Skip to main content

A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

9 Terrestrial Module
Pages 41-46

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 41...
... The brief and effective narrative of the history of habitat fragmentation makes it clear that so much habitat has been lost that the majority of damage from development has already been done to the Florida Keys terrestrial ecosystems and communities. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Smart Growth scenario describes minimal or negligible changes in the module's numerical outputs.
Read the entire page →
From page 42...
... Individual species chosen are all well studied, and the bibliography and previous deliverables include extensive references on their habitat requirements. URS Corp has made a strong effort to include species whose habitat requirements cover the complete range of habitat types, including upland hardwood and pine forests, mangrove forests, fresh water communities, and coastal herbaceous communities, including dunes.
Read the entire page →
From page 43...
... Exotic pest plant invasion, feral cat populations, trash, and other human related impacts have degraded some of this habitat. A major concern is that the mere switch in land use classification from "vacant land with buildable lots" to "open space purchased by a conservation organization" does not automatically make this land good habitat regardless of the ADID cover code.
Read the entire page →
From page 44...
... If relationships between sea level rise and shifts in habitat status and quality cannot be accomplished based upon the data available, then the module should emphasize the above limitations in a narrative section. Fiscal Consequences of Scenarios as Outputs In both the Terrestrial and the Fiscal Modules, the implications of the assumptions about shifts in land use categories to "conservation lands" must be made clear.
Read the entire page →
From page 45...
... Removing this measure will not severely alter the use of the species richness measure, since the difference between direct and indirect impacts noted in the model runs for scenarios is a constant (Draft CCAM Tables 4.20-4.21~. Habitat Degradation Index and Human Population The use of constant decay coefficients for the measurement of the RHDI is inappropriate for at least some of the land use types, including recreational/open
Read the entire page →
From page 46...
... Again in this case, it would be better to delete the use of the RHDI and the indirect impacts element of the model. Habitat Requirements of Single Species Results of model runs for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and the whitecrowned pigeon clearly identify losses in additional habitat from changes in land use categories, even in the Smart Growth scenario.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • habitat requirements
  • species richness
  • single species
  • decay coefficients
  • florida keys

  • habitat degradation
  • human population
  • indirect impacts
  • degradation index
  • terrestrial ecosystems

  • smart growth
  • forest interior
  • urs corporation
  • constant decay
  • growth scenario

  • model runs
  • ccam report
  • functional human
  • five forest
  • habitat requirement

  • keys marsh
  • short distances
  • requirement models
  • habitat fragmentation
  • indirect impact

  • future land
  • carrying capacity
  • adjacent land
  • gis overlay
  • relative habitat


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.