- Habit and general appearance of common pitcherplant (also shown as pitcher plant) one of the more unique and distinctive of moist forests in the southeastern portion of the North American deciduous forest formation. This specimen featured was at the edge of a colony of its species on highly acid soil in the Big Thicket part of the Texas-Louisiana Pineywoods.

Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

21. Pitchers in the Pineywoods- Pitcherplants are these largest of Earth's carnivorous plants and are most readily distinguished by "modified leaves that form hollow, water-containing vessels that are adapted to trapping and digesting animal prey"(McPherson, 2007, p.3). These modified, cylinderical leaves that usually form complete enclosures open only at the top are referred to as "pitchers". Hence, the most commonly used common generic name.

The pitcherplant featured here is the species most common in western portions of the southeastern region of the North American deciduous forest formation. It is also typically a generally large and showy species (even when it is out of season for its light lemon-colored corolla). Sarracenia alata is a highly variable species, especially given it rather limited species range. Definitive description of this species (and other species of the pitcher plant family native to the Americas) was McPherson (2007, ps. 195-203). As of this writing, the definitive work on carnivorous plants on ranges and forests of North America is that of Schnell (2002).

Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

22. Fruit pitcher- Shoot apices of the yellow trumpets pitcherplant bearing the leaf-enclosed fruit. The fruit has been interpreted as a loculicidal capsule, which is one that dehisces due to or through openings in the locules between partitioning tissue (Smith, 1977, ps. 122, 300). Pitcher plants are in the family Sarraceniaceae.

Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

23. Plant eats bugs- Portion of lower pitcher of yellow trumpets pitcherplant revealing a partly digested insect being used as a source of nitrogen for a plant highly adapted to impoverished soils.

Big Thicket National Monument, Hardin County, Texas, April.

The bottomland forest along the main channel of the Neches River was described by Diggs et al. (2006, ps. 89-90 and, mostly, 103-104) as a seasonally flooded river floodplain. Dominant species was laurel oak, swamp laurel oak, or diamond leaf oak (Quercus laruifolia), in background was some overcup oak (Q. lyrata). Another common to locally dominant species is willow oak (Q. phellos); no individuals of this species were observed by this photographer at this location. There were two associate tree species in this stand. One of these associates was sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) such as the big tree on right in this set of slides. The opther associate trees species in this stand was river or water birch (Betula nigra). Some of these trees reached over 60 feet in height with a DBH of over one foot. Another member of the Betulaceae, American hornbeam, hornbeam, or musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) comprised a lower small tree layer. There was essentially no understorey at this early autumnal aspect. There had been some rooting by feral hogs, but absence of lower woody and herbaceous layers was most likely a feature of this bottomland forest community.

This is the classic "pin oak flats" spoken of by local loggers. Apparently "pin oak" in local east Texas vernacular refers to any oak having narrow leaves (including willow, laurel, and even water oaks). This meaning of "pin" in reference to leaves differs from that of the dead, rock-hard, lower limbs ("pins") as used with reference to pin and blackjack oaks. Cherokee County, Texas. October.

24. Bay-Gall Bog or Titi in the Texas Big Thicket- This vegetation is the most impenetrable “jungle” or “tangle’ in the Big Thicket. The local mound-and-intermound relief creates a bog ecosystem. The soil series of the mound microrelief (on the mound) has the spodosol soil series Babco. This is currently the only spodosol mapped in Texas. The dominant plants are red bay (Persea borbonia) and sweet bay or swamp bay (Magnolia virginiana) among the hardwood trees and shortleaf and loblolly pine from the conifers. Gall, swamp cyrilla or, by the Indian name, titi (Cyrilla raecmiflora) is the dominant species of the shrub layer along with gallberry (Ilex coriacea; not to be confused with the preceding gall), bull-briar (Smilax bona-nox), saw-brier (S. glauca), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) dominate the shrub layer. Completing this “tangle” is the herbaceous understory often dominated by rather rank-growing ferns.

The largest trunk (in center) is a loblolly pine, the trunk immediately behind and to the right of it is a water oak, the two trees immediately behind and to the right of the water oak are sweet bay magnolias, and the left foreground tree is a red bay. Most of the shrubs in the foreground understory are swamp cyrilla or titi. Hardin County, Texas. May. There is no specific FRES or Kuchler for this local community that grows within the FRES No. 13 (Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine forest Ecosystem). South Central Plains- Flatwoods Ecoregion, 35f (Griffith et al., 2004).

25. Interior of a Texas Big Thicket Bay-Gall Bog- Detail of the shrub layer described in the preceding slide caption. Note the seedling or young tree stage of loblolly pine in the foreground and the adult loblolly pines in background indicating that this is the dominant conifer for this unique local community. Hardin County, Texas. May.

26. The floor or herbaceous layer of a Bay-Gall Bog dominated by ferns. Over 20 species of ferns are native to the Big Thicket and there are another four or five species that may have naturalized here. The ferns are growing on a mound of Babco soil. Hardin County, Texas. May.

27. Profile of Babco soil (the only spodosol mapped in Texas)- Spodosols comprise the soil order characterized by having a light gray eluvial horizon over a reddish aluminum- and/or iorn-enriched horizon. They typically occur in humid areas. The Babco pH ranges from 3.1 to 3.6. Hardin County, Texas. May.

28. Climax Loblolly Pine-Oak Hardwoods Forest-This bottomland Pineywoods is deep inside the Big Thicket and at or, at least, approaching the state of old-growth. It is on the first terrace above Beech Creek and is an edphic climax community of the region with a characteristic open, sometimes bare, understory of grasses in the Panicum, Paspalum, Uniola, and Andropogon species. The three mature trees are (front to rear) water oak, loblolly pine, and cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata var. pagodifolia) whose big limbs form a spreading crown. The adult tree in the background and appearing immediately to the right of the loblolly pine and the small tree adjacent to and, from this angle, appearing to sprout from the water oak are swamp chestnut oaks (Q. michauxii). The small tree at far left opposite the branched cherrybark oak is a young willow oak (Q. phellos) whose branches are interwoven with those of another water oak just to the left of the field of view. The trunk immediately to the right of the loblolly pine whose upper portion is adjacent to the water oak is the rotting snag of some tree that lost the struggle for the most limiting resource, light. The background vegetation is a Bald Cypress Swamp in the floodplain of Beech Creek. About 200 yards from this site there is a sandjack or bluejack oak-sandhill bluestem scrub type that formed from aeolian sand carried up out of the Beech Creek bottoms over geologic time. Beech Creek Unit, Big Thicket National Preserve, Hardin County, Texas. Vernal aspect, May. FRES No. 13 (Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine Forest Ecosystem), K101 (Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest), SAF 82 (Loblolly Pine-Hardwood). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 35b (Griffith et al., 2004).

Sandjack= bluejack oak (Quercus incana) Scrub Forest or Woodland

Sandjack or bluejack oak is one of several scrub oaks that constitute a forest cover type (SAF 72). The example of this range cover type presented here had developed on an upland approximately 200 yards from the bottomland Pineywoods presented in the preceding section.

29. Sandjack= bluejack oak (Quercus incana)-sandhill bluestem scrub type- The bluestem is a taxonomic complex of little bluestem, including the taxa often shown as Andropogon divergens or Schizachyrium scoparium var. divergens, and slender bluestem (Andropogon tener= Schizachyrium tenerum). A few post oaks are associates of bluejack oak. Composites and various prickly pears (Opunia spp.) are scattered throughout the bunchgrass sward. An aeolian ("blowsand") ridge community.

Beech Creek Unit, Big Thicket National Preserve, Hardin County, Texas. May. FRES No. 14 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem). A variant of K-72 (Oak Savanna). One of the many forms of Southern Scrub Oak, a variant of SAF 72 (Southern Scrub Oak). A Scrub Oak Series of Brown et al (1998), but one was not shown for this region. Sandy upland variant of South Central Plains- Flatwoods Ecoregion, 35f (Griffith et al., 2004).

