AG TRANS: Case Study Figure Captions

CAP LTER

Fig 1 – Boundaries of the CAP LTER (and Ag Trans) study sites. The Central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP) Ecosystem encompasses an area of 6,400 sq km, while the Ag Trans study area encompasses 61,580 sq km. NO FIGURE Fig 2 – Turner vegetation map (forthcoming).

Fig 3 – Population rates of change, 1910-2000. The “cities rate” represents the mean rate of change of US cities with populations greater than 1 million in 2000; Maricopa County roughly corresponds to the Phoenix metropolitan area.

1

Fig 4 – The growth of urban settlement in the Phoenix region, 1934-1995.

Fig 5 – Conceptual model of Agrarian Landscapes in Transition projects, whose ultimate goal is to understand past cycles of land use and human response in order to propose future scenarios.

Fig 6 – Map of prehistoric and existing canals located within the CAP LTER study area. Source: Salt River Project.

2

Fig 7 – Map of vegetation communities based on Ingalls 1867 map for the General Land Office (GLO) survey.

Fig 8 – a) Regional Land Use, 1912; b) Regional Land Use, 1934; c) Regional Land Use, 1955; d) Regional Land Use, 1975; e) Regional Land Use, 1995; f) Regional Land Use, 2000.

3

Fig 9 – Price and acreage of cotton.

Fig 10 – Groundwater pumping and streamflow.

Fig 11 – Productivity of cotton, local and national.

4

Fig 12 – Irrigated Acres: Maricopa and Pinal counties.

Fig 13 – a) Water users for the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA); b) Water sources for the Phoenix AMA.

5

Fig 14 – a) Vegetation communities for the CAP LTER study area, 2000. Source: 200-Point-Survey; b) Urban vegetation communities for the CAP LTER study area, 2000. Source: 200-Point-Survey Harvard Forest Figures: 1: Estimated forest area New England states, 1907 to 1997 (Source: USDA Forest Service FIA data: http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/final_rpa_tables.pdf) 2: net volume of growing stock (m3/ha), 6 New England states, 1950 – 2000. (Source: http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/final_rpa_tables.pdf)

6

3: Percent of forest landscape in different successional stages, 6 New England states, 1920 – 2000. (Source: various USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletins) 4: Reported lumber production from New England sawmills, 1870 – 1946; through 2003 (MA only). (Source: Steer 1948) 5: Average size of non-industrial private ownership, by state and over time. (Source: various USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletins) 6: Massachusetts median household income and standing timber value (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SNESPR) List of figures: Figure 1: Massachusetts forest, with primary transportation arteries. Figure 2: Percent of a town that is in forested land use Figure 3: Population density (persons/km2) by town Figure 4: Percent of a town that is in developed (i.e., residential, industrial, or commercial) land use Figure 5: accumulation of volume/ha over time, by diameter class, in Massachusetts forests [Berlik et al 2002] Figure 6: Management models on private lands in Massachusetts [Kittredge, in review].

7

Figure Legends Figure 1. Historical changes in land cover and population for the central Massachusetts region (see Fig. 2 for area covered). Similar trends in population and changing area of forest cover are typical for the entire New England region outside of northern Maine. Data from Foster et al. (1998). Figure 2. The central Massachusetts region showing (a) topography and physiographic areas and forest pattern in (b) 1830, when the landscape was extensively deforested for agricultural activity, and (c) 1985, following extensive natural reforestation. Variation in forest pattern during the two time periods is associated with physiography, the formation of the Quabbin Reservoir in the south central region, and the formation of industrial towns along the major east-west highway and railroad. Data from Foster et al. (1998). Figure 3. Changes in the relative abundance of two groups of tree species, oak-hickory and northern hardwood- (maple, birch, beech) hemlock, from the time of colonial settlement and the present in north central Massachusetts. At the time of European settlement the vegetation varied strongly with elevation and regional climate, with oak-hickory abundant in lower, warmer areas such as the Connecticut River Valley and northern hardwoods-hemlock more abundant on the cooler, higher elevations of the central Uplands. Following the sequence of deforestation and natural reforestation that occurred through the 19th and 20th C, the forest composition has become much more homogenized on a regional scale and no longer varies statistically with climate or elevation. From Foster et al. (1998). Figure 4. Schematic depiction of the historical changes in representative wildlife species and forest cover through time in New England. Whereas the wolf has been eliminated, open-field species like the bobolink and meadow lark peaked in abundance during the 19th C period of open agriculture, the coyote is a new species in the landscape and the deer, beaver, and bear have recovered greatly since elimination or very low historical abundance. From Foster (1998). SGS

Fig 1- SGS Narrative Study Area.

8

Fig 1a – No Caption.

Fig 2 – Geology.

9

Fig 3 – Elevation (meters).

Fig 4 – River basin boundaries (white) with contemporary hydrology (blue).

10

Fig 5 – Precipitation (mm).

Fig 5a – The evolution of County Boundaries in the SGS study area.

11

Fig 6 – Land claimed in 1901 and land use in 1991.

12

Fig 7 – Proportion of sand, silt, and clay in SGS soils.

Fig 8 – No Caption.

13

Fig 9 – Land use in South Platte River Basin, 1940 and 1991.

14

Fig 10, 11 – Irrigation wells in the Republican River Basin, 1950 to 1980.

15

Coweeta

Fig 1 – Southern Appalachian study region with the location of state lines and basins where research efforts are concentrated.

16

Fig 2 – Agroecological suitability of the Southern Appalachia study region based on precipitation, frost-free days, and heat days.

17

Fig 3 – Relative occurrence of early domesticates in archaeological contexts from the lower Little Tennessee River Valley, east Tennessee (based on Cridlebaugh 1984).

18

Fig 4 – Early domesticate influx to and dispersal from the southeastern agricultural hearth.

Fig 5 – Relative and absolute population growth of the Southern Appalachian study region, 1790-1990.

19

Fig 6 – Standardized total county agricultural production (1850, 1900, and 1949) using procedure described in the endnote to manuscript.

20

Fig 7 – Herbaceous species diversity shifts to weedy species when patches are smaller or the intensity of past disturbance is greater.

Fig 8 – Carbon loss due to conversion of forest to agriculture is greatest in aboveground live biomass, woody debris, and root component relative to that lost in the soil component.

21

Fig 9 – Fine sediment input to the substrate of small southern Appalachian rivers depends more on past than present land use. KBS

22

Figure 1. Study area.

Exogenous SW MI Agriculture EndogenousPolitical econom

y and social ecology

Polit

ical

eco

nom

y an

d so

cial

eco

logy

19th Century Extensive Development, 1852-1898

The Golden Age, 1899-1919

Agricultural and Great Depression, 1919-1940

Agricultural Fordism, 1941-1973

Agroecological Crises, 1974-1989

Glocalization, 1990-present

Regional Agriculture as the Relational Mediation of Endogenous and Exogenous Nature and Society

Figure 2: Agricultural periods mediate the expression of endogenous-exogenous relations

23

Figure 3. Elevation.

24

Figure 4. soil types.

25

Figure 5. Land cover map from 1800.

26

Figure 6. 1930s Lower Michigan farming areas.

Commodity AcreageWheat 1,009,832Hay 542,814Corn 530,247Oats 216,776Tree fruit (1874) 117,666Other small grains 34,685

Figure 7: Dominant Commodities by Acreage in 1880. NO FIGURE Figure 8. Topographical map identifying the counties of SWMI Fruit Belt counties and showing its relationship to other fruit growing regions in the nation.

27

Row crops grown in SWMI from 1854 to 1997

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025

Acr

es

WheatHayCornOatsBuckwheatBarleyRyeSoybeans

Figure 9: SW Michigan Row Crop Acreage, 1854-1997

Acreage in SWMI grains in 1940

WheatCornOatsBarleyRye

28

Figure 10: SW Michigan Grains, 1940

Average Farm Size in Michigan 1920-1997

507090

110130150170190210230

1920 1940 1960 1980

Acr

es

Figure 11: SW Michigan Average Farm Size 1920-1997. NO FIGURE Figure X. Crop diversity (1900 and 2000).

Price per bushel in 2002 dollars

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

CornWheatSoybean

Figure 12: 20th century Price per Bushel for Corn, Wheat and Soybeans

29

NO FIGURE Figure 13. High Density Apple Orchard. NO FIGURE Figure 14. Population density across SWMI, SW non-fruit belt, SWFB. NO FIGURE Figure 14 (repeated). Direct marketing of fruit products. KNZ

Land-use Map (no caption)

Flint Hills Corn Production (1860-1900)

30

Reported Acreage of Sericea Lespedza, 2002.

31