Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 656–673 | Cite as

Vegetation geo-climatic zonation in the rocky mountains, Northern Utah, USA

  • Antonin KusbachEmail author
  • Helga Van Miegroet
  • Janis L. Boettinger
  • James N. Long
Article

Abstract

We developed a vegetation geo-climatic zonation incorporating the zonal concept, gradient and discriminant analysis in Wasatch Range, northern Utah, USA. Mountainous forest ecosystems were sampled and described by vegetation, physiographic features and soil properties. The Snowpack Telemetry and National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program weather station networks were used to approximate the climate of sample plots. We analysed vegetation and environmental data using clustering, ordination, classification, and ANOVA techniques to reveal environmental gradients affecting a broad vegetation pattern and discriminate these gradients. The specific objective was to assess and classify the response of the complex vegetation to those environmental factors operating at a coarse-scale climatic level. Ordination revealed the dominant role of regional, altitude-based climate in the area. Based on vegetation physiognomy, represented by five tree species, climatic data and taxonomic classification of zonal soils, we identified two vegetation geo-climatic zones: (1) a montane zone, with Rocky Mountain juniper and Douglas-fir; and (2) a subalpine zone, with Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir as climatic climax species. Aspen was excluded from the zonation due to its great ecological amplitude. We found significant differences between the zones in regional climate and landform geomorphology/soils. Regional climate was represented by elevation, precipitation, and air and soil temperatures; and geomorphology by soil types. This coarse-scale vegetation geo-climatic zonation provides a framework for a comprehensive ecosystem survey, which is missing in the central Rocky Mountains of the United States. The vegetation-geoclimatic zonation represents a conceptual improvement on earlier classifications. This framework explicitly accounts for the influence of the physical environment on the distribution of vegetation within a complex landscape typical of the central Rocky Mountains and in mountain ranges elsewhere.

Keywords

Ecological classification Ecosystem survey Land classification Zonal concept Vegetation zone Vegetation geo-climatic zone Climate change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11629_2013_2793_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (550 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 550 KB.

References

  1. Abella SR, Denton CW (2009) Spatial variation in reference conditions: historical tree density and pattern on a Pinus ponderosa landscape. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 2391–2403. DOI: 10.1139/X09-146.Google Scholar
  2. Aplet GH, Laven RD, Smith FW (1988) Patterns of community dynamics in Colorado Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forests. Ecology 69: 312–319.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey RG (1998) Ecoregions Map of North America. Miscellaneous publication 1548. USDA, Forest Service, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey RG (2002) Ecoregion-based Design for Sustainability. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes BV, Pregitzer KS, Spies TA, et al. (1982) Ecological forest site classification. Journal of Forestry 80: 493–498.Google Scholar
  6. Bates CG (1923) Physiological requirements of Rocky Mountain trees. Journal of Agricultural Research 24: 97–164.Google Scholar
  7. Bedell JP, Chalot M, Garnier A, et al. (1999) Effects of nitrogen source on growth and activity of nitrogen-assimilating enzymes in Douglas-fir seedlings. Tree Physiology 19: 205–210.Google Scholar
  8. Brady NC, Weil RR (1999) The Nature and Properties of Soils, 12th Edition. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities in southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27: 325–349.Google Scholar
  10. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning 45: 5–32.Google Scholar
  11. Breiman L, Cutler A (2005) Random forests. Utah State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics. Available online: http://www.math.usu.edu/~adele/forests (Accessed on 15 May 2013).Google Scholar
  12. Brohman R, Bryant L (2005) Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide, Version 1.0. General Technical Report WO-67. USDA, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Briske DD, Fuhlendorf SD, Smeins FE (2005) State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Brown JR (1994) State and transition models for rangelands. 2. Ecology as a basis for rangeland management: Performance criteria for testing models. Tropical Grasslands 28: 206–213.Google Scholar
  15. Brownell VR, Larson BMH (1995) An Evaluation Framework for Natural Areas in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, volume 1, Technical Appendices. Planning and Property Services Department Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Buček A, Vlčková V (2009) Scenario of changes of vegetation zones in the Czech Republic: ten years after. Scénář změn vegetační stupňovitosti na území České republiky: deset let poté. Ochrana přírody 64,Special Issue: 8–11. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  17. Buol SW, Southard RJ, Graham RC, et al. (2003) Soil Genesis and Classification, 5th Edition. Iowa State Press, A. Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Burns RM, Honkala BH (1990) Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA, Forest Service, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Calinski T, Harabasz J (1974) A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics 3: 1–27.Google Scholar
  20. Chen C, Liaw A, Breiman L (2004) Using Random forest to Learn Imbalanced Data. Technical Report 666. Statistics Department of University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Chiarucci A, Araújo AB, Decocq G, et al. (2010) The concept of potential natural vegetation: an epitaph? Journal of Vegetation Science 21(6): 1172–1178, DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01218.x.Google Scholar
  22. Cook JE (1996) Implications of modern successional theory for habitat typing: a review. Forest Science 42: 67–75.Google Scholar
  23. Cutler DR, Edwards TC Jr., Beard KH, et al. (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88: 2783–2792.Google Scholar
  24. Damman AWH (1979) The role of vegetation analysis in land classification. Forestry Chronicle 55: 175–182.Google Scholar
  25. Daubenmire RF (1943) Vegetation zonation in the Rocky Mountains. The Botanical Review IX: 325–393.Google Scholar
  26. Daubenmire RF (1952) Forest vegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent Washington, and its bearing on concept of vegetation classification. Ecological Monographs 22: 301–330.Google Scholar
  27. Degraff JV (1976) Quatenary Geomorphic Features of the Bear River Range, North-Central Utah. MS thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Dover JH (1995) Geologic Map of the Logan 30′x60′ Quadrangle, Cache and Rich Counties, Utah, and Lincoln and Uinta Counties, Wyoming, Scale 1: 100 000. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2210.Google Scholar
  29. Erikson AJ, Mortensen VL (1974) Soil Survey of Cache Valley Area, Utah. Parts of Cache and Box Elder counties. USDA, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation with Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Gannett H (1882) The timber line. Botanical Gazette 7: 114–117.Google Scholar
  31. Gijsman AJ (1991) Soil water content as a key factor determining the source of nitrogen (NH4 + or NO3 ) absorbed by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and the pattern of rhizosphere pH along its roots. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21: 616–625.Google Scholar
  32. Green RN, Trowbridge RL, Klinka K (1993) Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. Forest Science Monograph 29: 1–48.Google Scholar
  33. Haeussler S (2011) Rethinking biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification for a changing world. Environmental Reviews 19: 254–277, DOI: 10.1139/A11-008.Google Scholar
  34. Hangs RD, Knight JD, Van Rees KCJ (2003) Nitrogen uptake characteristics for roots of conifer seedlings and common boreal forest competitor species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 156–163.Google Scholar
  35. Hills GA (1952) The Classification of Evaluation of Sites for Forestry. Research report 24. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Holdridge LR (1967) Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center. San Jose, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  37. Holmgren GS, Juve RL, Geschwender RC (1977) A mechanically controlled variable rate leaching device. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41: 1207–1208.Google Scholar
  38. Horman CS, Anderson VJ (2003) Understory species response to Utah juniper litter. Journal of Range Management 56: 68–71.Google Scholar
  39. Jedrzejek B, Drees B, Daniëls FJA, Hölzel N (2012) Vegetation discontinuities and altitudinal indicator species in mountains of West Greenland: find the best positions and traits to observe the impact of climate warming in the Arctic. Applied Vegetation Science 15: 432–448, DOI:10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01186.x.Google Scholar
  40. Jennings M, Faber-Langendoen D, Peet RK, et al. (2008) Description, Documentation, and Evaluation of Associations and Alliances within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification, Version 5.2. Ecological Society of America, Vegetation Classification Panel. Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson DL, Keller EA, Rockwell TK (1990) Dynamic pedogenesis: new views on some key soil concepts, and a model for interpreting Quaternary soils. Quaternary Research 33: 306–319.Google Scholar
  42. Kamminga-van Wijk C, Prins HBA (1993) The kinetics of NH4 + and NO3 uptake by Douglas-fir from single N-solutions and from solutions containing both NH4 + and NO3 . Plant and Soil 151: 91–96.Google Scholar
  43. Kashian DM, Romme WH, Regan CM (2007) Reconciling divergent interpretations of the quaking aspen decline on the northern Colorado Front Range. Ecological Applications 17: 1296–1311.Google Scholar
  44. Kay CE (1997) Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry 95: 4–11.Google Scholar
  45. Keeney DR, Bremmer JM (1966) Comparison and evaluation of laboratory methods of obtaining an index of soil nitrogen availability. Agronomy Journal 58: 498–503.Google Scholar
  46. Klinka K, Chourmouzis C (1999) Climate and Vegetation of the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished report. Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  47. Klinka K, Worrall J, Skoda L, et al. (1999) The Distribution and Synopsis of Ecological and Silvical Characteristics of Tree Species of British Columbia’s Forests (including SILVICS-CD and large biogeoclimatic zone map), 2nd Edition. Canadian Cartographics Ltd., Coquitlam, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  48. Kotar J (1988) Ecological land classification: the first step in forest resource management. In: Johnson JE (ed.), Managing North Central Forests for Non-timber Values. Proceedings of the Fourth Society of American Foresters Region V Technical Conference, Publication 88-04. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA. pp 43–52.Google Scholar
  49. Krajina VJ (1965) Biogeoclimatic Zones and Classification in British Columbia. Ecology of Western North America 1. pp 1–17.Google Scholar
  50. Kulakowski D, Veblen TT, Drinkwater S (2004) The persistence of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the Grand Mesa area, Colorado. Ecological Applications 14: 1603–1614.Google Scholar
  51. Kusbach A (2010) Terrestrial Ecosystem Classification in the Rocky Mountains, Northern Utah. PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Kusbach A, Long JN, Van Miegroet H (2012) Diagnostic species and fidelity concepts in vegetation classification in the Rocky Mountains, northern Utah, USA. Botany 90: 678–693, DOI: 10.1139/B2012-033.Google Scholar
  53. Küchler AW (1969) Potential Natural Vegetation. 1:7,500,000 Colored Map, Sheet Number 90, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Larsen JA (1930) Forest types of the northern Rocky Mountains and their climate controls. Ecology 11: 631–672.Google Scholar
  55. Lattin JM, Carrol JD, et al. (2003) Analyzing Multivariate Data. Brooks/Cole, Thompson Learning, Pacific Grove, California, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by Random forests. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project 2: 18–22. Available online: http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/ (Accessed on 15 May 2013).Google Scholar
  57. Long JN (1994) Regional silviculture of the United States. In: Barrett, J.W. (ed.), The Middle and Southern Rocky Mountain Region, 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp 335–386.Google Scholar
  58. Long JN (2003) Diversity, complexity and interactions: an overview of Rocky Mountains forest ecosystems. Tree Physiology 23: 1091–1099.Google Scholar
  59. Lotspeich FB (1980) Watersheds as the basic ecosystems: this conceptual framework provides a basis for a natural classification system. American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin 16: 581–586.Google Scholar
  60. Major J (1951) A functional, factorial approach to plant ecology. Ecology 32(3): 392–412.Google Scholar
  61. Mauk RL, Henderson JA (1984) Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of Northern Utah. General Technical Report INT-170. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  62. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2011) PC-ORD: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 6.0. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  63. McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities, 2nd Edition. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Meidinger DV, Pojar J (eds.) (1991) Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  65. Merriam CH (1890) Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain region and the desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona. North American Fauna 3: 1–136.Google Scholar
  66. Miller PM, Eddleman LE, et al. (1991) The response of juvenile and small adult western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) to nitrate and ammonium fertilization. Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 2344–2352.Google Scholar
  67. Mock KE, Rowe CA, et al. (2008) Clonal dynamics in western North American aspen (Populus tremuloides). Molecular Ecology 17: 4827–4844, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03963.x.Google Scholar
  68. Mueggler WF (1985) Vegetation association. In: DeByle, et al. (eds.), Aspen: Ecology and Management in the United States. General Technical Report RM-GTR-119, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. pp 45–55.Google Scholar
  69. Mueggler WF (1988) Aspen Community Types of the Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-250. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  70. Munk LP (1988) Short-term Measurement and Estimation of the Moisture and Temperature Regimes of Some Soils in Northern Utah. MS thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  71. Muldavin EH, DeVelice RL, et al. (1996) A Classification of Forest Habitat Types Southern Arizona and Portions of the Colorado Plateau. General Technical Report RM-GTR-287. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  72. Nelson D, Harris GA, et al. (1978) Land and resource classification — Who cares? Journal of Forestry 76: 644–646.Google Scholar
  73. Olsen SR, Cole CV, et al. (1954) Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. USDA, Circular 939. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  74. Olsen HR, Van Miegroet H (2010) Factors affecting CO2 release from forest and rangeland soils in northern Utah. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74: 282–291, DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2009.0095.Google Scholar
  75. Olsthoorn AFM, Keltjens WG, et al. (1991) Influence of ammonium on fine root development and rhizosphere pH of Douglas-fir seedlings in sand. Plant and Soil 133: 75–81.Google Scholar
  76. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118–125.Google Scholar
  77. Peet RK (2000) Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In: Barbour, M.G., Billings W.D. (eds.), North American Terrestrial Vegetation, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. pp 75–121.Google Scholar
  78. Peterson GB (1972) Determination of the presence, location and allelopathic effects of substances produced by Juniperus scopulorum Sarg. PhD dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado. Dissertation Abstract International B, 32, 3811–3812.Google Scholar
  79. Peterson EB, Peterson NM, et al. (1995) Guidelines for Old Forest Management in Elk Island, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Banff, and Eaterton Lakes National Parks. Report prepared for Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada, Alberta Region, Calgary, Alberta. Western Ecological Services, and Larkspur Biological Consultants Victoria, BC.Google Scholar
  80. Pfister RD (1976) Forest habitat type classification. Mapping, and ecoregions in the northern Rocky Mountains. Discussion paper, XVI IUFRO World Congress, June 20–July 2, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  81. Pfister RD, Arno SF (1980) Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. Forest Science 26: 52–70.Google Scholar
  82. Pojar J, Klinka K, Meidinger DV (1987) Biogeoclimatic classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 22: 119–154.Google Scholar
  83. Pregitzer KS, Goebel PC, et al. (2001) Evaluating forestland classification schemes as tools for maintaining biodiversity. Journal of Forestry 99: 33–40.Google Scholar
  84. Proctor J, Edwards ID, Payton RW, et al. (2007) Zonation of vegetation and soils of Mount Cameroon, West Africa. Plant Ecology 192: 251–269, DOI: 10.1007/s11258-007-9326-5.Google Scholar
  85. Qian P, Schoenau JJ (2002) Practical applications of ion exchange resins in agriculture and environmental soil research. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 82: 9–21.Google Scholar
  86. Rana MS, Samant SS, Rawat YS (2011) Plant communities and factors responsible for vegetation pattern in an alpine area of the northwest Himalaya. Journal of Mountain Science 8: 817–826, DOI: 10.1007/s11629-011-2078-7.Google Scholar
  87. Report of the Intermountain Regional Forum, Boise State University, Idaho (2006) In: Anderson, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the U.S. Forest Service Centennial Congress: a Collective Commitment to Conservation. Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina, USA. pp 209–221.Google Scholar
  88. Roberts DW, Cooper SV (1989) Concepts and techniques in vegetation mapping. In: Ferguson DE, et al. (eds.), Proceedings: Land Classifications Based on Vegetation: Applications for Resource Management. General Technical Report INT-257 USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Rersearch Station, Ogden, Utah, USA. pp 90–96.Google Scholar
  89. Rogers PC, Leffler AJ, Ryel RJ (2010) Landscape assessment of a stable aspen community in southern Utah, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 259(3): 487–495, DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.005.Google Scholar
  90. Rowe JS, Sheard JW (1989) Ecological land classification: A survey approach. Environmental Management 5: 451–464.Google Scholar
  91. Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, et al. (eds) (2002) Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. USDA, NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.Google Scholar
  92. Schoenholtz SH, Van Miegroet H, Burger JA (2000) A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 335–356.Google Scholar
  93. Schulz B, Oswalt S, et al. (2009) Vegetation inventory data: how much is enough? In: McWilliams W, et al. (comps.), Proceedings RMRS-P-56 CD, 2008 Forest inventory and analysis (FIA) symposium, October 21–23, 2008: Park City, Utah, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  94. Sharik TL, Adair W, et al. (2010) Emerging themes in the ecology and management of North American forests. International Journal of Forestry Research, Article ID 964260.Google Scholar
  95. Shaw JD, Long JN (2007) Forest ecology and biogeography of the Uinta Mountains, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 39: 614–628.Google Scholar
  96. Shepperd W, Rogers PC, et al. (2006) Ecology, Biodiversity, Management, and Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-178. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  97. Shreve F (1915) Vegetation of a Desert Mountain Range as Conditioned by Climatic Factors. Publication 217, Carnegie Institute, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  98. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy — a Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, 2nd Edition. Agricultural Handbook No. 436. USDA, NRCS, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  99. Soil Survey Staff (2006) Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 10th Edition. USDA, NRCS, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  100. Stark JM, Hart SC (1997) High rates of nitrification and nitrate turnover in undisturbed coniferous forests. Nature 385: 61–64.Google Scholar
  101. Steele R, Cooper SV, et al. (1983) Forest Habitat Types of Eastern Idaho-Western Wyoming. General Technical Report INT-144. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  102. Thien SJ (1979) A flow diagram for teaching texture-by-feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education 8: 54–55.Google Scholar
  103. Tichý L (2002) JUICE, software for vegetation classification. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 451–453.Google Scholar
  104. Van Miegroet H, Hysell MT et al. (2000) Soil microclimate and chemistry of spruce-fir tree islands in northern Utah. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64: 1515–1524.Google Scholar
  105. Viereck LA, Dyrness CT, et al. (1992) The Alaska Vegetation Classification. GTR PNW-GTR-286. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  106. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58: 236–244.Google Scholar
  107. West NE, Young JA (2000) Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. In: Barbour, MG and Billings WD (eds.), North American Terrestrial Vegetation, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. pp 255–284.Google Scholar
  108. White RE (1997) Principles and Practice of Soil Science. The Soil as a Natural Resource, 3rd Edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  109. Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213–251.Google Scholar
  110. Whittaker RH, Niering WA (1965) Vegetation on the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology 46: 429–452.Google Scholar
  111. Winthers E, Fallon D, et al. (2005) Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  112. Wishart D (1969) An algoritm for hierarchical classifications. Biometrics 25: 165–170.Google Scholar
  113. Yanai RD, McFarlane KJ, et al. (2009) Similarity of nutrient uptake and root dimensions of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir at two contrasting sites in Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 2233–2241, DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.035.Google Scholar
  114. Young JL (1939) Glaciation in the Logan Quadrangle, Utah. MS thesis, Utah State Agriculture College, Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  115. Youngblood AP, Mauk RL (1985) Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of Central and Southern Utah. General technical report INT-187. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  116. Zenner EK, Peck JE, et al. (2010) Combining ecological classification systems and conservation filters could facilitate the integration of wildlife and forest management. Journal of Forestry 108: 296–300.Google Scholar
  117. Zlatník A (1976) Summary of groups of geobiocoen types of original forests and shrubs. Přehled skupin typů geobiocénů původně lesních a křovinných. Zprávy Geografického Ústavu ČSAV v Brně 13(3–4): 55–64. (In Czech)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonin Kusbach
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Helga Van Miegroet
    • 1
  • Janis L. Boettinger
    • 1
  • James N. Long
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildland Resources and Ecology CenterUtah State University, Utah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Botany, Dendrology and GeobiocoenologyMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations