University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School
1980
Forest habitat types of the Bear's Paw Mountains and Little Rocky Mountains Montana
David W. Roberts The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y
Recommended Citation Roberts, David W., "Forest habitat types of the Bear's Paw Mountains and Little Rocky Mountains Montana" (1980). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7410. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7410
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. - 7
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976
Th is is an unpublished manuscript in which copyright sub s i s t s . Any further r e p r in t in g of it s contents must be approved BY THE author .
MANSFIELD L ibrary Un iv e r s it y of Montana D a t e : ^ 1 9 ^ 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FOREST HABITAT TYPES OF THE BEAR'S PAW MOUNTAINS
AND LITTLE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, MONTANA
By
David W. Roberts
B.S.F., University of Montana. 1977
Presented in partial fu lfillm en t of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Forestry
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
1980
Approved by:
(Chairman, Board of Examiners
Dean, Graduate School
j - 7 - ^(3 Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP38211
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI OiaMrUition F^jtjiHahing
UMI EP38211 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
Roberts, David W., M.S.F., 1980 Forest Ecology
Forest Habitat Types of the Bear's Paw Mountains and L ittle Rocky Mountains, Montana
Director: Lee E. Eddlema n
This study establishes forest habitat type land classifications for the L ittle Rocky Mountains and the Bear's Paw Mountains of north central Montana. Habitat types are defined on the basis of potential natural vegetation. The hierarchial classifications define a total of four series, twelve habitat types, and three phases for the Bear's Paw Mountains, and a total of three series, ten habitat types, and two phases for the L ittle Rocky Mountains. Taxonomic keys are provided to identify the habitat type of new sites encountered in the fie ld . The classifications provide, for each series, habitat type, and phase, a description of the geographic, physiographic, climatic, and edaphic features characteristic of the unit. The c la s s ifi cations describe the potential climax vegetation and late serai forest communities characteristic of each habitat type and phase. This study also presents a test of the habitat type c la s s ifi cations by sim ilarity analysis. Formal procedures for the use of similarity analysis are established, as are formal criteria for the interpretation of similarity analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111
Acknowledgements
The funding for this research was provided under contract from
the Bureau of Land Management, State O ffice, B illin g s , Montana, and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings Area Office, Billings, Montana.
The research was conducted under a cooperatuve agreement with the
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences
Laboratory, Missoula, Montana.
The Bear's Paw Mountains are named the Bearpaws Mountains on U.S.
Geological Survey quadrat maps, and in most references in the litera
ture, but are referred to in this thesis as the Bear's Paw Mountains
out of respect of the residents of this mountain range.
I would lik e to acknowledge the assistance and comraderie
of Mr. John I. Sibbernsen, who aided me greatly in fie ld sampling,
while conducting a concurrent study on the management implications
of the habitat types.
I would most especially like to thank Dr. S.F. Arno for invalua
ble field training, the editing of numerous classification drafts,
and the continuous encouragement he provided me during this
research.
I would like to thank Dr. L.E. Eddleman and my committee for
th e ir patience and guidance during this research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page
A b s t r a c t ...... i i
Acknowledgements ...... i i i
List of Figures ...... vi
I Introduction ...... 1
I I The Study A r e a ...... 3
Bear's Paw Mountains ...... 3
L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 7
III Review of the Literature ...... 10
IV Methods ...... 15
Data Collection ...... 15
Data A n a ly s is ...... 17
Taxonomic Considerations ...... 24
V R e s u lts ...... 26
Forest Habitat Types of theBear's Paw Mountains . . 29
Finns pondenosa Series ...... 32
Fsendotsuga m enziesii Series ...... 38
P ic e a S e r ie s ...... 48
Abies Zasioaarpa S e r i e s ...... 52
Distribution of HabitatTypes ...... 55
Forest Habitat Types of theLittle Rocky Mountains . 57
Finns ponderosa Series ...... 60
Finns contorta S e r i e s ...... 67
Fsendotsnga m enziesii Series ...... 72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter Page
VI D is c u s s io n ...... 85
Methodology ...... 85
Procedures and Criteria for the Application of Similarity Analysis to Habitat Type Classifications. 87
Regional Vegetation Ecology ...... 97
Literature Cited ...... 99
Appendixes
A1 Constancy and Average Coverage Percent of Important Plants of the Bear's Paw Mountains Habitat Types ...... 101
A2 Plant Species Present in Sample Plots in the Bear's Paw Mountains ...... 107
B1 Constancy and Average Coverage Percent of Important Plants of the Little Rocky Mountains Habitat Types ...... 109
B2 Plant Species Present in Sample Plots in the L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VI LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Location of Study Areas in Montana ...... 5
2. Location and Topography of Bear's Paw Mountains ...... 6
3. Location and Topography of L it t le Rocky Mountains .... 9
4. Instructions for Use of the Habitat Type Keys ...... 28
5. Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types of the Bear's Paw Mountains...... 29
6. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Undergrowth Species in the Bear's Paw Mountains ...... 56
7. Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types of the Little Rocky Mountains ...... 58
8. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Calcareous and Noncalcareous Sandstone and Shale Parent Materials in the L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 82
9. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Limestone or Dolomite Parent Material in the L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 83
10. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Igneous and Metamorphic Parent Materials in the L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 84
11. Habitat Type to Habitat Type Similarity Matrix for the Bear's Paw Mountains ...... 94
12. Habitat Type to Habitat Type Similarity Matrix for the L ittle Rocky Mountains ...... 95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The advent of ecologically based forest land classifications has
resulted in great benefit to forest land managers (Layser 1974).
The increased value of forest lands and heightened demand for forest
resources has magnified the need for forest land classification as
an effective management tool {Rowe 1971, P fister and Arno 1980).
The greatest success in ecological land classification results
from comprehensive analysis of vegetation and the sites on which i t
occurs (Kuchler 1973). The habitat type classification classifies land
on the basis of potential natural vegetation, which integrates climate,
topography, and soils (Pfister and Arno 1980), and stratifies the land
into the basic ecological subdivisions of the landscape (Daubenmire
and Daubenmire 1968).
The habitat type classification system was introduced by Rexford
Daubenmire for northern Idaho and eastern Washington (Daubenmire 1952).
Daubenmire noted at the time the potential value of the classification
to forest managers. When the updated classification (Daubenmire and
Daubenmire 1968) was published, forest managers within the study area
and in adjacent areas made increasing use of the classification.
Forest land managers in western Montana recognized the u t ilit y
of the classification, but also recognized the limitations of
extrapolating the classificatio n beyond the study area. Acceptance
of the habitat type classification system indicated the merits of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
system for forest land management (Layser 1974), but the system needed
application to a broader area. Consequently, a habitat type c la s s ifi
cation was developed for Montana by researchers at the Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station (P fister e ^ ^ . 1977). This class
ification described the majority of coniferous forests in Montana,
but omitted the forests of the Little Rocky Mountains and the Bear's
Paw Mountains. Forest managers in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Bureau of Land Management, charged with the management of these
lands, faced a dilemma similar to that faced by land managers
in western Montana in previous years. They requested that the
habitat type classification system be extended to these lands.
The classifications presented here are designed to augment
Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister e^ | lI- 1977). Using an
approach and methodology sim ilar to P fister £ t (1977), I described
local forest habitat types in two classifications: Forest Habitat
Types of the Bear's Paw Mountains, and Forest Habitat Types of the
L ittle Rocky Mountains.
The objectives of this study, following Pfister et al.(1977)
were as follows:
1. To develop a habitat type classification for the forests of
the L ittle Rocky Mountains and the Bear's Paw Mountains;
2. To describe the general geographic, physiographic, climatic,
and edaphic features of each type;
3. To describe the mature forest communities (la te serai) as
well as the potential climax communities (associations) characteristic
of each type.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I I
THE STUDY AREA
The study area is composed of two distinct, disjunct areas: the
L itt le Rocky Mountains, and the Bear's Paw Mountains. Both mountain
ranges occur as isolated ranges, and are considered Rocky Mountain
outliers in the Northern Great Plains (Thornbury 1965) (Figure 1). The
two ranges are noticeably d iffe re n t in geology and vegetation, and are
thus best considered two separate study areas.
THE BEAR'S PAW MOUNTAINS
The Bear's Paw Mountains are surrounded on three sides by Northern
Great Plains grassland, and on the fourth by an eroded, dissectedgrass
land leading to the Missouri River Breaks. The grasslands give way to
forest from about 1065 meters (3500 feet) to 1160 meters (3800 fe e t),
where the steeper mountain slopes intercept the plains topography of
the grasslands. The mountains rise to a height of 2100 meters
(6900 fe e t) on Mount Baldy, a so litary dome which dominated the Bear's
Paw Mountains. Other summits throughout this small range rarely
reach an elevation of 1890 meters (6200 feet) (Figure 2).
The Bear's Paw Mountains were formed by extrusive volcanism
with associated intrusive dike and s ill formation in expansive
sedimentary layers (Pecora et 1959, Stewart ^ al- 1957). Extru
sive volcanic material erupted in two zones, northern and southern,
and intrusive bodies arched the sedimentary strata in a southwest-
northeast orientation up to 1220 meters (4000 feet) above the level of
associated beds (Pecora et a l. 1959). The sedimentary arch, principally
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
upper Cretaceous shales and sandstones at the surface, is now eroded
to expose the intrusive sills, associated principally with the southern
eruption.
Soils throughout the forested portion of the Bear's Paw
Mountains are fairly uniform, although they tend to be more skeletal
in upper elevation sites derived from the volcanic material- The
increased precipitation associated with these high elevation sites
appears more than adequate to offset the expected decrease in moisture
holding capacity of these soils, as no direct correlation of vegetation
to parent material was noted.
The climate of the region is strongly continental, with a strong
orographic modification of this climate in the mountains. The mean
annual temperature at Rocky Boy's Agency is about 44° Fahrenheit, and
mean monthly temperatures range from 16®F. in January to 70°F. in July.
Mean annual precipitation in the adjacent grasslands is about 12 inches,
with a d is tin ct late-spring, early-summer peak (U.S. Dept. Commerce
Weather Bureau 1974). Mean annual precipitation at lower timberline
is probably about 15 inches, and may reach an extreme of 30+ inches
in the in te rio r of the Mountains
Sampling was limited to that to that portion of Bear's Paw
Mountains within Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation. This area contains
a wide range of the environmental variation present in the Bear's
Paw Mountains (Figure 2).
^ Oral personal communication with Dr. L.E. Eddleman, Professor of Forestry, School of Forestry, University of Montana, June, 1977.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD Hill BEAR S MOUNTAINS County C/) 3o'
8
(O'
Blaine County 3. 3" CD "OCD O Q.
O little ROCKY MOUNTAINS 3 ■D O Chouteau CD Q. County SCALE U-1-1 10 MILES ■D CD UUl II 1111,1
C/) 10 kilometers C/) County 400'
Figure 1. Location of Study Areas in Montana (Source: U.S. Dept. Interior Geological Survey, State Map of Montana) QC
>-
STUDY AREA OUTLINED
IN BOLD (AND DASHED)
LINE
7TH STANDARD PARALLEL o
o
SCALE
10 MILES
BASE CONTOUR 4 0 0 0 FEET
CONTOUR in t e r v a l 5 0 0 FEET
Figure 2. Location and Topography of Bear's Paw Mountains (Source: U.S. Dept. In te rio r Geological Survey, State Map of Montana)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE LITTLE ROCKY MOUNTAINS
The L ittle Rocky Mountains are a small, isolated mountain range,
generally surrounded by low foothills which extend a short distance in
to the adjacent Northern Great Plains. A few isolated buttes occur
out in the plains. The mountains and foothills are transitional on
three sides to grassland, and on the fourth to a highly dissected
grassland leading to the Missouri River Breaks.
The mountains rise from a base elevation of about 1160 meters
(3800 feet) to a maximum ot 1740 meters (5720 feet). They are
characterized by large, rounded domes, rather than jagged peaks. Steep
limestone cliffs form much of the perimeter of the mountains (Figure 3).
The L ittle Rocky Mountains were formed by intrusive volcanic
u p lift, pushing up through numerous layers of sedimentary rock (Knechtel
1959). The central portion of the mountains is formed primarily from in
trusive volcanic and metamorphic rock. This material has been exposed
through extreme erosion of the overburden. The sedimentary rock layers
now remain principally near the perimeter of the mountains, although
remnant blocks of this material remain in the central region. The lime
stone members of this material are evidently quite resistant to weather
ing in the semi-arid climate, and limestone forms much of the relief of
the non-volcanic areas (Knechtel 1959).
Detailed weather records for the Little Rocky Mountains are avail
able for only a few years. The climate is continental, with wide
seasonal temperature differences. The mean annual temperature at Hays,
immediately northwest of the L ittle Rocky Mountains, is about 42^F.
The January and July mean temperatures are 17°F. and 67°F, respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
and the mean annual precipitation is about 14 inches (U.S. Dept.
Commerce Weather Bureau 1964).
The study area covers a ll forested lands in this area adminis
tered by the Bureau of Land Management, and the forested portion
of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. This study area covers
all of the mountains and most of the foothill terrain (Figure 2).
Large areas of the L ittle Rocky Mountains have been burned by
forest fires, and the area available to sample near-climax vegetation
has been reduced accordingly. To be able to represent the range of
site variation present, i t was necessary to sample areas not meeting
the criterio n of supporting late serai vegetation. Although a ll sites
met the 70-year stand age criterion of Pfister et £l_. (1977), in many
cases, these sites must be regarded as m id-seral, and successional
trends on these sites are somewhat speculative.
The L ittle Rocky Mountains are situated approximately 88
kilometers (55 miles) east-southeast of the Bear's Paw Mountains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FORT BELKNAP INDIAN RESERVATION 4 ^ 0 ^ ^ a
CO
ae ir>LU oc
6TH STANDARD PARALLEL
SCALE
5 MILES
Figure 3. Location and Topography of L ittle Rocky Mountains (Source: U.S. Dept. In te rio r Geological Survey, State Map of Montana)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0
CHAPTER I I I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
No published vegetation study exists for either the L ittle
Rocky Mountains or the Bear's Paw Mountains. General vegetation
studies for adjacent mountain ranges do provide some insight into the
vegetation ecology of these areas, however. There are three published
studies of vegetation that I considered pertinent to my study
area. However, the vegetation described by each of the three is so
significantly different from each of the others that the degree to
which any of the three might be extrapolative to my study area was
unclear until field exploration allowed comparisons to my data.
Additionally, habitat type classification have been pub!ished for the
nearer mountain ranges of Montana (P fister et 1977) and the nearest
mountain range in Wyoming (Hoffman and Alexander 1976). A habitat unit
classification was published for the Black Hills of the Dakotas
(Thilenius 1972), and a habitat type classification for the east slope
of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta (Ogilvie 1962) is available as a
doctoral dissertation. However, the degree of uncertainty to which any
of these classifications might be extrapolative to the study areas was
the major impetus for commission of this research. The relationship of
the classifications for the Little Rocky Mountains and the Bear's
Paw Mountains to these classifications is discussed on a habitat-type-
by-habitat-type basis in the body of the habitat type descriptions.
Regional Vegetation Studies
Despain (1973) described the general forest zonation of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1
Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, which are situated approximately 600
kilometers (375 miles) south-southeast of the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
His research focused on the relationship of vegetation zonation, in
particular the dominant tree species, to climate and substrate. He
concluded:
The predominant distribution of community types on the Bighorns is probably a result of a combination of marginal precipitation and the influence of rock type on the soil.
Superimposed on an elevational sequence sim ilar to that
described by Daubenmire (1943) and, later, Pfister et (1977),
Despain ( 1973) noted that Pinws p o n d e ro sa and Pseudotsuga m enziesii
were restricted generally to sedimentary parent materials, and that
Pinus contorta was apparently climax on granitic parent material.
Picea engelmannii Abies lasiocarpa were less limited by substrate,
but required relatively abundant available soil moisture. The concept
of Pinus contorta as an edaphic climax on granitic substrate
and the restrictio n of Pseudotsuga m enziesii to sedimentary substrates
bore particular influence on the habitat type classification for the
L ittle Rocky Mountains.
Despain (1973) was chiefly interested in the general forest
zonation and the nature of forest-meadow boundaries. In regard to the
d istribution of undergrowth species, he noted that the herb layer may
indicate site potential, but gave only a general description of the
undergrowth communities of the forest zones.
Hoffman and Alexander (1976) describe forest habitat types for the
Bighorn Mountains. They ascribed the forest zonation principally to a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2
soil moisture gradient, but reinforce the concept of climax Pi,nus
c o n to r ta on granitic substrates, and the general restriction of Pseudo-
suga menztesii to sedimentary substrates. They also include
detailed descriptions of the undergrowth communities of the habitat
types. Discussion of the sim ila rity of th eir habitat types to those
of the L ittle Rocky Mountains and the Bear's Paw Mountains is
included in the habitat type descriptions of these areas.
Newsome and Dix (1968) described the forest vegetation of the
Cypress H ills , Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada, approximately 105
kilometers (65 miles) north of the Bear's Paw Mountains. Although a ll
areas share many plant species in common, the physiography of the
Cypress Hills is not similar to either the Bear's Paw Mountains or the
L ittle Rocky Mountains. Coniferous forests cover only a small portion
of the Cypress H ills , and are dominated by Picea glauca^ or P in u s
c o n to rta ^ which appears to be successional to Picea glauca (Newsome
and Dix 1968). These researchers concluded that the vegetation of the
Cypress H ills is controlled principally by circumstances occurrent at
the time of stand establishment. They isolate four general vegetation
types on an ordination which are correlated with local geography
and the successional status of th e ir sample stands. While no formal
attempt was made to control the effects of local geography or success
ion, they noted that moisture availability appears to be the dominant
environmental factor.
Thompson and Kuijt (1976) described in general terms the vege
tation zonation of the Sweetgrass H ills, Montana, located approximately
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
130 kilometers (80 miles) west-northwest of the Bear's Paw Mountains.
They list five forest types, detailed below, as well as P in u s
f t e x i t i s and PopuZus tremutoides woodlands.
Pseudotsuga m enziesii forms the lowest forest zone in the Sweet
grass Hills. Lower timberline is approximately 1400 meters, which the
authors note is probably above the cold limits of Pinus ponderosa.
The Pseudotsuga m enziesii zone supports the most wel1-developed
undergrowth in the Sweetgrass H ills , and includes many species found
in the Pseudotsuga m enziesii series of the Bear's Paw Mountains
and the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
Dense, even-aged Pinus contorta stands occur on steep north
slopes and support only a depauperate undergrowth. These stands are
evidently fire-generated (Thompson and Kuijt 1976). Some of
these stands are probably successional to Pseudotsuga menziesii^
but many support Picea glauca x engelmannii, and are thus equivalent
to the P ic e a series of habitat type classification.
One forest type of potential climax Abies lasiocarpa is noted,
which contains Pinus contorta^ Picea glauca x engelmannii and
Pseudotsuga m enziesii, as an undergrowth sim ilar to that dominated
by Picea glauca x engelmannii and Pinus contorta. Upper timberline
stands dominated by Pinus alhicaulis, Pinus flex ilis, Pinus contorta,
and Picea glauca x engelmannii occur on the two highest buttes. A b ie s
la s io c a r p a is restricted to favorable sites or is absent on these
sites.
The Cypress H ills (Newsome and Dix 1963), the Bighorn Mountains
(Despain 1973; Hoffman and Alexander 1976), and the Sweetgrass H ills
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
(Thompson and Kuijt 1976) a ll share s im ila ritie s to the Bear's Paw
Mountains and the Little Rocky Mountains, especially the latter two,
but few observations of vegetation ecology from any of the three
are directly extrapolative to the study areas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
CHAPTER IV
METHODS
P fister and Arno (1980) note that with the widespread application
of habitat type classifications in the western United States, habitat
typing methodology has varied among the d ifferen t researchers. Because
the classifications presented here are intended to compare directly
with Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister ^ al_. 1977), I
adopted the methodology of P fister ejt (1977), with a few modi
fications in data analysis, as suggested by Franklin, Dyrness and
Moir (1970). The methodology of Pfister et a l. (1977) is described in
detail in a separate publication (Pfister and Arno 1980). This method
ology has been found to be tim e -e ffic ie n t, and to produce a classi
fication of forest habitats that is ecologically based, and applicable
to a wide range of uses. P fister and Arno (1980) discuss in detail the
purpose and concepts of the habitat type classification resulting from
th e ir methodology, and th eir ideas are completely applicable to the
present study.
Data Collection
I selected sample stands subjectively to sample mature, relatively
undisturbed stands, and to represent the full array of relatively
mature forest communities. Sample stands were selected without pre
conceived bias concerning th e ir position in the classification (Mueller-
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974; P fister and Arno 1980). Random or system
atic systems of stand selection are considered too in e ffic ie n t for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
constructing a habitat type classification (Pfister et 1977).
I selected the sample plot within the sample stand in an area that
was re la tiv e ly uniform in topography and vegetation, so as to control
as much variation as possible, and to avoid microsites which were not
representative of the sample stand. The sample plot was selected to
best represent the total sample stand in a single plot. As in
sample stand selection, random or systematic selection of sample
plots is inappropriate in developing a habitat type classification
(Pfister and Arno 1980). Sample plot size, layout, and the data
collected were the same as specified by Pfister and Arno (1980),
so that the data could be added directly to the Forest Habitat Types
of Montana (P fister ^ 1977) data base.
Sample plots were circu la r, with an area of 375 m^. I recorded
the canopy coverage of a ll vascular plants in the plot by the coverage
class method of P fister ^ al_- (1977). Canopy coverage of trees was
recorded in three DBH classes by species to estimate successional
trends and reproductive success.
In addition to the vegetation data, I recorded the elevation, as
pect, and slope steepness of the plot, the configuration of the plot,
and the plot's position on the landform. Samples of the upper 20
centimeters of mineral soil and the parent material were collected for
laboratory analysis. Soil texture was determined in the field by the
ribbon method. Soil reaction was determined by the soil paste-glass
electrode pH meter method. The average depth (from three samples) of
the litte r, fermentation, and humus layers of the soil surface was
also recorded.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7
After sample plot data were collected, I estimated the extent
of the sample stand, and noted the character of adjacent stands
to determine which plant communities were occupying sites reflecting
ecotones of aspect, slope, or soil change.
Data Analysis
Following the firs t field season, plant species collected
or observed in sample plots were assigned a three-digit code from
the lis t of species coded by Pfister et (1977); new codes were
designated for species not found by Pfister et (1977). I photo
copied each plot card and recorded the species code and coverage value
for each species on the photocopy sheet. Each plot card photocopy was
also assigned a seven-digit identifier code to allow incorporation of
the data with that of Pfister et (1977). The identifier code
and species codes and coverage values were then keypunched for
computer-assisted analysis.
For each sample plot, I identified the potential climax dominant
tree species according to the criteria established by Pfister et a l.
(1977); the potential climax dominant tree species is the most shade
tolerant species present on the site at a level of at least ten trees
per acre, and reproducing successfully. All plots potentially domin
ated by the same tree species at climax are members of the same
series, the first level of stratification of a habitat type
classification (Pfister e ^ ^ . 1977).
Within each series, I constructed a synthesis table and a sample
plot similarity matrix from the keypunched vegetation data. A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
synthesis table provides "a complete display of species distributions
and stand composition" (Pfister and Arno 1980). The synthesis table
is constructed by listing all species present in a series in the
firs t column- The coverage values for these species in each plot are
listed in successive columns. The stand compositions of sample plots
are thus recorded in the columns, and species distributions are re
corded in rows with one row for each species.
The sample plot similarity matrix compares the vegetation of a
single sample plot to all other sample plots in the series individually,
and summarizes the similarity with a numeric similarity index. The
similarity was computed with Sorensen's index (Sorensen 1948) (given
below), using the coverage class numbers as weighted presence. This
method was found to be the most favorable by Pfister and Arno (1980).
where: ISg = Sorensen's index of similarity
a = the sum of all species coverage class values for one plot
b = the sum of all species coverage class values for the other plot.
c = the sum of the coverage classes of all species held in common by the two plots, at the level of coverage common to both plots.
Using the key to habitat types in Forest Habitat Types of Montana
(Pfister et 1977), I attempted to key out the first-year sample
plots to the appropriate habitat type. Many of the sample plots did
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
not key-out to a habitat type, did not f i t any of the existing
habitat types, and were thus considered "no-fits." Many of the sample
plots which did key-out to a habitat type obviously did not f i t the
description of the habitat type, and were considered "misfits."
Pfister ejt (1977) caution that the key is not the classification,
but acceptable descriptions could not be found for most of the sample
plots.
Despite the fact that many of the sample plots did not f i t the
descriptions of Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister et 1977),
many of them did contain species considered to be indicator species by
Pfister et (1977). I tested the value of these species as indi
cators in my study area by constructing similarity matrices of those
plots containing the indicator species at the coverage value specified
by Pfister et (1977), and computing the mean similarity of all
plots in the matrix. In many cases, the mean similarity was low,
suggesting that the indicator species were grouping plots that were
dissimilar and should not be considered members of the same habitat
type. Franklin, Dyrness and Moir (1970) review the use of the similar
ity matrix to check plot groupings. Pfister ^ (1977) did not use
such a technique in construction of their classification, but Pfister
and Arno (1980) are now convinced that the technique has merit for
testing the similarities of plots within and between groups.
In consideration of the events that (1) the habitat types in
Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister e^ 1977) were not
extrapolative to the majority of sample plots in the study areas, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
(2) the habitat type classifications of the new areas would require the
identification of some new indicator species, I decided on the follow
ing course. I constructed new classifications from my data, without
recognition of the habitat types of adjacent forests (with the
exception of ponderosa pine bunchgrass habitat types), and then tested
the similarity of the new habitat types to those described by
Pfister e^ (1977). I decided, also, to construct separate classi
fications for the Bear's Paw Mountains and the L ittle Rocky Mountains,
as i t appeared from subjective consideration that the two areas
would share few, i f any, habitat types. The resulting classifications
were then tested for possible merger. The results of the test are
included in the discussion section.
To construct the new classifications, I modified the methodology
of Pfister and Arno (1980). All sample plots were assigned to series
already, according to the criteria of Pfister aj^. ( 1977), so the
first level of stratification remained unchanged. Pfister e^aX- (1977),
assigned sample plots to tentative habitat types subjectively, according
to three criteria: (1) membership of a sample plot in a habitat type
described for an adjacent area, (2) field notes on relationship of
existing classifications and adjacent communities, and (3) visual
comparison of plot composition data and photographs (Pfister and Arno
1980). I had already tested and rejected the firs t two criteria for my
data. Because I had a similarity matrix comparing the vegetative
composition of my sample plots, I devised the following approach to
plot grouping, as an alternative to the third criterion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
I prepared a card for each sample plot which listed the sample
plot identification number and the identification numbers of the three
most similar plots, as recorded in the sample plot similarity matrix.
These sim ilarity cards were used in the firs t approximation of sample
plot groups by following a simple agglomerative clustering
algorithm, as outlined below,
I examined the firs t plot's similarity card to determine the two
plots most similar to the reference stand. The cards specifying
the plots most similar to these two plots were grouped with the
firs t. This group was examined for plots which were listed on two
of the three grouped similarity cards. Plots meeting this criterion were
in turn examined for membership in the group. I f two of the three
plots most similar to this candidate plot were members of the group,
the plot was added to the group; i f not, i t was rejected. Once no
more candidate plots were found for which two of the three most
similar plots were members of the group, a new group was started
and the process was repeated. This agglomerative clustering algo
rithm resulted in the formation of several groups in most series, but with
a few plots not showing a greatest similarity to any one group.
I examined the undergrowth vegetation of each group for character
istic species, using the synthesis table. I defined characteristic
species as those which showed differential occurrence from one group
to the others, and which were present in all stands of a particular
group at a specified coverage value. I ordered these species
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
in a key so that sample plots would key into the group of which they
were a member. Plots which had not shown a greatest similarity to
a particular group were keyed into the appropriate group.
From the sample plot similarity matrix, I then computed the
average similarity of each sample plot to all plots in each group,
and reassigned a few plots to new groups for which they showed their
highest average similarity. This operation simultaneously maximized
within-group similarity and minimized between-group similarity.
I considered each group of plots to be representative of
a habitat type. One habitat type in the Pseudotsuga m em iesii series
of both the L ittle Rocky Mountains and the Bear's Paw Mountains was
further subdivided into two phases to emphasize a minor differentiation
in this type. I prepared a preliminary classification from these
first-year data. It described the characteristic vegetation and topo
graphic position of each habitat type, and included the sample plot
similarity matrix for each habitat type and each comparison of one
habitat type to another.
Using the method of "successive approximation" advocated by
M.E.D. Poore(1962), I continually tested and revised the preliminary
classifications to reflect new data added during the second field
season. The habitat type key and the habitat type descriptions were
tested and revised further during establishment of ground truth for
habitat type maps.
I prepared review drafts of the final classifications following
the second field season. These review drafts were circulated to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
contracting agencies and interested parties for review and comment
during the summer of 1978. Following incorporation of reviewers'
comments, I presented the classifications to Dr. Stephen F. Arno
for a final critique to ensure the compatibility of the classifications
with Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister e^ 1977), and to
employ Dr. Arno's experience in constructing and describing a
habitat type classification. During this critique, sample plot place
ments in habitat types and habitat type names were finalized. The
final classifications were then presented in final reports to the
contracting agencies.
The ultimate test of a habitat type classification is its
ability to describe accurately the near-climax plant communities in a
designated area and to relate these communities to site characteristics
which occur in a predictable sequence on the landscape; the classifi
cations described here were found to do so in an intensive habitat
type mapping effort conducted by Mr. J .I. Sibbernsen. However,
despite the apparent success of the classifications in describing the
sites in the study area, I fe lt it necessary to test the classifica
tions objectively through the use of similarity analysis, as suggested
by Franklin, Dyrness and Moir (1970). In addition to testing the
classifications, this procedure allowed direct comparison of the study
areas to adjacent areas of Montana and the Bighorn Mountains of
Wyoming, using data collected for Forest Habitat Types of Montana
(Pfister e^ 1977) and Forest Vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains,
Wyoming: A Habitat Type Classification (Hoffman and Alexander 1976),
respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
The classifications, as tested, are presented in two separate chap
ters of this thesis, and the results of the tests are included in the
discussion section.
Taxonomic Considerations
I collected voucher specimens of plants encountered in sample
plots. Where possible, all specimens were identified to species.
Specimens of the genera Carexj Rosa^ R-ibesj Oxytropïs^ and A stra g a lu s
were identified to genus only.
Because sampling extended over several months of the growing
season, I often made field identification of vegetative or sterile
specimens. I grouped some similar species when field differentiation
was not possible. These groups are as follows:
1. Specimens of the genus Symphoricarpos did not commonly flower,
especially under a forest canopy, during the study. All
specimens that did flower were identified as s. oeaidentalis.
Identification of specimens on vegetative characteristics
indicates that 5. oocidentalis is the characteristic
species of north central Montana. A comparison of the
distribution of Symphoricarpos in our study area with the
distribution of S. a lb u s in the Forest Habitat Types of
Montana (Pfister ejt al_. 1977) indicates that S. a lb u s
extends into moister habitat types than s. occidentalis,
and is absent from the drier habitat types where
S. ocaidentalis is common. Thus, S. a lb u s y i f present in
north central Montana, would be expected in our moist habitat
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
types.
2. Thaliatrum oaoidentale and Thaliatrum venulostm were treated
as T. o c c id e n ta le .
3. Osmovhiza chilensis^ 0. depauperataj and O. piæpiœea were
treated as 0. chilensis.
Members of the genus Vaocinium did not flower or fru it during the
field seasons. From vegetative characteristics, we distinguished
Vaccinium caespitosvon, V. gZobulave^ and V. myvtiZZus.
On the basis of cone and twig morphology, I identified P icea
specimens as Picea engelnrinnii x glauca. Following the precedent of
Pfister et (1977), all references'-are abbreviated to P icea.
Dr. I.E. Eddleman, Mr. P.F. Stickney, Dr. S.F. Arno, Dr. L.H.
Harvey, Mr. G.L. Moore, Mr. J .I. Sibbernsen, and Professor L.
Hagener Identified some voucher specimens.
Nomenclature follows Flora of the Pacific Northwest by
Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 CHAPTER V
RESULTS
Classification Structure and Nonemclature
The terminology and classification structure of the classifica
tions that follow is consistent with Pfister et (1977). A habitat
type is the aggregation of units of land capable of producing
similar plant communities at climax (Pfister ^ al_. 1977). The series
is a grouping of all habitat types dominated at climax by the same
tree species. Pfister e^ (1977) present a glossary of terms used
in the habitat type classification.
I defined four series, ten habitat types, and two unique commun
ities for the Bear's Paw Mountains. Many of these habitat types are
similar to habitat types in other areas of Montana, Wyoming, and
other areas, and some are unique to the Bear's Paw Mountains. In the
L ittle Rocky Mountains, I defined three series and ten habitat types.
Similarly, some of these habitat types are similar to habitat types
in other parts of Montana, Wyoming, and other areas, and some are
unique to the L ittle Rocky Mountains. The similarity of each habitat
type to habitat types of other classifications is presented in the
habitat type description, but the similarity of entire classifications
is referred to the discussion section.
The classifications for the Bear's Paw Mountains and the L ittle
Rocky Mountains are presented separately. Each follows the format
below:
1. Key to the habitat types. Please refer to the instructions
(Figure 4) before attempting to use the key.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7
2. Series descriptions. I have described characteristics
common to many or all of the habitat types in the same
series, in the series description, placed before the appro
priate habitat type descriptions.
3. Habitat type descriptions. I described the topographic posi
tion, vegetation, and soils characteristic of each type, and
noted similar habitat types in the habitat type descriptions,
4. Distribution of habitat types. I have included a brief
description and figures indicating the position of each
habitat type on the most important ecological gradients.
An abridged Table of Contents precedes each classification.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Use this key for stands with a nature tree canopy and that are rot severely disturbed by grazing, logging, forest fire , etc. ( If the stand is severely disturbed or is an early successional stage, the 28 habitat type can best be determined by extrapolating from the near est mature stand occupying a similar s ite .)
2. Accurately identify and record canopy coverages for all indicator species.
3. Check plot data in the field to verify that the plot is representative of the stand as a whole. If not, take another plot.
4. Identify the correct potential climax tree species in the series key. - (Generally, a tree species is considered reproducing successfully if ten or more individuals per acre occupy or will occupy the site.)
5. Within the appropriate series, key to habitat type by following the key literally.
6. Use the definitions diagramed below for canopy coverage terms in the key. If you have d ifficu lty deciding between types, refer to constancy and coverage data (Appendix Al), and the habitat type descriptions.
7. In stands whore undergrowth is obviously depauperate (unusually sparse), adjust the above definitions to the next lower coverage class (e.g., well represented, 1%; common, 0%).
8. Remember, the key is NOT the classification! Validate the determination made using the key by checking the written description.
Percent Canopy Coverage^ -0% 1 % 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100% Absent ^Present ^(not obviously restricted to atypical r.icrnsites)
Scarce Common Y~^y-‘'-rP 77y7y777y^^^' Poorly represented d'.’cll rcT;rcsciitcd//> //// yy/. Abundant:
Coverage Class
Figure 4. Instructions for Use of the Habitat Type Keys
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 ABRIDGED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Forest Habitat Types of the Bear's Paw Mountains
Page Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types {Figure 5). (Please
refer to Figure 4 before attempting to use the key) ...... 30
P'inus pondeTOca S e r i e s ...... 32
Pinus ponderosa/Agropyron spioatim Habitat Type ...... 34
Pinus ponderosa/FestuQa -iddhoensi-s Habitat Type
Festuoa soabrella Phase ...... 35
Pinus ponderosa/Ametanckiev atni-fol-ia Habitat Type ...... 36
Pseudotsuga menzi.es'i'i S e r i e s ...... 38
Pseudotsuga menz'ùes'Ci/Symphorïearpos ocoidentalis Habitat T. 39
Pseudotsuga menzi-esi-i/AmeZanch-ier aZnifoZia Habitat Type . . 41
Pseudotsuga menztesit/V-ioZa oanadensis Habitat Type...... 42
Pseudotsuga menziesi-L/Ltnnaea horeaZis Habitat Type...... 44
Pseudotsuga menzi-esii/Cornus canadens-is Habitat Type .... 45
P-icea S e r i e s ...... 48
P tce a /J u n tp eru s oorrniunis Community...... 49
Pi-oea/L-innaea horeaZis Habitat Type ...... 50
Abies Zasiocarpa S eries ...... • 52
Abies Zasioaarpa/Juniperus oommunis Community...... 53
Abies Zasiocarpa/Linnaea boreaZis Habitat Type ...... 53
Distribution of Habitat Types ...... 55
Figure 6 ...... 56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0 Figure 5. Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types
1, Abies lasiooarpa present and reproducing successfully ABIES LASIOCARPA series (Item D)
1. Abies lasiooarpa not the indicated climax - 2
2. F icea present and reproducing successfully PICEA series (Item C)
2. P icea not the indicated climax - 3
3- Pseudotsuga menziesii present and reproducing successfully PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII series (Item B)
3. Pseudotsuga menziesii not the indicated climax - 4
4. Pinus oontorta present PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII series (Item B)
4. Pinus oontorta absent; Pinus ponderosa the indicated cl imax PINUS PONDEROSA series (Item A)
A. . Key to Pinus ponderosa Habitat Types
1. Amelanohier alnifolia well represented PINUS PONDEROSA/AMELANOHIER ALNIFOLIA h.t. (p. 36)
1. Amelanohier alni folia poorly represented - 2
2. Festuoa soabrella common PINUS PONDEROSA/FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS h.t. (p. 35)
2. Festuoa soabrella scarce; Agropyron spicatum well represented. PINUS PONDEROSA/AGROPYRON SPICATUM h.t. (p. 34)
B. Key to Pseudotsuga menziesii Habitat Types
1. Comus canadensis common PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESIÎ/CORNUS CANADENSIS h.t. (p. 45)
l.a. Vaooinium m yrtillus present VACCINIUM MYRTILLUS phase (p. 4?)
l.b. Vaooinium m yrtillus absent LINNAEA BOREALIS phase (p. 47)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
Fig. 5, cont. Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types
1. Covnus canadensi-s scarce - 2
2. Linnaea borealis common PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/LINNAEA BOREALIS h.t. (p. 44}
2. Linnaea borealis scarce - 3
3. Two of the following three forbs present: v io la canadensiss Thalictrim ocoidentaley or Osmorhiza ohilensis PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/VIOLA CANADENSIS h.t. (p. 42)
3. Not as above - 4
4. Amelanohier alnifolia or Spiraea betulifolia well represented PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA h.t.(p. 41)
4. Not as above; Symphoricarpos ocaidentalis common PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/SYMPHORICARPOS OCCIDENTALIS h.t. (p. 39)
Key to P icea Habitat Type and Unique Community
1. Linnaea borealis common PICEA/LINNAEA BOREALIS h.t. (p. 50)
1. Linnaea borealis scarce; Juniperus cormrunis the dominant undergrowth PICEA/JUNIPERUS COMMUNIS u.c. (p. 49)
Key to Abies lasiooarpa Habitat Type and Unique Community
1. Linnaea borealis common ABIES LASIOCARPA/LINNAEA BOREALIS h.t. (p. 53)
1. Linnaea borealis scarce; Juniperus communis or Festuoa id a h o e n sis the dominant undergrowth ABIES LASIOCARPA/JUNIPERUS COMMUNIS u.c. (p. 53)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 2
P'inus 'pondevosa Series
Distribution. P%nus ponderosa is the most widely-distributed
tree in the Bear's Paw Mountains. It forms a climax forest zone
between lower timberline grasslands and sites moist enough to support
Pseudotsuga menziesii.. In the Bear's Paw Mountains, potential climax
Pinus ponderosa forests cover the foothills and occur as topographic
climaxes on southerly exposures within the mountains.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is usually the only tree present in
this series. Pinus flexilis is accidental on the drier habitat types
(PIPO/AGSP; PIPO/FEID-FESC), and Populus tremutoides can be serai
within one habitat type (PIPO/AMAL).
The undergrowth of the drier habitat types is dominated by
bunchgrasses, and these stands are usually open, all-aged Pinus
ponderosa. The undergrowth of PIPO/AMAL is dominated by shrubs, and
these stands have a relatively dense canopy.
Soil. Soils in this series are often gravelly and are generally
loamy. Soil reaction at the upper ten centimeters is neutral or
slightly acidic (pH 7.1 - 6.3). The duff layer is usually deep
(6.2 - 6.5 centimeters). In general, soil differences account for
little of the variation in this series; most of the variation is
evidently attributable to topographic influences on available moisture,
Other studies. R. and J. Daubenmire (1968) noted that climax
Pinus ponderosa in northern Idaho and eastern Washington occurs on
two different soil types, and that the characteristic undergrowth of
these climax Pinus ponderosa forests is determined by the soil type.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
On deep, heavier soils, the undergrowth is shrubby; on stony, coarse-
textured, or shallow soils, the undergrowth is dominated by bunch
grasses.
Both types of undergrowth are present in the Firms ponderosa
series of the Bear's Paw Mountains, but the relationship of the two
appears to be more related to available soil moisture as influenced
by topography, than to soil texture. The shrubby undergrowth occurs on
sites which accumulate soil moisture from runoff and subsurface flow,
evidently at the expense of adjacent upslope sites dominated by
bunchgrass undergrowths.
Pfister et (1977) found both shrub and bunchgrass dominated
undergrowths under climax Pinus ponderosa in east central Montana.
They noted that the bunchgrass dominated sites occurred on steeper
slopes, and that the shrub dominated sites occurred on gentler ter
rain, but did not suggest a controlling factor to account for this
observation. They noted that throughout most of Montana, i f a dense
shrubby undergrowth occurs under Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii
is usually regenerating, and is the indicated climax. In the
Bear's Paw Mountains, most of the shrub dominated sites in the Pinus
ponderosa series (PIPO/AMAL h .t.) are outside of the range of
distribution of Pseudotsuga menziesii.
Hoffman and Alexander (1976) do not address the relationship
directly, but the Pinus ponderosa habitat types in the Bighorn
Mountains appear to be distributed principally according to
available moisture, which is influenced mostly by topography, rather
than soil texture.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
Vn,nus pondevosa/Agpopyron sp-icatton Habitat Type
(PIPO/AGSPi ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass)
Distribution. PIPO/AGSP is the driest forest habitat type present
in the Bear's Paw Mountains. This minor habitat type is repre
sented by two sample plots. It is a topographic climax on midslopes
of the dry hills at the northern edge of the mountain range, near the
lim it of tree distribution for the Bear's Paw Mountains. Slope inclin
ation is moderate to steep and PIPO/AGSP sites are limited to south
and west aspects. Elevations of sample stands are 1340 meters (4400
feet) and 1400 meters (4600 feet).
PIPO/AGSP is adjacent to PIPO/FEID-FESC on cooler aspects, and
occurs upslope from more protected sites which are often PIPO/AMAL.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa and, rarely, Pinus flexilis are the
only trees present in PIPO/AGSP. Typical stands are all-aged, and
trees are widely-spaced.
The undergrowth of PIPO/AGSP is dominated by Agropyron spicatum
or Juniperus horizontalis, Thermopsis rhorribifolia is the dominant
forb, and Achillea nrlllefolium^ Balsamorhiza sagittate:, Chrysopsis
v i l l o s a . Anemone m u ltifid a , and Aster falcatus are characteristic
of this type.
Soil. Surface soil in the sampled stands is gravelly, and soil
texture is a loam to a silty loam. Soil reaction is slightly basic
(mean pH 7.2). Ground surfaces have lit t l e or moderate bare soil and
surface rock exposed. Average duff depth is 6.5 centimeters.
Other studies. PIPO/AGSP in the Bear's Paw Mountains is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
essentially equivalent to the PIPO/AGSP habitat type of Pfister et al.
(1977). Hoffman and Alexander (1976) also described a P'inus p o n d ero sa /
Agropyron spicatum habitat type for the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming
which is equivalent.
Pinus ponderosa/Festuca idahoensis Habitat Type Festuoa scabretta Phase
(PIPO/FEID-FESCj ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue-rough fescue)
Pistribution. PIPO/FEID-FESC is limited in distribution to
lower elevation midslopes of exposed ridges and knolls, but is
extensive on the foothills north and east of the mountains. Elevations
of the nine sample stands range from 1160 meters (3800 feet) to
1465 meters (4800 feet), and aspects are northwest, north, east, or
southeast. PIPO/FEID-FESC is transitional to PIPO/AGSP on drier
aspects, and to PIPO/AMAL on areas of increased soil moisture.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is the only successful tree in
PIPO/FEID-FESC. Pinus flexilis occurs rarely as an accidental.
The undergrowth is dominated by Agropyron spicatum^ Festuoa
s o a b r e lla , and, occasionally, Festuoa idahoensis. Coverage of Juniperus
horizontalis is variable, and Amelanohier alnifolia is poorly repre
sented; other shrubs are scarce. Thermopsis rhorribifolia is the dominant
forb. Other forbs usually present are Achillea millefolivm, Antennaria
microphylla. Campanula rotundifolia, Cerastium arvense, and Anemone
m u ltifid a .
Soil. Surface soils in the sampled stands are loams or sandy
loams. Soil reaction in the upper ten centimeters is neutral (mean pH
7.1). The ground surface has l it t l e to moderate surface rock exposed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 6
and l i t t l e bare soil exposed. The average duff depth is 6.2 centimeters.
Other studies. PIPO/FEID-FESC in the Bear's Paw Mountains
is equivalent to the PIPO/FEID-FESC habitat type and phase of
Pfister et (1977). The Festuoa idahoensis (FEID) phase of
Pfister et aj_. (1977) apparently does not occur in the Bear's Paw
Mountains. Hoffman and Alexander (1976) described a Pinus ponderosa/
Festuoa idahoensis habitat type in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming
which occupies similar sites, and shares many undergrowth species
with PIPO/FEID-FESC in the Bear's Paw Mountains. The Pinus ponderosa/
Festuoa idahoensis habitat type of Hoffman and Alexander, however,
has no Festuoa soabrella, which appears to be replaced by Hesperoohloa
k in g ii in the Bighorn Mountains.
Pinus ponderosa/Amelanohier alnifolia Habitat Type
(PIPO/AMAL; ponderosa pine/serviceberry)
Pi stribution. PIPO/AMAL is the wettest habitat type in the
Pinus ponderosa series. This minor habitat type occupies the wettest
sites outside the range of distribution of Pseudotsuga menziesii in
the Bear's Paw Mountains, and sites within the mountains which appar
ently are too dry for Pseudotsuga m enziesii. Elevations of the two
sample plots are from 1160 meters (3800 feet) to 1280 meters (4200
feet), and aspects are northwest and northeast. Slope inclination of
the sample plots is moderate to steep.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is usually the only tree present
in PIPO/AMAL, but some stands contain serai Populus tremuloides.
The undergrowth is dominated by Amelanohier alnifolia. Other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 7
shrubs which may be present include Pvunus vi-Tg-iniana and Symphor-icarpos
oocidentalis. Sites in the moist extreme of PIPO/AMAL may include
moist-site forbs such as Monarda fistulosa or Lathyrus ochvoleucus.
Sites on the dry extreme may be well represented with Agropynon
spicattorti and Festuoa soabrella is poorly represented.
Soi 1. Soil texture in the sample plots is a loam, and soil
reaction in the upper ten centimeters is slightly acidic (mean pH 6.5).
No bare soil and lit t l e surface rock are exposed. Average duff depth
is 6.2 centimeters.
Other studies. Pfister ^ a j^ . (1977) describe a PIPO/PRVI
habitat type, PRVI phase, for southeastern Montana which is similar
to PIPO/AMAL, except that in the Bear's Paw Mountains, Amelanohier
a ln ifo lia ^ rather than Prunus virginiaruxj, dominates the undergrowth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
Pseudotsuga menz'les'it Series
Distribution. Pseudotsuga menz-iestt forms a climax forest zone
on mesic sites throughout the Bear's Paw Mountains. Sites in this
series are more moist than those of the Pinus ponderosa series, and
warmer or drier than those of the P icea series. The majority of the
productive forest land in the Bear's Paw Mountains occurs in the
Pseudotsuga menziesii series, and this series is the most extensive in
the Bear's Paw Mountains.
Vegetation. The tree flora is more diverse in the Pseudotsuga men
z i e s i i series then in Pinus ponderosa series. Pinus ponderosa is
serai throughout most of the series. Pinus oontorta is a serai
dominant on the moist habitat types, and Populus tremuloides can be
serai dominant in the more mesic habitat types.
The undergrowth in this series is generally dominated by shrubs
or sub-shrubs. Bunchgrasses are important only in the driest
habitat type (PSME/SYOC). Calarmgrostis rubesoens is important in the
more moist habitat types.
The Pseudotsuga menziesii series covers the widest range of
undergrowth variation of any series in the Bear's Paw Mountains. This
variation is apparently controlled principally by the soil moisture
gradient encompassed by this series.
Soil. The Pseudotsuga menziesii series was the only series
sound on both calcareous and noncalcareous parent material. In the
study area, however, calcareous parent material is very limited in
distribution and only two sample plots occurred on this material.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
Other studies. Climax Pseudotsuga menziesii in the Bear's Paw
Mountains follows closely the pattern described by Pfister et a l.
(1977) for the Pseudotsuga menziesii series in Montana, extending from
a dry bunchgrass supporting habitat type to habitat types similar to
those of the Abies lasiooarpa series. The series is bounded on drier
sites by the Pinus ponderosa series, on moister sites by the P icea
series, and on cooler, higher elevation sites by the Abies lasiooarpa
series.
Climax Pseudotsuga menziesii in the L ittle Rocky Mountains is
much more restricted by site than in the Bear's Paw Mountains. As
noted by Despain (1973) and Hoffman and Alexander (1976) for the Bighorn
Mountains, Pseudotsuga menziesii in the L ittle Rocky Mountains is
generally restricted to sedimentary parent materials.
Ogilvie (1962) does not describe a Pseudotsuga menziesii series
as such, but notes that climax Pseudotsuga menziesii is restricted to
the driest sites which support tree growth on the east slope of the
Rocky Mountains in Alberta.
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphorioarpos oocidentalis Habitat Type
(PSME/SYOC; Douglas-fir/western snowberry)
Distribution. PSME/SYOC is the driest habitat type in the
Pseudotsuga menziesii series. It is moderately extensive and the
four sample plots occurred on moderately steep to steep mid-slopes
with south or west aspects. Elevations of the sample plots range from
1220 meters (4000 feet) to 1465 meters (4800 feet).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
PSME/SYOC generally occurs in a mosaic with PSME/AMAL and
PSME/VICA, with PSME/AMAL occupying more moist aspects in the same
elevational band, and PSME/VICA occupying more moist and sheltered
sites than the previous two.
Vegetation. Serai stands of PSME/SYOC are dominated by
Pinus ponderosa. Sites in this type are too dry for Pinus oontorta
or Populus tremuloides. Symphorioarpos oocidentalis and Agropyron
spicatu m dominate the undergrowth of PSME/SYOC. Prunus virginiana
and Amelanohier alnifolia are usually common. Thermopsis rhorrhifolia^
Balsamorhiza sagittata^ Erigeron speoiosus_, and Chrysopsis villosa
are characteristic forbs.
Soil. Surface soils of the sample plots are gravelly and soil
texture is a sandy loam. Soil reaction of the upper ten centimeters
is slightly acidic (mean pH 6.2). L ittle to moderate bare soil
and surface rock are exposed. Average duff depth is 6.8 centimeters.
Other studies. PSME/SYOC is very similar to the PSME/SYAL habitat
type, AGSP phase of Pfister et a_]_. (1977). The substitution of
Symphorioarpos oocidentalis for Symphorioarpos albus is the most
significant difference. A PSME/SYOC habitat type has also been described
for the L ittle Rocky Mountains. PSME/SYOC in the Bear's Paw
Mountains and the L ittle Rocky Mountains can be considered the same
habitat type, but should be distinguished as two phases: PSME/
SYOC-CHVI {(Chrysopsis villosa) and PSME/SYOC-SHCA {Shepherdia
canadensis) for the Bear's Paw and L ittle Rockies, respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
Pseudotsuga menzzes-i-i/Amelanchï-er alnifotza Habitat Type
(PSME/AMAL; Douglas-fir/serviceberry)
Pi stribution. PSME/AMAL is a topographic climax on moderate
or steep slopes with aspects from northwest to northeast. Elevations
of the five sample plots are from 1220 meters (4000 feet) to
1525 meters (5000 feet).
PSME/AMAL is similar to PIPO/AMAL except that Pseudotsuga
m en ziesii. is the indicated climax. PSME/AMAL occurs more in the
central portion of the mountains, while PIPO/AMAL occurs more in the
foothills of the perimeter. Thus, the two might represent similar
sites within and outside of the geographic distribution of Pseudotsuga
m e n z ie s ii for PSME/AMAL and PIPO/AMAL, respectively. PSME/AMAL
often occupies moist sites (northerly aspects) where drier aspects
are PIPO/FEID-FESC, or occupies the driest sites in a PSME/AMAL,
PSME/VICA, and PSME/LIBO mosaic.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is the serai dominant in the
PSME/AMAL habitat type. Pinus oontorta and Populus tremutoides are
absent from this type. Pseudotsuga menziesii is the indicated climax.
The undergrowth of PSME/AMAL is dominated by shrubs. Prunus
virginiana^ Amelanohier alnifolia, and Spiraea betulifolia are
common. Symphorioarpos oooidentalis is present. Characteristic forbs
include SmLlaoina raoemosa, Vioia amerioana, Disporim traohyoarpum,
Erigeron speoiosus, Fragaria virginiana, and Galium boreale. Grasses
are scarce.
Soil. Soil texture in the PSME/AMAL sample plots is a loam
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
or sandy loam, and soils are generally gravelly. Soil reaction of the
upper ten centimeters is slightly acidic (mean pH 6.6), and average
duff depth is 7 centimeters. No bare soil and l it t l e surface rock are
exposed.
Other studies. PSME/AMAL is similar to the PSME/SYAL habitat
type, SYAL phase, of Pfister et ^ . (1977). PSME/AMAL has higher
coverages of Ametanohiev alnifoli-a and Prunus v-irginianay however,
and much less frequent occurrence of Berberis repens and Arotostaphylos
u v a -u r s iy which are relatively rare in the Bear's Paw Mountains.
Pseudotsuga menzi-esi.i/V-iola canadensis Habitat Type
{PSME/VICA; Douglas-fir/Canadian violet)
Distribution. PSME/VICA is a mesic habitat type and is extensive
in the Bear's Paw Mountains. The seventeen sample plots occur at
elevations from 1250 meters (4100 feet) to 1465 meters (4800 feet)
on west, north, east, or southeast aspects. Slope inclination is
moderate to steep. PSME/VICA sites in the Bear's Paw Mountains
are in Muddy Creek, Beaver Creek, Lost Canyon, and Parker Canyon.
Vegetation. Serai stands of PSME/VICA may support almost pure
stands of Poputus tremutoidesy but conifer reproduction is usually
evident. Pinus ponderosa and Pinus oontorta are important serai
species in stands dominated by conifers. Pseudotsuga m enziesii is
also present in the understory of serai stands and is the indicated
climax.
The undergrowth of PSME/VICA contains a number of moisture-
indicating forbs such as viola canadensis and A c ta e a r u b r a y in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
addition to That-Lctrum ooaidentate (o r T. venutosum) 3 O sm orhiza
c k i l e n s t s Tor 0. depauperata) 3 Armica cordifotia. Aster aonspiauusj and
Disporwrt traahycarpwv. Shrub coverage varies, but Spiraea Betulifolia
is often well represented. Prunus virginiana and Symphoricarpos
oacidentalis are present. Grasses are dominated by Calamagrostis
r u b e s c e n s 3 and Agrostis scabra is often present.
Soil. The PSME/VICA sample plots occur on loam or sandy loam
soils, and soil reaction in the upper ten centimeters is slightly
acidic {mean pH 6.2). L ittle or no bare soil or surface rock is
exposed. The average duff depth is 5.6 centimeters.
Other studies. This habitat type has not been described else
where. However, many of the characteristic undergrowth species of this
type are present in the PSME/PHMA habitat type of Pfister et a l.
(1977). The Bear's Paw Mountains are outside the range of Physocarpus
mdtvaceus3 so that while this undergrowth dominant is absent, there
may be similarity in the habitat. Calamagrostis rihesoens was well
represented in many of the sample plots, and these plots would thus
be part of the PSME/CARU habitat type of Pfister et aj[. (1977). However,
the habitat of PSME/VICA is not equivalent to PSME/CARU and the
presence or absence of Calamagrostis rubesoens was not correlated with
significant differences in site in PSME/VICA
Ogilvie (1962) described a Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos
a lb u s habitat type which occupies similar sites, and which supports
an undergrowth very similar in species composition, with the substitu
tion of Symphoricarpos albus for Symphoricarpos occidentalis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
Pseudotsuga menzies'L-t/Li.nnaea horealts Habitat Type
(PSME/LIBO; Douglas-fIr/twi nflower)
Distribution. The PSME/LIBO habitat type occurs on moderately
steep to steep mid-slopes at elevations from 1370 meters (4500 feet)
where sheltered to 1700 meters (5600 feet) where more exposed. As
pects are west, north, or east. PSME/LIBO occurs in the Bear's Paw
Mountains on Centennial Mountain, and in Lost Canyon, Big Sandy
Creek, and Beaver Creek, and is represented by eight sample plots.
PSME/LIBO occurs on sites more moist than those of PSME/VICA and
often forms a broad mosaic with this type. Sites more moist than
PSME/LIBO are PSME/COCA-LIBO at lower elevations, and PSME/COCA-VAMY
at higher elevations.
Vegetation. Pinus contortais an important serai species in PSME/
LIBO and is dominant or co-dominant with Pseudotsuga m enziesii in
serai stands. Pinus ponderosa is a minor serai species in this type.
Populus tremutoides is also a serai species in this type, but rarely
dominates serai stands.
The undergrowth of PSME/LIBO is dominated by Linnaea borealis
and Calamagrostis rubesoens. Spiraea betulifolia is common, and
Symphoricarpos ocoidentalis and Juniperus conwimis may be present.
Characteristic forbs include Amica cordifolia, Disporum trachyoarpumj
and Osmorhiza ohilensis Tor O. d e p a u p e r a ta ). Grasses other than
Calamagrostis rubesoens are generally absent.
Soil. Soil texture in the PSME/LIBO sample plots varies from a
loam to a silty clay. Soil reaction in the upper ten centimeters is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
slightly acidic (mean pH 6.2). Average duff depth is about six centi
meters. No soil and lit t l e or no surface rock are exposed.
Other studies. PSME/LIBO in the Bear's Paw Mountains is
approximately equivalent to two phases — CARU and SYAL — of the
PSME/LIBO habitat type of Pfister et (1977). My stands, however,
have Symphoricarpos ocoidentalis rather than Symphoricarpos alhuSj
and Vaooiniim m yrtillus rather than Vacciniim sooparivm. Some of my
stands also support Vaccinivm caespitosum, but do not occupy sites
characteristic of the PSME/VACA habitat type of Pfister al_- (1977),
and are thus not included in that habitat type.
The PSME/LIBO habitat type in the L ittle Rocky Mountains should
not be considered equivalent to PSME/LIBO for the Bear’s Paw
Mountains. Linnaea borealis in both cases indicates a similar position
on an available moisture gradient, but PSME/LIBO in the Little Rocky
Mountains lacks Calamagrostis rnbesoetLs and all species of Yaccininm^
and, in general, is characterized by a much less luxuriant undergrowth,
I f the classifications are merged, PSME/LIBO should have two phases:
CARU phase for the Bear's Paw Mountains and ARUV phase for the Little
Rocky Mountains.
Pseudotsuga m enziesii/Cornus canadensis Habitat Type
(PSME/COCA; Douaias-fir/bunchberry dogwood)
Pistribution. PSME/COCA is the wettest habitat type in the
Pseudotsuga m enziesii series. The 13 sample plots for this habitat
type occur on upper mountain slopes and in protected drainages at
elevations from 1465 meters (4800 feet) to 1705 meters (5600 feet).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
Aspects are from northwest to northeast, and slope inclination is
moderately steep except where adjacent to a creek bottom. PSME/COCA
is found in the Bear's Paw Mountains in the Eagle Creek and Green
Creek drainages as well as mid-slopes on Mount Baldy. In general,
this type is restricted to sites with abundant soil moisture which are
protected from direct insolation.
Vegetation. Serai stands of PSME/COCA are frequently dominated
by Pinus oontorta^ which establishes its e lf on these sites following
fire or disturbance. Fire is infrequent in this type, however, and
these stands are eventually dominated by Pseudotsuga m enziesii^ the
indicated climax. Pinus ponder>osa is usually absent from this type.
Sites with similar undergrowth are usually P ic e a potential climax
elsewhere in Montana (Pfister e^ 1977), but no evidence was found
of successful regeneration of P io e a on this habitat type.
The undergrowth of PSME/COCA varies by phase, but many species
are characteristic of both phases. Spiraea betulifolia is common in
both phases. Amica cordifolia^ Aster laevisy Osmorhiza chilensis
( or 0. depauperata)y Pyrola virensy and Smilaoina racemosa are
present in both phases. Calamagrostis rubesoens is well represented in
both phases.
Soil■ The soil texture in the PSME/COCA sample plots is a
sandy loam or a loam. No bare soil is evident in either phase and
lit tle surface rock is exposed in the Vaccinium m yrtillus (VAMY) phase.
Soil reaction in the upper ten centimeters is slightly acidic (mean
pH 6.0) in the VAMY phase, and acidic (mean pH 5.4) in the L in n aea
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
b o r e a l i s (LIBO) phase. Average duff depth is 6.6 centimeters and
6.0 centimeters for the VAMY and LIBO phases, respectively.
Linnaea borealis (LIBO) phase. This phase occurs at lower
elevations than the VAMY phase. Elevations in this phase are below
1525 meters (5000 feet). In addition to the undergrowth listed for
the type as a whole, the following species are characteristic of this
phase: Linnaea borealis and Shepherdia canadensis are usually
well represented. Vihum-um edule is usually common and V accinium
caespitosum is usually present. Lathyrus ochroleucus is present.
Vaccinium m yrtillus (VAMY) phase. This phase occurs at elevations
generally above 1525 meters (5000 feet). Vaccinium m yrtillus is present
and Vaccinium globulare dominates some sites. Eubus parviflorus and
Aster conspicuus are characteristic of this phase.
Other studies. PSME/COCA is unique to the Bear's Paw Mountains.
Similar undergrowth is common in parts of Montana (Pfister ^ aj_* 1977)
and Alberta (Ogilvie 1962), but is associated with the P ic e a series
in both areas. Pfister et j^. (1977) consider Comus canadensis an
alternate indicator for Clintonia uniflora^ a species which is absent
in the Bear's Paw Mountains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
P ic e a Series
Pi stribution. The P ic e a series occurs on sites more moist or
cooler than those of the Pseudotsuga m enziesii series and is generally
limited to sites on or adjacent to Mount Baldy. The microclimate
created by the increased precipitation and, in some cases, the de
creased direct insolation associated with the relatively high elevation
of Mount Baldy, is evidently sufficient to allow establishment of
P ic e a on sites that would otherwise support only Pseudotsuga m enziesii
and Pinus contorta^ or Pinus flexilis. Potential climax P ic e a forests
cover only a small area in the Bear's Paw Mountains, but are signifi
cant in that these stands represent the eastern range lim it for
P ic e a in northern Montana.
Potential climax P ic e a forests occur on two distinctly different
site types in the Bear's Paw Mountains, both of which, however,
are associated with the presence of Mount Baldy. One site type, the
PICEA/LIBO habitat type, occurs on the north and east slopes of
Mount Baldy within the zone of continuous forest, which extends upslope
to the expanse of scree which forms much of Mount Baldy's upper slopes.
The other site type, PICEA/JUCOj occurs as patches of forest in the
expanse of scree near or at the top of Mount Baldy, clearly above the
zone of continuous forest. I do not consider the PICEA/JUCO site type
to be a habitat type because it is restricted to one unique site and
is not repeated across the landscape. Thus, i t represents a unique
environment rather than a grouping of similar environments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49
Vegetation. The vegetation in this series reflects the varia
tion in sites which make up the series. The PICEA/JUCO site type
is depauperate in tree and undergrowth vegetation. On the other hand,
the PICEA/LIBO habitat type supports luxuriant undergrowth and a
diverse tree flora.
Soil. Soil characteristics also vary by site type. The PICEA/
JUCO site type occupies extremely rocky sites, while the PICEA/
LIBO habitat type occurs on finer-textured soils. In general, soil
reaction is more acidic than in the Pseudotsuga m enziesii or P in u s
p o n d e ro sa series.
Pioea/Juniperus communis Site Type
(PICEA/JUCO; spruce/common juniper)
Pi stribution. PICEA/JUCO occurs as islands of vegetation in
scree on the upper south and west slopes of Mount Baldy at or above
an elevation of 1980 meters (6500 feet). These sites are directly
exposed to high insolation and strong winds, and vegetation is
limited.
Vegetation. P ic e a is the dominant tree, and is joined on
these sites only by Pinus flexilis. Trees in PICEA/JUCO are severely
windswept and reduced in height growth. The undergrowth is dominated
by Juniperus communis and Shepherdia canadensis. Epilobium angusti-
fo liu m is a characteristic forb. Other undergrowth plants are scarce.
Soi 1. The soil on these sites is extremely rocky and cannot
be sampled with a soil-sampling tube. Soil development appears to be
minimal. In the sample plot, moss covered about 38 percent of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
ground area, and 40 percent of the ground surface was exposed
bare rock.
Other studies. PICEA/JUCO is similar to the PICEA/SEST habitat
type of Pfister £t ( 1977) except that PICEA/SEST occurs
exclusively on limestone substrates. Other than parent material,
PICEA/SEST and PICEA/JUCO occur on similar sites.
P-icea/Ltnnaea horeatis Habitat type
(PICEA/LIBO; spruce/twinflower)
Distribution. PICEA/LIBO occurs in the Bear's Paw Mountains
only on slopes with northeast aspect in the upper drainages of
Beaver Creek, north and east of Mount Baldy. Elevations of the two
sample plots were 1495 meters (4900 feet) at WaTrick Road and
1770 meters (5800 feet) on the slopes of Mount Baldy.
Vegetation. Pinus contovta and Pseudotsuga menziesii dominate
serai stands of PICEA/LIBO. On sites with a high water table, P ic e a
establishes its e lf rapidly and is present in the understory of serai
stands. On upland, well-drained sites, P ic e a may be slow to establish
itself. Populus tremuloides is a minor serai species.
Calamagvostis rubesoens and Spiraea betulifolia dominate the
undergrowth of PICEA/LIBO. Linnaea borealis and Eubus parviflorus
are common, and are indicative of the relatively abundant soil
moisture of this type. Vaccinium caespitosuum and Comus canadensis
are present. Characteristic forbs include Amica cordifolia^ Aster
oonspiouusy Lathyrus ochroleucus^ and Osmorhiza ohilensis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
S oil♦ The PICEA/LIBO sample plots occur on acidic (mean pH 5.8)
loamy soils. No bare soil or surface rock is exposed and the average
duff depth is 7.6 centimeters-
Other studies. PICEA/LIBO in the Bear's Paw Mountains is
very similar to the PICEA/LIBO habitat type of Pfister et aj^. (1977).
The Picea gtauca/Calamagvostis rubesoens habitat type of Ogilvie (1962)
is also similar, except that at this more northerly latitude, the
habitat type is found on south-facing slopes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 Abies tasioaarpa Series
Pi stribution. Potential climax la s io o a v p a forests occur
on the coldest sites in the Bear's Paw Mountains and are thus limited
to the north and east slopes of Mount Baldy. The Abies lasiooavpa
series, in a manner similar to the P ia e a series, includes two different
site types which meet this criterion. One site type, the ABLA/LIBO
habitat type, occurs on northeast slopes in the bowl-shaped drainages
northeast of the summit of Mount Baldy, within the zone of continuous
forest. The other site type, ABLA/JUCO, occurs on high-elevation
northeast slopes above the zone of continuous forest, in the expanse
of scree which forms the upper slopes of Mount Baldy. The ABLA/JUCO site
type, 1 ike PICEA/JUCO is not considered a habitat type because it
is restricted to a unique site and does not represent the aggregation
of similar sites.
Vegetation. The vegetation in this series, as in the P io e a
series, reflects the variation in sites included in this series. Vege
tation is limited in the ABLA/JUCO site type by the harsh environment
which prevails on the upper slopes of Mount Baldy. The more moderate
conditions which prevail in the ABLA/LIBO habitat type allow more
abundant and more diverse vegetation.
Soil. The soil characteristics in this series are variable
by site type. Surface soil in the ABLA/JUCO site type has a large amount
of exposed rock, while surface soil in the ABLA/LIBO habitat type
has lit t le exposed rock. Surface soil reaction throughout the series
is the most acidic in the Bear's Paw Mountains (mean pH 5.4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
Abies tas'iooarpa/Junipevus oonvmmis Site Type
(ABLA/JUCO; subalpine fir/common juniper)
Distribution. ABLA/JUCO is restricted in distribution to
small patches of forest surrounded by scree on the uppermost northeast
slope of Mount Baldy. These sites are evidently quite cold and are
exposed to strong winds.
Vegetation. Serai stands in this site type are dominated by
’Pic e a , and P io e a may be a climax co-dominant with Abies lasiooavpa.
Pinus oontorta was present in the sample plot, but is not very success
ful on this severe site.
The undergrowth of the sample plot was dominated by F estu o a
id a h o e n s is and Epilobium angustifolium, but all undergrowth vegetation
was poorly represented, so I chose Juniperus oommunis as the indicator
species to emphasize the similarity to PICEA/JUCO.
Soil. The soil in the sample plot was extremely rocky, but
the soil texture of the finer material was a loam. No bare soil is
exposed, but about 20 percent of the ground surface is covered with
exposed rock. Soil reaction in the upper ten centimeters is acidic
(pH 5.1), and the duff depth is 4.5 centimeters.
Other studies. The ABLA/JUCO site type is unique to the Bear's
Paw Mountains.
Abies lasiooarpa/Linnaea borealis Habitat Type
(ABLA/LIBO; subalpine fir/twinflower)
Distribution. ABLA/LIBO occurs only on northeast slopes in the
bowl-shaped drainages northeast of the summit of Mount Baldy. Evidently,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
these basins accumulate cold air draining off the upper slopes of
Mount Baldy. The two sample plots occur at an elevation of 1829
meters (6000 feet), and both sample plots occur on steep slopes.
Vegetation. Serai stands of ABLA/LIBO are dominated by
Pinus oontorta and Pseudotsuga m em iesii. Picea and Abies tasiocarpa
are present in the understory of these stands, and Abies lasiooarpa
is the indicated climax.
The undergrowth of ABLA/LIBO is dominated by Linnaea borealis^
Calamagrostis rubesoens^ and Spiraea betulifolia. Antennaria raoemosa
was wel1-represented on one sample plot, and Aster oonspiouus was well-
represented on the other. Vaccinium oaespitosvon was poorly represented.
Soil. The soil texture in our sample plots is a sandy loam. Soil
reaction in the upper ten centimeters is acidic (mean pH 6.6). No bare
soil and l it t l e bare rock are exposed, and the average duff depth is
6.1 centimeters.
Other studies. The ABLA/LIBO habitat type is similar to the
ABLA/LIBO habitat type of Pfister e^ (1977). Both of my sample
plots contain Vaccinium caespitosum and would thus key to the ABLA/VACA
habitat type in Forest Habitat Types of Montana (Pfister al_. 1977)
key, but occur on sites more characteristic of the ABLA/LIBO habitat
type, and have vegetation more similar to the ABLA/LIBO habitat type,
and so are considered equivalent to this type rather than ABLA/VACA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
Distribution of Habitat Types
The Bear's Paw Mountains are characterized by complex topography
(with a significant range of elevation and moderate to steep
slopes), but relatively simple geology. There is, consequently, a much
greater variation in microclimate than in soil factors. Thus, the
distribution of habitat types in these mountains is more strongly
influenced by microclimate than by soils or geology.
The habitat types occur in a predictable sequence along a
complex temperature avaliable-moisture gradient (Figure 6). On
Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, this gradient is readily apparent
as you move from the warm, dry foothills north of Taylor Road toward
the increasingly cooler and more moist sites adjacent to Mount Baldy.
This pattern is somewhat obscured by the effect of the major drainages,
but within each drainage a similar pattern emerges.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■ D O Q. C g Q. Pinus contorts
■ D Pseudotsuga menziesii CD Pinus ponderosa C/) 3o' O Vaccinium myrtillus | | common common Cornus csnadensis 8 common Linnaea borealis
(O' present Viola canadensis Spiraea betulifolia well represented Sympho ricarpos occidontalis common Arne lane hi e r alnifolia common Festuoa scabrella common 3. 3" Aqrooyron spicatum CD well represented "OO O CQ. a o SERIES PIPO PSME 3 ■D H.T. COCA AGSP FESC AMAL SYOC SPBE VICA LIBO O PHASE LIBO VAMY
CD Q.
Figure 6. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and ■D CD Undergrowth Species in the Bear's Paw Mountains
C/) C/)
tn cn 57
ABRIDGED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Forest Habitat Types of the L ittle Rocky Mountains
Page Key to Climax Series and the Habitat Types (Figure 7). (Please
refer to Figure 4 before attempting to use the key.) ...... 58
Pinus ponderosa S e r i e s ...... 60
Pinus ponderosa/Juniperus horizontatis Habitat Type ..... 61
Pinus ponderosa/Symphoricarpos ocaidentaiis Habitat Type. . . 62
Pinus ponderosa/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi Habitat Type...... 63
Pinus ponderosa/Berheris repens Habitat Type ...... 65
Pinus oontorta S e rie s ...... 57
Pinus oontorta/Juniperus oommunis Habitat Type...... 68
Pinus oontorta/Linnaea borealis Habitat Type...... 70
Pseudotsuga m enziesii Series ...... 72
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos ocoidentalis Habitat Type 73
Pseudotsuga m enziesii/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi Habitat Type. . 74
Pseudotsuga m enziesii/Berheris repens Habitat Type...... 76
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Linnaea borealis Habitat Type ...... 78
Distribution of Habitat Types ...... 81
Figure 8 ...... 82
Figure 9 ...... 83
Figure 1 0 ...... 84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
Figure 7. Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types
1. Pseudotsuga menz-Les'Li present and reproducing successfully PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII series (Item C)
1. Pseudotsuga menziesd'i absent or restricted to microsites
2. Pinus oontorta reproducing more successfully than P in u s p o n d e ro sa , or Pinus oontorta the only species present PINUS CONTORTA series (Item B)
2. Pinus ponderosa reproducing more successfully than P in u s o o n to r ta , or Pinus ponderosa the only species present PINUS PONDEROSA series (Item A)
A. Key to Pinus ponderosa Habitat Types
1. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi well represented PINUS PONDEROSA/AROTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI h.t. (p. 63)
1. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi poorly represented
2. Berberis repens well represented PINUS PONDEROSA/BERBERIS REPENS h.t. (p. 65)
2. Berberis repens poorly represented
3. Symphoricarpos ocoidentalis well represented PINUS PONDEROSA/SYMPHORICARPOS OCOIDENTALIS h.t. (p. 62)
3. Symphoricarpos ocoidentalis poorly represented; J u n ip e ru s horizontalis or Rhus trilobata common PINUS PONDEROSA/JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS h.t. (p. 61)
B. Key to Pinus oontorta Habitat Types
1. Linnaea borealis common PINUS OONTORTA/LINNAEA BOREALIS h.t. (p. 70)
1 . Linnaea borealis scarce; Juniperus communis or Arotostaphylos u v a - u r s i the dominant undergrowth PINUS OONTORTA/JUNIPERUS OOMMUNIS h.t. (p. 68)
0. Key to Pseudotsuga m enziesii Habitat Types
1. Linnaea borealis common PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/LINNAEA BOREALIS h.t. (p. 78)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
Fig. 7, Key to Climax Series and Habitat Types
1. L-inna&a boreatis scarce
2. B&Y>hevis repens common PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/BERBERIS REPENS h.t. (p. 76)
2.a. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi well represented
2.b. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi poorly represented BERBERIS REPENS phase (p. 77)
2. Berheris repens scarce
3. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi well represented PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI h.t. (p. 74)
3. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi poorly represented; Symphorioarpos oooidentalis wel1 represented PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/SYMPHORICARPOS OCCIDENTALIS h.t. (p. 73)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
Pinus ponderosa Series
Distribution. Pinus ponderosa^ in the L ittle Rocky
Mountains, forms the firs t forest zone above the grassland, as it does
throughout most of Montana (Pfister et 1977). Pinus ponderosa
is a climax in the L ittle Rocky Mountains on sites with sufficient
available soil moisture to support tree growth, but which are too dry,
at least seasonally, to support Pseudotsuga m enziesii or Pinus oontorta.
Climax Pinus ponderosa forests occur on the foothills and buttes
surrounding the mountains, and on well-drained mountain slopes with
south or west aspects. Pinus ponderosa is also climax on some gravel
benches of low elevation (below 1280 meters or 4200 feet) within the
mountains.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is the only successfully
reproducing conifer in this series. Pseudotsuga m enziesii is accidental
in this series, and Pinus oontorta is accidental in the PIPO/ARUV
habitat type. Populus tremuloides is serai in the PIPO/BERE habitat
type.
Climax Pinus ponderosa forests in the L ittle Rocky Mountains
generally possess shrub-dominated undergrowths. The undergrowth of the
PIPO/SYOC habitat type may be co-dominated by Agropyron Spicrujnj but
the Pinus ponderosa bunchgrass habitat types of Forest Habitat Types
of Montana (Pfister et_ 1977) and the Bear's Paw Mountains are not
present in the study area.
Soil. Pinus ponderosa is most successful in the Little Rocky
Mountains on sites with soil derived from sedimentary or alluvial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 1
parent material, but is not restricted to these parent material types.
Soil texture in this series is variable, but follows a general trend
from a sandy loam in the foothills to a loam or clay loam in the
mountains.
P-inus ponderosa/Juntperus hor-izontalis habitat type
(PIPO/JUHO; ponderosa pine/horizontal juniper)
Distri bution. PIPO/JUHO occurs only on sandstone foothills which
are islands in the grassland surrounding the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
Elevations are consequently low (below 1160 meters [3500 feet] ), and
aspects are variable. Slope inclination is moderate to steep. PIPO/
JUHO is represented by three sample stands.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is generally the only tree present
in this habitat type, but Pseudotsuga may occur as an accidental.
Juniperus horizontalis and Juniperus oommunis dominate the
undergrowth. Symphoricarpos oooidentalis is poorly represented, and
Rhus trilobata is present. Alliim oemuumi Anemone multifida^ and
Solidago missouriensis are characteristic forbs. Grasses are scarce.
Soil. This habitat type was found only on sandstone parent mater
ial which is usually calcareous. Soil texture is a sandy loam and
reaction is slightly basic (mean pH 7.5). L ittle exposed rock is
evident; generally, no bare soil is exposed and duff depth averages
5.6 centimeters.
Other studies. PIPO/JUHO is unique to the L ittle Rocky
Mountains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
Pinus pondeposa/Symphorioarpos ocaidentaZis habitat type
(PIPO/SYOC; ponderosa pi ne/western snowberry)
Distribution. PIPO/SYOC is one of the most extensive habitat
types in the L ittle Rocky Mountains and is represented by 24 sample
plots. It occurs on all aspects of the rounded foothills and south,
east, or west aspects of mountain slopes. Elevations range from 1035
meters (3400 feet) at the base of the foothills to 1465 meters (4800
feet)(1585 meters j 5200 feetj Maximum) on south exposures in the
mountains. PIPO/SYOC sites are generally well-drained, gentle to
moderate slopes.
In the foothills of the L ittle Rocky Mountains, PIPO/SYOC
occupies sites more moist than those occupied by PIPO/JUHO. In the
mountains, PIPO/SYOC occurs on the driest forested sites and is
adjacent to PSME/SYOC on more moist sites on sandstone or shale parent
materials, or occurs adjacent to PIPO/ARUV on sites with limestone
parent material.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is usually the sole tree present
in PIPO/SYOC. Pseudotsuga m enziesii is an accidental and Pinus oontorta
and Populus tremuloides are absent.
The undergrowth of PIPO/SYOC is dominated by shrubs. S ym p h o ri-
aarpos oooidentalis is well represented. Prunus virginiana and
Amelanchier alnifolia are usually common. Juniperus oommunis and
Sheperdia canadensis are often present.
Agropyron spicatum is the dominant graminoid in PIPO/SYOC, It
is well represented in almost one-third of our sample plots and is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 3
Koelerta oristata is common in about half of the sample stands.
Anemone multifida^ Balsamovhiza sagittata^ and Thermopsis rkombifolia
are dominant forbs, Achillea millefolium^ Campanula rotundifolia.,
Antennaria microphylla, and Chrysopsis villosa are characteristic
of this habitat type.
Soi 1. PIPO/SYOC occurs on a variety of calcareous and non-
calcareous parent materials. Soil texture in this type is also
variable, but is usually a sandy loam or loam. Soil reaction is
neutral (mean pH 6.9) and the duff depth averages 6.4 centimeters.
No bare soil is exposed, and lit t le or no surface rock is exposed.
Other studies. PIPO/SYOC is similar to the PIPO/SYAL habitat
type SYAL phase of Pfister et (1977) which is common throughout
Montana. It is also similar to HU-5, the Pinus ponderosa/Symphoricarpos
albus/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi habitat unit of Thilenius (1972) for
the Black Hills. In both cases, Symphoricarpos oooidentalis appears to
replace Symphoricarpos albus in the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
Pinus ponderosa/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi habitat type
(PIPO/ARUV; ponderosa pine/kinnikinnick)
Pi stribution. PIPO/ARUV occurs on warm, well-drained
mountain slopes with soils derived from limestone, dolomite, or,
rarely, igneous parent materials. Elevations of the fourteen sample
stands in PIPO/ARUV range from 1190 meters (3900 feet) to 1525 meters
(5000 feet), and aspects are from southeast to west. Slope inclination
is moderate to steep. PIPO/ARUV is extensive in the Little Rocky
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
mountai ns.
PIPO/ARUV often forms a mosaic with PIPO/SYOC, with the latter
occurring on non-limestone parent material. On limestone, PSME/
ARUV or PSME/SYOC occurs on adjacent sites with more soil moisture.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is the sole dominant tree in both
serai and climax stands of PIPO/ARUV. Pseudotsuga m enziesii is
accidental in this type. Due to predominantly southerly exposures,
a thin soil mantle, and calcareous parent materials, available
soil moisture remains low and soil surface temperatures may become quite
high, limiting successful regeneration of Pseudotsuga m enziesii to
protected microsites. Pinus oontorta is an early accidental species
on some PIPO/ARUV sites, but is not able to maintain its presence once
full stocking occurs, and soil moisture competition becomes a
limiting factor. Populus tremuloides is absent.
Arotostaphylos uva-ursi is the dominant undergrowth plant.
Juniperus oommunis^ Shepherdia oanadensisj and Symphorioarpos
oooidentalis are usually well represented, but many sample stands
appear as i f carpeted by Arotostaphylos uva-ursi. Amelanohier alni
f o l i a is usually present. Agropyron spioatum is the only characteristic
graminoid. Apocynum androsaemifolium is the most conspicuous forb.
Thermopsis rhombifolia is poorly represented, and a trace of
Aster laeviSj Galium boreale. Anemone m ultifiduj and S o lid a g o
missouriensis is characteristic of PIPO/ARUV.
Soil. Soil texture is PIPO/ARUV is usually a clay loam or a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
a sandy clay loam. Soil reaction is neutral (mean 6.9). Little or
no bare soil is exposed, but a moderate amount of surface rock
is exposed. Duff depth averaged 5 centimeters.
Other studies. PIPO/ARUV is similar to one of Thilenius'
(1972) habitat units for the Black Hills — HU-2, Pinus ponderosa/
Shepherdia oanadensis/Syrnphoriaarpos albus/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi.
PIPO/ARUV is also similar to the PSME/ARUV habitat type of Pfister
al_- ( 1977), which occurs on the Helena and Lewis and Clark National
Forests, except that Pinus ponderosa is the indicated climax.
Pinus ponderosa/Berheris repens habitat type
(PIPO/BERE; ponderosa pine/creeping holly grape)
Distribution. PIPO/BERE is restricted in distribution to the
major creek bottoms and the lower portion of adjacent slopes. Aspects
are dependent on the orientation of drainage. Elevations are generally
below 1280 meters (4200 feet). This minor habitat type is
represented by five sample plots.
Vegetation. Serai stands of PIPO/BERE are often dominated by
almost pure stands of Populus tremuloides. Serai stands may also have
relatively few old, fire-scarred Pinus ponderosa with numerous younger
Populus tremuloides in the understory. Stands not disturbed by fire
may be pure Pinus ponderosa. Pseudotsuga m enziesii and Pinus oontorta
are accidental in PIPO/BERE, although either may be dominant further
upslope.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
Shrubs dominate the undergrowth of PIPO/BERE. Berberis repens
is well represented. Prunus virgi-niana and Symphoricarpos ocaidentatis
are usually common, and Spiraea betulifolia is usually present.
Characteristic forbs include Aster conspicuus, Aster laevis^ Galium
b o r e a lc j and Monarda fistulosa.
Soil. PIPO/BERE generally occurs on alluvial or colluvial
parent materials. Soil texture in the sample stands is a loam or
clay loam, and soil reaction is slightly acidic (mean pH 6.5). The
undergrowth of PIPO/BERE is luxuriant, and no bare soil or surface
rock is exposed. The duff layer is also deep, with an average depth
of 6.6 centimeters.
Other studies. Two of Thilenius' (1972) habitat units for the
Black Hills — HU-1, Pinus ponderosa/Juniperus communis/Symphoricarpos
albus/Berberis repens y and HU-8, Pinus ponderosa/Primus virginiana/
Amelanchier alnifolia — are similar to PIPO/BERE, the former more
than the latter. The PIPO/SYAL habitat type, BERE phase of Pfister
ejt (1977), found in the Snowy Mountains about 00 miles south
of the L ittle Rocky Mountains, is also similar to PIPO/BERE.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 7
Pinus c o n tO T ta Series
Distribution. Pinus contorta forms an edaphic climax in
the L ittle Rocky Mountains on sites with soil derived from igneous
or metamorphic parent materials. These parent materials are apparently
resistant to weathering, and form shallow, rocky soils which will not
support Pseudotsuga menziesiij except on moist, high-elevation,
north-facing sites. These parent materials, and thus the Pinus
Q ontorta series, are wide-spread in the central region of the Little
Rocky Mountains. The Pinus contorta series occurs on shallow to steep
slopes, and on all aspects on these parent materials.
Vegetation. Forest stands in the Pinus contor*ta series are
generally severely overstocked stands of Pinus aontorta^ but may be
open on sites with excessively well-drained soil or exposure to drying
winds. Pinus contovta is generally the only tree present in the series,
but Pinus ponderosa and Populus tremuloides may be serai on some sites,
and Pseudotsuga menziesii is accidental.
The undergrowth in the Pinus contorta series is often depauperate
in comparison to the other series, and generally has a very low
undergrowth species diversity. Sites in this series are either not
favorable to many undergrowth species, or the overstocked Pinus contorta
suppresses the undergrowth.
Soil. The soils in the Pinus contorta series are shallow, rocky,
and well-drained, or excessively well-drained. Very lit t le organic
matter is incorporated into these soils, and the duff layer appears to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 8
be slow to decompose. The soil reaction is slightly acidic, or
acidic. Soil texture, excluding coarse fragment content, is generally
a sandy clay.
Other studies. Despain (1973) and Hoffman and Alexander (1976)
describe a belt of climax Fvnus contorta as an edaphic climax in the
Bighorn Mountains on granitic parent material. Most of the Pinus
c o n to rta series in the L ittle Rocky Mountains occurs on what Knechtel
(1959) called syenite porphyry, an intrusive igneous material, and
pre-Cambrian, pre-Belt, meta-sedimentary and meta-volcanic material.
He notes that the latter is similar to granite, with an increased
content of quartz. While these materials are not directly comparable
to the granites of the Bighorns, the effect of climax Pinus contorta
on favorable parent material is essentially the same.
Pinus contorta/Juniperus cormunis habitat type
(PICO/OUCO; lodgepole pine/common juniper)
Pistribution. PICO/JUCO is an edaphic climax on the extensive
outcroppings of igneous or metamorphic rock in the L ittle Rocky
Mountains. These parent materials appear quite resistant to weathering,
and PICO/JUCO sites are usually very rocky and excessively well-
drained. Aspects are east, south, or west, and slope inclination is
gentle to steep. Elevations of the nine sample plots are from 1280
meters (4200 feet) to 1645 meters (5400 feet).
PICO/JUCO is replaced by PICO/LIBO on moist sites with the
same parent material.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 9
Vegetation. P-inus oonto-pta Is generally the only tree present
in PICO/JUCO. Mature Pinus ponderosa was encountered on one sample plot,
and Pseudotsuga menziesii was accidental on a few. PICO/JUCO may re
present a successional community of the Pseudotsuga menziesii series,
but Pseudotsuga menziesii does not appear capable of regenerating
successfully in appreciable numbers on these sites, and there is
insufficient evidence that Pseudotsuga menziesii will dominate these
sites at climax.
The undergrowth of PICO/JUCO is variable, but is generally
dominated by Jimiperus commimis or Spiraea betutifolia. Symphorioarpos
oQoidentalis is usually present. Coverage of Arotostaphylos uva-ursi
is quite variable, although i t was dominant in one sample stand.
Forbs are generally scarce, but Apocynum androsaemifolium. Aster
conspicuus, and Solidago missouriensis are characteristic of this type.
Soil. Soils in PICO/JUCO are the poorest in the Little Rocky
Mountains due to excessive rockiness and the slight amount of
organic material present. In several sample stands, no soil sample
(other than rock fragments) was available. Soil reaction is slightly
acidic (mean pH 6.6). Duff depth averages 5.9 centimeters and the duff
layer is often the dominant ground cover. No bare soil is evident,
while slight to moderate amounts of surface rock are exposed.
Other studies. Hoffman and Alexander (1976) describe a
Pinus contorta/Arotostaphylos uva-ursi habitat type for the Bighorn
Mountains of Wyoming that is similar to my plots dominated by
Arotostaphylos uva-ursi. Pfister et aX. (1977) suggest that sites with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 0
similar vegetation will eventually be dominated by Psevidotsnga
menzi&sii- in other parts of Montana. Under this interpretation,
our sites would thus be considered serai stands of the PSME/JUCO
habitat type. However, I hypothesize that Pinus contorta will
maintain dominance; thus, I consider PICO/JUCO to be a habitat type.
Pinus contorta/Linnaea boreatis habitat type
(PICO/LIBO; lodgepole pine/twinflower)
Distribution. PICO/LIBO occupies moist sites on igneous or
metamorphic parent materials. Aspects are from northwest to north
east. Elevations of the three sample plots range from 1280 meters
(4200 feet) to 1525 meters (5000 feet). Slope inclination is moderate
to steep. PICO/LIBO generally covers the north slopes of the exten
sive outcrop of igneous rock in the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
PICO/LIBO often occurs adjacent to PSME/LIBO on more sheltered,
more moist sites, and adjacent to PICO/JUCO on more exposed, drier
sites.
Vegetation. Serai stands of PICO/LIBO are often severely
overstocked forests of Pinus contorta, but may contain Pinus
ponderosa, Poputus tremutoides, or accidental Pseudotsuga menziesii.
Pseudotsuga menziesii appears unable to regenerate successfully
on these parent materials except on a few high-elevation sites. Fire-
induced disturbance is so widespread in this type, however, that
successional trends are very d iffic u lt to interpret. I recognize
PICO/LIBO as a habitat type in the Pinus contorta series because
there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Pseudotsuga menziesii.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 1
although present, will dominate these sites at climax.
The undergrowth of PICO/LIBO is dominated by shrubs and sub
shrubs. L'innaea boveatis, Arotostaphylos uva-ursij and Spiraea
betulifolia are common, Shepherdla canadensis is well represented.
Coverage of Jimiperus communis is variable.
Apocynum androsaemlfolium^ Aster conspicuus, and Thermopsls
rhomblfolla are the most conspicuous forbs. Grasses are scarce.
Soil. Soil texture in PICO/LIBO is a sandy clay, and soil in
this habitat type contains large rock fragments. Soil reaction is
acidic (mean pH 5.9), and the average duff depth is 5.1 centimeters.
No bare soil is exposed, and slight to moderate amounts of surface
rock are exposed.
Other studies. Pfister e jt ^ . (1977) describe a PICO/LIBO
community type, but this community type is dominated by species not
present in the L ittle Rocky Mountains. They also describe a PSME/
LIBO habitat type in which shepherdla canadensis dominates the under
growth of serai stages. This type is dominated eventually by Vacclnlum
globulare, Vacclnlum scoparlum, Alnus slnuata, and Calamagrostls
ru b escen s, all species which are absent or rare in the Little
Rocky Mountains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 2
Pseudotsuga menztesii Series
Pi stri bution. Pseudotsuga menziesii forms climax forests in
the L ittle Rocky Mountains on moist sites with soil derived from
sedimentary parent materials, in both the foothills and on mountain
slopes. Pseudotsuga menziesii is also climax on a few moist, high-
elevation, north-facing slopes on igneous parent material. The
Pseudotsuga menziesii series generally occurs on the most favorable
sites in the L ittle Rocky Mountains.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is serai throughout this series
and dominates serai stands in the PSME/SYOC, PSME/ARUV, and PSME/
BERE habitat types, as well as some sites in the PSME/LIBO habitat
type. Pinus contorta is serai in all habitat types in this series
except PSME/SYOC, and is the dominant serai species in some sites in
the PSME/LIBO habitat type. Populus tremuloides is serai in the PSME/
LIBO habitat type and the BERE phase of the PSME/BERE habitat type.
Betula papyrifera is seral in only the PSME/LIBO habitat type.
The undergrowth of the Pseudotsuga menziesii series contains the
greatest diversity of species in the L ittle Rocky Mountains. In addi
tion to numerous shrub and forb species present in the Pinus ponderosa
series, the Pseudotsuga menziesii series contains many moist-site
forbs and shrubs which are common only in this series. The under
growth in all habitat types in this series is shrub dominated.
Soi 1. The Pseudotsuga menziesii series occurs on sites with
soil derived from calcareous and non-calcareous sedimentary parent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 3 materials, or, rarely, igneous parent material. Soil texture
throughout the series varies from a sandy loam to clay loam. Soil reac
tion is neutral in the drier habitat types (PSME/SYOC and PSME/ARUV)
and more acidic in the wetter habitat types (PSME/BERE and PSME/LIBO).
Other studies. Climax Pseudotsuga mcnsicsli in the Little
Rocky Mountains is limited in distribution by marginal precipitation
and a negative correlation to igneous and metamorphic parent material,
in a manner similar to that described by Hoffman and Alexander (1976)
and most especially noted by Despain (1968) for the Bighorn Mountains
of Wyoming. The broad, diverse belt of climax Pseudotsuga Menztesii
described by Pfister et aJL- (1977) and found in the adjacent Bear's
Paw Mountains, does not occur in the Little Rocky Mountains.
Pseudotsuga menstes-ii/Symphoi'-Caarpos oactdental'Ls habitat type
(PSME/SYOC; Douglas-fir/western snowberry)
Pi stri bution. PSME/SYOC is a minor habitat type in the Little
Rocky Mountains, represented by three sample plots. It occurs only
on well-drained, mesic sites with calcareous parent materials.
Aspects are northwest, north, or east, and slope inclination is moder
ate to steep. Elevations of sample plots range from 1190 meters (3900
feet) to 1400 meters (4600 feet).
PSME/SYOC may occur adjacent to PSME/ARUV, or to PSME/BERE-BERE
on sites with greater available soil moisture.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa is the serai dominant in PSME/SYOC,
and gives way slowly to Pseudotsuga menziesii. Pinus contorta and
Populus tremuloides are absent from this type.
The undergrowth of PSME/SYOC is dominated by Symphoricarpos
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 OGO-identati-s. Jun-ipevus oommimi^s and Spiraea betulifolia are often
well represented. Shepherdia canadensis3 Prunus virginianUj and
Ametanohier atnifotia are often common. Apocynum androsaemifolium3
Aster conspicuus3 and Batsamhoriza sagittata are the most conspicuous
forbs. Achillea millifelium 3 Aster laevis, Galium boreale, and
Monarda fistulosa are present.
The undergrowth of PSME/SYOC is very similar to PIPO/SYOC, and
successional trends are not always obvious. Aster conspicuus3 in
particular, and Monarda fistu losa should be considered more characteris
tic of PSME/SYOC than PIPO/SYOC, and may be useful accessory indi
cators in early seral stands.
Soi 1. PSME/SYOC occurs on calcareous parent materials. Soil
textures are sandy loams to sandy clay loams. The average duff depth
is 7.3 centimeters and lit t le or no bare soil or surface rock is
exposed. Soil reaction is neutral (mean pH 6.9).
Other studies. PSME/SYOC is somewhat similar to the PSME/SYAL
habitat type, SYAL phase, of Pfister e^ aj[. (1977), but has more shrub
coverage and less coverage of bunchgrasses. Similarly, PSME/SYOC in the
L ittle Rocky Mountains has more shrub coverage and less bunchgrass cov
erage than PSME/SYOC in the Bear's Paw Mountains. If the classifications
are merged for the two areas, PSME/SYOC in the Little Rocky Mountains
should be noted as SHCA {shepherdia canadensis) phase, and PSME/SYOC
in the Bear's Paw should be noted as CHVI {chrysopsis villosa) phase.
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Arcostaphylos uva-ui'si habitat type
(PSME/ARUV; Douglas-fir/kinnickinnick)
Distribution. PSME/ARUV is a minor habitat type in the Little
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
Rocky Mountains, occurring only in the interior of the mountains. The
five sample plots were located at elevations from 1220 meters (4000
feet) to 1525 meters (5000 feet), on gentle to steep midslopes.
Aspects are northwest, north, or east.
PSME/ARUV often occurs as the mesic intermediary in a mosaic
of PIPO/ARÜV on southerly aspects, PSME/ARUV on mesic sites, and
PSME/BERE-ARUV on more moist sites, all on calcareous parent
material.
Vegetation. Seral stands of PSME/ARUV are generally dominated
by Pinus ponderosa. Pinus contorta may also be present as a seral
species. Populus tremuloides is absent from this type.
Arotostaphylos uva-ursi is the dominant undergrowth plant, but
Juniperus corrmunis and Symphoricarpos occidentalis are both well
represented. Amelanchier alnifolia^ Shepherdia canadensis, andSpiraea
betulifolia are usually common. Aster conspicuus and Apocynum andro-
saemifolium are the most characteristic forbs. Other forbs and
graminoids are scarce.
Soil. PSME/ARUV occurs on both calcareous and non-calcareous
parent materials. Soil texture varies from sandy loam to clay loam.
No bare soil is exposed, and l it t l e surface rock is exposed. Average
duff depth is 4.9 centimeters, and soil reaction is neutral (mean
pH 6.9).
Other studies. PSME/ARUV in the L ittle Rocky Mountains is
similar to the PSME/ARUV habitat type of Pfister et aj[. (1977)
found on the Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests, but has more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 6
shrub coverage and less bunchgrass coverage than does the PSME/ARUV
habitat type of these areas. Ogilvie (1962) described a Vseudotsuga
menzieoiv/Avoostaphylos uva-urs-i habitat type which occupies similar
sites, and supports similar undergrowth, but which also supports
Linnaea borealis ^ and is thus more comparable to PSME/LIBO on
calcareous parent material.
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Berberis rcpens habitat type
(PSME/BERE; Douglas-fir/creeping holly grape)
Pi stri bution. PSME/BERE occurs on warm, moist sites on a wide
range of apsects and is absent only on the driest southwest aspects.
Slope inclination is moderate to steep in most cases, but PSME/
BERE also occurs on benches and creek bottoms. Elevations of the sample
plots range from 1190 meters (3900 feet) to 1445 meters (4750 feet)
for the seven sample plots in the Berheris repens (BERE) phase, and
1280 meters (4200 feet) to 1585 meters (5200 feet) for the six sample
plots in the Arctostaphylos uva~icrsi (ARUV) phase.
PSME/BERE-ARUV often occurs as the mesic intermediary in a
mosaic of PSME/ARUV on drier sites, and PSME/LIBO on more moist sites.
PSME/BERE-BERE often occurs at low-elevation, moist sites adjacent to
PSME/SYOC or PIPO/SYOC on drier sites.
Vegetation. Seral stands of PSME/BERE are dominated by Pinus
ponderosa. Pinus contorta is a seral species throughout this habitat
type, but is more important in the ARUV phase. Populus tremuloides
is a seral species in the BERE phase.
Undergrowth vegetation varies by phase in PSME/BERE, but many
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 7
species are characteristic of both phases. Bev.bcris repens is
common. Symphoriaca?pos oocxdentatis3 Spiraea betulifolia^ and
Primus virginiana are usually common. Amelanchier alnifolia is
present. The coverage of Juniperus communis is variable, but this
dominates some sites.
Arotostaphylos uva-ursi (ARUV) phase. This phase occurs
strictly on calcareous substrates. These are principally shales, but
may also be limestone. Soils are generally clayey, but may be sandy
or rocky. Soil reaction in this phase is acidic (mean pH 6.4).
In addition to the undergrowth listed for the type as a whole,
the following plants are characteristic of this phase: Arctostaphylos
u va -im si is always well represented and Shepherdia canadensis is
common. Characteristic forbs include Monarda fistulosa, Galium horeale.
Campanula rotundifolia, Thermopsis rhomhifolia, and Anemone m u ltifid a .
Grasses are scarce.
Berheris repens (BERE) phase. This phase occurs on generally
calcareous, well-drained sandy soil. Soil reaction in this phase is
slightly acidic (mean pH 6.6). The shrub undergrowth is essentially
that listed for the type as a whole; no additional shrubs are charac
teristic. Arctostaphylos uva-ixrsi and Shepherdia canadensis are
scarce when compared to the PSME/BERE habitat type ARUV phase. Galium
boreale. Aster conspicuus. Aster laevis, and Balsamorhiza sagitta are
the most conspicuous forbs. Grasses are scarce.
Other studies. Hoffman and Alexander (1976) describe a
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Berberis repens habitat type which occurs on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
similar sites, but which supports a different union of species with
Berberi-s repens. PSME/BERE in the L ittle Rocky Mountains is essentially
unique to this area.
Pseudotsuga menz-ies'i'i/Linnaea borealis habitat type
(PSME/LIBO; Douglas-fir/twinflower)
Pi stri bution. PSME/LIBO occupies the moistest upland sites in
the L ittle Rocky Mountains. Due to the limited re lie f of the Little
Rocky Mountains, the available soil moisture gradient is controlled
largely by topographic position. PSME/LIBO is found only on moderate
to steep slopes with northwest, north, or northeast aspects. Elevations
of the three sample plots range from 1280 meters (4200 feet) to 1525
meters (5000 feet), but this type was observed as low as 1190 meters
(3900 feet). This habitat type is found on calcareous and non-
calcareous substrates.
PSME/LIBO occurs most often adjacent to PSME/BERE-ARUV on
sedimentary parent material, or adjacent to PICO/LIBO on igneous
parent material.
Vegetation. Pinus ponderosa and Pinus contorta are seral species
in PSME/LIBO, and may dominate seral stands. Early seral stands may
also be dominated by Populus tremuloides. In all cases, Pseudotsuga
m e n z ie s ii is the indicated climax, and Pseudotsuga menziesii is usually
also an important member of seral communities. Betula papyrifera is
also present in some stands of PSME/LIBO.
The undergrowth of PSME/LIBO is dominated by shrubs. Their rela
tive proportion varies by parent material type, but most species are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
present on all sites. L'innaea boreatis is common throughout, but
coverage is greater on non-calcareous parent materials, shepherdia
ca n a d en sis is usually well represented, and may become a dominant
undergrowth species on calcareous shales. Spiraea betulifolia is well
represented. Arotostaphylos uva-ursi, Symphoricax'pos occidentalis, and
Berberis repens have lower coverage on non-calcareous parent materials
than on calcareous parent materials.
Forbs are generally scarce in PSME/LIBO. Those present are gener
ally associated with high soil moisture, and appear to be less affected
by parent material than are the shrubs. Aster conspicuus and Apocynum
androsaemifolium may be common. Disporum trachycarpum, Galium boreale
and Hedysarum sulphuresoens are present.
Soi 1. PSME/LIBO occurs on both calcareous and non-calcareous
parent materials. Soil texture varies from a sandy loam to a clay loam,
and soils are often gravelly. Soil reaction is slightly acidic (mean
pH 6.5). No bare soil and l it t l e or no surface rock are exposed. The
average duff depth is 6.1 centimeters.
Other studies. PSME/LIBO is similar to the PSME/LIBO habitat type,
SYAL phase, of Pfister e;t (1977). PSME/LIBO exists also in the
Bear's Paw Mountains, but supports a much more luxuriant undergrowth
including Vaccinium caespitosum, Vaccinium yInbularc, Vaccinium
m y r tillu s , and Calamagrostis rubescens. To distinguish between the two
study areas, PSME/LIBO in the Bear's Paw Mountains should be considered
CARU {Calamagrostis rubescens) phase, and in th e Little Rocky Mountains
should be considered ARUV {Arotostaphylos uva-ui'si) phase.
The Pseudotsuga menziesii/Arctostaphylos uva-ursi habitat type
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
of Ogilvie (1962) is similar, but supports an undergrowth of species
characteristic of sites somewhat drier than PSME/LIBO in the Little
Rocky Mountains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
Distribution of Habitat Types
The L ittle Rocky Mountains are small with a limited vertical
re lie f (less than 2000 feet). While orographic modification of the
climate is significant, relative differences in elevation show only
a moderate influence on available soil moisture. The available soil
moisture is controlled predominantly by aspect and microclimate.
Areas near the perimeter of the mountains are significantly drier
because of wind exposure than sites at the same elevation in the
interior of the mountains
These relatively narrow available soil moisture and temperature
gradients are superimposed on complex geology. Habitat types in the
L ittle Rocky Mountains are strongly correlated with parent materials,
which fall into three broad classes:
1. Limestone or dolomite
2. Calcareous and non-calcareous shales and sandstones
3. Igneous and metamorphic rock
While there are several specific members of each class(Knechtel
1944), this breakdown seems sufficient to explain much of the d is tri
bution of the series and habitat types (see Figures 8, 9, and 10).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C g Q.
■D — ' CD Populus tremuloides Pinus contorta WC/) 3o' Pseudotsupa menziesii O Pinus pondorosa 3 CD 8 Linnaea borealis common common Berberis repcns ' - well represented Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
CD r “ Synphoricarpos occidentalis well represented COmmO n Rhus trilobata 3. Juniperus horizontalis well represented 3" CD
CD ■ D O Aster conspicuus present CQ. a Balsamorhira sagittata common o 3 Thermopsis rhombifolia common
■ D O
PIPO PSME CD SERIES Q. H.T. BERE JUHO SYOC ARUV LIBO PHASE ARUV BERE ■D CD
C/) C/) Figure 8. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Calcareous and Noncalcareous Sandstone and Shale Parent Materials in the Little ' Rocky Mountains
0 0 CD ■D O Q. C g Q. Pinus contorta ■D Pseudotsuga menziesii CD 1 Pinus ponderosa C/) 3o' O well represented Berberis repens Spiraea betulifolia well reore.scnted 8 Shcohcrdia canadensis well represented c i' Arctostaphylos uva-ursi well represented Gyniphoricaroos occidentalis well represented
3 well represented Solidago m issouriensis 3" CD c 0 m n 0 n Aster conspicuus Balsarior^izo. sagittara common ■DCD O Thernoosio rhombifolia c 0 mmo n Q. C Apocynum androsacClifolium a well represented O Anemone nu It if ida common 3 ■D O
CD Q. SERIES PIPO PGME
ARUV SYOC ARUV ■D H.T. BERE/ARUV CD
c/) c/)
Figure 9. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Limestone or Dolomite Parent Material in the Little Rocky Mountains
CO00 CD ■D O Q. C g Q.
■D CD Pseudotsuna menziesii
C/) Pinus contorta C/)
c ommo n Linnaea borealis 8 common Shepherdia canadensis well represented ! Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ci' Spiraea betulifolia well represented Juniperus communis well represented
present Disporum trachycarpum c 3 . present Hedysarum sulphuresoens 3" CD present Aster laevis
CD T 3 O §■ SERIES PICO PSME o 1 ..... LIBO T 3 H.T. JUCO o 1
(D Q.
metamorphic igneous
T 3 (D
C/) c/) Figure 10. Schematic Distribution of Habitat Types and Tree and Undergrowth Species on Igneous and Metamorphic Parent Materials in the Little Rocky Mountains
0 0 85
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION
Methodology
Pfister and Arno (1980) feel that their methodology is effect
ive in producing a useful» ecologically sound land classification.
I found the classification concepts and structure to be ecologically
sound, and I found the data collected to be adequate to construct
an ecologically based classification. However, I feel that the data
analysis, for this study, benefitted from the incorporation of similar
ity analysis, and a clustering algorithm. The benefits fall into three
categories: (1) a decrease in bias in the creation of tentative habitat
types, (2) a greater ability to test the classification in all stages
from tentative habitat types to final classification, (3) an increase
in the ease with which the classification may be compared to classifi
cations from adjacent areas.
Pfister and Arno (1980) note that the firs t subjective approxi
mation of habitat types for Montana was done in a group session, with
an interchange of viewpoints, and that this interchange helped
control bias. When, as in this study, a group approach is not possible,
some alternative method, such as a clustering algorithm, is desirable.
Similarity analysis, as a tool to test habitat type homogen-
iety and indicator species performance, is ^ :C. lont in reducing the
amount of time and labor necessary to perform similar tests with
visual inspection of a synthesis table, as similarity analysis can be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 6
effeciently performed by a computer. The test its e lf is objective, but
the significance of the results must be intHrprrlcd subjectively. Simil
arity analysis, unless specifically modified, -jives equal weight to
all species in calculating the similarity coefficient. Pfister and
Arno (1980) clearly state:
...one must remember that overall vegetational similarities between stands do not always reflect habitat similarities as accurately as do certain species having greater diagnostic value. In other words, all species do not have equal importance or value for site classification.
Similarity analysis is an effective tool for examination of
vegetation data, but it's limitations must be acknowledged by the user.
Franklin, Dyrness, and Moir (1970) reconvnettd that similarity
analysis be performed as a final test of a classification, and Pfister
and Arno (1980) reinforce this recommendation. I found similarity anal
ysis to be appropriate throughout the construction of the habitat type
classification, as both an illuminative tool, and an objective test
of hypotheses.
Additionally, if full plot data are available for adjacent areas,
the similarity analysis serves as a convenient summary of habitat type
similarity from one area to the other. The results must be interpreted
in light of the regional distribution of the flora, but the relative
similarities of one habitat type to many other habitat types of an
adjacent area is informative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87
Procedures and Criteria for the Application of
Similarity Analysis to Habitat Type Classifications
Before it is possible to discuss the use of similarity ana
lysis to test a habitat type classification, it is necessary to define
clearly the terms used in the description and to clearly demonstrate
the derivation of the more condensed similarity matrices employed.
The basic matrix of similarity analysis is the plot-to-plot
similarity matrix. In this matrix, each plot is compared to every other
plot, and the similarity summarized as a similarity index. Because each
plot is not compared to its e lf, and because the similarity of plot
A to plot B equals the similarity of plot B to plot A (i.e., the
matrix is symmetrical to the diagonal), for n plots, the number of
indices recorded in the matrix is (n^-n)/?.
When every plot is assigned to a habitat type, the matrix can
be reduced to a plot-to-type matrix. This matrix compares the
similarity of every plot to every type, by averaging the similarity
of each plot to all plots in each type. For n plots, and m types, the
number of indices is (n)*(m).
This matrix can be further reduced to a type -to-type matrix,
which compares every type to every other type, by averaging the
similarity of all plots in each type to all plots in every type
individually. Because a type can be compared to itse lf the number of
indices for m types is (m^+m)/2. When the similarity of all plots in
one type to all other plots in the same type is averaged, the resulting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 8
index is called the within-type similarity. When the similarity of all
plots in one type to all plots in another type is averaged, the index
is called the between-type similarity. The ratio of the average of
within-type similarities for two types to the index of between-type
similarity for the same two types is called the within-type/between-
type ratio. This ratio may be computed for comparisons of any number of
types by averaging the within-type similarity of each type, and div
iding by the average of between-type similarity for every comparison or
one type to every other type.
All testing was conducted at the phase level, but to simplify
discussion, all groups, whether habitat type or phases, will be referred
to as a habitat type. The habitat type classifications were tested
to determine the following:
1) Were all sample plots assigned to the most appropriate
habitat type, so as to maximize within-type similarity,
and minimize between-type similarity?
2) Were all habitat types distinct from all other habitat types?
3) Were the habitat types from the two study areas sufficiently
distinct to justify maintenance of two separate classifications?
To test a classification with similarity analysis, it is necessary
to establish a formal objective to be tested (as stated in 1-3
above), and formal criteria for the interpretation of the results.
For the firs t test I established the following criterion:
Any plot would be considered misclassified i f transferring
the plot to a different habitat type in the same series resulted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
in an increase of the within-type/between-type ratio.
To conduct the test, I established the following procedure:
1) The plot-to-type matrix was computed using only undergrowth
species to reduce the effect of succession.
2) Every case where a plot was more similar to another habitat
type than to the habitat type to which it was assigned was
declared a possible misclassification. Out of 3648 comparisons
(152 plots and 24 habitat types), 134 possible misclassifi-
cations were noted. This figure includes all cases where a plot
was more similar to more than one habitat type than to the
habitat type to which it was assigned. On a plot-by-plot basis,
63 plots out of 153 (41 percent) were considered possible mis-
classi fications.
3) Every case of possible misclassification was examined, and an
index of estimated change was computed as follows:
a) The mean similarity of the plot to all other plots
in the habitat type to which i t was assigned (from the
plot-to-type matrix) was subtracted from the within-
type similarity of that habitat type. Thus, plots less
similar to the type than the mean similarity of all
plots in the type yielded a positive number; plots
more similar than the mean yielded a negative number.
b) The within-type similarity of the habitat type to which
the plot was more similar was subtracted from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90
similarity of the plot to this type. Thus, plots
more similar to the type than the within-type simil
arity yielded a positive number; plots less similar
than the within-type similarity yielded a negative
number.
c) The results of (a) and (b) were added together. I f
the sum was positive, I hypothesized that the trans
fer of this plot would increase the within-type sim
ila rity of one type more than it would decrease the
within-type similarity of the other type, and the plot
was considered possibly technically misclassified. If
both (a) and (b) were positive, the plot was definitely
technically misclassified. If the sum was negative,
I hypothesized that the transfer of the plot would
reduce the within-type similarity of one type more than
i t would increase the within-type similarity of the
other type, and the plot was considered correctly
classified. Unless the number of plots in each habitat
type was equal, the index of estimated change would
only estimate the effect of the transfer on the within-
type/between-type ratio. Because of the effort of recom
puting the effects of plot transfer, only plots with
a positive index of expected change were further con
sidered.
Out of 134 possible or definite technical misclassi-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
fications, only 28 were found to have a positive index
of expected change.
4) When a plot was more similar to a habitat type of a d if
ferent series» the plot data card and field notes were
examined to determine if the plot was possibly assigned
to the worng series. When the plot was determined to
have been correctly identified as to series, it was re
moved from consideration. To reassign a plot from one
series to another on the basis of undergrowth would
violate the classification structure. Out of 28 possible
or definite technical misclassifications, 23 involved
a change of series.
5) I examined the remaining five plots to evaluate the
effect of their transfer on the within-type/between-
type ratio. If the effect was negative (i.e ., decreased
the within-type/between-type ratio), the plots were
correctly classified. If the effect was positive, the
plots were transferred or considered technically
misclassified. Because of the similarity analysis
weights all species equally, a technically mis
classified plot may be subjectively determined to be
correctly classified through the use of a synthesis
table.
Of the remaining five possible technical mis
classifications, two were found to be correctly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
classified. The three others I elected not to trans
fer, despite their status as technical misclassi-
fic a tio n s .
The indicator species, as ordered in the key to climax series
and habitat types, correctly classified 149 out of 152 plots (98
precent), as determined by the s im ilarity analysis. I subjectively
determined this to be an acceptable level of performance, and the
classification was accepted on this basis, with no changes.
Once the placement of sample plots in habitat types was finalized,
I tested the habitat types to determine whether a ll habitat types
were distinct from all other habitat types, or whether some habitat
types should be merged.
The test was evaluated with the following criterion:
If the merger of two habitat types resulted in a
within-type similarity closer to the higher of the pre
vious within-type sim ilaritie s than to the lower of the
previous within-type similarities, the types would be
merged; i f not, the merger was rejected.
The matrix of sim ilarity for a ll habitat types of the Bear's
Paw Mountains is presented in Figure 11. The equivalent matrix for
the L itt le Rocky Mountains is presented in Figure 12.
Habitat types were only considered for merger i f the between-
type s im ila rity of the two types was higher than the within-type
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 3
similarity of one of the two types. In cases where this is not true,
the merger cannot meet the criterio n established; this observation
saves needless calculation.
In the Bear's Paw Mountains, the within-type similarity of two
habitat types is lower than th e ir between-type sim ilarity to other
types. In both cases, however, the between-type sim ilarity is
between habitat types of different series, and a merger of types
would violate classification structure.
In the Little Rocky Mountains, the within -type similarity of
three habitat types is lower than the between-type sim ilarity to other
types. In one case, the habitat types are in different series, and so
are not merged. In both of the other cases, the within-type sim ilarity
of the merged habitat type would be much nearer the within-type simi
larity of the lower of the two, and thus both mergers are rejected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 ACSF 62. Y
rcfo 54.) S8,f rcsc ^IPO ÎS.Ï 29.A Ji.S PSMC SYOC SÎ.0 49.9 35.7 57.7 H'tt AMAl I*.7 ■ JI.I - 39.0 43 9 . 56.4 fSMS VICA #.9 13.9 18.t 20.6 36.7 45.5 ASHE Etao 8.t lO.S 14,5 14.2 27.2 38.6 50.1 , ASHE COCA 4.1 49 8.7 7.4 16.7 27.2 44.5 60.2 • EIBO ASHE COCA S.# 6.9 It.2 8.7 22.5 35.8 48.7 49.8 .59.6 VAMY AlCEA ohIy 20.0 20.4 11.6 24.8 20.4 12.8 16.5 16.6 12.3 1 JUCO plot AlCEA iteo 7.9 7.5 16.6 12.5 26.5 38.6 53.7 58.4 60.7 18.J 65.1 PBly ABLA 16.0 17 6 12.2 8.4 17.2 42.8 21.8 1 JVCO IJ.B 18.2 15.7 16.5 plot ABLA LIBO 7.4 8.0 12.7 in,5 24.8 34.0 54.1 51.4 55.4 17.7 64.9 31.7 65.7 AIAO AIAO ASHE ASHE ASHE ASHE ASHE ASHE AlCEA AlCEA ABLA ABLA AIAO FEID AHAL SYOC AHAl VICA LIBO COCA COCA JUCO LIBO JUCO IIBO ACSA TESC LIBO VAHY
Figure 11. Habitat Type to Habitat Type Similarity Matrix for the Bear's Paw Mountains
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 FIFO JUHO 58.2 PIPO SYJC 27.4 49.6 PlPO ARIIV 26.9 43.9 58.5 PlPO 8ERE 12.2 26.2 • 27.8 47-3 PICO JUCO 21-9 22 9 29.6 27.3 39.1 PICO Lieo 16.7 27.3 4J.8 24.0 32.1 52.8
PS.lE • SYOC 29.3 49 . 5 51.0 40.1 38.4 41.5 62.5 PSME ARUY 22.2 37 5 54.0 31.8 34.8 46.0 52.1 53.9 PSME SERE 21.1 39.6 53.3 41.6 38.4 46.7 56.4 55.4 60,3 ARUV PSME OEPE 21.9 3<*.5 35.5 46.3 33.7 32.1 51.9 38.8 48.4 50.9 • 8ERE PSME Liao 17.5 29-3 40.0 34.4 33.6 55 7 47.8 46.6 51.5 44.5 59.1 PlPO PlPO PlPO PlPO PICO PICO PSME PSME PSME PSME PSME JUHO SYOC ARUV BERE JUCO Liao SYOC ARUV BERE BERE LIBO ARUV BERE
Figure 12. Habitat Type to Habitat Type Similarity Matrix for the L ittle Rocky Mountains
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
To test whether or not the two classifications should be merged,
I examined both the plot-to-type matrix and the type-to-type matrix.
On the plot-to-type matrix, only 15 plots were more similar to habitat
types defined for the other study area. Applying the guidelines used
in the f ir s t test demonstrated the re lative ly disjunct nature of the
two study areas. Of the 15 plots, nine were more similar to habitat
types of d ifferen t series. The remaining six plots a ll exhibited a
negative index of expected change.
On the type-to-type matrix, only one habitat type (PIPO/AMAL)
showed a lower within-type sim ilarity than sim ilarity to another type
(PIPO/SYOC). The difference in sim ilarity was very slight (32.8 versus
32.5), and is probably not significant. PIPO/AMAL is defined on the
basis of two plots and is re la tiv e ly non-homogeneous. I determined
that the two classifications should not be merged on the basis of two
plots.
C ollectively, for the two study areas, I defined seven series, only
two of which the areas have in common. In the Psevidotsnga menziesii
series, both areas have Symphorioarpos oacidentalis habitat type, and
a Linnaea borealis habitat type. For both habitat types, however, a
phase distinction would be necessary i f the classifications were merged;
at the phase level, the two areas would share no equivalent units.
Merging the classifications would add needless complexity to the key
and obscure the factors controlling the distribution of habitat types.
On this basis, I decided to maintain separate classifications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 7
Regional Vegetation Ecology
The vegetation and habitats of Rocky Mountain outliers, described
by Despain (1973) and Hoffman and Alexander (1976) for the Bighorn
Mountains of Wyoming, Thilenius (1972) for the Black H ills , Newsome
and Dix (1968) for the Cypress H ills , and Thompson and Kuijt (1976) for
Sweetgrass H ills , and by myself for the Bear's Paw Mountains and L ittle
Rocky Mountains, present an interesting and somewhat baffling
challenge to interpretation.
No two of the mountain ranged have the same tree flora. The
distribution of tree species does follow some obvious trends, but
questions s t i l l arise concerning the factors controlling their
distribution. Pinus contorta is the most widely distributed species,
and is present in every area. The ecology of this species, however,
and, in particular, its status as a climax species, varies greatly
from one area to another. Pseudotsuga menziesi-i forms a broad belt
of climax forest in the Bear's Paw Mountains, but is greatly restricted
in distribution or absent in other Rocky Mountain outlier mountain
ranges.
Comparison of the vegetation communities or habitat types from
these areas clearly demonstrates that each area is unique. Sim ilarities
from all areas, however, suggest that a regional investigation into
the vegetation ecology of a ll areas might provide interesting insights
into the factors controlling the distribution of vegetation of rela
tively disjunct floras.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
I don't intend here to undertake such a study, but only to suggest
that the data for such a study is accumulating. Quantitative vege
tation and site data for the Judith Mountains, the Moccasin Mountains,
and the Sweetgrass H ills might provide the links required to attempt
a regional interpretation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 9
LITERATURE CITED
Daubenmire» R.F. 1943. Vegetational zonation in the Rocky Mountains. Bot. Rev. 9:326-393.
Daubenmire, R.F, 1952. Forest vegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent Washington and its bearing on concepts of vegetation classificatio n . Ecol. Monogr.22:301-330.
Daubenmire, R ., and J.B. Daubenmire. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Wash. Agric- Exp. Stn., Tech. Bull. 60. 104 p.
Despain, D.G. 1973. Vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming, in relation to substrate and climate. Ecol. Monogr. 43:329-355.
Franklin, J .F ., C.T. Dyrness, and W.H. Moir. 1970. A reconnaissance method for forest site classification. Shinrin Richi XII:1-14.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific North west. 730 p. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle.
Hoffman, G.R., and R.R. Alexander. 1976. Forest vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming: A habitat type classification. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-170, 38 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
Knechtel, M.M. 1959. Stratigraphy of the L ittle Rocky Mountains and encircling foothills, Montana. Contributions to Economic Geology: USDI Geological Survey Bulletin 1072-N, 28 p.
Kuchler, A.W. 1973. Problems in classifying and mapping vegetation for ecological regionalization. Ecology 54:512-523.
Layser, E.F. 1974. Vegetation classification: Its application to forestry in the northern Rocky Mountains. J. For. 72:354-357.
Newsome, R.D., and R.L. Dix. 1968. The forests of the Cypress H ills , Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 80:118-185.
O gilvie, R.T. 1962. Ecology of spruce forests on the east slope of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta. Ph.D. Diss., Wash. State Univ., Pullman. 189 p.
Pecora, W.T., I.J. Witkind, and D.B. Stuart. 1959. Preliminary geo logic map of Warrick quadrangle, Bearpaw Mountains, Montana. USDI Geological Survey. Misc. Investigations. Map 1-237.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
P fis te r, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report IN I-34, Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah- 174 p.
Pfister, R.D., and S.F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. Manuscript accepted by Forest Science, 1980.
Poore, M.E.D. 1962. The method of successive approximation in descriptive ecology. Adv. in Ecol. Research 1:35-68.
Rowe, J.S. 1971. Why classify forest land? For. Chron. 47:144-148.
Sorensen, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on sim ilarity of species content. Det Kong. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Skr. (Copenhagen) 5(4):1-34.
Stewart, D.B., W.T. Perora, D.B. Eugstrom, and H.R. Dixon. 1957. Preliminary geologic map of the Centennial Mountain quadrangle, Bearpaw Mountains, Montana. USDI Geological Survey. Misc. Investigations. Map 1-235.
Thilenius, J.F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black H ills , South Dakota. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pop. RM-91, 23 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
Thompson, L.S ., and J. K uijt. 1976. Montana and subalpine plants of the Sweetgrass Hills, Montana, and their relation to early post glacial environments of the northern Great Plains. Canadian Field-Naturalist 90:432-448.
Thornbury, W.D. 1965. Regional geomorphology of the United States. 609 p. John Wiley and Sons, In c., New York, London, Sydney.
U.S. Dept. Commerce Weather Bureau. 1964. Climatological data, Montana. Vol. 67.
U.S. Dept. Commerce Weather Bureau. 1974. Cl imatological data, Montana. Vol. 77.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al 101
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Bear's Paw Mountains habitat types and phases
PINUS PONDEROSA SERIES
habitat type AGSP FEID AMAL phase PESO number of stands 2 9 2
TREES Juniperus saopulorvm - 0) - 0) - 0 ) Ptnus ponderosa 10 37) 10 38) 10 Pseudotsuga menz-tes-it - 0) 1 0) - Pinus contorta - 0) - 0) - 0) P ioea - 0) - 0) - 0) Abies tasiooarpa - 0) - 0) - 0) Populus tremutoides - 0) — 0) 0)
SHRUBS Amelanchier atnifolia 5 1) 8 2) 10 50) Juniperus eormunis 10 0) 3 0) "• 0 ) Juniperus horizontalis 10 19} 7 8) - 0 ) Prunus virginiana - 0) 8 1) 5 3) Pubus parviflorus - 0) - 0) - 0 ) Shepherdia canadensis - 0) - 0) - 0 ) Spiraea betulifolia - 0) - 0) 5 15) Symphoricarpos oacidentalis 10 1) 7 1) 5 15) Vacciniwn caespitosum - 0) - 0) - 0 ) Vaccinium globulare — 0) - 0) - 0) Vaccinium m yrtillus “ 0) 0) 0)
SUBSHRUBS Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 0) 1 1) 0) Berberis repens - 0) - 0) - 0) Linnaea borealis - 0) 0) 0 ) ■ GRAMMINOIDS Agrostis scobra 0) 3 5) 0 ) Agropyron spicatum 10 15) 10 13) 5 - Calaxnagrostis ruhescens - 0) — 0) Festuca idahoensis 5 1) 9 2) 5 3) Festuca scabrelia - 0) 10 7) 5 3) — Koeleria cristata 10 1) 10 1) 0 ) " Oryzopsis asperifolia 0) - 0) 0) Schizachne purpurascens - 0) 0) 0 )
*Code to constancy values 5=45-55 +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35- 45% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=7! 85% 9=85- 95% 10=95- 100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al (cont.) 102
Constancy * and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Bear’s Paw Mountains habitat types and phases
PINUS PONDEROSA SERIES
habitat type AGSP FEID AMAL phase FESC number of stands 2 9 2
FORDS AcJiH-tea miZtefotium 10( 1) 10( 1) 10( 1) Aciaca rubra -( 0) -( 0) -( 0) Agoseric glauca 5( 1) K 1) 4 0) AlZiicn ceniuim 4 0) 6( 1) 4 0) Anemone nruZtCfZd 10( 1) 10( 1) 5( 1) Antennaria microphyZZa 5( 1) 10( 1) 5( 1) Antemiar-La raccmosa -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Apoc'jnum androsaemifoZiujn -( 0) K 3) 4 0) Arnica cordifolia -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Aster conspiauus -( 0) -( 0) 4 0)
Aster faZcatus -{ 0) 6( 1) 10{ 1) Aster Zaevis -( 0) -( 0) 5( 1) BaZsamorhiza sagittata 10( 2) 2( 2) 4 0) Chrysopsis viZZosa 10( 1) 3( 1) 4 0) Cornus canadensis -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Crepis atraoarba -( 0) 7( 1) 4 0) Disporum trachycarpum -( 0) 2( 1) 4 0) Erigeron caecpitosus 10( 1) 7( 1) 4 0) Fragaria virginiana 0( 0) -( 0) 5( 1) GaZiitm boreaZe 5( 1) 4( 1) 10( 1)
GaZiion triflorum -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Geraniuin richardscnii -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Count t r if lo r u m -( 0) 8( 1) 5( 1) Hedysarum suZphurescor.s -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) Lathyrus ochroZcucus -( 0) -( 0) 5( 1) Lithocperntm ruderaZe 5( 1) 8( 1) 4 0) Monarda fistuZosa -( 0) -( 0) 5( 3) Osmorhiza chilensis -( 0) -( 0) 4 0) FyroZa asarifoZia -( 0) -( 0) • 4 0) PyroZa secunda -( 0) 4 0) 4 0)
PyroZa virens -( 0) 4 0) 4 0) SniiZaoina lacemosa -( 0} 3( 1) 4 0) SmiZacina oteZlata -{ 0) 4 0) 4 0) SoZidago micsouriensis -( 0) 3{ 2) 5( 1) Thiilictricn occidentale -( 0) 1{ 0) 4 0) Thcrtriopsis rhonibifolia 10( 9) 9( 3) 4 0) Vida americatia -( 0) 2( 1) 4 0) Viola canadensis -( 0) 4 0) 4 0) * Code to constancy values +=•0-5';: 1=5-15'., 2=15-25% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65 7=65-75% 8=75-05% 9=85-95% 10=95-100,s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al (co n t.) 1 0 3
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the latter in parentheses) of Important plants in Bear's Paw Mountains habitat types and phases
PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII SERIES
habitat type SYOC AMAL VICA LIBO COCA COCA phase LIBO VAMY number of stands 4 17 8 4 9 TREES Jun SCO - 0) - 0 ) -( 0) 0 ) 0) 0 ) Pin pan 10 21) 10 38) 5(30) 1 0 ) 0) 1) Pse men 10 2) 10 5) 10(48) 10 29) 5 8) 30) Pin con - 0) - 0 ) 2(35) 10 43) 10 77) 62) P ioea - 0) - 0 ) -( 0) 0 ) 0) 0) Abi la s — 0) - 0 ) -{ 0) 0) 0) 0) Pop tr e - 0) - 0 ) K 8) 15) 8 11) 3)
SHRUBS Ame d in 10 3) 10 15) 5( 0) 6 1 ) 1) 4 1) Jun com 8 2) 2 1 ) 2( 5) 6 8 1) Jun hoT - 0) 2 1) K 1) 1 2 1) Pru viic 10 5) 10 8( 4) 1 ‘ii 0) 0) Rub pan - 0) K 1) 3 8) 5 1) 9 4) She can - 0) 2 4( 1) 6 4) 10 12) 8 1) S p i b e t - 0) 10 1^1 8( 20) 10 10) 8 6) 10 12) Sym occ 10 6) 10 10) 10( 3) 9 1) 0) 1 1) Vac cae - 0) - 0 ) 1{ 1) 3 9) 8 7) 4 1) Vac g lo - 0) - 0) -( 0) 1 1) 3 7 10) Vac myn — 0) — 0 ) -( 0) 5 6) I] 10 7) SUBSHRUBS Arc uva - 0) - 0 ) K 1) 1) 1) 3) Ber re p - 0) - 0 ) - ( 0) 0 ) 0) Lin bor — 0) 0 ) 2( 1) 10 24) 10 18)
GRAMINOIDS Agr se a 3 1) 6 1) 5( 1) 1) 0) 1) Agr s p i 10 12) 4 1) K 1) 0) 0) 0) 10 21) 13) Cdl rub - 0) 2 1 ) 6 ( 12) 16) Fes id a 3 3) 0) -( 0) 0) 0) 0 ) Fes sea 8 2) 2 1) -( 0 ) 0) 0) 0 ) 0 ) Koe c r i 3 1) - 0 ) 2 ( 1) 0) 0) Ory a sp - 0) 2 1) 4( 3) 1) 2 ) 1) 0) Sch pur 0) 0) K 9) 0) 1)
* Code to constancy values +=1-5% 1=5-15% 2== 15- 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8= 9=85=95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al (cont.) 104
Constancy’*' and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Bear's Paw Mountains habitat types and phases
PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII SERIES
habitat type SYOC AMAL CA LIBO COCA COCA phase LIBO VAMY number of stands 4 5 7 8 4 9 FORBS Ach fu ll 10( 1) 10 1) 2 1) 1 1 0) 0) A c t run 0) - 0) 3 8) 4 1 0) 6( 3) Ago g la - 5( 1) — 0) 0) 0 0) 0 } A l l ccy 5( 1) - 0) - 0) 1 1 0) 0 ) Ane mill 8( 1) 6 1) 1 1) 3 1 0) 1( 1) Ayit mio 10( 1) 6 1) 2 1) - 0 « 0) 0) A n t r a c 0) - 0) 2 5} 6 3 3 3) 7( S) Apo arid -( 0) - 0) - 0) 3 1 3 1) 0) A rn c o r 0) - 0) 6 5) 9 4 8 1) 9( 5) A s t con 0) 6 5) 8 8) 8 1 5 1) 10( 2 )
ÂsÉ f a l 8( 1) 2 1) 0) 0 _ 0) 0) A s t la c 0) 2 1) 4 1) 5 1 8 1) 7( 1) B a t sag 10( 1) 6 1) 1 1) 0 0) _ / 0) Chr v i l 10( 1) - 0) - 0) - 0 0) - ( 0 ) Cor* can 0) 0) - 0) 1 1 10 21) 10( 9) Cr-e a t r 0} - 0) - 0) - 0 - 0) 0) D is tv a 3( 1) 10 0) 10 2) 9 1 3 1) 9( 1) E r i cac 5( 1) - 0) - 0) - 0 - 0) - f 0) F ra v i r 3( 1) 8 2) 5 1) 6 1 5 1) 4( 1) C at b o r 8( 1) 10 1) 8 1) 10 1 8 1) 10( 1)
Gat t v l 0) - 0) 5 1) 3 2 5 1) 1( 1 ) Ger r i c 0) - 0) 1 1) — 0 - 0) 2( 1 ) Geu t r i 8( 1) 6 1) 1 1) - 0 - 0) - ( 0 ) Hed s u l 0) - 0) 1 1) 5 1 3 1) 4{ 1) L a t och 0) 6 1) 6 1) 6 2 10 5) 6( 2 ) L i t ru d 8( 1) 6 1) 1 1) - 0 - 0) - f 0 ) Mon f i s 3( 1) 8 1) 1 3) - 0 - 0) - { 0 ) Osm c h i 3( 1) - 0) 9 1) 8 1 8 1) 8( 1) JV-3> c.sa 0) - 0) - 0) - 0 5 3) 3{ 2 ) P y r sec 0) - 0) - 0) 3 2 8 1) 6( 1)
Fijv v i r 0) - 0) 1 1) 8 1 8 1) 9( 1) Smi vac 3( 1) 10 3) 8 3) 6 2 8 1) 9( 1) Smi s te 0) 2 1) 4 1) e 1 - 0) 1( 1) S o t mis 3( 3) 2 1) - 0) - 0 - 0) -( 0 ) 2tia occ 0) 4 1) 10 4) 5 5 - 0) 7( 4) T)tc rho 5( 9} 2 1) - 0) - 0 - 0) - ( 0 ) V ic CLUic 10( 1) 10 1) 8 1) 3 1 8 1) 1( 1) V io can 0( 0) - 0) 7 31 5 3 5 1) 2{ 2 ) * Code to constancy values 1=5-15% 2=15- 25% 3=25-35% 4 =35-45% 5:=45-5 6=55-65%. 7=65-75% 8= 75-85% 9=85- 95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al (cont.) 105
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Bear's Paw Mountains habitat types and site types
PICEA SERIES ABIES LASIOCARPA SERIES habitat type or site type JUCO LIBO JUCO LIBO phase number of stands 1 2 1 1
TREES Jun SCO 0) - 0) - 0) - 0) P in pan 0) — 0) - 0) - 0) Pse men 0) 10 43) - 0) 10 50) Pin con 0) 10 56) 10 1) 10 61) P ioea 10 98) 10 19) 10 63) 10 9) A bi la s 0) - 0) 10 63) 10 9) Pop t r e 0) 5 3) 0) 0)
SHRUBS Ame a t n 0) 10 1) 0) 5 1) Jun com 10 15) 10 2) 10 1) 10 1) Jun hor 0) - 0) - 0) *“ 0) Pru v i r 0) - 0) - 0) “ 0) Rub par 0) 10 8) — 0) - 0) She can 10 3) 10 2) - 0) 10 1) S p i b e t 0) 10 15) - 0) 10 9) Sym occ 0) 5 1) - 0) 0) Vao cae 0) 10 1) 10 1) 10 2) Vao g to 0) 0) — 0) - 0) Vac myr 0) - 0) 0) 0)
SUBSHRUBS Are uva 0) 0) 10 1) 0) Ber re p 0) — 0) - 0) - 0) Lin b or 0) 10 9) 0) 10 15)
GRAMINOIDS Agr sea 0) 0) 0) 0) - - - 0) Agr apt 0) 0) 0) - 10 Cat rub 0) 10 15) 0) 9) 10 - Fes id a 0) 0) 3) 0) - - Fes sea 0) 0) 0) 0) - - Koe c r i 10 1) 0) 0) 0) - 0) - Ory asp 0) 10 1) 0) Sah pur 0) - 0) 0) 0)
* Code to constancy values 0/ 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 4— 1” 5% 1=5-15 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix Al (cont.) 106
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Bear's Paw Mountains habitat types and site types
PICEA SERIES ABIES LASIOCARPA SERIES habitat type or site type JUCO LIBO JUCO LIBO phase number of stands 1 2 1 2
FORBS Ach m il 10( 1) - ( 0) 10 1) -( 0) A c t z'ub -( 0) - 0) -( 0) Ago g la -( 0) - 0) -( 0) A l l cev -( 0) - 0) -{ 0) Ane mul 0) 0) 5( 1) A n t m ic 10( 1) - ( 0) 10 1) -( 0) A n t ra c 0) 5( 15) 10 1) 10( 8) Apo and 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) A m c o r 0) 10( 1) - 0) 10( 1) A s t con 0) 10( 1) - 0) 10( 8)
A s t f a l 0) - f 0) *— 0) -( 01 A s t f a l 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) B a l sag 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) Chr v i t 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) C or can 0) 10{ 8) - 0) 5( 3) Ore a t r 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) D is t r a 0) 5( 1) - 0) 10( 1) E r i cae 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) F ra v i r 10( 1) 10( 1) 10 1) 10( 1) G al h o r 10( 0) 10( 1) — 0) 10{ 1)
G al t r i 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) G er r i c 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) Geu t r i 0) - ( 0} - 0) - { 0) lied s u l 0) 5( 1) - 0) 10( 1) L a t och 0) 10( 1) - 0) -( 0) L i t I'u d 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) Eon f i s 0) -( 0) - 0) -( 0) Osm c h i 0) 10( 1) - 0) ■ 5( 1) P ijr asa 0) 5( 1) - 0) - ( 0) P y r sec 0) 5( 1) 10 1) 10( 2)
Pyy* v il' 0) 5( 1) 10 1) I0( 1) S n ri ix ic 0) 5( 1) - 0) 10( 1) Smi s ta 0) 5( 1) - 0) -( 0) S o t mis 10( 1) - ( 0) 10 1) -( 0) Tha o c a 0) 5( 1) - 0) -( 0) The rh o 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0) V ic amc 0) 5( 1) - 0) -( 0) V io can 0) - ( 0) - 0) -( 0)
* Code to constancy values 1=5-15% 2=15- 25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45- 6=06-65% / = f)5- 7o% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A2 107
Plant Species Present in Sample Plots in the Bear's Paw Mountains
TREES FERNS
Ah-ies ZasiocaTppa Cystopteris fragiZis Pioea engeZmannii Pinus contovta Pinus fZexiZis PERENNIAL GRAMINOI PS Pinus ponde-posa PopuZus tvemuZoides Agropyron caninim Pseudotsuga menziesii Agropyron spicatum Agrostis scabra Bromun anomaZus SHRUBS Bromus vuZgaris CaZamagrostis canadensis Aoep gZabvum CaZamagrostis rvtbescens AmeZanohiev aZnifoZia Car ex spp. Cornus stoZonifera Cinna ZatifoZia Crataegus dougZasii Danthonia intermedia Juniperus communis Danthonia unispicata Juniperus horizontaZis EZymus gZaucus PotentiZZa fruiticosa Festuca idahoensis Prmus virginiana Festuca scabreZZa Rhus triZohata KoeZeria cristata Ribes oereum Oryzopsis asperifoZia Ribes Zaoustre Oryzopsis hymenoides Rubus idaeus Poa fendZeriana Rubus parviftorus Poa nervosa SaZix scouZeriana Poa paZustris Shepherdia canadensis Poa sandbergii Spiraea betuZifoZia Schizachne purpurascens Symphoricarpos oocidentaZis Stipa spartea Vaccinium caespitosum Vaccinium gZobuZare Vaccinium myrtiZZus FORBS Viburnum eduZe AchiZZea miZZefoZium Actaea rubra SUBSHRUBS (including vines) Agoseris gZauoa AZZiiAm cermuum ArotostaphyZos uva-ursi Androsace septentrionaZis Artemisia frigida Anemone muZtifida CZematis coZumbiana Antennaria anaphaZoides Linnaea boreaZis Antennaria microphyZZa Rhus radicans Antennaria negZecta Antennaria racemosa Apocynum androsaemifoZium
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
FORBS (continued)
Ayyahis hotboetZi^'L Lomatium cous Apenav-ia conge sta Lomatium dissectum Anenop-ia latentfoZia Lomatium tritematvan Apntca oond'Lfolia Microseris nutans Apnioa latifolia Monarda fistulosa Aptemisia campestnis Osmorhiza chilensis As ten ciliolatus Opuntia polycantha Astep conspiauus Perideridia gairdneri Astep falcatus Polygonum histortoides Astep laevis Potentilla glandulosa Astpagalus misep Potentilla gracilis Balsamophiza sagittata Potentilla hippiana Besseya wyomingensis Pterospora andromedea Campanula potundifolia Pyrola asarifolia Cepastium apvense Pyrola secunda Chimaphila unbellata Pyrola uni flora Chrysopsis villosa Pyrola virens Cormandpa umbellata Sanicula marilandica Copollophiza maculata Sedirni ste n o p e ta lim Copallophiza striata Selaginella densa Cornus canadensis Senecio integerrimus Crepis atrabarba Senecio pseudaureus Disporum trachycarpum Silene douglasii Dodecatheon conjugens Smilacina racemosa Epilobium angustifolium Smilacina stellata Erigeron caespitus Solidago missoio'iensis Erigeron speciosus Thalictrum occidentale Eriogonum flavion Thermopsis rhombifolia Erigonum unbellatum Urtica dioica Fragaria virginiana Vicia americana F ritillaria pudica Viola canadensis Gaillardia aristata Viola nuttalli Galium horeale Zigadenus elegans Galium triflorum Gentiana amarella Geranium richardsonii ANNUAL FORBS Geranium viscosissimum Geum triflorum Collinsia parviflora Goody era ohlongifolia Collinsia linearis Habenaria wialashensis Phacelia linearis Hedysarim aulphurescens Heracleum lanatum Hieracium albertinum Hieraaium unbellatwn Lathyrus ochroleucus Linum perenne Lithospermum ruderale
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 1 0 9
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in L ittle Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases.
PINUS PONDEROSA SERIES habitat type JUHO SYOC ARUV BERE phase number of stands 3 24 14 5
TREES Junipeims acoputorum -1 0) + 1) — 0) - 0) Pinus ponderosa 10 54) 10 61) 10 61) 10 61) Pseudotsuga menziesii. 3 3) 2 0) 1 0) 2 0) Pinus contorta - 0) + 0) 1 0) 2 0) Be tu la p a p y r ife r a - 0) - 0) 0) - 0) Populus tremutoides — 0) — 0) — 0) 6 38)
SHRUBS Amelanchier alnifolia 7 1) 6 6) 9 2) 4 20) Juniperus communis 7 15) 5 7) 7 15) 6 1) Juniperus horizontalis 10 23) 1 7) 2 1) — 0) Prunus virginiana 3 1) 8 6) 4 1) 10 7) Rhus trilohata 10 2) 3 7) - 0) - 0) Shepherdia canadensis 3 1) 5 5) 9 7) 2 15) Spiraea betulifolia — 0) 4 4) 6 1) 8 2) Symphoricarpos oacidentalis 7 3) 10 19) 10 9) 10 5)
SUBSHRUBS Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 0) 4 2) 10 31) 6 1) Berberis repend — 0) — 0) 1 15) 10 19) Linnaea borealis - 0) - 0) — 0) 0)
GRAMINOIDS Agropyron spicatum 10 1) 8 6) 7 1) 0) Festuca idahoensis — 0) 1) 1 2) - 0) Festuca scabre1 la - 0) 1 9) - 0) - 0) Koeleria cristata 3 1) 5 1) 4 1) - 0) Oryzopsis asperifolia - 0) - 0) - 0) 2 15) Schizachne purpurascens - 0) - 0) - 0) - 0)
* Code to constancy values +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3+25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 (cont.) 110
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in L itt le Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases PINUS PONDEROSA SERIES
habitat type OUMO SYOC ARUV BERE phase number of stands 3 24 14 5
FORBS Aohiltea m-ittefol-Lurt - ( 0) 8 1) 5 1) 6( 1) Agoseris glauca - ( 0) + 1) 5 1) 0) Allium cermuum 7( 1) 3 1) 3 1) 0) Anemone m ultifida — ^ 0) 10 ' 2) 9 1) 2( 1) Antennaria miarophyI la - ( 0) 6 1) 1 1) 0) Antennaria raccmosa - ( 0) 0) 0) 0) Apocynum androsacmifolium - ( 0) 5 4) 9 8) 2( 1) Arnica cordifolia — ( 0) + 1) 1 0) 0) Aster conspicuus - ( 0) 1 2) 2 1) 6( 6) Aster falcatus - ( 0) 6 1) 1 1) 0) _ ( Aster laevis 0) 6 1) 1 1) 0) Balsamorkisa sagittata -( 0) 8 3) 6 4) 2( 1) Chrysopsis villosa -( 0) 6 1) 4 1) 0) Disporum trachycarpum -( 0) 1 1) 1 1) 0) Erigeron caespitosus -( 0) 5 1) 4 l1 0) Eragaria virginiana -( 0) 3 1) 1 1) 4( 2) Galium horeale 3( 1) 9 1) 10 1) 10( 1) Galiwn ti^iflorwn -( 0) - 0) 0) 0) Geum t r if lo r u m -( 0) 4 1) 1 1) 0) Hedysarum sulphurescens - ( 0) 1 1) 4 1) 2( 1)
Lathyrus ochroleucus — f 0) - 0) 0) 4( 1) Lithospcrmujrt ruderale 3( 1) 1 1) - 0) 0) Monarda fistulosa - ( 0) 3 1) 3 1) 10( 1) Osmorhip.a chilensis -( 0) - 0) - 0) 4( 1) Pyrola asarifolia - ( 0) - 0) - 0) 0) Pyrola secunda - ( 0) - 0) - 0) 0) Pyrola virens - ( 0) - 0) - 0) 0) Smilacina raccmosa -( 0) 1 1) - 0) 2( 1) Smilaci>ia stellata - ( 0) 3 1) 6 2) 4( 1) Solidaga missouriensis 10( 1) 7 1) 10 1) 2( 1)
Thalictrum occidentale — f 0) tm 0) 0) 6( 1) Thermopsis rhomb ifo lia 3( 1) 8 1) 9 2) 2( 1) Vicia amcricann - ( 0) 6 1) 4 1) 2( 1) - ( Viola canadensis 0) - 0) - 0) 4( 1) * Code to constancy values +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15- 25% 3=25 -35% 4 =35-45% 5=45- 55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8= 75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-•100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 (cont.) I l l
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Little Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases
PINUS CONTORTA SERIES
habitat type JUCO LIBO phase number of stands 9 3
TREES Jun. SCO K 1) -( 0) P in pan 2(19) 3(38) Pse men 4( 0) 7( 1) P in con 10(62) 10(74) B et pap -( 0) -( 0) Pop tv e K 1) 7( 2) SHRUBS Ame a ln 2( 1) 3( 1) Jun com 9(12) 10(13) Jun Hot 2( 1) -( 0) Pru v i r 4( 1) -( 0) Rhu t r i -( 0) -( 0) She can 6( 1) 10(15) S p i b e t 10( 7) 10( 7) Sym o c c 9( 1) 10( 1)
SUBSHRUBS Arc uva 4(20) 10(18) Ber re p 6( 3) -{ 0) L in b or -( 0) 10(18)
GRAMINOIDS Agr s p i K 1) 3( 1) Fes id a -( 0) 3( 1) Fes sea -( 0) -( 0) Koe c r i -( 0) -( 0) Ory a sp -( 0) -( 0) Sch pu r -( 0) -( 0)
* Code to constancy values +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 (cont.) 112
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Little Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases
PINUS CONTORTA SERIES
habitat type JUCO LIBO phase number of stands 9 3
FORBS Ach m il 1( 1) 3( 1) Ago g la - ( 0) -{ 0) A l l c e r - ( 0) - ( 0} Ane mul 1( 1) 3( 1) Ant rnia 2( 1) 3( 1) Ant ra c 1( 1) - ( 0) Apo and 8( 1) 10( 1) A m co r - ( 0) - ( 0) A st con G( 3) 7( 2) A st f a l -( 0) — ( 0)
A st lae 2( 1) 7( 1) B al sag -( 0) -( 0) Chr v i l -( 0) -( 0) Dis t r a 1( 1) 3( 1) E i-i cae -{ 0) 3( 1) F ra v i r 1( 1) 3( 1) G al hor 2( 1) 7( 1) Gal t r i -( 0) -( 0) Geu t r i -( 0) -( 0) Hed s u l 1( 1) 7( 1)
L a t och - ( 0) 3( 1) L i t rud -( 0) -( 0) Mon f i s 2( 1) - ( 0) Osm c h i - ( 0) 3( 1) Pyr asa -( 0) 3( 1) P yr sea - ( 0) 3( 1) P yr v i r 1( 1) 3( 1) Smi ra c 1( 1) 3( .1) Smi s te 1( 1) -( 0) S o l mis 6( 1) 7( 1)
Tha occ - ( 0) - ( 0) The rho 1( 1) 7( 3) Vic amc - ( 0) -( 0) Vio can - ( 0) -( 0) * Code to constancy values +=0-5: 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 0=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 (cont.) 113
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Little Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases
PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII SERIES
habitat type SYOC ARUV BERE BERE LIBO phase ARUV BERE number of stands 3 6 7 6
TREES Jun SCO - 0) - 0 ) 0 ) 0) - ( O) Fin pan 10 74) 10 66 ) 10 68) 9 77) 8(53) Pse men 10 6) 10 7) 10 3) 10 9) 10(31) P%n con - 0) 3 9) 5 10) 3 15) 10(25) B et pap - 0) - 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 2(15) Pop tr'e — 0) 0 ) 0 ) 56) 5(15)
SHRUBS Ame a tn 7 2) 7 4) 4) 9 1) 8( 1) Jun com 10 10) 10 13) 23) 9 18) 10( 20) Jun hor 3 1) - 0) 0) 3 1) 3( 1) Pru v i r 10 5) 5 1) 12) 9 10) 3( 2) Rhu t r i 3 1) - 0) 0 ) 1 1 ) -( 0 ) She can 10 2) 10 12) 10 9) 7 1) 10(24) S p i b e t 10 6) 8 4) 10 9) 10 6) 10(15) Sym occ 10 15) 10 7) 10 9) 10 10) 10( 7)
SUBSHRUBS A rc uva 10 1) 10 43) 10 27) 4 1) 10(14) Ber re p 3 1) 3 1 ) 10 9) 10 15) 8( 7) L in h or — 0) — 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 10(13)
GRAMINOIDS Agr s p i 3 1) 2 1) 0 ) 1 ) -( 0 ) Fes id a - 0) 2 1) 0 ) 1 ) -( 0 ) Fes sea - 0) - 0) 0 ) 0 ) -{ 0 ) 0 ) Koe c r i - 0) 2 1) 1 ) -( 0) Ory a sp - 0) “ 0 ) 0 ) 1) 5( 1) Sch pu r - 0) — 0 ) 0) 1) 2( 1)
* Code to constancy values +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B1 (cont.) 114
Constancy* and average canopy coverage percent (the la tte r in parentheses) of important plants in Little Rocky Mountains habitat types and phases
PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII SERIES
habitat type SYOC ARUV BERE BERE LIBO phase ARUV BERE number of stands 3 6 6 7 6
FORBS Ach m it 10 1) 5 1) 7{ 1) 3( 1) 2( 1 Ago g la - 0) - 0} -( 0) 0) -( 0 A l l cev - 0) - 0) -( 0) 0) -( 0 Anc TtrAl ID 1) 8 1) 8( 1) 4( 1) 3( 1 Ant mic 3 1) 2 1) 2( 1) 0) 2( 1 Ant vao - 0) - 0) -( 0) 0) -( 0 Apo and 10 2) 7 5) 8( 2) 4( 5) 8( 2 A m c a r - 0) 2 1) 2( 1) 1( 1) 5( 1 A st con 10 1) 10 2) 3( 1) 9( 1) 8( 2 A s t f a l - 0) * 0) -( 0) 0) -( 0
A st la e 10 1) 8 1) 8( 1) 9( 1) 8( 1 B al sag 10 1) 3 1) 7( 1) 7( 4) -( 0 Ckv v i t - 0) 3 1) -( 0) 0) - ( 0 Dis t r a 3 3) 3 1) 5( 1) 7( 1) 10( 1 E r i cae 3 1) 2 1) 2( 1) 1( 1) - ( 0 Era v i r 7 1) 2 1) 3( 1) 6( 1) 8( 1 G al b or 10 1) 10 1) 10( 1) io( 1) 10( 1 Gal t r i - 0) - 0) “( 0) 0) -( 0 Geu t r i - 0) - 0) -( 0) 0) -( 0 Hed s u l 7 2) 5 1) 5( 1) 4( 1) 10( 1
L a t och -, c) 0) 2( 1) 1( 1) 3( 1 L i t rud 3 1) - O' - ( 0) 0) -( 0 Mon f i s ID 1) 5 1) 8( 1) 6{ 1) 3( 2 Osm c h i - 0) - 0) — ( 0) 4( 2) 7( 1 P yr asa - 0) - 0) -( 0) 0) 5( 1 P yr sec * 0) - n) 2{ 1) 1( 3) 2( 1 P yr v i r - 0) - 0) 3( 1) 0) 3( 1 Smi ra c - 0) 3 1) 2( 1) 6( D- 5( 1 Smi s te 7 1) 3 1) 8( 1} 4( 1) 4( 1 S o l mis 10 1) 7 1) 7( 1) 4( 1) 3( 1
Tha oca « 0) 0) . ( 0) 6( 2) -( 0 The rho 7 1) 5 1) 8( 1) 1( 1) 5( 1 Vio ane 3 1) 2 1) 2( Î) 3( 1) 2{ 1 Vio can - 0) - 0) -( 0) 1( 3) 2( 1 * Code to constancy values +=0-5% 1=5-15% 2=15-25% 3=25-35% 4=35-45% 5=45-55% 6=55-65% 7=65-75% 8=75-85% 9=85-95% 10=95-100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B2 115
Plant Species Present in Sample Plots in the L ittle Rocky Mountains
TREES PERENNIAL GRAMINOIDS
Be tula papyrifera Agropyron caninum Juniperus saoputorum Agropyron spicatum Pinus contorta Agrostis scabra Pinus ponderosa Andropogon scoparius Populus tremuloides Bromus vulgaris Pseudotsuga menziesii Calamagrostis ruhescens Carex spp. Danthonia intermedia SHRUBS Danthonia unispicata Elymus glaucus Amelanchier alni folia Festuca idahoensis Ceanothus velutinus Festuca scabrella Comus stolonifera Koeleria cristata Crataegus douglasii Oryzopsis asperifolia Juniperus communis Oryzopsis hymenoides Juniperus horizontalis Poa fendleriana Potentilla Fruiticosa Poa nervosa Prunus virginiana Poa palus tris Rhus trilohata Schizachne purpurascens Ribes cereum S tip a coma ta Rubus idaeus Stipa spartea Salix scouleriana Stipa viridula Shepherdia canadensis Spiraea betuli folia Symphoricarpos occidentalis FORBS
SUBSHRUBS (including vines) Achillea millefolixm Agoseris glauca Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Allium cemuum Artemisia frigida Anemone m ultifida Berberis repens Anemone n u tta llia n a Clematis columbiana Antennaria nrtcrophylla Linnaea borealis Antennaria neglecta Gutierrezia sarothrae Antennaria racemosa Rhus radicans Apocynum androsaemifolium Arenaria congest Arnica laterifolia FERNS Arnica cordifolia Artemisia campes tris Cystopteris fragilis Aster conspicuus Aster falcatus Aster laevis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 6
FORBS (continued)
Balsamorh'iza sagittata Vida americana Bessey rubra Viola canadensis Campanula r tundifolia Viola nuttallii Castilleja ousiakii C&rastixm arvense Chrysopsis villosa ANNUAL FORBS Clematis tenuiloha Comandra unbellata Collomia linearis Corallorhiza striata Phacelia linearis Crepis aouminata Dispovxm trachyoarpum Epilobium angustifolium Erigeron caespitosus Erigeron speciosus Fragaria virginiana F ritillaria pudica Gaillardia aristata Galium horeale Gentiana amarella Geranium richardsonii Gevm tr if lo r u m Habenaria unalaskensis Hedysarum sulphurescens Hieraciim unbellatum Hymenoxys acaulis Lathyrus ochroleucus Liatris punctata Linum perenne Monarda fistulosa Osmorhiza chilensis Perideridia gairdneri Potentilla glandulosa Potentilla hippiana Pterospora andromedea Pyrola asarifolia Pyrola minor Pyrola virens Sanicula marilandica Sedum stenopetalum Senecio canus Senecio integerrimus Silene douglasii Smilacina racemosa Smilacina stellata Solidago missouriensis Thalictrum occidentale Thermopsis rhombifolia
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.