![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Students in a graduate seminar at Michigan State University produced a series of detailed vegetation, soils, and landform maps of a 1.5-square-mile (3.9 km2) study area in southwest Lower Michigan. The learning outcomes (maps) and skill development objectives (sampling strategies and various GIS applications) of this field-intensive mapping experience were driven by the assumption that students learn and understand relationships among physical landscape variables better by mapping them than they would in a classroom-based experience. The group-based, problem-solving format was also intended to foster collaboration and camaraderie. The study area lies within a complex, interlobate moraine. Fieldwork involved mapping in groups of two or three, as well as soil and vegetation sampling. Spatial data products assembled and used in the project included topographic maps, a digital elevation model (DEM), aerial photographs, and NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service) soil maps. Most of the soils are dry and sandy, with the main differentiating characteristic being the amount of, and depth to, subsurface clay bands (lamellae) or gravelly zones. The presettlement (early 1830s) vegetation of the area was oak forest, oak savanna, and black oak “barrens.” Upland sites currently support closed forests of white, black, and red oak, with a red maple, dogwood, and sassafras understory. Ecological data suggest that these oak forests will, barring major disturbance, become increasingly dominated by red maple. This group-based, problem-solving approach to physical geography education has several advantages over traditional classroom-based teaching and could also be successfully applied in other, field-related disciplines.
*This study would not have been possible without the generous support provided by the Field Trip Endowment Fund of the Department of Geography at Michigan State University. Special thanks are extended to Greg Thoen, of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), for helping us identify the site and for many other forms of support and encouragement. Christina Hupy assisted in the field.
Notes
*This study would not have been possible without the generous support provided by the Field Trip Endowment Fund of the Department of Geography at Michigan State University. Special thanks are extended to Greg Thoen, of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), for helping us identify the site and for many other forms of support and encouragement. Christina Hupy assisted in the field.
1Based on witness and line tree data from the General Land Office Survey notes, on file at the State of Michigan Archives, Lansing.
1Based on data compiled while mapping.
2Includes quaking aspen and bigtooth aspen, which were not differentiated in the field, and which have very similar ecological niches.
3Includes American elm, slippery elm and hackberry, which were not differentiable in the field.
4The “Other species” category includes (in order of importance): pin oak, dogwood, black ash, white pine, red pine, quaking aspen, black walnut, white ash, pignut hickory, scotch pine, and eastern red cedar. Each of these species had Importance Values less than 2.0.
1Based on data compiled while mapping.
2Includes American elm, slippery elm and hackberry, which were not differentiated in the field.
3The “Other species” category includes (in order of importance): bigtooth aspen, red oak, beech, pignut hickory, common prickly ash, black oak, eastern red cedar, ironwood, white ash, witch hazel, quaking aspen, black ash, red cedar, red pine, and white spruce. Each of these species had Importance Values less than 2.0.
