




| ere - 
ee mt we 

= *, > 
ee 
; p= Ea 
7 
e 
~~ &* 
pees Tepe aks 
. <E w aS ty ee 



‘ 
e 
i@ 
, 
aie 
‘ 
” 
Wagers Sy S nee Bice Sareea 
4 a=, pn - oy 0 ube tS EE 35 
oe 
o% , 
Px ur 
rt BAe 
Poi*sres s = 
4 Fy ST gen > >=. "= we 

Fig. 5. Type 3 wetland (Shaw and Fredine 1956) in the Minnedosa study area. 
lands at about 10-day intervals. Estimates of water depths 
were made for other wetlands. Trends in water levels were 
measured by water gauges in selected wetlands through- 
out the study area. 
Land Use 
Wetlands were also classified according to the 
predominant type of use of adjacent land. Where more than 
one land use occurred around a wetland, the dominant land 
use was considered to have the greatest effect on waterfowl 
surrounded by land of a single use type. Wetlands in road- 
side ditches were recorded as ungrazed grassland, even 
though the perimeters of some were cut for hay in July. 
In the Minnedosa area, wetland perimeters tended to be 
less wooded than in most of the aspen parklands and were 
classified by peripheral and emergent vegetation. If less 
than one-third of the shoreline was bordered with aspen 
or willows, the wetland was classified as “open”; if trees 
grew on one-third to two-thirds of the shoreline, it was 
classified as “half”; and if tree growth occupied more than 
two-thirds of the edge, it was classified as “closed.” 
Emergent aquatic vegetation was classified in the same 
way. An “open-open” wetland was one with tree or willow 
growth along less than one-third of its shoreline and whose 
surface was less than one-third vegetated. A “closed—closed” 
wetland had over two-thirds of its shoreline wooded and 
over two-thirds of its water surface vegetated. 
Percentage of water surface covered by emergent aqua- 
tics was estimated for each pond and was classified into four 
categories: 0-10%, 11-33% , 34-66%, and 67-100%. In 
addition, dominant plant species and percentage of each 
were recorded, 
