DOCSLIB.ORG

Classification and Management of Eastern Washington's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Classification and Management of Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Sites On the National Forests of Eastern Washington (Part 1: The Series Descriptions) FINAL DRAFT (off to PNW for edit, layout and publishing) February 14, 2001 By Bernard L. (Bud) Kovalchik Hall Ponds, Colville National Forest Bernard L. (Bud) Kovalchik Eastern Washington Area Ecologist (Area II): Retired USDA Forest Service Region 6 and Pacific Northwest Research Station Colville, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests 765 South Main Street Colville, WA 99114 (509) 684-7000 LOTUS = [email protected] Author’s Home E-mail Address = [email protected] USDA and USDI employees may download this document from the Colville National Forest Intranet Site 2 About the Author Bernard L. (Bud) Kovalchik was the Area Ecologist in Area II (Wenatchee, Okanogan and Colville National Forests), stationed on the Colville National Forest. He did most of the sampling for this classification on the Colville and Okanogan National Forests and supervised several crews that collected additional information on the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests. He did most of the data entry and editing, data analysis, and authored the classification. Bud’s previous classifications of potential natural vegetation include: 1. “Forested Habitat Types of Montana” (Pfister et al. 1977). 2. “Plant Associations of the Crooked River National Grasslands” (Hopkins and Kovalchik 1981). 3. “Riparian Zone Associations of the Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests” (Kovalchik 1987). 4. “Field Guide for Forested Plant Associations of the Wenatchee National Forest” (Lillybridge et al. 1995). Acknowledgements The author laid the groundwork for this and other riparian/wetland classifications in the Pacific Northwest with his classification of riparian plant associations in central Oregon (Kovalchik 1987). This model has since been applied in northeastern Oregon (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997), Montana (Hansen et al. 1995), and the Gifford Pinchot/Mt. Hood National Forests (Diaz and Mellen 1996). This classification would not be possible without the support of many people: Ed Schultz, Sonny O’Neal, Sam Gehr, Bob Vaught, Joe Sanchez, George Buckingham, Fred Gonzalez and Glen Hoffman lent their staff support throughout this process. Brian Kelley, a former member of the Area II ecology staff, assisted the author as a crewmember for one summer and updated the analysis for the Conifer and Deciduous Series in 1997. Summer crewmembers include Rich Corner, Matt Bergval-Mensor, Monica Hunt, Drake Reed, Mike Wendel and Kia Casho. A special thanks to Marie James, who assisted the author in data collection for one summer and was a very capable crew leader for two additional summers. Marie James and Karen Larson provided months of winter office help. Brad Smith made life easier by writing the ECOAID program, which has allowed all of us in the Region 6 Ecology Program to work in a friendly database environment for data management and analysis. Dave Larson and Janice Berube provided GIS help along the way. Ken White converted the PARADOX database to a linked ACCESS database. Bill Swartz reviewed and rewrote the geomorphology section. Richard Carter entered corrections provided by the peer reviews of Terry Lillybridge and Rod Clausnitzer. Joy Mastroguiseppe and Steven Brunsfeld verified sedge and willow collections during the first few years of the study. And finally, thanks to Andrea Read, Leah Wall, Bill Zoodsma and Rhinda Wolfe for their timely and invaluable help during the final stages of document preparation. Cover photo by: Bernard L. (Bud) Kovalchik. Figures 1 and 4 by: William (Bill) Swartz. Other figures, tables, photos, sketches and graphics by Bud Kovalchik. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Washington DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 or (TTY) (202) 720-1127. USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 3 Detailed Table of Contents Concepts, Methods, and Applications Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………8 Scope……………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….. Objectives…………………………………….…………………………………………………………..…………. Methods……………………...…………………………………………………………………………11 Field Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Taxonomic Considerations………………………………………………………………………………………… Office Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Classification Concepts and Terminology……………..……………………………………….13 Series, Plant Association, and Community Type Concepts……………………………………………………. Nomenclature……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. The Physical Environment…………………………………………………………………………14 Climate………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Soils……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Geomorphology and Riparian/Wetland Classification…………………………………………17 Continent Physiography…………………………………………………………………………………………….. Geologic Basis of the Sections The Classification…………………………………………………………………………................................…………..24 Aquatic/Riparian/Wetland Sample Plots…………………………………………………………………………. Classification Order………………………………………………………………………………………………… Series Description Criteria…………………………………………………………………………………………. Classification Database…………………………………………..……………………………………… Vegetation Characteristics………………………………………………………………………………… Physical Setting…………………………………………………………….……………………………… Elevation…………………………………………………………………………………………… Valley Geomorphology…………………………..……………………………………………… Rosgen Channel Types (Classes)………………………………………………….………….. Fluvial Surfaces…………………………………………..…………………………………….. Soils…………………………………………………………………………………………….… Ecosystem Management……………………………………………………………………………………. Natural Regeneration…………………………………………………………………………….. Artificial Establishment……………………………………………………………………………. Stand Management…………………………………………………………………………….. Growth and Yield…………………………………………………………………………….. Down Wood and Snags……………………………………………………………………. Fire…………………………………………………………………………………………… Animals………………………………………………………………………………………… Recreation………………………………………………………………………………………. Insects and Disease…………………………………………………………………………….. Estimating Vegetation Potential on Disturbed Sites………………………………………. Sensitive Species…………………………………………………………………………… Adjacent Series………………………………………………………………………………………. Relationships to Other Classifications…………………………………………………………….. Keys for Field Identification Vegetative Key to the Major Vegetation Lifeforms……………………………………………………………….29 Key to the Coniferous Forest Series………………………………………………………………………………..31 Key to the Deciduous Forest Series……………………………………………………………….……….………32 Key to the Shrub Series……………………………………………………………………………….……….…..…33 Key to the Herbaceous Series……………………………………………………………………….………………34. 4 Descriptions for the Coniferous Forest Series (TSME) Mountain Hemlock Series………………………………………………………………………………………42 (ABAM) Pacific Silver Fir Series………………………………………………………………………………………...56 (TSHE) Western Hemlock Series………………………………………………………………………………………..73 (THPL) Western redcedar Series……………………………………………………………………………..…………92 (ABLA2) Subalpine Fir Series……………………………………………………………………………………..……111 (PIEN) Engelmann Spruce Series……………………………………………………………………….………..……133 (ABGR) Grand Fir Series………………………………………………………………………………….….……........150 Miscellaneous Conifer Series…………………………………………………………………………….……….……164 Descriptions for the Deciduous Forest Series (POTR) Quaking Aspen Series…………………………………………………………………………………………174 (POTR2) Black Cottonwood Series……………………………………………………………………………………189 Miscellaneous Deciduous Tree Series……………………………………………………………………………..…205 Descriptions for the Shrub Series (SALIX) Willow Series……………………………………………………………………………………………………218 (HEATH) Heath Series……………………………………………………………………………………………………246 (ACCI) Vine Maple Series………………………………………………………………………………………..………259 (ALSI) Sitka Alder Series…………………………………………………………………………………………………271 (ALIN) Mountain Alder Series………………………………………………………………………………….………..286 (COST) Red-osier Dogwood Series………………………………………………………………………….…...……307 (SPDO) Douglas spiraea Series………………………………………………………………………………...………322 Miscellaneous Shrub Series……………………………………………………………………………………....…....334 Descriptions for the Herbaceous Series AQUATIC Series………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….347 MEADOW Series…………………………………………………………………………………………………….....…362 FORB Series………………………………………………………………………………………………………...........392 Tables Table 1. Reference sources for determining site index………………………………………………………………… Table 2. List of aquatic, riparian and wetland plant associations on the National Forests of eastern Washington…. Table 3. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the TSME Plant Associations………………… Table 4. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the ABAM Plant Associations……………… Table 5. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the TSHE Plant Associations………………… Table 6. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the THPL Plant Associations……………… Table 7. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the ABLA2 Plant Associations………………. Table 8. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the PIEN Plant Associations………………… Table 9. Constancy and mean cover of important plant species in the ABGR Plant Associations……………….. Table 10. Constancy and mean cover
Recommended publications
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado

    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado

    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
  • Gitksan Plant Classification and Nomenclature

    Gitksan Plant Classification and Nomenclature

    Journal of Ethnobiology 19(2): 179-218 Winler 1999 GITKSAN PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE LESLIE MAIN JOHNSON Department ofAnthropology, University ofAlberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4 ABSTRACT.- The Gitksan of northwestern British Columbia are speakers of an Interior Tsimshianic language. They live in a mountainous, densely forested environment transitional between the Northwest Coast and the Boreal interior plateau. Traditionally the Gitksan pursued a mixed fishing/hunting/ gathering subsistence strategy. The Gitksan have a roughly hierarchical classification of plants. The general domain 'plant kingdom' or 'floral form' is recognized but not overtly labelled. Within this, several broad groupings of the life form sort can be distinguished. Three of these are large groupings composed ofa number of named subordinate generics: gan 'trees,' sgan 'plants,' and maa'y 'berry' or 'fruit plants.' 'Plants' include a diverse mixture of forms ranging from small trees to some perennial herbs, and prostrate sub-shrubs. The 'plant' and the 'berry' groups overlap extensively. The remainder are residual taxa which are empty, containing few or no named subtypes, though encompassing morphological and taxonomically diverse forms: habasxw'grass' or'hay,' 'yens 'leaves' or 'herbaceous plants,' majagalee 'flowers,' umhlw 'moss,' and.gayda ts'uuts 'fungi.' A mixture of morphologic and utilitarian characters seems to underlie the system of plant classification. The relationship of partonomy to utility and classification is explored. Ninety distinct generics have been documented. Eighty-four represent vascular plants and six represent mosses, fungi and lichens. Keywords: classification, Gitksan, ethnobotany, Canada, Northwest Coast RFSUMEN.- Los Gitksan hablan una Iengua tsimsiana interior. Viven en una region montaflosa y de bosques densos.
  • Part 2 – Fruticose Species

    Part 2 – Fruticose Species

    Appendix 5.2-1 Vegetation Technical Appendix APPENDIX 5.2‐1 Vegetation Technical Appendix Contents Section Page Ecological Land Classification ............................................................................................................ A5.2‐1‐1 Geodatabase Development .............................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐1 Vegetation Community Mapping ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................ A5.2‐1‐3 Limitations of Ecological Land Classification .................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Supplementary Results ..................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐4 Rare Vegetation Species and Rare Ecological Communities ........................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Supplementary Desktop Results ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐16 Supplementary Results ................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐17 Weed Species
  • December 2017

    December 2017

    Vol. 39 No. 4 December 2017 Newsletter of the Idaho Native Plant Society ● Promoting Interest in Idaho’s Native Flora Notes on the Ecology of Tweedy's Reedgrass Article and photos by Steven K. Rust, Nature’s Capital, LLC Calamagrostis tweedyi—Tweedy’s reedgrass rubescens), a common and widely distributed (formerly Cascade reedgrass) is a low-growing, congener is represented by 763 regional herbaria rhizomatous, perennial grass species. It presents records (CPNWH 2017). an intriguing case of rarity. The distinct taxon is Due to the species' restricted, though geo- relatively easy to identify and readily distin- graphically dispersed range, relatively few occur- guished from similar species. The species is rences, lack of protected occurrences, and effects regionally distributed, but occurs at relatively few of historic fire exclusion, Tweedy’s reedgrass is geographically separated population centers. considered globally vulnerable. The species is con- Where it occurs it is often abundant, but clonal. It sidered critically imperiled1 in Oregon, imperiled appears to be resistant to human-caused distur- in Idaho and vulnerable in Washington and bance. Montana (NatureServe 2017, Oregon Biodiversity Hitchcock et al. (1969) describe Tweedy’s Information Center 2016). reedgrass as having short, stout rhizomes with In Idaho, Tweedy’s reedgrass occurs on gentle flowering stems 6 to 15 dm tall. Stem leaves are to moderately steep northwest- to northeast-fac- flat and broad (7 to 13 mm). A twisted, geniculate, ing ridges of the Salmon River Mountains. Loam awn extends mid-length from the back of the soils on these subalpine sites overlay granitic lemma and exceeds the glumes by 5 mm.
  • Heterobasidion Annosum (Hunt and Cobb 1982)

    Heterobasidion Annosum (Hunt and Cobb 1982)

    Interactions of Root Disease and Bark Beetles1 George T. Ferrell J. Richard Parmeter, Jr.2 Abstract: Associations between root diseases (Castello and others 1976; Harrington 1980), and bark beetles (Scolytidae) constitute some which may explain the rapid decay of sapwood of the most serious pest complexes affecting following tree-killing by bark beetles. forests in North America and elsewhere. The Despite much research, vectoring of root interactive functioning of these pests disease fungi by stem-infesting bark beetles derives from the following relationships: 1) has not yet been firmly established, but they root diseases predispose trees to bark beetle have been implicated as vectors of Peniophora infestation by lowering resistance, and gigantea (Fr.) Jul., a fungal antagonist of perhaps increasing attractiveness, of trees Heterobasidion annosum (Hunt and Cobb 1982). to the attacking beetles; 2) bark beetles may Recently, however, a species of be vectors of root disease fungi or may root-colonizing bark beetle in the genus create infection courts for them. Hylastes and root-colonizing species of the weevil genera Steremnius and Pissodes have been implicated in vectoring Leptographium (Verticicladiella) wageneri (Kendr.) Wingf., the fungus causing black-stain root disease Symbioses between bark beetles and fungi in Douglas-fir (Harrington and others 1985, are common in nature, and previous reviewers Witcosky and others 1986a). As these vectors (e.g., Graham 1967) have identified several readily breed in roots of recently cut types of these symbiotic relationships, some stumps, their populations evidently increase of which appear to be beneficial to both in stands after thinning (Harrington and (mutualism), and others which apparently others 1985; Witcosky and others 1986b).
  • Phalaris Arundinacea

    Phalaris Arundinacea

    Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea INTRODUCTORY DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE REFERENCES INTRODUCTORY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY SYNONYMS LIFE FORM Photo by John M. Randall, The Nature Conservancy, Bugwood.org AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Waggy, Melissa, A. 2010. Phalaris arundinacea. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2010, August 19]. FEIS ABBREVIATION: PHAARU NRCS PLANT CODE [282]: PHAR3 COMMON NAMES: reed canarygrass canary grass reed canary grass reed canary-grass speargrass ribbon grass http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/phaaru/all.html[8/19/2010 12:03:24 PM] Phalaris arundinacea gardener's gaiters TAXONOMY: The scientific name of reed canarygrass is Phalaris arundinacea L. (Poaceae) [14,83,87,111,113,141,187,192,298]. A variegated type, Phalaris arundinacea var. picta L. or ribbon grass, also occurs in North America [14]. Reed canarygrass has been bred for cultivation and at least 11 cultivars have been developed [102]. Terminology used to describe reed canarygrass' phenotypic variability (e.g., strains, types, genotypes, ecotypes) is inconsistent in the literature. This review uses the terminology from the original publications unless it is unclear and/or inconsistent
  • Cyperaceae of Alberta

    Cyperaceae of Alberta

    AN ILLUSTRATED KEY TO THE CYPERACEAE OF ALBERTA Compiled and writen by Linda Kershaw and Lorna Allen April 2019 © Linda J. Kershaw & Lorna Allen This key was compiled using information primarily from and the Flora North America Association (2008), Douglas et al. (1998), and Packer and Gould (2017). Taxonomy follows VASCAN (Brouillet, 2015). The main references are listed at the end of the key. Please try the key this summer and let us know if there are ways in which it can be improved. Over the winter, we hope to add illustrations for most of the entries. The 2015 S-ranks of rare species (S1; S1S2; S2; S2S3; SU, according to ACIMS, 2015) are noted in superscript ( S1; S2;SU) after the species names. For more details go to the ACIMS web site. Similarly, exotic species are followed by a superscript X, XX if noxious and XXX if prohibited noxious (X; XX; XXX) according to the Alberta Weed Control Act (2016). CYPERACEAE SedgeFamily Key to Genera 1b 01a Flowers either ♂ or ♀; ovaries/achenes enclosed in a sac-like or scale-like structure 1a (perigynium) .....................Carex 01b Flowers with both ♂ and ♀ parts (sometimes some either ♂ or ♀); ovaries/achenes not in a perigynium .........................02 02a Spikelets somewhat fattened, with keeled scales in 2 vertical rows, grouped in ± umbrella- shaped clusters; fower bristles (perianth) 2a absent ....................... Cyperus 02b Spikelets round to cylindrical, with scales 2b spirally attached, variously arranged; fower bristles usually present . 03 03a Achenes tipped with a rounded protuberance (enlarged style-base; tubercle) . 04 03b Achenes without a tubercle (achenes 3a 3b often beaked, but without an enlarged protuberence) .......................05 04a Spikelets single; stems leafess .
  • Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora, Cedar Breaks National

    Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora, Cedar Breaks National

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2009/173 ON THE COVER Peterson’s campion (Silene petersonii), Cedar Breaks National Monument, Utah. Photograph by Walter Fertig. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2009/173 Author Walter Fertig Moenave Botanical Consulting 1117 W. Grand Canyon Dr. Kanab, UT 84741 Editing and Design Alice Wondrak Biel Northern Colorado Plateau Network P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532 February 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientifi c community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifi cally credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Report series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientifi c studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring activities; resource assessment reports; scientifi c literature reviews; and peer- reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.
  • Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests Proceedings of the Workshop on Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests: Effects on Biodiversity

    Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests Proceedings of the Workshop on Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests: Effects on Biodiversity

    Biodiversity and Coarse woody Debris in Southern Forests Proceedings of the Workshop on Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests: Effects on Biodiversity Athens, GA - October 18-20,1993 Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests Proceedings of the Workhop on Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests: Effects on Biodiversity Athens, GA October 18-20,1993 Editors: James W. McMinn, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Athens, GA, and D.A. Crossley, Jr., University of Georgia, Athens, GA Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Site, and the USDA Forest Service, Savannah River Forest Station, Biodiversity Program, Aiken, SC Conducted by: USDA Forest Service, Southem Research Station, Asheville, NC, and University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA Preface James W. McMinn and D. A. Crossley, Jr. Conservation of biodiversity is emerging as a major goal in The effects of CWD on biodiversity depend upon the management of forest ecosystems. The implied harvesting variables, distribution, and dynamics. This objective is the conservation of a full complement of native proceedings addresses the current state of knowledge about species and communities within the forest ecosystem. the influences of CWD on the biodiversity of various Effective implementation of conservation measures will groups of biota. Research priorities are identified for future require a broader knowledge of the dimensions of studies that should provide a basis for the conservation of biodiversity, the contributions of various ecosystem biodiversity when interacting with appropriate management components to those dimensions, and the impact of techniques. management practices. We thank John Blake, USDA Forest Service, Savannah In a workshop held in Athens, GA, October 18-20, 1993, River Forest Station, for encouragement and support we focused on an ecosystem component, coarse woody throughout the workshop process.
  • Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910

    Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910 Flathead Lake Biological Station 3-1-1910 Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910 University of Montana (Missoula, Mont. : 1893-1913). Biological Station, Flathead Lake Marcus E. Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/umbiologicalseries Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation University of Montana (Missoula, Mont. : 1893-1913). Biological Station, Flathead Lake and Jones, Marcus E., "Montana Botany Notes Containing Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded from the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, 1910" (1910). University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910. 15. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/umbiologicalseries/15 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Flathead Lake Biological Station at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Montana Bulletin: Biological Series, 1901-1910 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BULLETIN. UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Number 6 b BIOLOGICAL SERIES No. 15 MONTANA BOTANY NOTES CONTAINING Description of New Species, List of Plants Not Heretofore Recorded From the State, and Notes on Disputed Species, With Five Plates BY MARCUS E. JONES, A. M. Prepared From Material Collected at the University of Montana Biological Station UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Missoula, Montana, U. S. A. March, 1910 Entered August 24, 1901, at Missonla, Montana, as second class matter, under act of Congress, July 16, 1894 BULLETIN, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Number 61 BIOLOGICAL SERIES No.
  • Phylogenetics of Asterids Based on 3 Coding and 3 Non-Coding Chloroplast DNA Markers and the Utility of Non-Coding DNA at Higher Taxonomic Levels

    Phylogenetics of Asterids Based on 3 Coding and 3 Non-Coding Chloroplast DNA Markers and the Utility of Non-Coding DNA at Higher Taxonomic Levels

    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24 (2002) 274–301 www.academicpress.com Phylogenetics of asterids based on 3 coding and 3 non-coding chloroplast DNA markers and the utility of non-coding DNA at higher taxonomic levels Birgitta Bremer,a,e,* Kaare Bremer,a Nahid Heidari,a Per Erixon,a Richard G. Olmstead,b Arne A. Anderberg,c Mari Kaallersj€ oo,€ d and Edit Barkhordariana a Department of Systematic Botany, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Norbyva€gen 18D, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden b Department of Botany, University of Washington, P.O. Box 355325, Seattle, WA, USA c Department of Phanerogamic Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden d Laboratory for Molecular Systematics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden e The Bergius Foundation at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 50017, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Received 25 September 2001; received in revised form 4 February 2002 Abstract Asterids comprise 1/4–1/3 of all flowering plants and are classified in 10 orders and >100 families. The phylogeny of asterids is here explored with jackknife parsimony analysis of chloroplast DNA from 132 genera representing 103 families and all higher groups of asterids. Six different markers were used, three of the markers represent protein coding genes, rbcL, ndhF, and matK, and three other represent non-coding DNA; a region including trnL exons and the intron and intergenic spacers between trnT (UGU) to trnF (GAA); another region including trnV exons and intron, trnM and intergenic spacers between trnV (UAC) and atpE, and the rps16 intron.
  • Vascular Plant Response to Slashburning and Clearcutting in Central British Columbia: a 20 Year Study of Plant Functional Type Resilience

    Vascular Plant Response to Slashburning and Clearcutting in Central British Columbia: a 20 Year Study of Plant Functional Type Resilience

    VASCULAR PLANT RESPONSE TO SLASHBURNING AND CLEARCUTTING IN CENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA: A 20 YEAR STUDY OF PLANT FUNCTIONAL TYPE RESILIENCE by JULIA RAE CHANDLER B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2004 M.Sc., Simon Fraser University, 2007 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July 2014 © Julia Rae Chandler, 2014 Abstract How resilience is understood and measured has become increasingly challenging for ecologists, particularly as terrestrial ecosystems are undergoing radical change as climate changes. This body of work proposes a specific approach to studying resilience and applied it to Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH), Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) and Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF) forests extending across central British Columbia, Canada. Repeated measurements (% cover and height) of vascular plants were collected between 1981 and 2008 (1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 20 years after clearcutting and slashburning) in permanent research installations. Individual species sensitive to the forestry treatment (recorded exclusively pre-burn) included Rhododendron albiflorum, Menziesia ferruginea and Prosartes hookeri in the ICH; Rubus pedatus in the SBS; and Orthilia secunda, Listera cordata and Moneses uniflora in the ESSF. Post-burn shifts in species dominance consisted of substantial loss of Abies lasiocarpa, Oplopanax horridus and Listera cordata, and increases in Alnus spp., Salix spp., Epilobium spp. and Calamagrostis spp., indicating possible transition from conifer forest to mixed forest or open meadow ecosystems at several study sites. To overcome the difficulty of evaluating ecosystem resilience from measurements of 183 individual species recorded in experimental plots, I created plant functional types (PFTs) based on 15 common plant traits.