Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series Volume 11 | Number 3 Article 1 9-1970 Distribution of the native trees of Utah Kimball S. Erdman Department of Biology, Slippery Rock State College, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Erdman, Kimball S. (1970) "Distribution of the native trees of Utah," Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series: Vol. 11 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib/vol11/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. MU3. CCy.P. ZOOL. LIBRARY DEC 41970 Brigham Young University HARVARD Science Bulletin UNIVERSITY) DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIVE TREES OF UTAH by Kimball S. Erdman BIOLOGICAL SERIES—VOLUME XI, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 1970 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN BIOLOGICAL SERIES Editor: Stanley L. Welsh, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Members of the Editorial Board: Tipton, Zoology Vernon J. Feeeon L. Anderson, Zoology Joseph R. Murdock, Botany WiLMER W. Tanner, Zoology Ex officio Members: A. Lester Allen, Dean, College of Biological and Agricultural Sciences Ernest L. Olson, Chairman, University Publications The Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series, publishes acceptable papers, particularly large manuscripts, on all phases of biology. Separate numbers and back volumes can be purchased from Pubhcation Sales, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. All remittances should be made payable to Brigham Young University. Orders and materials for hbrary exchange should be directed to the Division of Gifts and Exchange, Brigham Young University Library, Provo, Utah 84601. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIVE TREES OF UTAH by Kimball S. Erdman BIOLOGICAL SERIES—VOLUME XI, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 2 SPECIES DISCUSSION 4 DISCUSSION 26 TABLES 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 33 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIVE TREES OF UTAH by Kimball S. Erdman* ABSTRACT Although botanists have been actively collecting in sively supplemented by the field work of the author Utah for well over a century, the distribution of and other botanists. many plants are as yet imperfectly known. This is, in part, due to the scattered nature of Utah herbarium The great diversity of environments due to geog- material. Also the terrain of the state has impeded raphy, physiography, and climatic features of Utah collection in more rugged and remote areas. The has resulted in an interesting tree flora of fifty species present study gathers together the data from the and at least three naturally occurring, recognized major collections of native Utah trees and clarifies hybrids. Although a majority of Utah's trees are our present understanding of tree distributions in the mountain species, a number are strictly desert plants state. The older collection records have been exten- restricted to the Virgin or Colorado River drainages. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No distribution study of this scope is completed assisted me: Dr. Walter P. Cottam, formerly of the without the assistance of many people. I am grateful University of Utah; Professor Arthur H. Holmgren of to Dr. Bertrand F. Harrison and Dr. Kent H. Utah State University; Mr. Stephen Clark at Weber McKnight for their counsel and advice when this pro- State College; Dr. LeRoy K. Henry of the Carnegie ject was initiated as a master's thesis. Dr. Stanley L. Museum; Dr. Dan Nicholson of the U. S. National Welsh and Dr. Earl M. Christensen have given enthu- Herbarium; Dr. Charles Feddema of the U. S. Forest siastic support to the continuation of this research Service Herbarium; and to Dr. Howard S. Irwin and and have added much to our present revised distri- Dr. Patricia Kern of the New York Botanical Garden. bution maps. They have also been most helpful in the Finally. I would like to acknowledge the contri- criticism of the manuscript. I would like to thank Dr. butions of many botanists during the past hundred Albert E. Little, chief dendrologist of the United years. The time and effort expended in searching out States Forest Service for his help and advice. the plants of Utah's rugged terrain have been monu- I am also grateful to the curators of herbaria who mental. INTRODUCTION Althougli botanists have been active in Utah for treatment of economic trees (1958) and Fowell's well over a hundred years, there is still a real need for work on the silvics of forest trees (1965) which in- accurate surveys and studies of plant distribution. cluded generalized maps of tree distribution. Some This paper is an attempt to summarize the distri- work on tree distribution is included in Choate's bution data for all the native trees of Utah. Forests in Utah (1965). Much more detailed maps of The earliest distribution maps of Utah tree species the genus Pimis were published by Critchfield and are those of Sudworth (1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, Little (1966) and Mirov (1967). Christensen pub- 1934) on the gymnosperms and Salicaceae of the lished distributions of Qiterciis gambeUi and on Rocky Mountains. His maps were based on collec- certain naturalized species. Tamarix, Ulmiis, and tions, reportings, and generalizations based on terrain. Elaeagmis not covered in this paper (1949, 1950, He did not show sites of specimens except on his 1955, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965). Recently Youngberg working maps. Sudworth's maps were later revised (1966) treated the willows of Utah. Unfortunately, and republished by Munns (1938). There have been a however, liis distribution maps are not particularly number of works since then such as Preston's Trees of informative inasmuch as they record only the pres- the Rocky Mountains (1940), Harlow and Harrar's ence of a species in a given county. •"Department of Biology, Slippery Rock State College, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN There have been a number of studies of the veg- plants of major reservoir sites in Flaming Gorge and etation of portions of the state both pubUshed and Glen Canyon. Harrison, Welsh, and Moore have pub- unpubHshed. Among these are Graham's study of the lished on the plants of Arches National Monument Uinta Basin (1937), Stanton's thesis on the ecology (1964). and floristics of the Henry Mountains (1931), Wood- bury's paper (1933) on the biotic communities of The selection of species to be included in this Zion National Park, Burke's thesis on the plants of paper was difficult. In Utah thousands of acres are the Wellsville Range (1934), MacMilian's study of the covered with pigmy forest where trees rarely reach 30 floristics and ecology of the Deep Creek Mountains feet in height. One, therefore, is inclined to be liberal (1948), Preece's work on the plant communities of in his definition of a tree. In general, however, if a the Raft River Mountains (1950), Welsh's thesis on species consistently or at least commonly exceeded plant ecology in Dinosaur National Monument 10-15 feet in heiglit, was at least two or three inches (1957), Buchanan's Plant Ecology of Bryce Canyon in diameter, and had a fairly well defined trunk and National Park (1960), Ellison's paper (1954) on the crown, it was included. Plants such as Ribes aurem subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau, and and Cormis stolonifera, which may be this large but Foster's thesis on major plant communities of the definitely many stemmed and shrubby, are excluded. Great Basin in Utah (1966). Flowers (1959, 1960), Also, plants which are commonly shrubs and rarely Lindsay (1959), Hall (1960), and Woodbury and reach a height of 10 or 15 feet, such as Cowania others (1958, 1959, 1960), published reports on the stansbuhana, are not included. METHODS It has been the general practice of botanists when ium specimens are indicated by dots on the maps. mapping distribution of plants to use base maps Certain of these specimens are cited in the species dis- showing political subdivisions such as states and coun- cussion. There the herbaria are listed according to ties and a few major lakes and rivers. The size of their standard abbreviations; U. S. National Herbar- Utah's counties and the remarkable variation of ium (US), U. S. Forest Service Herbarium (USES), topography within them necessitates a more detailed New York Botanical Gardens (NY), Carnegie Museum base map. I have therefore included rivers and also (CM), Utah State University (UTC), University of major mountain ranges (See Fig. 1 and the accompa- Utah (UT), Brigham Young University (BRY), Weber nying key for the features included). State College (no abbreviation.) The distribution of many of Utah's trees are corre- Sightings and recorded occurrences are indicated lated with mountain ranges with elevations over by an "X." In most cases these represent species dis- 7,000 feet. Generally such areas will have sufficient cussed in theses or in published works, but are not precipitation to support a tree flora more varied than validated by specimens in the herbaria consulted. that of the pigmy forests typical of lower elevations. Sightings represent communications from various bot- Only ranges with several square miles above 7,000 anists to the author. All of these sightings and feet are shown on the map. recorded occurrences should eventually be verified by The location of species as determined from herbar- collections. MOUNTAIN RANGES AND PLATEAUS (highest elevation included); 1. Raft River Mountains 9,892 ft. 2. Grouse Creek Mountains 9,042 ft.