Bottomland Forests of Willow Oak-Laurel Oak ("Pin Oak Flats" ) and
Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak

Willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Q. lyrica), and diamondleaf or swamp laurel oak (Q. obtusata) all grow on moist to wet, often inundated, bottomlands of the Pineywoods. These three similar species, along with wateroak (all of which are called "pin oak" by locals), integrade and sometimes hybridize. One of the most recognized of these hybrids is that of Quercus phellos X Q. nigra (Correll and Johnson, 1979, p. 487). Perhaps most important is an apparent lack of consensis as to whether laurel oak and diamondleaf oak are separate or the same species (Eyre, 1980, ps. 63, 138-139). In the checklist of vascular plants in Texas Jones et al. (1997, p. 129) listed only Q. laurifolia with Q. obtusa (not Q. obtusata) as a synonym. In the current publication laurel oak, swamp laurel oak, and diamondleaf oak were regarded as synonymous common names for Quercus lyrica. This usage was followed to be consistent with standard references for the Texas flora. Laurel oak is especially characteristic in its retention of dead, lower limbs (Burns and Honkala, 1990).

The conditions just described have resulted in taxonomically and genetically confusing specimens that challenge taxonomists and frustrate foresters and rangemen. Pineywoods lay folk like loggers have traditionally avoided the problem of specific species by "lumping" those of similar habits and habitats. This only adds to the problem, however, given that "pin oak" is the preferred and more widely used common name for the more northerly growing Q. palustris. Whereas "pin" refers to the dead (and persistent), low-hanging, lower limbs on Q. palustris., "pin" in the east Texas lexicon (depending on locale) pertains to either the presence of dead lower limbs or to the narrow, willow leaf-shaped leaves in the case of the Pineywoods "pin oaks".

In Pineywoods forest these three species (or four species if laurel oak and swamp laurel= diamondleaf oak be distinct) are local dominants on floodplains, swamps, and other forms of forest wetlands where they comprise most of the stocking and define a bottomland forest cover type (SAF 88) often described as "pin oak flats". The four "pin oaks" are frequently accompanied by overcup oak (Q. lyrata), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and water locust (Gleditsia aquatica) on more poorly drained forest sites and by swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii)-cherrybark oak (Q. falcata var. pagodifolia) on better drained sites where the forest community grades into the forest cover type dominated by these latter two species (Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak, SAF 91). Sweetgum is typically present to some degree of cover so that the willow oak-water oak-diamondleaf oak (SAF 88) grades into the sweetgum-willow oak forest cover type (SAF 92) The wetland forest vegetation shown below included stands of SAF 88 and SAF 91 that had developed adjacent to each other on part of the Neches River floodplain. Laurel oak and willow oak were local associate species.

The swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak is a distinctive bottomland forest of the Texas Pineywoods not only because it is sometimes associated (in close proximity) with "pin oak flats" but also because cherrybark oak or, as it is also known, swamp red oak is regarded by lumbermen as one of the best of the southern red oaks for production of quality timber (Harlow et al., 1979, p. 324). Both the willow oak-water oak-laurel oak cover type (SAF 88) and the swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak cover type (SAF 91) have been interpreted as climax though they are most likely edaphic/topographic climaxes determined by texture of alluvium and the local relief of terraces, ridges, and hammocks with resultant soil drainage conditions of these features (Eyre, 1980, ps. 63, 64).

The taxonomic status--especially scientific name as to specific epithet--of cherrybark oak is a matter of some confusion (and another of those of "what goes around comes around" situations). At one point in its nomenclatural history cherrybark oak was treated as Quercus pagoda, then as Q. pagodaefolia, next as Q. falcata var. pagodaefolia (the varietal designation was usually written as pagodifolia). Currently cherrybark oak is once again treated as a separate species with the original designation of Quercus pagoda.(Samuelson and Hogan, 2003, p. 724). To further confuse this "ring-around-the-oak tree" game engaged in by taxonomists (who apparently sense that they would otherwise have very little else to justity their continued existence) cherrybark oak hybridizes with willow oak resulting in X Q. ludoviciana (Fernald , 1950, p.548).

Technical problem: biological ranges of the above (and other) tree species in the Texas Pineywoods have not been adequated determined. Most current maps that purport to show species occurrences at the county level (eg. those of the United States Department of Agriculture) are much too restrictive and, even with the relatively small size of east Texas counties, have failed to show species where they naturally grow. Published maps of biological ranges show gaps in species distributions that are not really there. This presents an academic problem to authors who describe forest vegetation and a practical (and much more important) problem to foresters's assisting in restoration of native forest vegetation. In the latter instance, government agencies commonly will not recognize for purposes of reforestation trees that are native to local areas when incomplete distribution records (eg. "maps with missing peices") fail to include counties that are within the biological range of a given tree species. (Dr. Michael Fountain, professor of forestry, Stephen F. Austin University; personal communication.)

A combination of factors including frequent inundation (and saturated soils), scouring action of flood water, complete tree canopy cover, excessive consumption of mast by free-ranging feral hogs, improper harvest (high-grading) and silviculture (typically the lack thereof), and even recreational activities like off road vehicular traffic (eg. dirt bike racing, parking of large recreational vehicles) frequently have precluded development of lower layers in "pin oak flats" forest. This phenomenon was shown below. Lack of understorey was a prominent feature of the forest range vegetation in which range feed was largely limited to acorns, almost all of which were devoured by feral hogs thereby limiting reproduction of the climax tree species. High consumption rates of the acorn crops of swamp red oak (biennial in the red oak group, Erythrobalanus subgenus) was noted as a major factor by Elias (1980, p. 363).

Shown in the section that followed was an example of bottomland forest along the main channel of the Neches River. This was described by Diggs et al. (2006, ps. 89-90 and, mostly, 103-104) as a seasonally flooded river floodplain. The following section started with a general view of the Neches River floodplain forest. Dominant species was laurel oak, swamp laurel oak, or diamond leaf oak, in background was some overcup oak. Another common to locally dominant species is willow oak; however, no individuals of this species were observed by this photographer at this location. There were two associate tree species in this stand. One of these associates was sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) such as the big tree on right in this set of slides. The opther associate trees species in this stand was river or water birch (Betula nigra). Some of these trees reached over 60 feet in height with a DBH of over one foot. Another member of the Betulaceae, American hornbeam, hornbeam, or musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) comprised a lower small tree layer. There was essentially no understorey at this early autumnal aspect. There had been some rooting by feral hogs, but absence of lower woody and herbaceous layers was most likely a feature of this bottomland forest community.

30. Floodplain forest along the Neches- A periodically inundated bottomland along Neches River supported a diverse forest of climax oak species including cherrybark oak, laurel oak (interpreted as synonymous with swamp laurel or diamondleaf oak as noted above), willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, and swamp chestnut oak (in that approximate order). Sweetgum was typically an associate to frequently the dominant species on outer margins of this forest, especially on higher terraces where there was greater and more frequent drainage of soils. Frequently there was a second woody layer comprised of American hornbeam, blue beech, or musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) and, on the perimeter and just inside the oak-dominated vegetation, river or red (though the specific epithet means black) birch (Betula nigra). Lower layers of forest vegetation were lacking.

Cherokee and Houston Counties, Texas (the Neches being the county line). Early October; autumnal aspect. FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Foest and Woodland Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-plain Forest). SAF 88 (Willow Oak-Water Oak-Diamondleaf [Laurel] Oak), SAF 91 (Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak), and SAF 92 (Sweetgum-Willow Oak). Mixed Hardwood Series (223.13) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest (223.1) of Brown et al, 1998, p. 43). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion 35b (Griffith et al., 2004).

31. On the edge of the Neches- Stand of bottomland forest on margin and generally higher ground of the general forest that developed on the floodplain of the Neches River. Here on the perimeter of a closed-canopy, laurel oak-dominated forest and on a higher river terrace sweetgum was the local dominant species and the one with largest trees (some over two foot DBH). Willow oak and laurel oak were associates on this outer edge of a riverine and backwater forest. There was a lower woody layer of vegetation made up of river birch and American hornbeam or blue beech.

The two large trees in the first slide and the largest tree at far right in the second slide were sweetgum. The second largest tree in the second photograph (left foreground) was a river birch. The plants in the lowest (ground or surface) layer were shoots from rootstocks of pawpaw (Asimina triloba). There were a few shoots of some greenbriar (Smilax species). Herbaaceous species were not present. A lower or ground layer of vegetation was lacking farther inside this forest range (see photographic sequence in next set of slides).

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect. FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Foest and Woodland Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-plain Forest). SAF 92 (Sweetgum-Willow Oak). Mixed Hardwood Series (223.13) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest (223.1) of Brown et al, 1998, p. 43). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion 35b (Griffith et al., 2004).

32. Walking toward backwater- Beyond the perimeter of this Neches River floodplain forest there were local depressions filled with water. An example of these backwater habitats was represented by these three photographs which were taken at intervals of successively closer distances to this particular backwater and deeper inside a "pin oak flat forest" of laurel or diamondleaf oak and willow oak. The foremost and largest tree in the first two slides was a "Texas-sized" river birch. This was still close enough to the outer margin of the closed-canopy oak forest that there was a lower or ground layer of vegetation consisting mostly of young shoots of pawpaw and fewer of greenbriar. Herbaceous species were lacking.

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect. FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Foest and Woodland Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-plain Forest). SAF 88 (Willow Oak-Water Oak-Diamondleaf [Laurel] Oak) and SAF 92 (Sweetgum-Willow Oak). Mixed Hardwood Series (223.13) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest (223.1) of Brown et al, 1998, p. 43). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion 35b (Griffith et al., 2004).

33. Edge of a cherrybark oak stand- Border of a stand of cherrybark oak on floodplain of the Neches River. The four largest trunks discernable in the first photograph were cherrybark oak. The shrub (left mid-ground; smallest of five trunks) was blue beech or American hornbeam, a Very Tolerant species that was the dominant species of the lower woody layer in this bottomland forest vegetation. Leaves of American hornbeam were visible at extreme right by foremost laurel oak. The liana (woody vine) growing in the foremost cherrybark oak of this first slide was Alabama supplejack or ratan vine (Berchemia scandans). Incidentally this cherrybark oak had been partially girdled by beaver. The sporadic green layer right on the ground (at least closest to the land surface was pawpaw, either seedlings or shoots off of rootstocks (rhizomes) from some distant parental source (which this "woods scout" did not find). Downed branches and an entire cherrybark oak (far right) in foreground of this first photograph were debris from a hurricane that "nipped" this area six weeks earlier.

The second of these slides of foret vegetation at the outer edge of this cherrybark oak stand featured three individuals of American hornbeam or blue beech in foreground and sizeable portions two large cherrybark oak in background. Almost total absence of a layer of vegetation on the forest floor and complete cover by litter of shed leaves was extremely noteworthy (as was explained previously as well as in captions below).

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect. FRES No. 16 (Oak-Gum-Cypress Foest and Woodland Ecosystem). A variant of K-103 (Southern Flood-plain Forest). SAF 91 (Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak). Mixed Hardwood Series (223.13) in Southeastern Swamp and Riparian Forest (223.1) of Brown et al, 1998, p. 43). South Central Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion 35b (Griffith et al., 2004).

34. Entering cherrybark oak stand- By moving a few yards closer to the featured stand of cherrybark oak two nearly identical views were presented that featured two large and several smaller plants of the Very Tolerant American hornbeam or blue beech (two conspicuous in foreground; at least three others behind) with two large cherrybark oak (background) that were introduced in the last slide immediately above. The absence of any ground layer of vegetation beneath the tree and shrub layers of this forest range was one of the most striking features of this forest community. This was likely the consequence of several interacting factors including anthropogenic disturbances along with various interactions comprising the phenomenon of tolerance.

Recreational vehicles used for camping (including light duty trucks with campers, sport utility vehicles, and so-called motor homes) routinely parked within approximately 80 to 100 yards of this laurel oak forest. There was some evidence of dirt bike (off-road motorcycle) travel half-again as close so that there was no evidence to rule out racing and inherent damage caused to this forest floor. There was recent evidence of rooting and mast-feeding by feral swine, a now ubiquitous scourge of the Pineywoods. Both of these features wrought by European man were both unnatural and severe in impact. Feeding by herds of free-ranging, "gone hog-wild", acorn-eating, uprooting-everything swine has become one of the major factors limiting regeneration of hardwoods through this region. Exact role of feral hogs on this forest range vegetation was--as far as this author knew--was known but to God. It was undoubtedly one of several factors responsible for a lack of forest understorey.

This stand of cherrybark oak was representative of the intense forest competition known generally as tolerance. Students can consult any of the standard texts in Forest Ecology, Dendrology, and Silviculture for explanation of this incompletely understood forest phenomenon. The Society of American Foresters defined tolerance (in this context) as "the capacity of trees [also shrubs] to grow satisfactorily in the shade of, and in competition with, other trees..." and tolerant was used to erfer to "a plant capable of becoming established and growing beneath overtopping vegetation" (Helms, 1998). More specifically in this latter usage, the Society of American Foresters (Wenger, 1994, p. 1) described tolerance as "... a tree's capacity to survive low overhead light and intense root competition" . Tolerance of a particular tree or shrub species "... is not a response to any single factor", but rather a response to some minimal combination of availability for numerous factors (Wenger, 1994, p. 1). Light is only the most obvious of these factors. Root competition among plants (for growing space, soil water, mineral nutrients, etc.) is generally the second most conspicuous variable (or set of variables) in tolerance. Other factors include flooding, salt, soil coverage, and defoliation from browsing, fire, ice damage, and wind.

Tolerance of lower-layer species beneath this stand of cherrybark oak on the floodplain of the Neches River clearly included limited light, root competition, flooding, coverage or mulching due to a deep layer of accumulated leaf litter, and feeding by feral hogs. Dr. Michael Fountain, Professor of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin University (personal communication) explained that the entire rhizophere, that portion of earth (generally soil) that is in contact with and surrounding plant roots and affected roots (Helms, 1998), under certain bottomland forests is completely occupied. This results in extreme root competition that can be as limiting of understorey development as dense shade. It is also likely, however, that considerable root grafting occurs under such conditions. Root grafting is a classic case of protocooperation (Barbour et al., 1999, p. 157) and this interaction would enhance survival of certain trees and shrubs in a dense forest stand. It might also function to exclude certain species from this forest community and thus contribute to lack of understorey.

Cherrybark oak also produces salicylic acid which acts as an alleochemical, specifically an inhibitor of plant growth (Harlow et al., 1979, p. 324; Debell, 1971). This compound was found under natural conditions to restrict development of vegetation under cherrybark oak. trees. Salicyclic acid appared to be leached from crowns of cherrybark oak by rainfall. Greenhouse trials with forest soil collected below cherrybark oaks also documented reduction of germination and seedling growth (DeBell, 1971 and cited in Burns and Honkala, 1990).

In summary, there were a number of factors that were probably responsible for absence of understorey in this botomland (floodplain) hardwood forest. These ranged from natural phenomena including general tolerance responses, flooding, and inhibitory allelochemicals to anthropogenic disturbances varhying from vehicular traffic to feral swine.

These two views from the same photopoint were taken within minutes of each other with the first being under a predominantly overcast sky and the second taken under full sun (as light reached this photolocation). Sporadically throughout this publication the photographer included paired photographs to illustrate the different effects of light intensity or cloudiness on depth of field, coloration of plants, and general visibility. Typically, with slow film such as Kodachrome 64 used throughout this work, the more light the better. In this instance greater degree of shading permitted greater detail as to the leaf-covered floor of this dense stand of laurel oak. The second photograph (taken under cloudless conditions) displayed the maximum quantity of light reaching the forest floor at mid-day.

These two slides and the immediately succeeding one vividly depicted limited light and leaf-mulching conditions that contributed to the lack of herbaceous and lower woody layers in this floodplain cherrybark oak-dominated forest.

35. Beneath stand of cherrybark oak at its outer edge- Moving further inside the margin of a cherrybark oak stand on the Neches River floodplain presented the density (high tree stocking), leaf-covered forest floor, lack of understorey, and the second (lower) woody layer of this forest range cover type. The twisted and uniquely shaped bole of a blue beech or American hornbeam (foreground) told of a Very Tolerant shrub that stood last guard just before the deepest interior of this stand was reached. The two woody vines in the foreground were Alabama supplejack or rattan vine climbing a much smaller blue beech at left. The slender bole in immediate, mid-foreground (bowed slight to right) was a smaller (presumedly younger) blue beech.

The cherrybark oak in right foreground (foremost oak) had been incompletely girdled in the distant past by bark-feeding beaver.

The phenomenon of tolerance as a factor limiting understorey development was explained in the immediately preceding caption as was inhibition of germination and seedling growth due to alleochemical action of salicyclic acid washed to soil from crowns of cherrybark oaks Harlow et al., 1979, p. 324; Debell, 1971; and cited in Burns and Honkala, 1990). Action of free-ranging feral swine and likely disturbance from human foot and mechanical traffic was noted above in the introduction to this cover type as well as in photo-captions.

Given lack of grazable or browsable plants within reach of range mammals on this forest range, animal feed other than bark eaten by beaver consisted almost entirely of mast, primarily laurel oak acorns. Heavy feeding on this natural concentrate by deer, hogs, squirrels, coons, various birds (and whatever else wandered by) was unquestionably a factor that limited reproduction of cherrybark oak which is generally regarded as intermediate in shade tolerance down to an intolerant species (Fowells, 1965; Burns and Honkala, 1990). Regeneration of these cherrybark oaks with a few notable exceptions resulted almost entirely from the asexual reproduction of coppicing (explained below). Perhaps that was adequate so that loss of nearly all mast to animal feeding was of little or no impact on cherrybark oak regeneration. However, as explained above, consumption of mast by free-ranging feral hogs was a major factor contributing to limited regeneration of certain hardwood species in the Texas Pineywoods (Dr. Michael Fountain, Professor of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin University, personal communication). Again, however, some of the lack of understorey development was likely due to the tolerance phenomenon and allelochemical affects of salicyclic acid produced by adult cherrybark oaks themselves. This valuable southern lumber tree is generally an Intolerant species that cannot regenerate sexually" under its own shade".

36. Two associates in the lower tree layer- River or red birch (left foreground; right-of-center background) and American hornbeam (right) at the outer edge of a bottomland forest with stands of sweetgum and willow oak. These were the two most common (abundant) shrubs to small trees in this floodplain forest on the first of the Neches River. Smaller shrubs with lower green leaves were young plants of river birch and a few yaupon.

There are often woody species in Pineywoods forests that are of small to mid-size (especially in regards to height) and/or frequently (or typically) with more than one bole (shoot) per plant so that these species (or some individual plants of these species) are regarded as either shrubs or small trees. These smaller and/or multi-trunked woody plants often have such density, cover, and general distribution that they make up a second (lower) layer of woody vegetation in forest communities. Some of these species which occur as shrubs and/or small trees produce plentiful cover of brilliant flowers so that they are conspicuous in forest vegetation. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) are the best-known examples. They were treated elsewhere in this publication.

River birch and American hornbeam do not produce (to much extent) striking spring colors and, in case of flowering dogwood, brilliant fruits and foliage in autumn like some of the other shrubs and woody vines. The most conspicuous morphological feature of these two associate species of pin oak flats and other forest communities is their trunks, the curly and fringe-edged bark in case of river birch and the strongly fluted or ribbed feature of bole in instance of American hophornbeam. This latter with its strong resemblance to a muscular human arm is basis for another common name of musclewood.

Both of these smaller, shorter woody plants often grow as shrubs or, with river birch, even in colonies of shrubs along watercourses. In denser shade they sometimes grow as a single though taller shoot (trunk or bole). Such was the condition on this pin oak flat. Here individuals of river birch and musclewood grew as small up to medium sized trees. Common association of these two species was noted by Burns and Honkala (1990), but these authors also commented that American hornbeam was typically common on inundated habitats. Saturated soils for extended periods was not the situation on this first river terrace, but prolonged soil saturation clearly applied to the backwater of the Neches River. Fertility of alluvial soil and its high water-holding capacity made for Texas-sized shrubs in this neck of the Pineywoods.

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect.

37. Trunk of river or red birch (Betula nigra)- This fine specimen of river birch, huge even by Texas standards, was growing at the edge of a pin oak flat in close proximity and association with American hornbeam. It was also--and more indicative of its typical hydric habitat--next to a backwater of the Neches River. (This small backwater swamp was described above in this section). This individual was a medium-size tree with a conspicuous single trunk (not at all like the typical habit and small size of the common shrub form of this species).

River birch has usually been classes as Intolerant, yet it has been found to be associated with other woody species across the range of tolerance ratings including Very Tolerant species like American hornbeam, sugar maple, and American beech (Burns and Honkala, 1990).

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect.

Young and tender- New leaves and female catkins (aments) of river birch (Betula nigra) growing in northeast Texas.

Navarro County, Texas. Mid-April.

Feminine fruit up close- Female ament of river birch. Birch has a rather elaborate or complex inflorescence of which the fundamental unit is a cymule, a reduced cyme with three levels of organization. is the basic unit of this flower). One-seeded samaras are the eventual fruit type.

Navarro County, Texas. Mid-April.

38. Nice specimen of American hornbeam, blue beech, or musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana)- This and several other plants of blue beech or American hornbeam were growing on a pin oak flat at the perimeter of a stand of willow oak on the first terrace of the Neches River in the Texas Pineywoods. The fluted or ribbed feature of this trunk provided a good example of another common name for this species, musclewood.

From the perspective of tolerance this Very Tolerant species (it ranks with American beech, sugar maple, and flowering dogwood) is the textbook dominant of the lower tree and shrub layer of the eastern decicuous forest. For whatever the explanation, musclewood on this floodplain forest grew side-by-side with large individuals (small to mid-size trees) of river birch. Though river birch was categorized as Intolerant, it and American hornbeam were shown as being common associates (Burns and Honkala, 1990). they were certainly "bole buddies" of the outer margin of this floodplain forest.

Cherokee County, Texas. Early October; autumnal aspect.

39. Cherrybark oak stand I- A more distant view and a closer-up, greater detail view (first and second slide, respectively) of a local stand of second-growth cherrybark oak on floodplain of Neches River. Structure and species composition (about as simple as these attributes could be) of this forest range vegetation were conspicuous. Two plants of blue beech or American hornbeam, the dominant shrub or small tree of the second (lower) woody layer, were visible in the second of these two slides. (A closer-in view of the lower part of vegetation in this second slide was presented and described above with the caption title, Beneath stand of cherrybark oak at its outer edge). There were some large saplings of swamp chestnut oak behind this local stand of cherrybark oak, but there was not adequate light for decent photographs at that deep interior location.

The nearly complete absence of layers of forest vegetation below this, especially the darth of herbaceous species, was notable and characteristic of this forest range cover type. Lack of an understorey was due to a combination of factors ranging from competition (the tolerance phenomenon) through heavy feeding and rooting by feral hogs to allelochemical impacts of salicyclic acid produced by cherrybark oaks and washed from the dense canopy formed by their interlocking crowns.

The foremost cherrybark oak with prominent butt swell (both photographs) appeared to be a specimen produced sexually (from an acorn). As shown below in the remaining photographs of this cherrybark oak stand, almost all other trees were adult trunks produced from stump or water shoots (stump sprouts) that arose following the last cutting of lumber. Privately owned forests in the Pineywoods (forests in the Texas Pineywoods are almost entirely in private land ownership) have been--and continue to be--cut frequently. Furthermore, hardwood forests such as those in bottomlands have historically been harvested withour regard to regeneration. This is the practice of highgrading, "the removal of the most commercially valuable trees (high-grade trees), often leaving a residual stand composed of trees of poor condition or species composition" (Helms, 1998). That swamp red oak reproduced by both sexual and asexual means was a testament to the regenerative capacity of this species. Though regarded as Intolerant, cherrybark oak naturally regenerates well given reasonable protection (Burns and Honkala, 1990).

40. Cherrybark oak stand II- Farther and nearer views (first and second photograph, respectively) of the interior of a local stand of second-growth cherrybark oak on floodplain of Neches River. Structure of this relatively simple forest plant community and morphology of adult cherrybark oaks was featured. Lack of understorey was explained above (introduction to this section and some previous captions) to be a likely combination of dense shade and extensive system of interlocking, grafted roots (ie. intense competition= the tolerance phenomenon), nearly complete consumption of the acorn crop by free-ranging feral hogs, frequent scouring of this floodplain by the Neches River, and the allelochemical effects of salicyclic acid produced by adult cherrybark oaks.

In addition to rapid growth and and large tree (including trunk) size, one of the reasons why cherrybark or swamp red oak produces such high-quality lumber is its self-pruning feature. Lower limbs die and are shed leaving a clear bole. This feature was shown in these two photographs as well as in the immediately succeeding slide. This self-pruning characteristic is in drastic contrast to retention of "pins" (dead lower limbs that persistent on the bole) in the so-called southern "pin oaks" such as willow and laurel oak, two species also found in this floodplain forest that developed along the Neches River (see again above).

There were a few young trees (large samplings) of swamp chestnut oak behind the adult cherrybark oak. There was inadequate light behind the cherrybark oaks so swamp chestnut oak could not be presented to advantage. Leaves of this latter species were visible on projection in the second of these slides.

The odd-shaped basal trunks of these cherrybark oaks appeared to be a combination of maturing stump sprouts that arose following the last cutting of these trees, bark and cambium feeding by beaver (subsequently followed by some wood decay), and prominent butt swells as an aid in tree anchorage on this wet soil. Another view of these trunk bases was presented in the next photograph.

41. Wierd trunks on cherrybark oaks- View of structure and species composition of a stand of cherrybark or swamp red oak showing lack of understorey and a species make-up that was limited almost exclusively to cherrybark oak. These young adult trees were second-growth shoots that arose as stump or water sprouts (ie. epicormic shoots) after the last logging of this stand (= regrew by coppicing, as asexual regeneration). There were some sexually reproduced trees (ie. seedlings arising from acorns) in this stand, as for example the fine specimen presented in the two preceding slides, but this was much more limited than coppicing. The three cherrybark oaks presented in this photograph were all clones or ramets of the previous trees, which themselves could have clonal shoots from a still yet earlier cutting. Most Pineywoods bootomland hardwood forests are private property (on privately owned land) have been cut repeatedly on a frequent basis (Dr. Michael Fountain, Professor of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin University, personal communication). Burns and Honkala (1990) noted that cherrybark oak, especially younger trees, sprouts (resprouts)--frequently quite vigorously--from stumps. Reestablishment of cherrybark oak from stump sprouts is more likely to be successful under protection from fire and heavy browsing.

As a general rule, stump-sprouting is greater or more likely to result in established trees when bark is thinner; hence sprouting declines with advancing tree age (Smith, 1986, p. 471). It is generally thought that species having thinner bark coppice more abundantly. This is because origin of stump (water) shoots is from dormant buds that aries from the pith of the original shoot. If bark is too thick such buds cannot pierce it to form a sprout (Smith, 1986, p. 471). Likewise, these sprouts can arise from either the base or near the top of the stump (near the sawed surface). The latter are inferior shoots because they are more likely to break off and/or have large portions of rotten wood (Smith, 1986, ps. 471-472). Cherrybark oak is a fairly thin-barked species so as to be more likely to sprout from stumps.

The oddly shaped basal trunks of cherrybark oak shown here (and in the two preceding slides) were apparently the product of several interacting factors including the fact that these boles were resprouts (stump suchers or water shoots) following cutting of the previous shoots (trunks), partial rotting of the stump, bark-feeding (incomplete girdling) by beaver on younger stump sprouts, and trunk buttressing (butt-swelling= enlarged diameter of trunk base) to help root systems anchor and retain upright orientation of these large shoots. Development of buttress trunks also might have been a response to periodic flooding. It was also possible that the swollen-like appearance of trunk bases was at least due partly to some pathogenic condition that resulted in burls or burl-resembling morphological forms. Surface fire(s) could not be ruled out as a possible factor, but fire was logically the least likely contributing factor on this river floodplain.

It was evident that the three adult trees (clonal shoots) shown here had arisen high rather than low on the stumps, and that considerable decay had occurred in these stumps as was described by Smith (1986, p. 471-472) and cited immediately above. The loggers who felled the previous trees had obviously not followed the admonition of this author's father who always gave explicit instructions to " leave low stumps". It was undeniable that the grotesque lower trunks on these trees was due in part to poor harvest methods (ie. lazy, sloppy cutting). Beaver had also been obvious agents of producing these wierd trunks.

Burns and Honkala (1990) noted that cherrybark oak (as in most other Quercus species) has sinker roots that come off of lateral roots to function in tree anchorage by assuming the support role of taproot and other vertical roots. Helms (1998) described a sinker root or flat root system as "a rooting habit of trees in which a strong taproot is absent but large lateral roots radiate horizontally from the base of the tree, from which vertical sinker roots elongate downward". This pattern arrangement of cherrybark oak roots in combination with a fully occupied root zone (rhizophere) on wet sandy soil increases the need for and value of buttressing by the basal trunk. Hence the pronounced butt swell in older trees of this bottomland species even without sprouts originating from higher on stumps as the ones shown above obviously had.

The tree at far left had a dead lower limb that had rotted enough that it was about to be shed. The so-called southern "pin oaks " like willow and laurel oak usually retain senesced lower limbs that become hardened wood as they droop closer to the ground. Such "pins" are a nusiance and potential source of injury for human travelers. More importantly from the standpoint of wood quality is the fact that "pins" leave knots in finished lumber. Cherrybark or bottomland red oak by contrast has pin-free boles that yield clear lumber. This feature coupled with rapid growth and ease in logging trees with limb-free trunks makes cherrybark oak one of the most valuable of the southern red oaks (Harlow et al., 1979, ps. 323-324).

Pecan-Dominated Bottomland Forests

Pecan Bottoms- Example of Southern Bottomland Forests

Forests dominated by pecan (Carya illinoensis) were widespread and locally common in pristine Texas. Most of these productive and beautiful forests have been trampled and highly modified (all too frequently completely obliterated) under the heavy hand of white man (not this author's idea of a Texas legacy to leave to future generations). Vegetation in which pecan is a dominant species are typically variants of the sugarberry-pecan-cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) bottomland forest cover type (SAF 93 or, based on earlier classification, SAF 94 [Eyre, 1980, ps. 65-66]). This forest range type was also covered in the chapters, Miscellaneous Forests and Southern and Central Forests. This short "sampler" was included here to present a more nearly comprehensive treatment of Texas Pineywoods by including an example of this forest cover type from the Pineywoods vegetational (land resource) area (Gould, 1962).

The following section treated bottomland forests dominated by pecan (Carya illinonensis= Hickoria pecan) to furnish an example of a specific form or subtype of either Sugarberry-American Elm-Green Ash (SAF 93) or Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm (SAF 94). The latter forest cover type (SAF 94) had previously been designated as Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm (Erye, 1980, ps. 65-66).

42. Bottomland forest (actually more of a woodland physiogonomy as crowns overlap but slightly) of pecan (Carya illinoinenisis) with an understory devoid of shrub layers and with the herb layer dominated by Canada wildrye with frostweed (Verbesina virginica) an important associate. Indiangrass and eastern gamagrass add a tallgrass element. In the upper two post oaks (left center) entered this otherwise single-species stand or pecan consociation. In the second photograph two large pecans (only their lower trunks showing) shaded a carpet of the two cool-season perennial native grasses, Canada wildrye Texas wintergrass, while warm-season perennials like little bluestem, Indiangrass, and perennial dropseeds "waited in the wings" for their time on the shaded stage. This tree-dominated vegetation was an irregular gallery forest along the South Llano River. The pecan is the stately State Tree of Texas and the community shown here is known as "pecan bottoms" by locals who frequent it come nut season. Another beautiful permanent deciduous forest range type.

Kimble County, Texas. June, estival aspect. An "island" or isolated part of FRES No. 15 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem) and K-91 (Oak-Hickory Forest). No SAF designation readily fit this range vegetation. This forest range appeared similar to the Cottonwood and Live oak Bottomland Types (SAF 63 and SAF 89), but most likely a Variant SAF 94 (Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm) that had the former SAF designation of Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm. Edwards Plateau- Edwards Plateau Woodland Ecoregion, 30a (Griffith eat al., 2004).

43. Texas-size- Though it was hard to show with all the shade, several widely scattered giant pecans formed a pecan bottom much like those that existed in Texas river bottoms before European man presumptuously assumed that he could improve things. For big trees like our "centerfold hero" here stocking rate has be relatively low. Prof. Benton Storey (Texas A&M Universty) felt that production of big pecan trees and high nut yields were best obtained with only one tree per acre. Pecan bottoms would thus be savannahs or, at most, woodlands because their crowns would not contact each other at such stocking.

Studded T steel post serving as stakes for pecan seedlings and saplings and the top of one post by the pecan-picker's "centerfold" provided scale for size comparison. This part of the understorey of this river bottom woodland had been mowed (perhaps in anticipation of nut season).

44. East Texas pecan bottoms- Bottomland mixed forest in the Texas Pineywoods dominated by pecan with hackberry and water oak as associates. Foremost tree at left margin was a large water oak with a single bole of high-quality timber. The large tree at right-of-center with numerous major limbs and scaley, brown bark was pecan as were most of the trees (pole-size) in background. The smallest of three trunks in foreground (in front of and aligned along left edge of pecan was sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Flowering dogwood (center green shrub) formed an interupted upper shrub layer. The invasive alien Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), seen here as the green plant in left to center foreground, comprised a spotty though dense lower shrub layer. The exotic and now widely naturalized Japanese honeysuckle (a horticultural escape "gone wild") is a major noxious plant problem in forest understories, especially in pecan bottoms. There were only a few grasses (panicgrasses were most obvious), grasslike plants (limited to Carex spp.), or forbs in the understorey of this bottomland forest. The alien L. janpoica appeared to have crowded out herbaceous plants.Species of green briar and grape along with rattan vine or Alabama supplejacck formed a "jungle" of vines among the smaller pecans in bacdground. Local mowing at edge of this forest near a campground had apparently effectively controlled woody vines in this sample of lowland Pineywoods forest.

Davy Crockett National Forest, Houston County, Texas. March, vernal aspect (post dogwood blooming stage ). FRES No. 15 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem). K-91 (Oak-Hickory Forest). Variant SAF 94 (Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm) that had former SAF designation of Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm. Closest biotic community designation of Brown et al. (1998, ps. 37, 38) was Oak-Hickory Series 122.11 of Northeastern Deciduous Forest 122.1, but there should have been a Oak-Hickory Series for Southeastern Deciduous and Evergreen Forest 123.. South Central Plains- Southern Tertiary Uplands Ecoregion, 35e (Griffith et al., 2004).

45. Another example of a pecan bottom- This example of bottomland forest dominated by pecan was along the small slow-moving Alarm Creek on extremely fertile alluvium. The four big trunks in right foreground and center midground were pecan. Other trees included both post and blackjack oaks. Hackberry was also well-distributed. Greenbriar was the dominant shrub. There was a well-developd herbaceous layer of Canada wildrye, little bluestem, and sand lovergrass (Eragrostis trichoides). Small isolated patches of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) grew along banks of the creek.

Erath County, Texas. April. FRES No. 15 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem). K-75 (Cross Timbers). Variant SAF 94 (Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm) that had former SAF designation of Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm. (Griffith et al., 2004). Closest biotic community designation of Brown et al. (1998, ps. 37, 38) was Oak-Hickory Series 122.11 of Northeastern Deciduous Forest 122.1, or more descriptively perhaps, a transition of this Oak-Hickory Series and Bluestem "Tall-grass" Series, 142.11, Plains Grassland 142.1 Cross Timbers-Western Cross Timbers Ecoregion, 29c (Griffith et al., 2004).

46. Young pecans and tallgrasses in summer- Part of the floodplain of the Bosque River in the Western Cross Timbers supported this stand of "half-growed" young pecans with bur oaks of the approximate same age cohort as associate tree species. Understorey was locally dominated by Canada wildrye, especially prominent in the second of these photographs where that cool-season member of the Hordeae or Tritaceae tribe was taller than the top wire of the fence enclosing this nice sample of "pecan bottoms". The associate herbaceous species varied locally from such species as the native and-should-have-been-one-of-the- climax -dominants Indiangrass to naturalized Johnsongrass. Other grasses included big, little, and silver bluestems; Texas wintergrass, several perennial dropseeds, sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) tumble windmillgrass (Chloris verticillata), and tumblegrass (Schedonnardus paniculatus). Forbs were varied but, as to be expected, composites "ruled" with prominent and common species including western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), Baldwin ironweed (Vernonia baldwinii), iand frostweed or white crownbeard (Verbesina virginica). The major shrub was common greenbriar or catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). Other shrubs were trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans) and poison oak.

Hamilton County, Texas. June. FRES No. 15 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem). K-75 (Cross Timbers). Variant SAF 94 (Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm) that had former SAF designation of Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm. (Griffith et al., 2004). Closest biotic community designation of Brown et al. (1998, ps. 37, 38) was Oak-Hickory Series 122.11 of Northeastern Deciduous Forest 122.1, or more descriptively perhaps, a transition of this Oak-Hickory Series and Bluestem "Tall-grass" Series, 142.11, Plains Grassland 142.1 Cross Timbers-Western Cross Timbers Ecoregion, 29c (Griffith et al., 2004).

47. Pecan timber- The forest form of pecan bottoms was represented by this stand of midddle-aged trees on the first terrace of a small creek floodplain in the patchwork of range plant communities where there is an intermixing of Western Cross Timbers and Grand Prairie in northcentral Texas. All trees were pecan whose tall straight trunks supported such woody vines as mustang grape, fiddleleaf or fringed greenbriar, and Alabama supplejack. Dominant understorey shrub was Carolina buckthorn. Most woody ground cover was the invasive, alien Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), a treadful, horrid, etc. (adjectives fall short of vile description) woody weed. Major grasses included Canada wildrye, purpletop, Johnsongrass, and Texas wintergrass in that order. Major forbs were Baldwin ironweed (Vernonia baldwinii), and Indian plantain (Cacalia plantaginea).

Erath County, Texas. April, early to mid-vernal aspect. FRES No. 15 (Oak-Hickory Forest Ecosystem). K-75 (Cross Timbers). Variant SAF 94 (Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm) that had former SAF designation of Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm. (Griffith et al., 2004). Closest biotic community designation of Brown et al. (1998, ps. 37, 38) was Oak-Hickory Series 122.11 of Northeastern Deciduous Forest 122.1, or more descriptively perhaps, a transition of this Oak-Hickory Series and Bluestem "Tall-grass" Series, 142.11, Plains Grassland 142.1 Cross Timbers-Western Cross Timbers Ecoregion, 29c (Griffith et al., 2004).

48. Bottomland pecan forest- Higher stocking of pecan trees on bottomland produces a forest in contrast to the savanna oar open woodland form of this range type as shown above. All trees in these two photographs were pecan. Dense stocking resulted in tall, relatively straight boles in marked contradistinction from the widely spreading crowns of pecans with more spacing among trees. Pecans with stocking rates represented by forest vegetation presented in these two photographs produce wood and not fruit. This is the forest community of a lumberman not an orchardman, and the form of vegetation that develops in absence of fire.

There was a well-developed woody vine layer that extended from ground level to tops of forest canopy which was comprised of mustang grape, rattanvine or Alabama supplejack, and fiddleleaf greenbriar. Carolina buckthorn grew as a smaller tree or larger shrub in the lower woody layer. The herbaceous layers included tallgrass species like Canada wildrye, purpletop, and the naturalized Johnsongrass along with composite forbs the two most common of which were Baldwin ironweed and Indian plantain. Much of the lower layer was composed of the invsive (and apparantely naturalized) Japanese honeysuckle.

49. Woody understorey of pecan bottom- From ground level and extending upward just shy of tree branching the range vegetation of a bottomland pecan forest was comprised of three woody vine species (mustang grape, fiddleleaf greenbriar, and Alabama supplejack) and the shrub or small tree, Carolina buckthorn. The wsidespread exotic invader, Japanese honeysuckle, was absent from this photoplot. The herbaceous portion of this forest vegetation visible in the background was presented in the next photograph.

50. Herbaceous layer (s) of a bottomland pecan forest- In addition to the woody vines of mustang grape, fiddleleaf greenbrier, and Alabama subblejack or rattanvine in right foreground and background of this photoquadrant important forbs of the herbaceous component included Indian plantain (left corner of foreground) and scattered smaller, apparently shade-stunted Baldwin ironweed. Many of the small green shoots with forb-like leaves were new sprouts of greenbrier and supplejack.

51. Pecan in winter- Examples of winter twigs, with emphasis on terminal bud, of pecan. The last photograph was a more detailed (closer-up) view of that shown in the third photograph. Upper bank above Bosque River, Erath County, Texas. January; winter dormancy.

52. Young leaves and catkins of pecan- A leader or shoot (first slide) and details of leaves and catkins (second slide) of pecan in West Cross Timbers of Texas. Erath County, Texas. March, pre-anthesis stage.

53. Fruit in the forest- Terminal end of a short shoot of native (hard-shell) pecan in the Grand Prairie of northcentral Texas. End of a short shoot on a pecan in the small bottomland forest range site along Richardson's Creek.

Hunewell Ranch, Tarleton State University. Erath County, Texas. October; nearly fruit-ripe stage.

Pineywoods Naturalized Woodland/Savannah Pasture

Throughout much of eastern North America the original forest vegetation was highly modified by European (white) man. Over much of this vast domain forest were cleared and converted into cropland, including introduced pasture. Some land was cutover forests that through secondary plant succession partially recovered as forest vegetation, often with appreciable propotions of naturalized introduced plant species. Over the course of time (decades in many instances) much of this land that had been farmed was either abandoned (in most cases of which it reverted to second-growth forests) or used as grazing land managed extensively and, usually, improperly (ie. mostly just grazed and fertilized, reseeded, renovated, etc. only periodically, if that, and generally used without regard to proper husbandry-- of pasture or livestock). Some of the second-growth forest on cutover land was also grazed/browsed by livestock and/or wildlife. Aside from stocking with livestock and supporting free-ranging wildlife that might be hunted, about the only human input to this mostly mismanaged, more-or-less defacto pasture was mowing or shredding (when the weeds and brush had gotten "too thick" and/ or grass shoots had grown so tall as to appear unsightly and prompt an oral response--which might or might not be followed by action--such as "It looks sorta rough; guess I ought to knock her down some").

This category of grazing land is probably the major form of naturalized pasture (naturalized range) in North America. (Naturalized annual grassland in California is the most recognized type of naturalized range, and it is generally much better managed than naturalized pasture to the east.) In northen and central regions of North America naturalized pasture (grazing land and range are appropriate synonyms for pasture when the adjective naturalized is applied) is typically dominated by Eurasian domesticated perennial grass species and/or weedy (ruderal) annual grasses of cool-season tribes especially Festuceae (Poaeae) and Aveneae. In more southern regions of North America naturalized, introduced perennial grasses tend to be of African or South American origin and in warm-season tribes, notably Andropogoneae, Paniceae, and Eragrosteae. Annual grasses on these southern anthropogenic pastures--which can be grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, or forests-- include many of the same genera and species (in particular Bromus, Avena, Hordeum) as those on naturalized grazing lands to the north and east and on the Pacific Slope. Some of the annual cool-season grasses in the south are native. Little barley (Hordeum pusillum) is the most common (widespread) example. In addition to these annual festucoid grasses, annual panicoid species are frequently abundant on naturalized southern range. Some of these are also native. Texas millet or Texas panicgrass (Panicum texanum) is perhaps the most common of these species. Most warm-season annual grasses are naturalized (primarily weeds imported from Eurasia). Hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), southern crabgrass (D. ciliaris), and stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis ) are examples of this group that are common in the Texas Pineywoods.

An example of naturalized pasture typical of southern North America was provided by a Texas Pineywoods woodland (or savannah, depending on interpretation) dominated by native oaks, water oak (Quercus nigra) and southern red oak (Q. falcata), in the tree layer and agronomic (introduced) perennial panicoid grasses, bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and Vaseygrass (P. urvillei) in the herbaceous layer. Both of these domestic Paspalum species were introduced from South America. Interestingly enough, Dallisgrass (P. dilatum) which is a more widely naturalized Paspalum species in Texas was not observed on this example pasture by the author. Apparently Dallisgrass is not competitive with the rhizomatous bahiagrass and taller, ranker Vaseygrass in the more mesic habitat of the Pineywoods, at least on sites represented by the example shown here. There were some native Paspalum species, including thinseed paspalum (P. setaceum) and brownseed paspalum (P. plictum), but these were "totally overwhelmed" by the two exotic domestic paspalums. Other grasses present included the natives, purpletop (Tridens flavus), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), beaked panicgrass (Panicum anceps), and Texas millet. With the exception of the latter, these native grasses were most common under oak canopy. It seemed that they were more competitive with the two dominant Paspalum species mostly under shade. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylodon) was present, but not abundant. Like naturalized Dallisgrass, bermudagrass appeared to be not competitive with bahiagrass and Vaseygrass. The most common forb in this naturalized pasture was wooly croton or hogwort (Croton capitatus), a native annual.

54. Naturalized woodland (or savannah) pasture in Texas Pineywoods- An herbaceous understorey dominated by bahiagrass with Vaseygrass as the associate species that developed beneath scattered young trees of water and southern red oak was used as naturalized range for beef cattle and white-tail deer at western edge of Texas Pineywoods. The largely anthropogenic (man-made) vegetation of this woodland range included some native grasses of which the major perennials were (in approximate order of abundance) purpletop, broomsedge bluestem, beaked panicgrass, thinseed paspalum, and brownseed paspalum. These species were most abundant (greatest density with highest cover) in shade of oaks. The native Texas millet was the most common and productive annual grass. The introduced( and widely naturalized) common bermudagrass and Johnsongrass were also locally abundant species, but Dallisgrass was not present at other than trace amounts (ie. it was not found at cover or density that was floristically meaningful). There were some Carex and Cyperus species, but these were infrequent and could not be identified without inflorescences which had been removed by recent mowing. The most common forb was the native annual euphorb, hogwort or wooly croton.

This pasture had been recently destocked of cattle and shredded. Prior to destocking it had been grazed to light degree of use, but subjected to frequent mowing at comparatively low stubbgle height. Aggressiveness and highly competitive features of bahiagrass and Vaseygrass effectively excluded most other grasses. These two agronomic paspalums apparently were less competitive under conditions of shade. It was likely that frequent, short mowing (shredding) had limited cover and density of Johnsongrass, a common and aggressive weedy perennial through much of southern and central North America. The conventional wisdom that Johnsongrass can tolerate almost any abuse except repeated close grazing and/or mowing was probably demonstrated on this naturalized pasture.

Domination of herbaceous cover by bahiagrass became a widespread phenomenon over much of the North American southland within a few decades of its introduction. Bahiagrass became an aggressive weed much like Johnsongrass though it has a considerably smaller area of distribution. Since introduction of bahiagrass numerous cultivars of bermudagrass were developed that are much more productive (higher-yielding) than bahiagrass or common bermudagrass, but bahiagrass and, to a lesser extent, common bermudagrass outcompete hybrid bermudagrasses and take over fields planted to the superior forages (and inferior competitors). The ranker-growing Vaseygrass maintains cover and spreads less effectively than bahiagrass under heavier defoliation, but it typically fares better under closer mowing and grazing than the tall-growing Johnsongrass and the shorter, stoloniferous bermudagrass (at least under the warm, mesic.habitats of the Pineywoods). Although Vaseygrass is semirhizomatous it usually grows more as a bunchgrass (much like the smaller Dallisgrass), which combined with its elevated apical meristems, puts it at competitive disadvantage to bahiagrass.

Freestone County, Texas. October; grain-ripe phenological stage in the two major paspalums. No units of native vegetation were applicable for this naturalized woodland pasture. East Central Texas Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 33f (Griffith et al., 2004).

55. Naturalized grass under native trees- Physiography and structure of a naturalized herbaceous layer beneath scattered young to mid-age water and southern red oaks. Bahiagrass and Vaseygrass were the principal herbaceous species with Vaseygrass the associate to co-dominant species on local spots (microsites) having less cover of bahiagrass which was the overall dominant. Common bermudagrass and Johnsongrass were other locally abundant introduced perennial grasses. Native perennial grasses included (in this approximate order of abundance) purpletop, broomsedge bluestem, beaked panicgrass, thinseed paspalum, and brownseed paspalum. Texas millet was a common and even locally dominant native annual grass. There were some species of caric sedge (Carex spp.) and flat or umbrella sedge (Cyperus spp.) which could not be identified in their existing vegetative state. Hogwort or wooly croton, a native monecious euphorb, was the major forb.

The oak species were present as individuals as well as clumps (assemblages) of trees. Bahiagrass and Vaseygrass were comparatively less abundant under tree shade, sometimes even being associate to mere incidental species under dominance of native grasses. Tree regeneration was limited to seedlings so short that the shredder blades passed over them. Browsing was not evident, probably because mowing had twisted off taller seedlings and saplings. There were some larger (taller) young trees close enough to existing trees that the rotary shredder could not get to them. The history of mowing and grazing management was unknown though this man-modified naturalized pasturage was representative of others in this western edge of Texas Pineywoods.

The spatial distribution of trees on this naturalized grazing land was subject to interpretation as either woodland or savanna. There were stands of water and southern red oak in which tree density and proximity were such that crowns interlocked to form a forest canopy (though a relatively open canopy layer). There were other locations on this naturalized range where there were no trees and enough distance among clumps or stands of trees that such treeless vegetation was grassland. These treeless (grassland) areas made up more of the total land area of the pasture than did that supporting trees. From that perspective the total or general vegetation of this pasture could be interpreted as that of a savanna. Conversely, it could be viewed as an overall woodland (as a combination of closed-canopy stands of oak and open grassland).

Freestone County, Texas. October; grain-ripe phenological stage in bahiagrass and Vaseygrass. No units of native vegetation were applicable for this naturalized woodland pasture. East Central Texas Plains- Floodplains and Low Terraces Ecoregion, 33f (Griffith et al., 2004).

56. Sward of Pineywoods naturalized pasture- Herbaceous layer of a naturalized woodland or savanna pasture on the western edge of Texas Pineywoods. Bahiagrass and Vaseygrass were the two major herbaceous species with bahiagrass almost always dominant or co-dominant with Vaseygrass which was, communitywide, the associate herb. Other grasses included the introduced species of common bermudagrass and Johnsongrass along with native grasses. These latter included perennial species of purpletop, broomsedge bluestem, beaked panicgrass, thinseed paspalum, and brownseed paspalum (in that approximate order) and the annual, Texas millet. There was some cover of caric sedges and umbrella or flat sedges. Forbs in this naturalized vegetation were limited to hogwort or wooly croton which grew in patches, none of which were in the sward presented here.

57. Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) on naturalized Pineywoods range- Turf and sexual shoots of bahiagrass (first slide) and bahiagrass panicle (second slide), the dominant herbaceous species on naturalized pasture on water oak-southern red oak woodland or savanna at western perimeter of Texas Pineywoods. The "dead giveaway" characteristic of the bahiagrass panicle is the physical arrangement in which the two spicate branches usually arise at a common point on the central axis of this inflorescence and then frequently curving symmetrically downward (as in the second of these slides). Sometimes one panicle branch arises slightly higher on the floral axis (ie. one branch is a "little higher up on the seed stalk" than the other branch). Bahiagrass is the only Psapalum species in the Texas Pineywoods that regularly has this point of common origin for main branches in its panicle (Gould, 1975, p. 501).

Freestone County, Texas. October; grain-ripe phenological stage.

58. Spikelets of the naturalized dominant- Ripened caryopses on branches of a panicle of bahiagrass, the dominant herbaceous species on naturalized water oak-southern red oak woodland or savanna range at western extremity of Pineywoods in east Texas.

Freestone County, Texas. October; grain-ripe to grain-shedding phenological stages.

59. Spikelets of the natralized associate- Inflorescence of Vaseygrass, an agronomic perennial grass that was the associate herbaceous species on water oak-southern red oak woodland or savanna having an understorey dominated by naturalized domestic grasses at western perimeter of Pineywoods in east Texas. Panicle and flag leaf were shown in first photograph while the second slide featured ripening spikelets.

The Paspalum inflorescence type has traditionally been regarded as a panicle. Contemporary terminology described the major units of this panicle as "unilateral spicate branches" (Gould, 1975, p. 500). These branches in P. urvillei are ascending or erect and closely spaced among themselves and arising off both sides of the central axis (or rachis) of the panicle.

.Freestone County, Texas. October; hard-dough to grain-shatter stages of phenology (and all on the same branch of a panicle).

60. Texas millet or Texas panicgrass (Panicum texanum), a native, warm-season annual grass on naturalized (and, mostly, perennial) pasture- Local stand of Texas millet growing in the herbaceous understorey of water oak-southern red oak woodland or savannal range. The plants representing this species were growing on the example of naturalized Pineywoods grazing land shown and described above. Texas millet was not a major species in this pasture vegetation, but it was important and even dominant on some local sites (microhabitats).

.Freestone County, Texas. October; soft-dough stage of phenology.

61. A native, warm-season annual and its sexual shoots- A single plant of Texas millet (first photograph) and two sexual shoots of this species (second photograph). This small to mid-size panicgrass is widespread in North America ranging from the Atlantic Coast (Massachusetts) to Pacific Slope (California). Texas millet is often a weedy or ruderal species, even in areas where it is a native. More specifically, it tends to be a pioneer (at least early seral) species on disturbed sites. The specimen presented here was growing in the West Cross Timbers on land subjected to repeated heavy (close) mowing.

Erath County, Texas. October; anthesis.

62. Spikelets of a native warm-season annual grass- Spikelets on contracted panicle of Texas millet. Different spikelets were in various stages of flowering and fruit formation ranging from anthesis to grain in milk-stage. Examples were from plants growing in the West Cross Timbers on overmowed land. This annual species was well-represented in a Texas Pineywoods woodland dominated by water and southern red oak in the tree layer and bahiagrass and Vaseygrass in the herbaceous layer. Texas millet added two floristic components to this understorey: 1) annual life cycle and 2) native species. Other native grasses and grasslike plants in this herbaceous zone of vegetation were perennials.

The inflorescence of Texas millet is made up of erect or ascending branches that lie closely to and spread slightly away from the central axis (or rachis) resulting in a "tight" panicle yet with branching conspicuous enough that it is not a contracted panicle.

Erath County, Texas. October.

63. A native annual forb on naturalized (perennial) Pineywoods range- Hogwort or wooly croton (Croton capitatus) on water oak and southern red oak-dominated woodland with an understorey composed largely of naturalized bahiagrass and Vaseygrass. Hogwort was the most common forb in the herbaceous layer(s) of this highly man-modified vegetation.

.Freestone County, Texas. October.

64. Wooly croton or hogwort- Shoot apex of Croton capitatus showing fruit which is interpreted as a capsule composed of two to four carpels each of which contains one seed (Fernald, 1950, p. 959). All Croton species are monecious. The apt adjective "wooly" was clearly evident in this photograph.

.Freestone County, Texas. October.

65. Water oak (Quercus nigra)- Leader (first photograph) and detail of leaves (second photograph) of water oak growing on a naturalized woodland or savanna pasture on the western margin of the Texas Pineywoods. Southern red oak was the co-cominant woody species on this highly man-modified grazing land. Bahiagrass and Vaseygrass dominated most of the herbaceous layer of this naturalized range. There was limited regeneration of oaks on this frequently close mowed (overmowed) pasture with tree reproduction limited to short seedlings or saplings growing next to trunks of established trees where they were protected from a tractor-mounted shredder.

Freestone County, Texas. October.

66. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata)- Leaves of the co-dominant tree on a naturalized (anthropogenic) woodland or savannah pasture on western edge of Texas Pineywoods. Bahiagrass and Vaseygrass were understorey dominants over most of this naturalized range. Water oak was co-dominant with southern red oak in the tree layer(s). Regeneration of Quercus species was limited to seedlings that had not grown to mowing height or where growing close enough to trunks of larger trees that they could not be reached by the tractor-mounted rotary mower.

Freestone County, Texas. October

[ Home ]

Texas Piney Woods-II

Forest Range Types of Eastern North America

Historical Footnote and Editorial

For the Record

Swamps and Related Wetland Forests

Sandjack= bluejack oak (Quercus incana) Scrub Forest or Woodland

Bottomland Forests of Willow Oak-Laurel Oak ("Pin Oak Flats" ) and Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak

Pecan-Dominated Bottomland Forests

Pecan Bottoms- Example of Southern Bottomland Forests

Pineywoods Naturalized Woodland/Savannah Pasture

Bottomland Forests of Willow Oak-Laurel Oak ("Pin Oak Flats" ) and
Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak