Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive
Theses and Dissertations
1974-05-01
Ecological aspects of Cercocarpus Montanus raf. communities in central Utah
David Lee Anderson Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Anderson, David Lee, "Ecological aspects of Cercocarpus Montanus raf. communities in central Utah" (1974). Theses and Dissertations. 8011. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8011
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ECOLOGICALASPECTS OF CERCOCARPUS
MONTANUSRAF. COMMUNITIESIN
CENTRALUTAH
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Department of Botany and Range Science
Brigham Young University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
by
David Lee Anderson
May 1974 This thesis, by David Lee Anderson, is accepted in
its present form by the Department of Botany and Range
Science of Brigham Young University as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science.
Typed by Sharon Bird
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express gratitude and apprecia- tion to the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria
(I.N.T.A.), Argentina, for their financial support and interest in this project.
Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Jack D.
Brotherson for suggesting the investigation of this problem and for his complete cooperation and guidance throughout the study and writing.
Acknowledgment is also given to the Department of
Botany and Range Science of Brigham Young University for their financial support and for their aid in supplying labora- tory space and field equipment necessary for the completion of this study.
Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Ben Wood for his guidance and Dr. John F. Vallentine for his critical reading of the manuscript; to Dr. Sheldon Nelson for the provision of laboratory space and equipment for soil analyses; to Dr.
Robert L. Park for statistical guidance.
Special appreciation is expressed to my family.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . viii
INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATUREREVIEW . . . 4 Taxonomy . . • ...... • • . 4 Distribution and Comrrrunity Structure ...... 4 Forage Value ...... • . 8
METHODS. . . 9
General . 9 Vegetation 9 Soil ...... 17 RESULTSAND DISCUSSION 18
Description of Study Areas ...... 18 Cat Canyon (Site No. 1) ...... 18 Upper Falls (Site No. 2) .•...... •.• 30 Edgemont (Site No. 3) . • . . . • • . . . . 30 Spanish Fork Canyon (Site No. 4) . • . . .. 31 Monk's Hollow (Site No. 5) .••••.• 32 Whiskey Springs (Site No. 6) .•...•.... 33 Stagecoach Inn (Site No. 7) ...... 34 Olmstead (Site No. 8) . . . ••....• 35 Cascade Springs (Site No. 9) 36 Sixth Water (Site No. 10) ...... 37 Red Hollow (Site No. 11) ...... 38 Thistle School (Site No. 12) . . . 38 Logan Canyon (Site No. 13) . . . 39 Timpooneke (Site No. 14) . . . . . 40
iv Fairview Canyon (Site No. 15) ...... 41 Santaquin Canyon (Site No. 16) ...... 41 Sheep Creek (Site No. 17) ...... 42 Canyon Glen (Site No. 18) ..•...... 43 Dividend (Site No. 19) . • ...... 43 Wanship (Site No. 20) ...... 44 Vegetational Analysis ...... 45 Cluster Analysis with C. montanus ...... 45 Cluster Analysis without C. montanus ...... 49 Linear Regression...... 55 Multiple Regression ...... 63 C. montanus Height-Class Ratios , ...... • . 69
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS. • . . 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 79 APPENDIX ...... 81
V LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Prevalent Age Class as Applied to C. rnontanus 11
2. Deer Use as Applied to C. rnontanus . . . . 12
3. Canopy-Coverage Classes 13 4. Prevalent Species List for All C. rnontanus Sites . 15
5. Physical Factors of the Twenty Study Sites 19
6. Soil Characteristics of the Twenty Study Sites 20
7. Percent Cover Summary of General Vegetation and Physical Factors ...... 21 8. Summary of C. montan~ parameters 22
9. Number of Deer Pellet Groups per Acre 23
10. Percent Cover Values for All Species in Twenty Study Sites ...... 24
11. Variables Used in Linear and Multiple Regression. 56
12. Factors Correlating with C. montanus Percent Frequency ...... 58
13. Factors Correlating with C. montanus Density per Acre ...... 59
14. Factors Correlating with C. montanus Canopy Cover 60
15. Factors Correlating with C. montanus Average Height ...... 61
16. Correlation of Factors to C. montanus Percent Frequency ...... 65 vi Table Page
17. Correlation of Factors to C. montanus Density per Acre ...... 66 18. Correlation of Factors to C. rnontanus Canopy Cover ...... 67 19. Correlation of Factors to C. rnontanus Average Height ...... 68
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Location map of twenty C. montanus sites studied . 3
2. Distribution map of Cercocarpus montanus Raf. var. montanus in United States 6
3. Site clusters (with C. montanus) . 46
4. Frequency and density of C. montanus; percent clay and percent bare soil plotted against cluster groups ...... •..•.... 47
5. Percent sand plotted against cluster groups . 47
6. Percent slope, total brush cover, total grass cover, and total litter cover plotted against cluster groups ....•...... 47
7. Soluble salts and pH plotted against cluster groups . . . . . 47
8. Total vegetation cover, total annual cover, per- cent silt, average height and number of stems of C. montanus plotted against cluster groups . 48
9. Total forb cover and total surface rock cover plotted against cluster groups ...... • 48
10. Site clusters (without C. montanus) . . . 50
11. Total vegetation cover, percent litter and percent slope plotted against cluster groups .... 51
12. Deer pellet groups plotted against cluster groups 51
13. Shrub cover plotted against cluster groups .... 51
viii Figure Page
14. Total soluble salts and soil depth plotted against cluster groups .. 51
15. Total grass cover plotted against cluster groups ...... 52
16. pH plotted against cluster groups 52
17. Surface rock plotted against cluster groups 52
18. Percent clay plotted against cluster groups 52
19. Percent silt plotted against cluster groups 53
20. Percent sand plotted against cluster groups 53
21. Relation of C. montanus stands to elevation, exposure and percent slope ...... 64
22 (a-t). Height-class density relationships of C. montanus---- ...... 70
ix INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
Native forage shrubs common to the Intermountain
Region contribute much feed to livestock and wildlife resources of Utah. As the human population increases and demands for meat products and hunting resources become more critical, precise knowledge of the ecological requirements of forage plants will be necessary in order to apply correct management policies for insuring long-lasting yields. Propa- gation of woody shrub species for other purposes (i.e., the revegetation of roadsides, strip-mined areas, etc.) also demands an exacting knowledge of minimum site characteristics.
Such information and knowledge can best be gained through ecological studies directed toward ecosystems where these plants appear as dominants. Cercocarpus montanus Raf. is one such native shrub and is recognized as a forage plant useful to livestock and wildlife.
Present literature reveals a paucity of information on the structure, dynamics and habitat requirements of
C. montanus Raf. and its communities in Utah. The prime
1 2
objective of this study was to evaluate certain community characteristics of twenty sites in north central Utah
(Fig. 1) where C. montanus is a principal component, thus
providing a more complete understanding of this and its
associated species. 3
.,-·-·-·-·-· -·-. - ·-·-·
UTAH
Scale: 1 inch= 45 miles .·· ·······..·~.. :...... --\. ·-·-·-·-·-·1 I ·•...... -···
i I I '
!
\I i i I i I i i I \ +' ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·+
Fig. 1.--Location of twenty C. montanus sites. LITERATUREREVIEW
Taxonomy
Martin (1950) revised the genus Cercocarpus and delimited eight varieties of C. montanus Raf. The entity referred to in this paper is C. montanus Raf. var. montanus.
Martin described this variety and listed several synonyms.
Common names for C. montanus are varied. Members of the genus were called mountain mahogany by early pioneers in this area. However, since that time, the name mahogany has been given to the genus Sweitenia and the Federal Trade Com- mission has ruled that the name mahogany should not be used to designate any other genus. Following this rule, the new
U.S. Forest Service check list approves "cercocarpus" as the genus' common name (Hayes and Garrison, 1960). Nevertheless, there are several other common names firmly entrenched in the literature (e.g., true mountain mahogany, birchleaf mahogany, and alder-leaf mountain mahogany).
Distribution and Community Structure
CercocarQus montanus Raf. var. montanus is a widely distributed browse species in the western United States,
4 5 ranging from South Dakota, Nebraska and Oklahoma, through
Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico to Utah, Arizona and Nevada
(Fig. 2). The main habitat type is found in the eastern
Great Basin and Rocky Mountains where it occupies rocky bluffs and mountain slopes between 3500 and 10,000 feet elevation (Medin, 1960; Martin, 1950; Pyrah, 1964).
Utah exhibits one of the most widespread distribu- tions of this species. The Soil Conservation Service (1971) reports that C. montanus, found in all resource areas of Utah, grows within the 10-23 inch rainbelt on sites having a June deficiency of moisture.
Some of the more important associated species reported for Utah and Colorado are: Pinus edulis, Juniperus osteosperma, Artemisia tridentata, Amelanchier alnifolia,
Symphoricarpos tetonensis, Purshia tridentata, Quercus gambellii, Eriogonum corymbosum, Agropyron trachycaulum,
Stipa comata, Oryzopsis hymenoides and Bromus tectorum (Medin,
1960; Brotherson, 1967).
Data on soils supporting communities of C. montanus are scarce; however, Medin (1960) indicates that in Colorado
C. montanus was found growing on sandstone and/or shale.
His results indicate that soil depth was by far the most significant factor influencing the annual production of 6
'\'} ...... _
I \ i •I . ' ··./ ...... \ •·,. \ •·, ....
Fig. 2.--Distribution map of Cercocarpus montanus Raf. var. montanus in United States (Pyrah, 1964). 7
C. montanus. The amount of clay content of the A horizon proved to be very significant in sandstone areas; whereas it was of little significance in shales. Surface stoniness influenced production negatively while lime, phosphate, slope-gradient, slope position, rate of water infiltration, organic matter, pH and potash exhibited non-significant or very weak relationships to C. montanus production.
According to a 1971 Soil Conservation Service Report,
C. montanus in Utah is most abundant in shallow soils and/or those areas with 35% coarse fragments and above. Other reports indicate C. montanus withstands high lime, prefers sandy soils, but is occasionally found on shales or deep
loams (Brotherson, 1967; Plummer, 1969; Ream, 1964).
C. montanus occurrence is recorded on all aspects and in
fertile canyon bottoms with a pH range of 6.8 to 7.7 (Plummer,
1969; Ream, 1964).
Observations on successional patterns of C. montanus
communities have been made by Ream (1961); Christensen (1964);
and Thomas (1970). Ream indicates that the C. montanus community was previously widespread and has since decreased
as a result of overgrazing. He also suggests that the
C. montanus-Purshia tridentata community is physiognomically
related to the mountain brush type (Quercus gambellii). 8
Christensen analyzed succession in Provo Canyon and con- cluded that the mountain brush type, of which C. montanus is a part, is evolving toward a fir (Abies concolor) dominated community. Thomas (1970) observed definite C. montanus community recuperation on grazed plots in the Diamond Fork drainage.
Forage Value
C. montanus is rated from good to excellent as browse for livestock and wildlife and is most valuable as feed for deer. The leaves are grazable and palatable during the warm season. Defoliation occurs in mid October; however, the twigs are palatable all year long. Protein ratios in twigs and leaves are higher throughout the year than in most other shrubs (U.S.F.S., 1937; Medin, 1960; Plummer, 1969; s.c.s., 1971). METHODS
General
Field work for this study was begun in August, 1973, and finished in October, 1973. Twenty study sites were selected and sampled, and each site was chosen on the basis of apparent C. montanus dominance. All vegetation and soil data were taken on the same day at each site and later analyses were completed during the winter months of 1973-
1974.
Vegetation
All data were taken within the limits of a 66 x 66 foot quadrat representing 1/10 acre. Each plot was marked off and the following data were recorded:
1. Altitude with the aid of an American Paulin System Altimeter; 2. Exposure with the aid of a Brunton compass; 3. Percent slope with the aid of a Suunto height and slope angle meter; 4. Average soil depth with the aid of a one meter penetrometer; 5. Total number of deer pellet groups; 6. C. montanus parameters: a. density b. height (to nearest six inches)
9 10
c. average number stems per plant (ten C. montanus plants were randomly selected and-their st~ms were counted and averaged) d. canopy cover e. prevalent age class (Table 1) f. deer use (Table 2)
Twenty-five quarter-meter square quadrats were placed at even intervals throughout the 1/10 acre plots. Within each quarter meter square plot, the presence of understory
species along with their canopy cover class were recorded.
Canopy cover was estimated according to Daubenmire (1959)
(Table 3). Canopy cover values for rock, litter and bare soil ~ere also estimated.
Percent frequency and cover for each species was cal- culated as follows: Total number of quadrats % frequency a species appears_i_·n __ _ X 100 Total number of quadrats
The sum of the canopy cover mid- % cover= .e_~~nt~of the 25 guadrats 25 (total number quadrats in stand)
Total shrub, forb and grass cover were individually
calculated by summing the cover values of all shrubs, forbs
and grasses found in the plots. Total vegetative cover was
obtained by summing the cover values of all plants found in
the plots.
Differences and similarities between the different
study plots were com?uted by utilizing Sorenson's index of 11
TABLE l
PREVALENT AGE CLASS AS APPLIED TO C. MONTANUS
Age Class
S = seedling Y = young plant M = mature plant D = decadent plant
Note: Classification outlined by the Utah Division of Fish and Game in its Big Game Range Inventory Handbook, p. 10. 12
TABLE 2
DEER USE AS APPLIED TO C. MONTANUS
Form Classes Characteristics
1 all available, lightly hedged
2 all available, moderately hedged
3 all available, heavily hedged
4 largely available, moderately hedged
5 largely available, moderately hedged
6 largely available, heavily hedged
7 mostly unavailable
8 unavailable due to height
9 unavailable due to hedging
Note: Classification outlined by the Utah Division of Fish and Game in its Big Game Range Inventory Handbook, p. 10. 13
TABLE 3
CANOPY COVER CLASSES
Cover Class % Estimated Canopy Cover
1 less than 5.0%
2 5.1 to 25.0%
3 25.1 to 50.0%
4 50.1 to 75.0%
5 75.1 to 95.0%
6 95.1 to 100%
Source: Daubenmire, 1959. 14 similarity (Sorenson, 1948). To compute the similarity indices, the following formula was used (Dix and Butler,
1960): 2w K == X 10:) a + b
"K" is the s L:nl la::::-ity index between two sites; "a" represents the sum of the cover percentages of all species in one stand;
"b" represents a similar figure for a second stand. "W" represents that part of the cover common to the species found in both stands. Cluster analyses techniques (Sokal and
Sneath, 1963) were applied to the similarity index figures thus allowing for the grouping of closely related stands.
Modified importance values were calculated for all species found in the plots by multiplying percent constancy
(across the 20 sites) and average frequency (Warner and
Harper, 1972) (Table 4).
All analyses were carried out on an IBM 7030 computer utilizing programs designed and tested by William E. Evenson and Jack Brotherson. Linear regression analyses were run on all characteristics of es.ch stand (vegetational and environ- mental) to test for significant relationships among the variables. Multiple regression analyses were then run utiliz- ing those variables found exhibiting significant relationships from the linear regression figures. 15 TABLE 4
PREVALENT SPECIES LIST FOR ALL C. MONTANUS SITES
Species Constancy Average C x F Frequency Index
1. Cercocarpus montanus 1.00 68.0 68.00 2. Agropyron spicaturn .75 48.5 36.37 3. Brornus tectorurn .70 40.0 28.00 4. Alyssum allysoides .35 64.0 22.40 5. Machaeranthera canescens .45 38.4 17.28 6. Arternisia tridentata .60 27.0 16.20 7. Poa secunda .40 34.0 13. 60 8. Mahonia repens .25 52.0 13.00 9. Symphoricarpos oreophilus .35 32.5 11.37 10. Quercus garnbellii .50 21.6 10.80 11. Poa fendleriana .15 50.6 7.59 12. Oryzopsis hymenoides .20 36.0 7.20 13. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus .25 24.0 6.00 14. Amelanchier alnifolia .45 13.3 5.98 15. Descurainia incisa .25 23.2 5.80 16. Physaria chambersii .30 19.3 5.79 17. Hackelia patens .20 23.0 4.60 18. Bromus brizaeformis .05 80.0 4.00 19. Cirsiurn eatoni .20 19.0 3.80 20. Gutierrezia sarothrae .30 12.6 3.78 21. Eriogonurn sp. .05 68.0 3.40 22. Balsamorhiza sagittata . 20 17.0 3.40 23. Lappula redowskii .10 32.0 3.20 24. Achillea lanulosa .30 8.8 2.64 25. Comandra pallida .15 17.3 2.59 26. Lathyrus brachycalyx .20 12.0 2.40 27. Allium brandegei .20 12.0 2.40 28. Eriogonum umbellatum .05 48.0 2.40 29. Cymopteris longipes .10 22.0 2.20 30. Galiurn boreale .15 14.6 2.19 31. Cynoglossum officinale .20 10.0 2.00 32. Eriogonum sp. .30 6.6 1.98 33. Koeleria cristata .05 32.0 1.60 34. Tragopogon dubius . 30 5.3 1.59 35. Purshia tridentata .20 7.0 1.40 36. Rhus trilobata .10 14.0 1.40 37. Opuntia polyacantha .15 9.3 1.39 38. Sitanion hystrix .05 20.0 1.00 16
TABLE 4 -Continued
Species Constancy Average C X F Frequency Index
39. Arenaria kingii .05 20.0 1.00 40. Arabis holboellii .10 10.0 1.00 41. Chenopodium album .15 6.6 0.99 42. Tetradymia canescens .10 8.0 0.80 43. Linaria vulgaris .05 16.0 0.80 44. Pensternon eatoni .05 16.0 0.80 45. Penstemon humilis .05 16.0 0.80 46. Collinsia parviflora .10 8.0 0.80 47. Calochortus nuttallii .15 5.3 0.79 48. Agropyron dasystachurn .05 12.0 0.60 49. Cryptantha nana .05 12. 0 0.60 50. Senecio integerrirnus .05 12. 0 0.60 51. Artemisia ludoviciana .10 6.0 0.60 52. Ribes cereum .10 4.0 0.40 53. Prunus virginiana .05 8.0 0.40 54. Pachystima myrsinites .05 8.0 0.40 55. Agropyron subsecundum .05 8.0 0.40 56. Taraxacum officinale .05 8.0 0.40 57. Juniperus osteosperma .05 4.0 0.20 58. Ribes aureum .05 4.0 0.20 59. Rosa woodsii .05 4.0 0.20 60. Lomatium dissectum .05 4.0 0.20 61. Penstemon leonardi .05 4.0 0.20 62. Chaenactis douglasii .05 4.0 0.20 63. Eriogonum heracleoides .05 4.0 0.20 64. Phlox hoodii .05 4.0 0.20 65. Epilobium paniculatum .05 4.0 0.20 66. Helianthella uniflora .05 4.0 0.20 67. Oenothera caespitosa .05 4.0 0.20 68. Astragalus utahensis .05 4.0 0.20 69. Castilleja chromosa .05 4.0 0.20 70. Chrysothamnus nauseosus .05 4.0 0.20 17
Soil
Soil samples were taken at four randomly determined sites inside the 1/10 acre plots. Each sample consisted of the upper six inches of soil (minus the litter layer).
Texture, pH and total soluble salts were determined on these
soil samples. Texture was determined by the hydrometric method described by Bouyoucos (1936, 1951). Hydrogen ion
concentration was determined using a Beckman glass electrode
pH meter on a saturated paste, i.e., a 1:1 ratio of soil to water (Russell, 1948). Total soluble salts were determined by
the use of a Beckman electrical conductivity bridge (Model
RC 216B2). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Description of Study Areas
The twenty study areas and their characteristics are presented below and in Tables 4-10.
Cat Canyon (Site No. 1)
This area is located one mile south of Thistle in Utah
County at the mouth of Cat Canyon. The elevation of the site is 1511 meters (4955 ft.) and is the lowest in elevation of the 20 study sites. The exposure is 280 degrees and the slope is 35%.
Cercocarpus montanus Raf. is the dominant plant having a cover of 13.8% and a density of 1060 plants per acre. Other shrubs important on the site are Rhus trilobata (7.2% cover) and Artemisia tridentata (4.1% cover). Two forbs with some importance are Mahonia repens (5.2%) and Machaeranthera canescens (4.3%). The only grass sampled was Oryzopsis hymenoides (5.1% cover). The total vegetation cover is 44.6% while litter makes up 61.8% cover. Trees of Juniperus osteo- sperma and Pinus edulis are present nearby but are not abun- dant where C. rnontanus exhibits high density.
18 TABLE 5
PHYSICALFACTORS OF THE TWENT);'STUDY SITES
Stand Area Elevation Township Number Name Meters Feet % Slope Exposure Range Sectiona
1 Cat Canyon 1511 4955 35 280° T9S.R4E.S32 2 Upper Falls 1607 5270 50 100 T5S.R3E.S27 3 Edgemont 1586 5200 45 310 T6S.R3E.Sl8 4 Spanish Fork Canyon 1549 5080 55 230 T9S.R3E.S2 5 Monk's Hollow 1663 5455 45 280 T8S.R5E.S32 6 Whiskey Springs 2089 6850 45 80 T5S.R6E.S7 7 Stagecoach Inn 1982 6500 50 150 T4S.R5E.S35 8 Olmstead 1525 5000 60 330 T6S.R3E.S7 9 Cascade Springs 1997 6550 35 170 T4S.R3E.S24 10 Sixth Water 2074 6800 40 180 T8S.R6E.S6 11 Red Hollow 1723 5650 60 310 T8S.R5E.S32 12 Thistle School 1540 5050 50 310 T9S.R4E.S33 13 Logan Canyon 1525 5000 44 300 Tl2N.RlE.S36 14 Timpooneke 2196 7200 44 240 T4S.R3E.S29 15 Fairview Canyon 2185 7050 45 170 Tl3S.R5E.S31 16 Santaquin Canyon 1830 6000 25 50 Tl0S.R2E.S19 17 Sheep Creek 1891 6200 33 250 T9S.R6E.S30 18 Canyon Glen 1586 5200 33 0 T6S .R3E.S4 19 Dividend 1799 5900 32 30 T10S.R2W.Sl5 20 Wanship 1906 6250 55 310 TlN.R4E.S24 Averages 1786 5858 44.05 204
__ ..,_,,.,._..,_....._,,_...--_.,.a_
I-' aSalt Lake Base and Meridian. \.0 TABLE 6
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF ~HE TWENTY STUDY SITES
Soil Stand Depth Soluble No. Area Name (cm) pH Salts ppm Clay Silt Sand Soil Type
,-.- ... ----.-
1 Cat Canyon 35.6 7.10 490 47.6 40.4 12.0 Silty-clay 2 Upper Falls 24.8 7.68 326 40.0 49. 2 10.8 Silty-clay 3 Edgemont 27.9 6.92 781 40.0 36.0 24.0 Clay-loam 4 Spanish Fork Canyon 15. 6 7 .15 328 35.6 20.4 44.0 Clay-loam 5 Monk's Hollow 46.1 7.23 589 44.0 46.0 10.0 Silty-clay 6 Whiskey Springs 18.8 7.21 247 22.0 36.0 42.0 Loam 7 Stagecoach Inn 10.4 7.45 247 16.8 20.4 62.8 Sandy-loam 8 Olmstead 25.7 6.99 477 26.0 46.8 27.2 Loam 9 Cascade Springs 8.1 7.90 247 18.0 32.0 50.0 Loam 10 Sixth Water 38.4 7.24 468 40.4 40.0 19.6 Silty-clay to clay 11 Red Hollow 32.0 7 .15 482 34.8 45.2 20.0 Clay-loam 12 Thistle School 19.9 7.48 440 33.2 47.6 19.2 Silty-clay-loam 13 Logan Canyon 48.3 7.25 523 23.2 37.2 39.6 Loam 14 Tirnpooneke 13.6 7.30 264 33.2 38.8 28.0 Clay-loam 15 Fairview Canyon 16.7 7.40 449 45.2 40.8 14.0 Silty-clay 16 Santaquin Canyon 20.3 7.04 490 54.8 35.2 10.0 Clay 17 Sheep Creek 36.6 7.40 495 36.8 39.6 23.6 Clay-loam 18 Canyon Glen 16.4 7.28 247 26.8 53.7 19.5 Silt-loam 19 Dividend 13.4 7.35 428 28.8 21.2 50.0 Sandy-clay-· loam 20 Wanship 24.0 6.91 496 23.2 28.8 48.0 Loam Averages 31.3 7.27 409 33.5 37.7 28.7
·---=------·=-"""'-----.--", , ~-~-__,...__,.,...~ --~---.~- N 0 TABLE 7 PERCENT COVER SUMMARYOF GENERAL VEGETATION AND PHYSICAL FACTORS - --,...- -· Stand Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Grass Litter Bare No. Area Name Shrub Forb Veget. Rock Cover Cover Cover Cover Cover Cover Soil
1 Cat Canyon 25.9 13. 6 5.1 44.6 0.6 61.8 17.2 2 Upper Falls 65. 9 1.3 67.2 5.4 57.8 11.0 3 Edgemont 58.4 6.2 7.7 72.3 1.2 80.7 1.1 4 Spanish Fork 37.1 1.1 11.2 49.4 50.0 37.3 0.1 5 Monk's Hollow 26.8 12.7 4.0 43.5 4.5 26.6 11.7 6 Whiskey Springs 33.3 1.6 28.1 63.0 13. 5 62.8 0.7 7 Stagecoach Inn 19.3 2.4 2.2 23.9 74.1 6.1 8 0lmstec:;td 53.9 5.4 17.4 76.7 1.8 92.2 9 Cascade Springs 13 .1 15.5 8.3 36.9 33.0 32.4 8.4 10 Sixth Water 52.8 5.2 3.0 61.0 3.3 69.0 11. 7 11 Red Hollow 43.7 14.6 1.2 59.5 31.2 46.0 1.8 12 Thistle School 67.6 2.1 1.8 71.5 14.2 67.2 0.9 13 Logan Canyon 37.0 16.8 20.7 74.5 2.1 91.3 0.2 14 Timpooneke 26.4 6.6 21.3 54.3 11. 2 61.4 5.0 15 Fairview Canyon 46.0 12.3 18.2 76.5 12.3 61. 9 4.8 16 Santaquin 65. 9 2.8 8.3 77.0 12.5 71.8 2.6 17 Sheep Creek 51.3 5.5 1.6 58.4 5.0 43.7 18.4 18 Canyon Glen 44.5 3.5 11.5 59.5 22.4 55.2 5.6 19 Dividend 66.1 2.0 0.8 68.9 16.3 60.5 3.6 20 Wanship 51.2 0.8 14.5 66.5 18.2 42.7 6.1 Averages 43.6 6.1 11.3 58.3 --17.7 55.6 7.2
N I-' TABLE 8 SUMMARYOF C. MONTANUS PARAMETERS FOR TWENTY STUDY SITES
Stand % Density % Avg. Age Stems/ Form No. Area Name Freq. per Acre Cover Height Class Plant Class
1 Cat Canyon 76 1060 13. 8 1.47 m M 16 .4 1 2 Upper Falls 100 1370 65.9 1.66 M 14 .o 1 3 Edgemont 60 560 23.3 1. 91 D 22.0 1 4 Spanish Fork 56 530 30.7 1.55 D 20.6 2 5 Monk's Hollow 60 680 18.1 1.54 M 26.0 2 6 Whiskey Springs 40 340 12.0 1.38 M 23.2 2 7 Stagecoach Inn 68 1000 15. 5 1.18 Y-M 19.0 2 8 Olmstead 100 940 51.4 1.25 M 16.0 1 9 Cascade Springs 12 230 7.4 1.06 M 18. 2 2-3 10 Sixth Water 56 790 12. 8 1.30 M 21.6 2 11 Red Hollow 68 730 15.9 1.57 M 28.8 1 12 Thistle School 84 1040 41.9 1.50 M 26.8 1 13 Logan Canyon 80 1070 33.7 1.27 y 23.6 2 14 Timpooneke 52 530 15. 6 1.34 M 18.6 1 15 Fairview Canyon 68 1330 45.8 1.36 M 23.6 2 16 Santaquin 92 1750 65.8 1.52 M 34.2 2 17 Sheep Creek 84 1050 38.6 1.40 M 31.0 2 18 Canyon Glen 72 870 33.7 1.47 M 22.2 4 19 Dividend 96 830 59.2 1. 99 D 41.4 4 20 Wanship 36 670 11.3 1.18 M 17.6 2 Averages 68 868 30.6 1.50 23.2 1. 76 -- N N 23
TABLE 9
NUMBER OF DEER PELLET GROUPS PER ACRE ON TWENTY STUDY SITES
Stand No. Area Name Pellet Groups/Acre
1 Cat Canyon 60 2 Upper Falls 0 3 Edgemont 0 4 Spanish Fork Canyon 160 5 Monk's Hollow 180 6 Whiskey Springs 160 7 Stagecoach Inn 120 8 Olmstead 0 9 Cascade Springs 70 10 Sixth Water 60 11 Red Hollow 60 12 Thistle School 20 13 Logan Canyon 80 14 Timpooneke 0 15 Fairview Canyon 340 16 Santaquin Canyon 80 17 Sheep Creek 70 18 Canyon Glen so 19 Dividend 120 20 Wanship 60
Average 75 TABLE 10
PERCENT COVER VAbUES FOR ALL SPECIES IN TWENTY STUDY SITES - Stand~-- Number 1 2 3 4 5 16 7 -8-19- I 10 -- ,--"·,~--·- _,, --- Cercocarpus montanus 13.8 65.9 23.3 30.7 18.1 12.0 15.5 5 1. 4 \' 7 . 4 112 . 8 Agropyron spicatum 7.7 10.2 0.2 23.7 0.2 2.7 l 5.6 1.2 Bromus tectorum 1.0 0.3 2.0 11.0 ; 1.8 Alyssum allysoides 2.3 0.8 2.1 3.o I 2.2 Machaeranthera canescens 4.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 Artemisia tridentata 0.6 2.6 12.1 3.8 2.4 \ 0.1 I 6.5 Poa secunda 0.6 3.7 I o.9 Mahonia repens 5.2 2.1 I o.6 Symphoricarpos oreophilus 4.6 12.7 Quercus gambellii 4.1 33.8 3.8 3.3 4.1 117.9 Poa fendleriana 3.5 Orysopsis hymenoides 5.1 3.8 1.8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Amelanchier alnifolia 0.2 0.1 2.4 1.3 2.9 Descurainia incisa 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 I Physaria chambersii 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.5 Hackelia patens 0.4 I 0.8 Bromus brizaeformis Cirsium eatoni 0.3 1.3 Gutierrezia sarothrae 0.7 1.3 2.3 0.1 6.1 Eriogonum sp. 0.8 0.2 0.1 Balsamorhiza sagittata 0.8 2.6 Lappula redowskii I Achillea lanulosa 0.8 0.1 0.1 . N Comandra pallida 0.2 0.2 I TABLE l0--Continued
-~=""""' • ----··:::,· --=-:.,::=:::======Stand Number
8 9 10 ------t-1 -1--+1~2_,.....f_3--tl-~ s_)____ 6_L_~ __J1 I ! 1. l r ------r. Lathyrus brachycalyx 1 1.0 1 0.1 Allium brandegei I I1 ' 0.1 Eriogonum umbellatum ) I 1 7 .1 I Cymopteris longipes 1.2 0.4 Galium boreale 0.4 0.1 Cynoglossum officinale 0.1 0.7 0.1 Eriogonum sp. Koeleria cristata Tragopogon dubius 0.1 0.2 0.1 Purshia tridentata 2.5 Rhus trilobata 7.2 4.0 Opuntia polyacantha 1.0 Sitanion hystrix Arenaria kingii 0.5 Arabis holboellii 0.4 Chenopodium album 0.1 Tetradymia canescens I 0.3 Linaria vulgaris Penstemon eatoni 0.4 Penstemon humilis 0.1
Collinsia parviflora I Calochortus nuttallii o .1 0.1 Agropyron dasystachum I N Cryptantha nana 1 o. 3 u, TABLE 10--Continued
Stand Number 1 1 2 3 4 ! 5 6 10 I i 7-1-1319 I I I I l Senecio integerrimus I I Artemisia ludoviciana I I 1.s ! 0. 2 Ribes cereum I I 0.1 I Prunus virginiana I I Pachystima myrsinites o .2 Agropyron subsecundum I I Taraxacum officinale I Juniperus osteosperma I I Ribes aureum I I Rosa woodsii I I Lomatium dissectum I Penstemon leonardi I Chaenactis douglasii I 0.1 Eriogonum heracleoides I I Phlox hoodii I Epilobium paniculatum I I Helianthella uniflora I I Oenothera caespitosa I I Astragalus utahensis Castilleja chromosa Chrysothamnus nauseosus
N 0\ TABLE 10--Continued ·---. --- ...-===-===== Stand Number 11 I 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 ·--19 20 --+ I_ '"'_...,______Cercocarpus rnontanus 15.9 41.9 33.7 1 .6 45.8 65.8 38.6 33.7 59.2 11.3 Agropyron spicaturn 0.6 9.4 1 .7 18.2 1.1 8.5 1.0 Bromus tectorurn 0.6 0.1 4.7 .5 6.6 o .1 I 1.5 0.5 1.1 Alyssurn allysoides 4.0 I o.3 Machaeranther canescens 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.1 Arternisia tridentata 15. 6 .o 5.2 I 3.4 25.7 Poa secunda 1.7 0.4 0.6 1.5 0.3 Mahcnia repens 12.0 11. 7 Syrnphoricarpos oreophilus 16.2 2.2 0.2 5.7 1.6 Quercus garnbellii 3.0 . 1 0.1 10. 8 Poa fendleriana 1.1 10. 9 Orysopsis hymenoides 1.5 Chrysotharnnus viscidiflorus 1.3 7.3 3.1 0.6 1.1 2.7 Arnelanchier alnifolia 7.3 0.6 .7 I Descurainia incisa 1. 9 Physaria charnbersii 0.1 0.1 Hackelia patens 1.5 0.1 I Bromus brizaeformis 3.0 I Cirsium eatoni 0.2 0.1 I Gutierrezia sarothrae 0.1 Eriogonum sp. 0.1 0.7 0.2 Balsarnorhiza sagittata 3.2 0.6
Lappula redowskii 3.5 0.1 N Achillea lanulosa 0.1 1.4 0.1 -...J Cornandra pallida 0.9 TABLE 10--Continued - Stand Number 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I I I
tI I I I Lathyrus brachycalyx 0.5 i 0.1 I I Allium brandegei o .1 o.8 0.2 I Eriogonum umbellatum I 1 I I I Cymopteris longipes I I I Galium boreale I 0.6 I I I Cynoglossum officinale 0.1 I I Eriogonum sp. I Koeleria cristata 3.2 I I I! I Tragopogon dubius 0.2 0 .1 , I 0.1 I Purshia tridentata 0.6 I 0.1 3.2 Rhus trilobata 0puntia polyacantha 0.1 I' 0.1 Sitanion hystrix I I 1.0 Arenaria kingii I Arabis holboellii 0.1 Chenopodium album 0.1 Tetradymia canescens 0.6 i 0.8 Linaria vulgaris 0.4 I Penstemon eatoni I Penstemon humilis Collinsia parviflora 0.1 0.3 Calochortus nuttallii 0.2 ' Agropyron dasystachum 0.3 N Cryptantha nana co TABLE 10--Continued ··-~------·~---=--=~~ .... -, Stand Number ~1--r2- -u-j14---.----..-- 15 I 16 ;-17-1---- 18 I 19 I 20 I I l j I1 - 1 ! ' j Senecio integerrimus I Artemisia ludoviciana Ribes cereum 0.6 ~I 4.0 Prunus virginiana Pachystima myrsinites Agropyron subsecundum 0.2 Taraxacum officinale 0.2 I Juniperus osteosperma I 3.4 I Ribes aureum 0.1
Rosa woodsii I I I 0.1 Lomatium dissectum 0.1 Penstemon leonardi 0.9 Chaenactis douglasii 1 Eriogonurn heracleoides II 0.6 6.5 Phlox hoodii 1 0.1 I I Epilobiurn paniculaturn 0.1 I I Helianthella uniflora I 0.1 Oenothera caespitosa I 0.1 0.1 AstragalusCastilleja chrornosautahensis l I l 0.1 Chrysotharnnus nauseosus 1. 6 ··-J______·-·--·--- ___ .l L,______-~-
N \.0 30
The soil depth (35.6 cm) is a little above average
(31.3 cm) for all sites and is high in percent clay (47.6) and low in percent sand (12.0) when compared to averages.
The soil texture is silty-clay.
Upper Falls (Site No. 2)
This stand is located on a 100 degree exposure and
50% slope across Provo Canyon from Upper Falls at the mouth of Slide Canyon. The elevation is 1607 m (5270 ft.).
The site exhibits the highest cover and frequency values of C. montanus on any of the sites studied. Cover equaled 65.9%, whereas the total vegetative cover measured
67.2%. No grasses were detected. No deer pellet groups were noted on the site and this appears to be one reason why
C. montanus is so well developed. The density is 1370 plants/ acre. The stand is surrounded by rocky ledges, exhibited a high litter cover of 57.8% and a bare soil estimation of
11.0%.
The soil depth is 24.8 cm which is below average for all sites and is texturally a silty-clay. The sand content
(10.8%) is way below average for all stands.
Edgemont (Site No. 3)
This stand is located one mile east of the Edgemont 31
Cemetery, Utah County, at 1586 m(5220 ft.) elevation. The exposure is 310 degrees and the slope is 45%.
The dominant species in cover is Quercus gambellii
(33.8%) with C. montanus second at 23.3%. Agropyron spicatum
is the only grass and exhibits 7.7% cover while several forbs make up the remaining understory. The Cercocarpus density is quite low (560 plants/acre), but the individual plants are of above average height (1.91 m). The total vegetation cover is
72.3%, the litter is 80.7%, whereas bare soil and surface rock are almost non-existent.
The soil depth and pH are below average at 27.9 cm and 6.92 respectively. Soluble salts are at 781 ppm which is
the highest of all stands studied. The texture class is clay-
loam with clay constituting 40% of the sample.
Spanish Fork Canyon (Site No. 4)
This stand is located on a steep (55%), 230 degree
exposure 1.5 miles east of the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon
at an elevation of 1549 m (5080 ft.).
The species are few in number with C. montanus dominant in cover (30.7%). Other important species in the
stand are Agropyron spicatum (10.2% cover), Quercus gambellii
(3.8% cover) and Artemisia tridentata (2.6% cover). The
density of C. montanus is low at 530 plants/acre whereas the 32 height is slightly above average at 1.54 m(5.1 ft.). The pellet groups (160/acre) were more than double the average for the 20 stands indicating high deer use on this stand in spite of its steepness and rockiness. The total vegetation cover (49.4%) was below average and the rock cover (50.0%) was unusually high. Bare soil, however, was almost non- existent and erosion was not apparent.
The soil depth (15.6 cm) was half the average for the 20 stands and the soil, although high in sand (44.0%), falls into a clay-loam classification.
Monk's Hollow (Site No. 5)
Monk's Hollow is a tributary of Diamond Fork and this stand is located near the forks where Monk's Hollow joins Diamond Fork Creek, Utah County. The elevation is
1663 m (5455 ft.) and the stand exhibits a 280 degree expo- sure with a 45% slope.
Fifteen species are found in this stand with C. montanus dominating in cover (18.1%). Other shrubs prominent on the site are Symphoricarpos oreophilus (4.6%) and Rhus trilobata (4.0%). The most common grass is Oryzopsis hymen- aides (3.8% cover). The density of C. montanus (680/acre) is below average for the studied stands as are the cover and frequency values. However, the height of the plants (1.54 m) 33 is above average and there are signs of grazing by deer (180 pellet groups/acre) with plants being moderately browsed.
The total vegetation cover (43.5%) was below average, whereas the forb cover (12.7%) was twice the average. An 11.7% bare
soil value for the site indicates some disturbance. Litter was found to be somewhat reduced.
The soil depth (46.1 cm) was significantly higher
than average (31.3 cm) and the soil type was a silty-clay.
The sand (10.0%) fraction was the lowest of all sites.
Whiskey Springs (Site No. 6)
This stand is located in Daniel's Canyon, Wasatch
County, about two miles up the canyon from Whiskey Springs
Picnic Area at 2089 m (6850 ft.) elevation. The exposure is
80 degrees and the percent slope is 45 degrees.
Fourteen species are listed for this site. The
dominant species by cover was Agropyron ~icaturn (23.7%) with Poa fendleriana contributing 3.5% cover. Arternisia
tridentata (12.1%) and - C. montanus.._ (12.0%) dominate the shrub layer with Arnelanchier alnifolia (3.4%) showing up on
the upper edge of the stand. C. montanus cover on this site was one of the lowest recorded in the study with 30.6%.
C. montanus density was very low with 340 plants/acre. A
high pellet count (160/acre) and evident hedging of plants 34 reveal the use made of this stand by deer. This site appears to be an intermediate site for C. montanus, Quercus gambellii and Artemisia tridentata in which none reach maximum expres.- sion. The total vegetative and litter cover were above aver- age and bare soil was almost nonexistent. The grass cover
(28.1%) was the highest encountered in any of the stands examined.
The soil was shallow (18.8 cm in depth), very low in soluble salt content (less than 247 ppm), high in sand (42.0%) and classifies as loam.
Stagecoach Inn (Site No. 7)
This stand is located in Daniel's Canyon, Wasatch
County, across the canyon from the Stagecoach Inn at an eleva- tion of 1982 m (6500 ft.). The exposure is 150 degrees and the slope is 50%.
The total vegetative cover (23.9%) was the lowest of any stand encountered in the study. C. montanus made up 15.5% of that cover. Artemisia tridentata was present with 3.8% cover while two annuals, Bromus tectorum and Alyssum allysoides display 2.0% and 2.1% cover respectively. The density of
C. montanus was 1000 plants/acre and the average height was low at 1.18 m (3.89 ft.). Deer evidence was high (120 pellet groups/acre) and all bushes were moderately hedged. A small 35 amount of litter (6.1%) and a high rock cover (74.1%) indicate a harsh environment. However, C. montanus appeared to be healthy.
The soil depth (10.4 cm) and soluble salts (less than
247 ppm) were very low while the pH (7.45) was above average.
The soil classified as a sandy-loam and exhibited 62.8% sand and 16.8% clay.
Olmstead (Site No. 8)
This stand is located at the mouth of Provo Canyon,
Utah County, at an elevation of 1525 m (5000 ft.). The exposure is 330 degrees and the slope is 60%. This slope was one of the steepest studied and was adjacent to an extensive talus slope.
The total vegetative cover was 76.7% (one of the highest values recorded on the study). The dominant plants were C. montanus (51.4% cover) and Bromus tectorum (11.0% cover). The dominance of C. montanus was exemplified by 100% frequency. The average height (1.25 m) of C. montanus was below average; however, tall individuals were present as well as small individuals indicating good levels of reproduction.
The plants were the most vigorous encountered. Deer signs were absent and litter cover (92.2%) was the highest found; bare soil was unknown. 36
The soil depth (25.7 cm) was below average and the
talus slopes on all sides of the stand indicated the under-
lying rock base. The pH (6.99) was slightly below average
and the soil was classified as a loam with 46.8% silt and
equal quantities of sand and clay.
Cascade Springs (Site No. 9)
The Cascade Spring's Site is located two miles west
of Cascade Springs in Wasatch County at an elevation of 1997
n (6550 ft.). The exposure is 170 degrees and the slope is
]5 percent.
In several ways, this site was the poorest of the
twenty studied in terms of C. montanus values but was typical
of the thin stands of the area. C. montanus exhibited a
cover of 7.4% with a frequency of 12% and a density of 230
plants/acre. The average height was the lowest of any stand
(1.06 m). Browsing activity by deer was highly evident on the
C. montanus plants. Twenty-three species of plants were
sampled in the quadrats which was the largest number recorded
for any of the 20 stands. C. montanus was the dominant shrub
exhibiting 7.4% cover followed by Gutierrezia sarothrae (6.1%),
Agro,E_Yron ~icatum (5.6%) and Quercus gambellii (4.1%). Total
vegetative cover was 36.9% in spite of the abundance of
species. Forb cover was above average (15.5%), while litter 37 cover (32.4%) was below average. Exposed rock (33.0%) was high.
The soil was the shallowest of any stand (8.1 cm), and exhibited the highest pH value (7.90) for the twenty
stands studied.
Sixth Water (Site No. 10)
The Sixth Water site is located between the Diamond
Fork Crossing and Strawberry Reservoir in Utah County about
four miles up from the Diamond Fork Guard Station. The elevation is 2074 m (6800 ft.), the exposure is south (180 degrees) and the slope is 40 percent.
The vegetative cover at this site was 61. 0% with
three shrub species virtually dominating: Quercus gambellii
(17.9%), C. montanus (12.8%) and Symphoricarpos oreophilus
(12.7%). The Cercocarpus montanus cover is very low; however,
the frequency (56%) and the density (790 plants/acre) are
almost average. The plants show moderate deer utilization, which to a degree reflects their low stature and small number
of live stems per plant. Bare soil (11.7%) was average for
the study sites and litter was abundant.
The soil, classified as silty-clay to clay, was low
in sand (19.6%) and almost equal in amounts of silt and
clay. 38
Red Hollow (Site No. 11)
Red Hollow is another tributary of Diamond Fork
Canyon and is located across the canyon from Monk's Hollow
(Site No. 5). The elevation at this site is 1723 m (5650 ft.) with a 310 degree exposure. This site like Olmstead
(Site No. 8) had a 60 percent slope.
Grasses were very scarce on this slope, thus four shrubs and two forbs dominated the vegetation (i.e.,
Symphoricarpos oreophilus 16.2%; C. montanus 15.9%; Mahonia repens 12.0%; Amelanchier alnifolia 7.3%; Quercus gambellii
3.0%, and Hackelia patens 1.5%). The frequency (68%) and density (730 plants/acre) of C. montanus were near the study average; whereas, the cover was about half the average.
C. montanus exhibited above average height (1.57 m) and showed no deer utilization, although deer pellet groups were counted at 60/acre. This site was extremely rocky (31.2% cover) while litter cover and bare soil were under average.
The soil was 32.0 cm average depth and was classified as a clay-loam.
Thistle School (Site No. 12)
This site is located on a 310 degree exposure with a
50% slope overlooking the old school at Thistle, Utah County. 39
The elevation is 1540 m (5050 ft.).
The vegetation cover is 71.5% with the shrubs dominat- ing (67.6% cover) almost completely; the highest of any of the stands studied. The three dominant shrubs are C. montanus
(41.9%), Artemisia tridentata (15.6%) and Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (7.3%). The frequency (84%) and density (1040 plants/acre) of C. montanus were way above average. All the plants were very vigorous. Bare soil and deer signs were almost non-existent.
The soil depth was shallow (19.9 cm) and was classi- fied as silty-clay-loam.
Logan Canyon (Site No. 13)
This stand is located at the mouth of Logan Canyon,
Cache County, on a 44 percent slope overlooking the First
Dam. The exposure is 300 degrees and the elevation is 1525 m (5000 ft.). This stand is the the northernmost of all stands studied.
The total vegetative cover (74.5%) was very high and
included 16.8% forbs, the highest among the twenty sites.
C. montanus was the dominant in cover (33.7%), followed by
Agropyron spicatum (9.4%), Helianthella uniflora (5.4%),
Bromus tectorum (4.7%) and Alyssum allysoides (4.0%).
Twenty-one species were recorded within the quarter-meter- 40
square quadrats. Litter cover (91.3%) was extremely high as was C. montanus frequency (80%) and density (1070 plants/
acre) values. C. montanus cover, however, was only slightly
above average and the height (1.27 m) was below average.
All individual shrubs were moderately hedged by deer.
The soil was 48.3 cm deep, the deepest of all stands
studied and was a loam with almost equal fractions of silt
and sand.
Timpooneke (Site No. 14)
This stand, located at the head of American Fork
Canyon, Utah County, was two miles north of Timpooneke Camp-
ground at an elevation of 2196 m (7200 ft.). The exposure
was 240 degrees and the slope was 44 percent.
The total vegetative cover was 54.3% with three
shrubs, a grass, and a forb dominating, i.e., C. montanus
(15.6%), Agropyron spicatum (19.7%), Eriogonum umbellatum
(6.5%), Quercus gambellii (4.1%) and Amelanchier alnifolia
(3.7%). Values for C. montanus were below average in all
categories except for height which was average (1.50 m). No
deer sign was noted and a large amount of dead Artemisia
tridentata was observed.
The soil depth (13.6 cm) was below average and the
soil was a clay-loam with 38.8% silt. 41
Fairview Canyon (Site No. 15)
This site is located in Fairview Canyon, three miles up from the mouth of the Canyon near Fairview, Sanpete County.
The elevation of the site is 2185 m (7050 ft.), the exposure is 170 degrees and the slope is 45 percent.
Only seven species w~re detected; however, the total vegetative cover was one of the highest in the study at 76.5%.
The dominant species were a shrub, a grass, and a forb accounting for 75.7% of the total percent cover. They were:
C. montanus (54.8%), Agropyron spicatum (18.2%) and Mahonia repens (11.7%). The frequency values for C. montanus were average (68%) but density (1330 plants/acre) and cover values were way above average. Pellet group counts (340/acre) were the highest in the study and this along with the moderately grazed shrubs denotes one reason for the reduced height (1.36 cm) of C. montanus plants.
The soil depth (16.7 cm) was half the average and classified as a silty-clay.
Santaquin Canyon (Site No. 16)
The Santaquin Canyon Site is located near the mouth of the Canyon just over the National Forest Boundary and south across the creek at 1830 m (6000 ft.) elevation. The stand is located on a ridge with a 24% slope and 50 degree 42 exposure.
The highest vegetative cover (77.0%) of all stands was registered here with C. montanus completely dominating at 65.8% cover and a density of 1750 plants/acre. Bromus tectorum exhibited 6.6% cover.
The average soil depth was 20.3 cm and was classified texturally as a clay with 54.8% clay particles.
Sheep Creek (Site No. 17)
This site was reached from Spanish Fork Canyon by turning north into Sheep Creek drainage toward Ray's Valley,
Utah County. The site is five miles from the main canyon at
1891 m (6200 ft.) elevation. The slope is 33 percent and the exposure is 250 degrees.
The thirteen species detected on this site gave a total vegetation cover of 58.4%. C. montanus accounted for
38.6%, while other species such as Symphoricarpos oreophilus
(5.7%), Artemisia tridentata (5.2%) and Lappula redowskii
(3.5%) contributed most of the rest. The grass cover (1.6%) was very low and the value for bare soil (18.4%) was the highest of all stands. C. montanus exhibited above average frequency (84%), density (1050 plants/acre) and cover (38.6%).
The soil was a little above average in depth and was classified as a clay-loam. 43
Canyon Glen (Site No. 18)
This stand is located in Provo Canyon south from
Canyon Glen Campground. The elevation is 1586 m (5200 ft.) and the site is located on a 33 percent slope at 0 degrees
(North) exposure.
The total vegetation cover is 59.5% with C. montanus
(33.7%), Quercus gambellii (10.8%) and Agropyron spicatum
(8.5%) being the principal contributing species.
The soil is shallow at a depth of 16.4 cm average and texturally classifies as a silt-loam with 53.7% silt and soluble salts less than 247 ppm.
Dividend (Site No. 19)
This stand is located on the road between Bergin Mine and Dividend, Utah County, at 1799 m (5900 ft.) elevation.
The exposure is 30 degrees and the slope 32 percent.
The vegetative cover is 68.9% with only eight species detected. Forb and grass cover values were below average. C. montanus is particularly dominant here although the density (830 plants/acre) is relatively low. Its fre- quency is 96% and the plants are the tallest (1.99 rn) of any stand. This is probably the oldest stand encountered as evidenced by the tall plants and number of sterns per plant
(41.4/plant). Deer evidence was high here with 120 pellet 44 groups/acre counted. Some Artemisia tridentata and Juniperus osteosperma were encountered in and near the area.
The soil was shallow at 13.4 cm depth and was classi- fied as a sandy-clay-loam with 50.0% sand.
Wanship (Site No. 20)
This stand is located at an elevation of 1906 rn
(6250 ft.) on a 55 percent, 310 degree exposure overlooking
Interstate 80, two miles west of Wqnship in Summit County.
The total vegetative cover is 66.5% with 24 species participating. The dominant shrub was Artemisia tridentata
(25.7% cover) followed by - C. montanus (11.3% cover), -- Poa fendleriana (10.9%) and Prunus virginiana (4.0%). The forb cover (0.8%) was the lowest of any of the twenty stands.
C. rnontanus plants were well distributed on the lower and steeper parts of the site but were short (1.18 m) in stature.
It was noted that the ntand overlaps a sagebrush ccrnmunity on the upper, less steep side of the plot. Some Purshia triden- tata and Poa fendleriana plants were found there.
The soil averaged 24 cm in depth, exhibited a pH of
6.91 and classified as a loam. 45
Vegetational Analysis
Cluster Analysis with C. montanus
An attempt was made to group significantly alike stands into groups using clustering techniques (Sokal and
Sneath, 1963). Cover values of each species were utilized and the graphic representation is shown in Fig. 3. Five major clusters are characterized. Each unit forms a highly associ- ated group which relates to C. montanus parameters. The cluster of seven stands furthest to the left represents the stands showing highest C. montanus values in frequency, density and cover. The average C. montanus cover for the group is 52.6%. The cluster of two stands furthest to the right have a 9.3% average cover for C. montanus. Cascade
Springs is the only stand in the last two clusters in which
C. montanus is number 1 dominant in cover percentage. Cluster number four contains four stands in which C. montanus is not the leading dominant (i.e., cover percentage).
Attempts to correlate both vegetational and environ- mental data with the clustered groups identified several patterns of interest (Figs. 4-9). The frequency and density of C. montanus follow the same fluctuations as% clay parti- cles and% bare soil cover (Fig. 4). These same four factors correlate negatively to percent sand particles (Fig. 5). 2 16 19 8 15 12 17 18 13 3 1 5 7 6 14 10 11 9 20 10 4
90
8
>. 7 .µ ·r-1 co rl 6 •r-1
•r-1s (/) 5 .µ C QJ 4 QJ P-4 30 ==~-:'
20
10
o--- +' Fig. 3.--Stand clusters with C. montanus. 0\ References to Figures 4-7
Parameters plotted against cluster groups (1-5).
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
a. density of C. montanus a. percent sand b. freque~cy of C. montanus c. percent clay d. cover of C. montanus e. percent bare soil
Fig. 6 Fig. 7
a. percent slope a. total soluble salts b. percent litter b. pH C • percent brush cover d. percent grass cover ,I.J C Q) 0 a 1,-i Q) a Pol
'" :'>cc - C - __ d ,e 1 2 3 Fig. 4. Fig. 5
L \.\. 7 < > <:::::-a b ------a ,,,. C
.....- -d i---~i------t----1-----, b
---.J Fig. 6 Fig. 7 References to Figures 8-9
Parameters plotted against cluster groups (1-5)
Fig. 8 Fig. 9 a. percent vegetation cover a. percent surface rock cover b. percent silt b. percent forb cover c. number of stems of C. montanus d. percent cover of annuals 48
,.Cln!
.
, '
b!). •r-1 µ,t
,.Cl CJ "O
CX) 49
The percent slope, cotal shrub cover (less C. montanus), total grass cover and total litter cover all correlate posi- tively showing the same type of curves (Fig. 6). The pH and soluble salt content correlate positively (Fig. 7) and both correlate negatively with the four factors mentioned previ- ously. Another five factors which show similar trends across the five clusters were total vegetation cover, total annual cover, percent silt particles, average height and number of sterns for C. rnontanus (Fig. 8). Two factors which correlate positively and at the same time correlate negatively with the five factors just mentioned are total forb cover and total rock cover (Fig. 9).
Cluster Analysis without C. montanus
Cluster analysis was run again excluding C. rnontanus this time in order to more fully assess all factors which may be masked by the presence of C. rnontanus. On this basis, eight clusters were identified (Fi.g. 10).
Some correlations are readily evident (Figs. 11-20) and some are the same as in the analysis in which C. montanus was included; whereas, others are not. Percent slope, total vegetation cover and total litter cover correlate positively
(Fig. 11). Pellet groups and total shrub cover correlate negatively (Figs. 12 and 13). Soluble salts and average soil r 18 ]6 13 19 20 J 17 t 10 6 14 15 9 4 3 7 12
9 lo,
8 ...
1
7 lo >...... ,.._ "-.l •r-l $-1 cu 6 lo, ,-I -- •r-l 8 •r-l ---- Cl) 5 ... -..- "-.l C: -- Q) I --- 0 4 J-1 - Q) I p.. -- 3 lo
2 ·- I I I 1 ..
....----=~..-..-;~ 0 u, 0 Fig. 10.--Cluster analysis of stands without C. montanus. References to Figures 11-14
Parameters plotted against cluster groups (1-8)
Fig. 11 Fig. 12 a. percent vegetation cover a. deer pellet groups b. percent litter c. percent slope
Fig. 13 Fig. 14 a. percent shrub cover a. total soluble salts b. average soil depth (cm) a b
,I..J C i:: Q) CJ $-l Q) P-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 11 Fig. 12
a
a b
_J -c~----~L , J. . J V1 1 ' t--' Fig. 13 Fig. 14 References to Figures 15-18
Parameters plotted against clust~r groups (1-8).
Fig. 15 Fig. 16 a. percent grass cover a. pH
Fig. 17 Fig. 18 a. percent rock cover a. percent clay ,IJ C Cl) CJ 1-4 Cl) Ao!
a -~-- 1 I_t a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t:rJ Fig. 15 Fig. 16
a
a _J U1 N Fig. 17 Fig. 18 References to Figures 19-20
Parameters plotted against cluster groups (1-8)
Fig. 19 Fig. 20 a. percent silt a. percent sand .u a i:: Q) C)
Q) P-1
a _J l 1-.__ J_._J_J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 19 Fig. 20
U1 w 54 depth correlate posicively (Fig. 14). Grass cover correlates negatively with pH (Figs. 15 and 16). Rock cover correlates negatively with percent clay (Figs. 17 and 18). Percent silt is correlated negatively with percent sand (Figs. 19 and 20).
In reference to species other than C. montanus, the following relationships were noted: Mahonia repens,
Symphoricarpos oreophilus and Amelanchier alnifolia corre-
late positively to elevation; Agropyron spicatum, Quercus gambellii, Balsamorhiza sagittata and Tragopogon dubius correlate positively to percent slope, total shrub cover, total grass cover and litter cover and are negatively corre-
lated to pH and soluble salts; Gutierrezia sarothrae and
Eriogonum sp. correlate positively to total forb cover and rock cover and are negatively correlated to total vegetation cover, annual cover, percent silt, and average height and number of stems of C. montanus; Oryzopsis hymenoides and
Physaria chambersii correlate positively to bare soil, percent clay, and frequency and density of C. montanus, and are correlated negatively to percent sand; Machaeranthera
canescens correlates positively to pH and soluble salts and correlates negatively to percent slope, total shrub cover,
total grass and litter cover. Other relationships of species
to the environment were noted but not analyzed in this paper. 55
Cluster analyses were also attempted (again with and without C. rnontanus influence); however, no satisfactory patterns could be detected.
Individual environmental and vegetational factor correlation with C. rnontanus parameters are best detected and analyzed by techniques such as linear and multiple regression.
Linear Regression
Linear regression analysis was run utilizing 45 variables (Table 11). C. rnontanus parameters (i.e., fre- quency, density, cover and height) were checked for signifi- cance against all other variables. The following variables were not considered because of their close association with the dependent variables: average number of sterns of C. rnontanus; total shrub cover; total vegetation cover; total shrub and forb cover, and total shrub and grass cover.
Only one factor was found to be significant at the
.01 level in relation to C. rnontanus that was Gutierrezia sarothrae cover (Tables 12-15), which was a negative correla- tion. The same factor was also negatively correlated to density (plants/acre) at the .05 level of significance. This plant is considered an invader to disturbed natural communi- ties and is present in great abundance on several sites of the 56 TABLE 11
VARIABLES USED IN LINEAR AND MULTIPLE REGRESSION
Variable
1. Percent frequency of Cercocarpus montanus. 2. Density per acre of Cercocarpus montanus. 3. Percent cover of Cercocarpus montanus. 4. Average height of Cercocarpus montanus. 5. Altitude above sea level. 6. Exposure or aspect in degrees. 7. Percent slope. 8. Average number of stems per plant of Cercocarpus montanus. 9. Percent shrub cover. 10. Percent forb cover. 11. Percent grass cover. 12. Percent vegetation cover. 13. Percent rock cover. 14. Percent litter cover. 15. Percent bare ground. 16. Average soil depth. 17. Deer pellet groups per acre. 18. Form class of Cercocarpus montanus. 19. Soil pH. 20. Total soluble salts in soil. 21. Percent clay particles. 22. Percent silt particles. 23. Percent sand particles. 24. Percent clay and silt particles. 25. Percent clay and sand particles. 26. Percent silt and sand particles. 27. Percent shrub and forb cover. 28. Percent shrub and grass cover. 29. Percent forb and grass cover. 30. Percent cover of Agropyron spicatum. 31. Percent cover of Quercus gambellii. 32. Percent cover of Artemisia tridentata. 33. Percent cover of Symphoricarpos oreophilus. 34. Percent cover of Mahonia repens. 35. Percent cover of Bromus tectorum. 36. Percent cover of Amelanchier alnifolia. 57
TABLE 11--Continued
Variable
37. Percent cover of Poa fendleriana. 38. Percent cover of Alyssum allysoides. 39. Percent cover of Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus. 40. Percent cover of Oryzops is hymenoides. 41. Percent cover of Rhus trilobata. 42. Percent cover of Gutierrezia sarothrae. 43. Percent cover of Poa secunda. 44. Percent cover of Machaeranthera canescens. 45. Percent cover of Balsamorhiza sagit tata. --- Note: The above species included as variables are the species highest in importance values. TABLE 12
FACTORS CORRELATING WITH C. MONTANUS PERCENT FREQUENCY ____, ___ ------Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level r Value r 2 Value
" > ~....-,=. -~..--~---- - . -•. ....-..-~ ... - -· -- -- ·""" - ....----...... -
Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Sig. .01 .586 .343 Altitude negative Sig. .OS .493 .243 Poa fendleriana negative Non .OS .428 .183 Percent sand negative Non .05 .406 .164 Percent clay-silt positive Non .05 .406 .164 Percent litter positive Non .05 .398 .158 Amelanchier alnifolia negative Non .05 .380 .144 Agropyron spicatum negative Non .05 .376 .141 Farb-grass cover negative Non .05 .374 .139 Percent silt-sand negative Non .05 .369 .136 Percent clay positive Non .05 .367 .134 Bromus tectorum positive Non .05 .353 .124 Percent rock negative Non .05 .306 .093 Percent grass negative Non .05 .306 .093
-----~,. - ---~-- ~-·· . -···~----···"""""'-"'=-•. --~=-'"' ~- .·z-
U1 00 TABLE 13
FACTORS CORRELATING WITH C. MONTANUSDENSITY/ACRE
Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level r Value r 2 Value
% silt-sand negative Sig. .05 .546 .298 % clay positive Sig. .05 .544 .295 % clay-silt positive Sig. .05 .492 .242 % sand negative Sig. .05 .492 .242 Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Sig. .05 .453 .205 Amelanchier alnifolia negative Non .05 .382 .145 Quercus gambellii negative Non .05 .321 .103 ------
\JI \.0 TABLE 14
FACTORS CORRELATION WITH C. MONTANUS CANOPY COVER
--=-· ---"~--~~,,-·= -,cc••--s•-- Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level r Value r 2 Value
•••••••--,""'-.../C-...U.,O,~~....,-a,.,, ~•~~-'""'~ •
Amelanchier alnifolia negative Sig. .05 .495 .245 % litter positive Non .05 .399 .159 Bromus tectorum positive Non .05 .375 .140 Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Non .05 .365 .133 % silt-sand negative Non .05 .356 .126 % clay positive Non .05 .355 .126 Exposure negative Non .05 .352 .123 Poa fendleriana negative Non .05 .320 .102 % £orb-grass negative Non .05 .319 .101 % sand negative Non .05 .317 .100 % clay-silt positive Non .05 .317 .100 Altitude negative Non .05 .308 .094 Poa secunda positive Non .05 .300 .090
°'0 TABLE 15
FACTORS CORRELATING WITH C. MONTANUSAVERAGE BRIGHT ======-======:::~::::~:::;::_-.-~;;;,;::,_--:~~::--··-·=---==- ...... Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level r Value r 2 Value
"•~~~--·~"·~.•---=·"••--- ~--- -·-·--~ % clay positive Sig. .01 .582 .338 % silt-sand negative Sig. .01 .574 .336 pH negative Sig. . 01 .574 .329 % rock negative Sig. . 01 .550 .302 % sand negative Sig. .05 .498 .248 % clay-silt positive Sig. .05 .478 .228 % litter positive Sig. .05 .468 .219 Soluble salts positive Sig. .05 .455 .207 Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Non .05 .411 .168 Altitude negative Non .05 .307 .094 ____.._,-
(J\ I-' 62
foothills and mountains in central Utah. Where C. montanus is dominant, however, G. sarothrae is not present in great numbers.
Four factors correlated significantly, at the .01
level, to C. montanus height. They are percent clay (posi-
tive correlation), percent silt or sand (negative), pH
(negative) and exposed rock (negative). Percent clay is also positively correlated to C. montanus density at the .05
level of significance as is percent silt sand (negative) and percent sand (negative). Other factors correlating signifi- cantly at the .05 level to C. montanus height were percent sand (negative), percent clay-silt (positive), percent litter
(positive) and soluble salts (positive). The percent clay- silt factor was also positively correlated to C. montanus density at the .05 significance level. Another factor sig- nificant at the .05 level to C. montanus frequency was altitude (negative). The only significant factor correlat-
ing negatively (.05 significance level) to C. montanus canopy cover was Amelanchier alnifolia cover.
The factor which appears to be most significant for
C. montanus development is percent clay particles in the
soil. Percent litter is also positively correlated, however
is not considered a causative factor of influence. The most 63 repeated negative factor correlations were percent sand, exposed rock and pH. All affected height relationships of
C. montanus but show no significant effect on presence parameters. Altitude correlates positively to frequency of
C. montanus. This is, however, in r~lationship to exposure as demonstrated in Fig. 21.
Multiple Regression
Multiple regression analysis was run utilizing the same variables listed for linear regression. The best fit was derived for each of the following C. montanus parameters:
frequency, density, canopy cover and height (Tables 16-19).
The r 2 values for each group of factors are high and
indicate the importance of the collective influence that
these factors have on the ecology and development of C. montanus. Only one factor by itself was significant at the
.05 level, and that was a negative correlation of the species
Gutierrezia sarothrae to C. montanus frequency. Other
single factors which were influential in establishing the high r 2 values of the groups were: Amelanchier alnifolia
constantly correlated negatively with C. montanus indicating
its independence as a dominate in other shrub communities;
the total grass cover correlated negatively with C. montanus
communities largely as a result of Poa fendleriana and 2200+ @is ()14 2100 ! ()6 ~10 2000 l ...... I
QJ 1900 ~7 ®20 1800t © ~6 0 19 ·j 1700 @11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Exposure (Degrees); Shaded area represents percent slope O'\ Fig. 21.--Relation of C. montanus stands to elevation, exposure and percent slope. +' TABLE 16
CORRELATION OF FACTORS TO C. MONTANUS PERCENT FREQUENCY ~~•-~•---=.___ ,,_-~-.,...... ,,,,...-----~ ,.- ~_...... , ...... ,_, ....._._ "------Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level T for HO B(I) = 0 , ___; ---"....,~~---. --_,,..._ .--.,.------~---- Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Sig. .05 -3.532 Poa fendleriana positive Non .05 -2.066 Bromus tectorum positive Non .05 1.470 % rock negative Non .05 -1.024 Amelanchier alnifolia negative Non .05 -0.989 % litter positive Non .05 -0.839 % silt-sand negative Non .05 -0.626 % clay positive Non .05 0.619 Altitude negative Non .05 -0.509 % grass negative Non .05 -0.503
Note: r 2 for group interaction= .909.
0\ V1 TABLE 17
CORRELATION OF FACTORS TO C. MONTANUSDENSITY
Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level T for HO B(I) = 0 -----~--- -~-··· . -~------,-., ---=~-----~--- Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Non .05 -1. 838 % grass negative Non .05 -1.814 Amelanchier alnifolia negative Non .05 -1.763 Bromus tectorum positive Non .05 1.193 % forb-grass positive Non .05 0.989 % litter negative Non .05 -0.930 % slope negative Non .05 -0.897 Quercus gambellii negative Non .05 -0.764 % clay positive Non .05 0.618 % silt-sand negative Non .05 -0.604
Note: r 2 for group interaction= .868.
°' TABLE 18
CORRELATION OF FACTORS TO C. MONTANUS COVER
Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level T for HO B(I) = 0
Oryzopsis hymenoides negative Non .05 -2.091 Amelanchier alnifolia negative Non .05 -1. 766 Exposure negative Non .05 -1. 733 % clay positive Non . 05 1.670 % silt-sand negative Non .05 -1. 656 Gutierrezia sarothrae negative Non .05 -1.092 Altitude negative Non .05 -1.025 Bromus tectorum positive Non .05 0.582 % forb-grass negative Non .05 -0.539
Note: r 2 for group interaction= .877.
(j\ -...J TABLE 19
CORRELATION OF FACTORS TO C. MONTANUSHEIGHT
Factor Correlation Sig. Sig. Level T for HO B(I) = 0
·-=-~---,.,--."<'-'-~---...,,,,...,...
% forbs negative Non .05 -1.097 Altitude negative Non .05 -0.997 % clay positive Non .05 0. 912 % silt-sand negative Non .05 -0.900 % litter positive Non .05 0.890 Alyssurn allysoides negative Non .05 -0.883 Soil depth positive Non .05 0.850 pH negative Non .05 -0.746 Form class positive Non .05 0.549
OJ°' 69
Oryzopsis hymenoides; only one grass correlated positively constantly with C. montanus and that was Bromus tectorum; the amount of silt and sand in the surface soil consistently correlated negatively with C. montanus communities and con- versely, the amount of clay correlated positively; the altitude correlated negatively to some degree. This is especially true on north facing slopes while being less pronounced on south facing slopes.
C. montanus Height-Class Ratios
Reproduction and the potential for replacement and longevity of a stand is an important aspect of plant commun- ity dynamics. Height (to the nearest half-foot) was esti- mated for each C. montanus plant on all sites. The results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 22 a-t. The propor- tions of large plants to small plants is clearly visualized.
On this basis, an insight into C. montanus reproduction, stand
longevity and dynamics is provided.
It is evident from these graphs that several patterns do exist. Stands like Dividend (Fig. 22b) and Edgemont
(Fig. 22p) show low replacement potential and for some reason are being phased out. Other stands such as Stagecoach Inn
(Fig. 22j), Santaquin Canyon (Fig. 22q), Fairview Canyon
(Fig. 22t), Canyon Glen (Fig. 22g) and others clearly show 2 1 C,j .g 0 -~ [:::::::=:::- ·: •r-1 -~':JP ;.> 1 •rl '"Clc:: 2 H Fig. 22a.--Cascade Springs. Fig. 22c.--Logan Canyon.
:, Fig. 22b.--Dividend. ~i Fig. 22d.--Red Hollow. ~.J Fig. 22.--C. montanus height-ratio relationships. CJ 00 2 C'Cl ::l "O 1 -~ 0 •r-l "O C: 1 H 2 Fig. 22e.--Timpooneke. Fig. 22g.--Canyon Glen. <2 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Height (ft.) 2 1 "O •r-l 0 •r-l:> ] 1 H 2 Fig. 22f.--Wanship. Fig. 22h.--Thistle Bridge. ...... I-' t:/) 2 r-1 qj 1 0 C: ..g•r-1 I -~ 1 ---- "d Fig. 22i.--Whiskey---- Springs. C: Fig. 22k.--Spanish Fork Canyon. H 2 < 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 <2 2 3 4 5 6 7 Height (ft.) {/) 2 r-1 qj 1 :;:J "d •r-1 0 :> •r-1 1 "d .s2 Fig. 22j.--Stagecoach Inn. Fig. 221.--Thistle South. "N en 2 ,-i cu 1 :::l 'O •.-1 0 c::::::: :> •.-1 1 'O .52 Fig. 22m.--Olmstead. Fig. 220.--Monk's Hollow. <2°2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Height (ft.) en 2 ,-i 1 0 :s:> •r-l 1 'O .52 Fig. 22n.--Sixth Water. Fig. 22p.--Edgemont. -....J w 5 4 3 fl.) 2 (ij 1 :::1 "Cl •r-l 0 :> •r-l 1 "Cl i:: H2 3 4 Fig. 22q.--Santaquin Canyon. 5 Fig. 22s.--Sheep Creek. <2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <2 2 3 4 5 6 7 Height (ft.) 3 fl.) 2 ~1 :::1 "d 0 :> •r-l 1 "Cl i:: H 2 3 Fig. 22r.--Upper Falls. Fig. 22t.--Fairview Canyon. "+' 75 degrees of replacement potential which will insure greater longevity. Other patterns are noticed such as Cascade Springs (Fig. 22a) which has quite an even spread of height classes but all are so low in number that specific competi- tion may be lacking; Logan Canyon (Fig. 22c) is an example of a short but very vigorous stand; Upper Falls (Fig. 22r) is an example of a uniform, vigorous stand, with no reproductive evidence. SlJlYLYARYAND CONCLUSIONS Climax plant communities are the product of long- term physical, biological and climatic influences and inter- actions. Such interactions, recent or historical, often influence the successional patterns or trends of established ecosystems. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative relationships of interacting factors (environmental and biological) which are present in communities where Cercocarpus montanus is either dominant or co-dominant. The ecological status of C. montanus stands in Central Utah appears to be one of transition towards other mountain brush types. In all stands studied, evidence was found indicating transition and change. The time table for such change is, of course, far from being uniform and would depend largely upon the unique physical and vegetational factors of each stand studied. C. montanus occupies harsh, rocky sites exhibiting shallow and undeveloped soils. One such site thus occupied is Stagecoach Inn (Site No. 7). Statistical analysis showed that several factors were significantly correlated with site occupation by C. montanus. 76 77 Percent clay in the soil, for example, was positively corre- lated with several C. montanus parameters, i.e., frequency, density, canopy-cover and height. Water retaining properties of the soil would therefore appear to be significant in the development of optimum C. montanus communities. Other data indicating moisture needs are evidenced by the fact that communities on souch-facing slopes were always higher in elevation than those on north-facing slopes. Another factor positively correlated with C. montanus development was the amount of soluble salts in the soil. Factors most limiting (negatively correlated) to C. montanus development were percent sand, exposed surface rocks, pH and altitude. As altitude increases, average preci- pitation also increases. With increased precipitation, leach- ing of the soil increases. This results in the removal of clay and soluble salts from the soil and in turn lower pH, increased percent sand and increased exposed surface rock. Establishment of C. montanus communities and concur- rent transformation of micro-climatic factors are not well understood. However, with its establishment on steep, rocky sites, litter buildup and increased shading of the ground will change the micro-environment. Such changes bring about denser and more vigorous C. montanus stands. Eventually, the 78 site will be prepa~ed for other shrub types to intergrade and take over. The negative correlations of several major shrubs (Amelanchier alnifolia, Symphoricarpos oreophilus, Artemisia tridentata and Quercus gambellii) indicate such trends. In all cases these shrubs were dominant and sub-dominant com- ponents of surrouading vegetation types. Successional trends appeared to be progressing more rapidly on north-facing slopes than on southern exposures. Therefore, on southern xeric sites, change may be so slow that succession to other shrub types may never occur. Soil erosion and severe grazing by deer and other animals may also detain successional trends. The Dividend, Sheep Creek and Upper Fall sites may be cases in point. Other stands such as Olmstead and Santaquin Canyon are clearly in a state of flux. The sites studied on this project provide a cross section of diverse developmental stages in C. montanus communities and may be used to further elucidate successional dynamics as well as significant ecological causative factors. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bouyoucos, G. J. 1936. Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Sci., 42:225-230. Bouyoucos, G. J. 1951. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechaoical analysis of soils. Agron. J. 43:434-438. Brotherson, J. D. 1967. A study of certain community relationships of Eriogonum corymbosum Benth. in DC in the Uintah Basin, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Botany and Range Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Christensen, E. M. 1964. Succession in a mountain brush community in Central Utah. Proc. Utah Acad. of Sci., Arts and Letters: 41(1):10-13. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegeta- tim1al analysis. Northwest Sci. 33:43-66. Dix, R. L. and J. E. Butler. 1960. A phytosociological study of a small prairie in Wisconsin. Ecol., 41: 316-327. Hayes, D. W. and G. A. Garrison. 1960. Key to important woody plants of Eastern Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dept. of Agri. Handbook 148, 227 pp. Hayward, C. L. 1948. Biutic communities of the Wasatch Chaparral, Utah. Ecol. Monog. 18:473-500. Martin, F. L. 1950. A revision of Cercocarpus. Brittonia 7:91-111. Medin, D. E. 1960. Physical site factors influencing annual production of true mountain mahogany, Cercocarpus montanus. Ecol. 41:3. 79 80 Plummer, A. P. 1965. Restoring big-game range in Utah. Pub 1. No . 683 . Utah Division of Fish and Game. Pyrah, G. L. 1964. Cytogenetic studies of Cercocarpus in Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Ream, R.R. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains of Utah anci Idaho. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Russell, D. A. 1948. A laboratory manur1.l for soil fertility students, 3rd Ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. Brown Co. Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Plant Handbook. Portland, Oregon. Sokal, R.R., and P.H. A. Sneath. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co . , 3 5 9 pp . Sorenson, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similar- ity of species content. Konge. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk., JS:4:1-34. Thomas, J. W. 1970. A comparison of vegetation changes in a mountain-brush type after grazing and protection from grazing during 37 years. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Botany and Range Science, Brig- ham Young University, Provo, Utah. U.S. Forest Service. 1937. Range Plant Handbook, U.S. Dept. of Agri., Washington D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Utah Division of Fish and Game. Big Game Inventory Handbook. Species list and code, 68 pp. (Mimeographed.) Warner, J. H., and K. T. Harper. 1972. Understory charac- teristics related to site quality for aspen in Utah. B.Y.U. Sci. Bull., Biol. Ser. V. XVI, No. 2:1-20. APPENDIX 81 LIST OF ALL SPECIES PRESENT IN 20 STUDY SITES (IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCEVALUE) Botanical Name Common Name 1. Cercocarpus montanus Raf. Ce:ccocarpus 2. Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Bluebunch Wheatgrass Scribn. & Smith 3. Bromus tectorum L. Cheatgrass 4. Alyssum allysoides L. Pale Alyssum 5. Machaeranthera canescens Hoary Machaeranthera (Pursh) A. Gray 6. Artemisia tridentata Big Sagebrush 7. Poa secunda Presl. 8. Mahonia repens G. Don Creeping Oregon Grape 9. Symphoricarpos oreophilus Mountain Snowberry A. Gray 10. Quercus gambellii Nutt. Gambel Oak 11. Poa fendleriana (Steud.) Muttongrass Vasey 12. Oryzopsis hymenoides (Roem. Indian Ricegrass & Schult) Richer 13. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Douglas Rabbitbrush (Hook.) Nutt 14. Amelanchier alnifolia Service berry (Nutt.) Nutt. 15. Descurainia richardsonii Richardson Tansymustard (Sweet) 0. E. Schulz 16. Physaria chambersii Roll Twinpod 17. Hackelia patens (Nutt.) Stickseed I. M. Johnst. 18. Bromus brizaeformis Rattlesnake Chess Fisch. & Meyer 19. Cirsium eatoni (A. Gray) Thistle Robins. 20. Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Broom Snakeweed Britton & Rusby 21. Eriogonum sp. 82 83 Botanical. Name Common Name 22. Balsamorhiza sagittata (Pursh) Arrowleaf Balsamroot Nutt. 23. Lappula redowskii (Hornem.) Stickseed Greene 24. Achillea lanulosa Nutt. Yarrow 25. Comandra pallida A.DC Comandra 26. Lathyrus brachycalyx Rydb. Wild Sweetpea 27. Allium brandegei S. Wats. Brandegee Onion 28. Eriogonurn urnbellaturn Torr. Sulfur Eriogonum 29. Cymopteris longipes S. Wats. 30. Galium boreale L. Northern Bedstraw 31. Cynoglossum officinale L. Hound's Tongue 32. Eriogonurn sp. 33. Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. Junegrass 34. Tragopogon duoius Scop. Salsify 35. Purshia tridentata (Pursh) DC Antelope Bitterbrush 36. Rhus trilobata Nutt. Skunkbush Sumac 37. Opuntia polyacantha Haw. 38. Sitanion hystrix (Nutt.) Squirreltail J. G. Smith 39. Arenaria kingii (S. Wats.) King's Sandwort M. E. Jones 40. Arabis holboellii Hornem. Rockcress 41. Chenopodium album L. Lambs quarters 42. Tetradymia canescens DC. Gray Horsebrush 43. Linaria vulgaris Hill Butter and Eggs Toadflax 44. Penstemon eatoni A. Gray Eaton Penstemon 45. Penstemon humilis Nutt. Low Penstemon 46. Collinsia parviflora Dougl. Littleflower Collinsia 47. Calochortus nuttallii Torr. Sego Lily 48. Agropyron dasystachum (Hook.) Thickspike Wheatgrass Scribn. 49. Cryptantha nana (Eastw.) Payson so. Senecio interrimus Nutt. Columbia Groundsel 51. Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana Sagebrush 52. Ribes cereum Dougl. Wax Currant 53. Prunus virginiana L. Chokecherry 54. Pachystima myrsinites (Pursh) Mountain lover Raf. 55. Agropyron subsecundum (Link) A. S. Hitchc. 56. Taraxacum officinale Weber Common Dandelion 84 Botanical Name Common Name 57. Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Utah Juniper Little 58. Ribes aureum Pursh Golden Gooseberry 59. Rosa woodsii Lindl. Wild Rose 60. Lomatium dissectum (Nutt.) Wild Parsley Mathias & Constance 61. Penstemon leonardi Rydb. Leonard Penstemon 62. Chaenactis douglasii (Hook.) Hook. & Arn. 63. Eriogonum heracleoides Nutt. Wyeth Eriogonum 64. Phlox hoodii Rich Hood ' s Ph lox 65. Epilobium paniculatum Nutt. Autumn Willoweed 66. Helianthella uniflora (Nutt.) 0neflower Helianthella Torr. & Gray 67. 0enothera caespitosa Nutt. Tufted Evening Primrose 68. Astragalus utahensis (Torr.) Utah Loco Torr. & Gray 69. Castilleja chromosa A. Nels. Indian Paintbrush 70. Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rubber Rabbitbrush (Pall.) Britton ECOLOGICALASPECTS OF CERCOCARPUSMONTANUS RAF. COMMUNITIESIN CENTRALUTAH David Lee Anderson Department of Botany and Range Science M.S. Degree, August, 1974 ABSTRACT Ecological and environmental aspects relating to Cercocarpus montanus Raf. communities were investigated. Twenty study sites were sampled and described. All factors were then analyzed utilizing statistical methods. Signifi- cantly correlated factors to C. montanus parameters (i.e., frequency, density, cover, height) were: positive correla- tion--percent clay, percent clay-silt, percent litter cover, and total soluble salts in soil; negative correlation-- percent silt-sand, percent sand, soil pH; exposed surface rock, Amelanchier alnifolia cover, Gutierrezia sarothrae cover and altitude. Several individual factors were singled out as being of importance in C. montanus communities; how- ever, it was shown that a combination of factors was most important in determining optimal growth conditions for C. montanus. Each site is exposed to different combinations of ecological conditions which are in a constant state of flux. The C. montanus communities studied were found in several different successio~al stages which tend to echo this condition. The actual successional patterns involved remain to be fully elucidated. COMMITTEEAPPROVAL: