Great Basin Naturalist Volume 6 Article 1 Number 1 – Number 4 11-15-1945 Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah C. Lynn Hayward Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Hayward, C. Lynn (1945) "Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 6 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol6/iss1/1 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 Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. .. The Great Basin Naturalist Published by the Department of Zoology and Entomology Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah X'oi.iMK \'\ X()VP:MP.KR 15, 1945 Nos. 1-4 BTOTTC COMMUNITIES OF THE SOUTHERN WASATCH AND UINTA MOUNTAINS, UTAH"' C. T.YXN HAYWARD(^) Associate Professor of Zoology P.rijiham Young University Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2 A. Scope and Nature of Problem 2 B. Methods 4 C. Review of Previous Work 8 IP TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 9 A. Location and General Topography 9 B. Geological Histor}- 11 C. Glaciation 13 III. CLIMATE 13 A. Gene^^l Climate of Wasatch Mountains 13 P>. Climate of Mt. Timpanogos and L'intas 15 1 Temperature 15 2. Precipitation Pt 3. Relative Humidity 1/ ' 4. Wind 18 5. General Discussion 18 IV. CONCEPTS OF BIOTTC COMMUNITIES 1c> \-. THE MONTANE FOREST 23 A. Lower Montane Forest 23 1. Climax Forest 23 2. Aspen Subclimax 29 3. Uinta Mountains Lower Montane Fore.-^t. 36 B. The Upper Montane Coniferous Forest 37 1 Clima.x Forest 3/ 2. The Lodgc])()U' Subclimax 40 (1) Coiitriljiitioii lioin tile Oepartmeiit of Zoology. I'liivorsity cif llliimis .-niil huuiIkt 1i»8 I'liiviTsit from tlu- DciKirtnient of Zoology aiicl Kii tomoloery . Britrli.im ^(mng y. (2) This paper is nart of a thesis subniitted in partial fiilfilliiicnt <<( the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the I'liivirsity of Illinois. 1. The Great Basin Naturalist C". ( 1 2 LYNX IIAVWAKD \'ol. \' I . X )S. -4. ^. The Si)rucc-I*"ir Subclimax 40 4. Invertebrate Animals in Cieneral 46 C. Inlliunis of the Montane Forests 47 1. .Major Permeant Inlluents 47 2. Minor Intiuents 55 3. I'.ird P(jpulations 73 4. Reptiles and Amphibians 77 \ I. SLCCI':SSION IN THE MONTANE FORESTS 77 \ II. THE ALPLNE MEADOW 81 A. General Features 81 R. Influents 86 C. Succession 93 D. Discussion 95 \ 1 1 1. SUMMARY 98 IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS lO;, X. REFERENCES CITED 104 APPENDIX A. Distributional List of Mammals and T.irds... 109 APPENDIX B. Distributional List (jf Inverte])rates Ill APPENDIX P.. Distributional List of LejMdoptera 123 APPENDIX D. Gazetteer 123 I. INTRODUCTION A. SCOPE AND NATURE OF PROBLEM Certain similarities between boreal and montane faunas and floras in North America were pointed out lon^ ago by Merriam (1890) Coville (1893) and Rydberg (1900) and have been alluded to by many workers before and since that time. In the organization of biotic com- munities along the lines of modern bio-ecological procedure there would appear to be little doubt that the extensive coniferous forests, char- acteristic of mountainous parts of Western North America, belong to the same biotic unit as the vast expanse of transcontinental woods extending across the provinces of Canada. The evidence for such a position lies partly in the existence of a number of specifically iden- tical or ecologically equivalent organisms which occur throughout the greater part of the whole area; but there is also a similarity in life form and life habits of the constituents, associated with affinities of habitat and climate, that gives character and unity to the whole com- munity. Shelford and Olsen (1935) considered the transcontinental forests as a biome (Picea-Abies Biome) and suggested (p. 397) that the 1^ ' Nov. 15.1945 RIOTIC COTvlMl-NITIKS OF UTAH 3 mountain forests might be included as associations in the same biome. Weaver and Clements (1938, p. 481), on the basis of plants, placed the mountainous forests in two distinct formations (Montane Forest and Subalpine Forest ) distinct from the transcontinental forests which were also subdivided into three communities of formational rank. From the point of view of both animals and plants, as well as more general features of life form, life habits and climate, such an arrange- ment would seem uniustifial)le. Rasmussen (1941 ) in his studies of the Kaibab Plateau of Arizona saw the close relationship of these two communities and combined them under the general term " Montane Forest." Furthermore he re- duced the formations of Clements to associational rank under the terms Finns brachyptcra-Sciunis koibohensis Association, and Picca-Ahies- Sciurus frcmonti Association. From the writer's studies in the Wa- satch and Uinta Alountains the thesis of Rasmussen would seem en- tirely justifiable. However, it is here proposed that the Transcontinental Coniferous Forest Biome of Shelford and Olsen (see op. cit.) be expanded to the Transcontinental-Montane Coniferous Forest Biome. The term "Mon- tane Forest" is used in a geographical sense to indicate the mountain- ous part of the biome. just as the term "Transcontinental Forest" re- fers to the lowland part, and does not necessarily represent a biotic unit. It is further proposed that the Montane Forest of the Rocky Moun- tains be subdivided into two communities of associational rank known as the Lower Montane Forest {Finns f>onderosa-Fscitdotsuga mucro- nata-.lhics cnncolor Association), and the Upper Montane Forest {Ficca cnc/clnianni-. Ihics lasiocarpa Association). This nomenclature agrees in the main with tliat of Rasmussen (op. cit.) except that the animal constituents are left out of tlic community names. It would seem to the writer to be less confusing to designate these communities by plants of wide distribution rather than by animal species which often are limited to comparatively small areas such as the Kaibal) squirrel, for example. Justification for separating tlic Montane Forest into two associa- tions comes primarily from differences in the dominant and subdomi- nant vegetation and only secondarily from the few animals that are confined to one or the other. The above classification pertains only to the Rock}' Mountains portioii of the Montane Forest since the Sierran and Coastal Forests are not included in llie study. It seems likely that these forests w\\] fall into two or more additional associations based Tile Great Basin Naturalist 4 c. I.^'^^ wayward \'o1. \'1. Nos. 1-4. also priniariK' upon lloristic differences associated with climate. The works of (irinnell ( 19.^0 1 Merriam (1899) and others hear out the f,feneral taunistic relationshi])S of these more western mountain ranijes with the transcontinental forests. Comparison of partial lists of plants and animals known from the Transcontinental P'orests wnth partial lists from the Montane Forests represented in this study shows that at least 98 forms have specifically identical or ecological equivalent species occurring; throujj;hout the two areas. These include most of tlie dominant and major influent ori^^an- isms that are of ji^reatest importance in the evaluation of biotic com- munities. This list includes onh' 31 species of invertebrates, and would undoubtedly be greatl}" ex])anded if the distribution of these lower forms were l)etter known. The bio-ecological relationships between the alpine and arctic com- munities are less evident as will be shown in more detail in the part of this ])aper dealing with the alpine of Mt. Timpanogos.'-'^ ft. MKTHODS The present study has been carried forward by the writer inter- mittentl}" over a period of approximately 11 years. During the sum- mer of 1930 a period of about six weeks (July 1 to August 15) was spent in the Trial and Mirror Lake regions of the western Uinta Mountains making studies and collections of the alpine and upper montane birds of that area. A portion of the results of this study was later published (1931). Most of the field work in the southern Wa- satch has l)een done on Mt. Timpanogos and nearby areas. The writer's first work on Mt. Timpanogos was carried out during a six week's j)eriod from the middle of July to the last of August, 1933, at which time he was on the faculty of the Brigham Young University Alpine .Summer School. Due to teaching obligations it was possible to make only general observations on the fauna and Hora at this time ; but at the close of the period there was drawn up a tentative plan for carry- ing out an investigation of the biotic communities of the mountain. The essence of this working outline has been carried forward when opportunity has afforded, to the present time. During the following summer (1934) it was possible to spend a period from June 8 to June 21 in continuous field work on Mt. Timpa- nogos. This work was mostly qualitative in nature, but a considerable collection of invertebrates and a few vertel)rates w^as made. (3) Since this paper went to press an important paper by R. F. I)aul)enniire on "Vege- tational Zonation in the Rocky Mountains" (The Bot. Rev.. 9 (6): pp. .W, 194,?) has come to the writer's attention. It is regrettable that this work could not receive more attention at this time. Nov. 15, 1945 BioTic communities of utah 5 a No field work was done in the area in 1935, and in 1936 only few visits to Mt.