Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The use of aerial photographs and sub sampling in the identification and assessment of moose ranges in… Baynes, Raymond Arthur 1956

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1956_A8 B2 U8.pdf [ 13.42MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0302584.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302584-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302584-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302584-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302584-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302584-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302584-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE USE OF EIiL PHOTOGPHS AND SUB-SARpLINGIN THE IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OFMOOSE RANGES IN SOUTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIAbyFYMOND ARTHUN i3tYNES)3SA., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1953A THESIS SUBMITTED INPART IAL FULE I LMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEOF MASTER OF ARTSin theDepartment of ZoologyWe accept this thesis as conforming to thestandard required from candidates for thedegree of MASTER OF ARTSMembers of the Department of ZoologyTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril, 1956viiABSTRACTA random sample of forty high altitude block vertical aerialphotographs was drawn from two extensive districts of the southCariboo region of British Columbia. The five hundred squaremiles of sample area so obtained was cover-typed throughinterpretation of the aerial photographs. Both mature and seralforest stages constituting moose habitat were identifiedprimarily through the use of criteria which permitted therecognition of individual tree species and secondarily throughthe recognition of characteristics peculiar to the aspect of eachforest type when viewed as a unit. Stereoscoptic examinationpermitted delimination of the types on the aerial photographs.Planimetric measurement of these areas followed. Sub—sampling ofthese areas resulted in the establishment of sixty—fourpermanent plots. Twelve thousand feet of line-interceptiontransect data were obtained from the plots. Browse species wereclassified both for amount of available food and for degree ofutilization by moose. Availability was largely determined bystandards derived from shrub height and D.B.H., while utilizationwas categorized into four degrees on the basis of the amounts orthe previous years twigs that had been removed from the shruø bythe browsing of moose. Analysis of the ground., shrub and treelayers resulted in distinctive floral compositions beingobtained. ror seven forest types which constitute moose habitat.Characteristic.intensities of browse utilization were alsoeviaent in each forest type—the more dense, mature forestsreceiving neavier usage than the open forest stands.viiiIndex ratings were established both for the density ofavailable browse anct Ior the degree or utilization of browse ineach of the seven forest types, Application of these indices tothe areas of each forest type indicated relative foodproductivity and usage of browse in the two sample districts.With the establishment of the indices, moose ranges in theremainder of the sample district may be assessed solely fromaerial photographs thereby eliminating extensive ground survey,Extension of this method to other forest areas will permitsimilar assessment of moose habitat in these regions, once anynew forest types are identified and valuated through limitedground subsampling.Severe browsing of unpalatable species, not generallyconsumed, indicated overuse of many moose winter ranges.Controlled burning of certain severely overbrowsed ranges andfurther reductions in the moose population through either-sexseasons are suggested.ixIACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe writer is particularly grateful to Dr. Ian McTaggartCowan, Head, Department of Zoology, University of BritishColumbia, and to Dr. James Hatter, Chief Game Biologist,B.C. Game Commission, for their continued direction, helpand encouragement throughout the preparation of this study.Special thanks are extended to the B.C. Game Commission,which provided the considerable financial support necessaryto implement this study.To Dr. V.C. Brink, Head, Division of Plant Science,Faculty of Agriculture, of this University, for helpfuladvice in the selection of techniques used in sampling andfor the analysis of data, sincere thanks are offered.The writer is happy to acknowledge, and wishes to thankMr. P.W. Martin, Regional Game Biologist, Kamloops, formany helpful suggestions concerning this work.Thanks are also offered to the staff of “C Division”,B.C. Game Department, 1955, all of whom were most cooperative.Thanks and appreciation are also extended to thosestudents who, through providing advice, criticism anddiscussion, have contributed to this research.iiTABLE OF CONTENTSSection Pager1TmO rmTTnrn T (1T. • , , , • •I, Location of Study , , , , ,METHODS AND PROCEDURES I.II. Selection of Sample Areas . . . . . • . . . . .. 5III. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs . . . . . . 6IV.CoverTypeMapping .........,.... 13V. Location of Air Photo Sample Plotson Base Naps . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 16METHODS AND PROCEDURES II.VI. Field Techniques Statement of Objects . . . . 17VII. Field Technique — Detail . . . . , . . . . . . . 17VIII. Discussion of those Forest Associations ofSouthern British Columbia which ConstituteMooseWinterRange ,0 , , , . • 21IX. Treatment of Data . , , . . , , . . . . , 31OBSERVATIONS I.X. Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the NorthernDistrict (I), and the Southern District (II) . 35OBSERVATIONS II.XI. A Comparison of the Ground Cover Densities ofPlant Species in Seven Forest Types .OBSERVATIONS III.XII. Comparison of the Relative Density of SelectedBrowse Species Occurring in Seven Forest Types . 88OBSERVATIONS IV.XIII, Amounts of Available Browse, by Plant Species,for the Seven Forest Types , . , , . . , , 90113.Section PageOBSERVATIONS V.XIV0 Degree of Utilization of Available BrowsebyForestType, . • . . . . , 92SUMMARY— EVALUATION OF FOREST TYPESUTILIZEDJ3YMOOSE •..........l03DISCUSSION EVALUATION OF METHOD . . . . . • . . . . . 105C OI’4CLIJSIONS . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Management recommendationsLITERATTJRECITED . . . . . •. . . . . .. . . . .110APPENDIX s • • • e e • • . , • , o a a • a a 11218 Outline map showing study area andlocations of sample plotsII. List of aerial photograph sample areasIII. Selected literature: use of aerial photosfor wildlife managementIivLIST OF TABLESTable PageI. The Relative Extent of Forest and Other Covertypes in the Kamloops North (I), and KamloopsSouth (II), Districts , . , , , . , . • 15II. A Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the NorthernDistrict (I) and the Southern District (II) . . . 36III. Ground Cover Densities in the Lodgepole pineBurnForest Types........ . . .IV. Ground Cover Densities in the Ponderosa pine—Douglas fir Forest Type . . . . . . . . . . •V. Ground Cover Densities in the Douglas Fir—Lodgepole pine Forest Type . . . . . . . . . . 53VI. Ground Cover Densities in the Lodgepole pine—Mature Forest Type • . . • . . . . • 9 . . . 55VII. Ground Cover Densities in the Douglas fir—logged Forest Type . . . , . , , . • 58VIII. Ground Cover Densities in the AspenForest Type 9 9 9 9 8 0 9 8 9 9 8 61IX. Summary of the Relative Ground Cover Densities ofPlant Species Encountered in Transecting SevenForest Types , . . . • . 9 8 8 • 8 8 , 6-i-X. Forest Type I. Lodgepole pine—older burnsDensityofShrubCoverXI. Forest Type II. Lodgepole pine—young burnsDensityofShrubCover . •......... 76XII. Forest Type III. Ponderosa pine—Douglas firDensityofShrubCover 0•0899•899•• 77XIII. Forest Type IV. Douglas fir—Lodgepole pineDensityofShrubCover ..,,.,•.....• 79XIV. Forest Type V. Lodgepole pine—matureDensityofShrubCover . . . .......... 80XV. Forest Type VI. Douglas fir—loggedDensityofShrubCover ............. 82XVI. Forest Type VII. AspenDensityofShrubCover . ........ .... 8÷VTable PageXVII. A Comparison of the Relative Density of SelectedBrowse Species in Seven Forest Types , , . . , . 86XVIII. The Degree of Severe Utilization of Available MooseBrowse. in Seven Forest Types , , . . , . , . 96XIX. The Degree of Moderate Utilization of AvailableMoose Browse in Seven Forest Types . , , . , , , , 97viLIST OF FIGURESFigure Pagel.l Aerial Photograph showing cover types.l.—2 Stereo.pair of aerial photographs..... facing 72. Forest Type I., Lodgepole pine older burns,showing high density of this species andmoderately browsed upland willow (Salix 753. Forest Type II., Lodgepole pine young burnsand immature pine forest.,.,...,,,....,,.,,.. 751÷, Forest Type III., Ponderosa pine—Douglas fir,showing park—like stand with abundant grassyopenings 785. Forest Type IV., Douglas fir—lodgepole pine.. 786. Forest Type V., Lodgepole pine—mature,browsed upland willow (Salix spp.) ........... 817. Forest Type VI., Douglas fir—selectivelylogged, showing abundant upland willow(Salix spp.) ................................ 8].8. Forest Type VII., Aspen.Browsed bog birch visible in foreground ,..... 83THiS USx OF AERIAL PHOTOGi.PHS ANi.) SUB iPLIrUIi’ wFL lJjiL .L1IUATION ALI) bESSiEN.C OFMOOSE NGES JJ’ OUT1’N &UTISR COLITh’WIAThis study is primarily concerned with the feasability ofusing aerial photographs to identify and delimit the areas ofcertain forest types which constitute moose habitat in the southCariboo District of British Columbia, Through the interpretationof aerial photographs and the evaluation of browse conditionsthrough subsampling, it is hoped that much time and effort maybe saved in the assessment of moose ranges through the elimination of extensive ground surveying.Since World War II, the use of aerial photographs hasincreased tremendously, and their recognition as an aid towildlife management has been aptly stated by D.J Leedy, l9+8,The uses of aerial photographs in the practice of Forest andRange Management have been stated by Spurr, l98, and by Harris,1951, in such a manner that their possible applications towildlife management are obvious, Many general works dn air photointerpretation are present in current literature, A selectedbibliography of those most applicable to wildlife appears in theappendix.The relative newness of the specialized technique or airphoto interpretation is exemplified by the lack of detailedpapers on the subjects Current literature generally takes theform of the statements expressed by Sisam, 19+7, which may bedescribed as basic principles of air photograph interpretation.—2—While such papers form the foundation of the science of photogramnetry, through the establishment of these basic principles,the authors do not appear to have the time or inclination todevelop refinements in technique, Mr. G.S. Arnold, SurveyorGeneral of the B.C. Forest Service informs me that while muchhas been done and is being done towards the refinement of airphoto interpretation technique, few have made their work knownin published form.It is known that forest types may be identified from airphotos. Both the Dominion and Provincial Forest Services haveprepared cover maps of the economic timber stands in Canada. Thecriteria for the identification of these types is however, knownonly to individuals. In many cases the identifications arefacilitated by extensive ground cruising data,The forest types concerned in this study are, with theexception of the Douglas fir (Pseudotsu taxifolia), andponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), types, largely withoutcomnercjaI forest value, Consequently they have received littleattention and no criteria for their identification were foundin the literature, or through correspondence with the B.C.Forest Service. Again, it is noted that some field men in theForest Service have working criteria by which these identifications may largely be determined. Unfortunately their methodsremain unpublished.Due to the extensive forest fires of the l88Ws, when miningactivity was centred in the Cariboo, and fire suppression wasunknown, most of the southern plateaux were burnt over.—3—The resultant forest succession produced seral stages which wereparticularly suited. for colonization by moose. The completehistory of this colonization may be found in the Annual Reportsof the B.C. Game Commission which trace the southward movementof moose through to their present range limit near Hope. Theresultant forest types which constitute moose habitat in thesouth Cariboo are largely heterogeneous in species compositiondue to the effects of fire succession. laxed forest types arethe rule, Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var, latifolia), a firesuccession dominant, has colonized extensive areas formerlyoccupied by climax forests.For the past thirty years moose have been increasing innumbers throughout the south Cariboo, From a few individuals theherds have increased to produce a population which is estimatedby winter air survey counts (B.C. Game Commission Report onLerial ioose Surveys, l95+) to he as high as 5.6 moose persauare mile in some areas. This ponulation density exceeded thecarrying capacity of the ranges with the result that excessivebrowsing was commonly noted. By 1952, the situation was worse,with this statement appearing in that year’s report of the B.C.Game Commission. Ifl almost all instances continued overuse anddepletion of the palatable winter foods was found to exist. inseveral areas noticeable browsing was found on secondary browsespecies, and even unpalatable forms, such as lodgepole pine andsoopolallie (Sheperdia caaensis), showed signs of browsing,tThis study has been devised as a browse survey techniquedesigned to aid in the assessment of moose ranges by providinghabitat data of use in game management. The theoretical basis ofthis survey is expressed in the following principles,Ci) —that individual tree species and forest types may beidentified from the study of aerial photographs(ii) -that the extent of forest types may be delimited uponthe aerial photographs, and that these areas may bemeasured(iii) —that ground checking will verify the identificationsmade from study of the aerial photographs(iv) -that ground survey sub-sampling, involving quantitativemeasurement of the floral composition, particularly ofthe browse species will yield data characteristic of thefloral composition of each forest typeCv) —that ground survey will yield quantitative data expressing the amount of available moose browse and its degreeof utilization in each forest type(vi) —that the composition of each forest type will be distinctand different amounts of available food and differentdegrees of its utilization will occur in each type(vii) —that if the degree of distinctness of forest types issufficient and may be demonstrated by browse composition,amouht of available browse, and degree of browseutilization, then, if these data are obtained fromrandom sampling, any similar forest type occq.rring inthe district from which the samples were drawn may be soevaluated without extensive ground survey-the estimatesbeing derived from the sample data and the aerial photographs aloneI, Location of StudyIt was decided to make intensive study of numerous sampleareas within two larger districts, District I., consisted of tflatarea bounded by Cache Creek, 100 Mile House, Clearwater Station,and Kamloops.—5-It was selected because of the high hunting pressure received,and also since it represented an area in which moose had beenpresent for twenty years. District II., consisted of that areabounded by Merritt, Spences Bridge, Cache Creek and Kamloops,It lies south and adjacent to District I. The second area waschosen for study since it represents newly colonized moose range.An outline map of these study areas appears in the appendix.METhUDS AND PROCEDURES I.II. Selection of Sample AreasThe unit of sampling was chosen as a stanctard highaltitude b.1.ock vertical aerial photograph. These photographsare obtainable from the Air Survey Division of the DepartrnentofLands and Forests of British Columbia. Accordingly, a letter wassent to the Air Survey Division, Surveys and Mapping Branch,Dept. of Lands and Forests, Victoria, B.C., requesting the‘Index to air photo cover and air photo index maps.’ The sampledistricts selected for this survey were located on Air PhotoIndex Maps 92P and 921.These index maps show the flight lines along which theaerial survey was flown and also the locations of the centresof the individual photographs comprising the flight strip series,.An aerial photograph is fully designated by both flightand photograph nunmer. Eg. B.C. 715:36 . The ‘B.C. 715’ beingthe flight number, the ‘36’ being the number of a specificphotograph in the flight series.-6-To facilitate the selection of a random sample of aerialphotos from the two sample districts, these districts were outlined on the air photo index maps and grided into two inchsquares. Each of the grid spaces was numbered. Using a stratifiectrandom method of sampling, twenty—five grid-areas were chosen inDistrict I., and fifteen grid—areas chosen in District II.Each of the chosen grid-areas was checked ana the aerialphotograph with its centre closest to the centre of the grid—areawas taken as the sample. Photographs lacking in definition,contrast, or possessing some other defect which obscured detailwere discarded and replacements selected by the same method asthe original samples.III. Interpretation of Aerial PhotographsInterpretation of aerial photographs is a specializedtechnique in photograinmetry. Few detailed studies are present incurrent literature that attempt to differentiate tree speciesfurther than to divide them into deciduates or conifers. Thefollowing passage is cited from Sisam, 191+7, and provides anintroduction to air photo interpretation. ttBroad vegetation typescan usually be recognized and delineated on air photogriphswithout difficulty. Differentiation is based on (1) variationsin tone and texture of the photograph with respect to thevegetation itself and to related soil and topographic conditions,(2) cnaraczeristic espacements and patterns (outline and shadow)of associations an inctivictuai. tree crowns, (3) position withrespect to features in the landscape and to other vegetation.The degree of subdivision and the amount of detail that can beobtained with respect to vegetation wiJJ. depend upon a number offactors, the most important being scale and quality of photographs, sharpness of boundary and height variation between subtypes, phenologicai. anct weather conaitions at the time thephotographs are taken, topographic conditions, to the extentwhich the photographs have been correlated with ground conditions,and the experience of the person making the interpretation.”*0 0 0IFig. 1.-i Aerial photograph showing cover types.(ixplanation of symbols oz page facing)IPçX_______________jExplanation of Symbols Used in Figure 1.-i1 Lodgepole pine—older burnForest Type I.2 Lodgepole pine—matureForest Type V.3 AspenForest Type VII.Douglas fir—].odgepole pineForest Type IV.5 Grassland(containing clumps predominantly aspen)6 Swamp meadow(mostly covered with shrubby growth,probably Salix or Betula spp.)7 Cultivated land(including home sites, woodlot s, pastureand hay land)8 Lake areasdcoqdui’ectd—oia24IP H.C. Ryker, 1933, working rrom similar principles, was ableto derive criteria by which two forest tree species could beidentified. Although the work originated in California,conditions of the B.C. interior are sufficiently similar to makehis criteria applicable in this more northern area.Since Ryker was concerned with the attributes of individualtree species, he asked this question, “What peculiarities of theliving tree-crown will affect its appearance in the photograph asto make its species identifiable?” He derivea. the followinganswer to his question.“1. The physical appearance of tne living t.tee—crown is afunction of its species and depends upon the followingcharacteistics: Cl) height of tree, (2) color offoliage, (3)shape, size and distribution of leaves, ç+), size and distribution of branches.“II. The photographic appearance of the corresponding treeimages is a function of its physical appearance (I.above) and is resolvable into components: (1) MonotoneHcolorii or snading of the crown image (2) shape of crown,Applying these principles he established criteria for theidentification of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponuerosa), and Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia):—II Ponderosa pinePhotographic Appearance—when at picture centre or on thesunny half the crown appears light grey, resembling thesugar pine, its foliage does not as easily permit lightpenetration, hence wnen observed against the light itsimages appear noticeably ctarIer. The halo is broad andirregular, merging gradually into a darker core. Theentire crown seems tenuous, The shape is columnar andnarrower than the sugar pine; also on an average, not sotall. The top is usually blunt, irregular, or with atufted appearance.Indiviaual branches cannot bedistinguished. 11—8—Douglas firPhotographic Appearance—when at picture centre or onthe sunny hair the shading of fir crowns is distinctlydarker than tntt ox the other types. The crowns appeardense anu solid. The conical, regularly taperingsharply pointed tops are characteristic, when observedagainst the light less mature trees appear quite dense,Generally it is the only species ol’ the group witn aconsistently dark crown. For this reason areasprectominantly fir are instantly perceivable in thephotographs. Old trees, especially when growing onhigher ground where pines predominate often have unevenscraggy heads which uncter the stereoscope resembleyellow pine. “Initially, aerial photographs whose cover types had beenprevious’y ictentified by extensive ground checking were studied.with the use of a stereoscope. The principles stated. by Sisamand Ryker were applied and criteria for the identification ofthe remaining forest types formulated. Air photographs fromother known areas were studied until confidence in the criteriawas established.Criteria Used to Identify Tree Species From Aerial PhotographsSpruce (Picea engelmanni) — Mature treesPhotographic Appearance:— when at picture centre the crownappears dar.kt grey. When observed against the light the crownappears much dar1er and approaches black in coiour due to thedense groith form of its branches. The halo is narrow regularana very dense, When viewect ooliquely, as at the edge or thephotograph, the entire crown is narrow and sharply pointed.This species is next to Douglas fir in darkness of tone, beinglighter than fir but darker than lodgepole pine with which itis usually associated. A topographic check is the moist sitesthis species occupies such as stream edges and perimeters ofswamp meadows.Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta yar. latifolia) - Mature treesphotographic Appearance:— when at picture centre the crownappears bluntly conical with an irregular halo of varying greytone. The halo is frequently more dense at the centre and at theouter edges than those regions immediately distal to the centre,due to needle density and needle arrangement on the branches.The semi-open character of mature stands of this species permitsthe aspen with which it is associated to also be distinguished.The association of aspen and the relative height of the coniferaid in the identification of mature stands of lodgepole pine.Lodgepole pine - Immature treesPhotographic Appearance:- when observed at picture centre thecrown appears light grey in colour and bluntly conical. In densepure stands, which themselves are characteristic, individualcrown shapes are lost and a very homogeneous tufted patternresults. Uniformity of stand texture and height of tree are alsodiagnostic.Aspen (Populus tremuloides)Photographic Appearance:— when at picture centre the crownsappear white in tone, bushy, frequently hemi-spherical, with anirregular halo. The white tone is the result of the lightcoloured autumn foliage of this species. At other seasons thetone is a darker grey so that the crowns are more diagnostic.The suimner tone of aspen is particularly distinct and readilydiscerned. When viewed at the edge of the photograph, in winteror autumn, the crowns blend into an irregularly shaped, bushywhite mass.-10-Criteria Used to Identify Non—forest TypesSwamp meadowPhotographic Appearance:— a low-growing light grey to white tonedarea, usually of heterogeneous texture due to the relativecoverage of grass and sedge to shrubby species. The lighter thetone the more grass and sedge is present. When shrubby speciessuch as lowland Salix or Betula encroach upon the meadow, itappears mottled in texture due to the inclusion of these darkerappearing species.Cultivated hay meadowPhotographic Appearance:— as for swamp meadow except that thistype is dominantly grass and sedge, the shrubby species beingrestricted to the meadow edges or moister regions. Close scrutinymay reveal meadows upon which mowing, raking or stooking is inprogress. A mower cut appears as a meadow area with a white-tonedborder of varying size depending on the extent of the cut. Rakedhay appears as fine white lines upon a light grey background ofstubble. Stooked hay appears as small white dots and hay stacksas white rectangular areas upon the stubble background, Thepresence of fences or stack yard corrals is also indicative of acultivated meadow.Cultivated land (crop, pasture or woodlot pasture)Photographic Appearance:— these areas while variable in tone andtexture are recognizable by their straight line boundary fences.Farmyards or roads are usually in close proximity. Generally,the cultivated areas are light in tone.—11-.Lakes and potholesPhotographic Appearance: texture is finely homogeneous, tonevaries with depth, the angle and intensity of the reflection ofthe sun, and the concentration of alkalie inclusion. Shallowareas appear lighter toned than the more deep areas. The angleof the sun, and the amount of reflection when the photograph wastaken, as well as wave effects, may cause a normal dark tonedfresh water lake to appear very similar to an alkali pond ofwhite tone.Criteria Used to Identify Forest TypesOnce individual species comprising a forest type arerecognizable as distinct units, the type identification becomesan expression of the dominant species present within the typearea. Thus a mixed stand containing loctgepole pine and aspen, inwhich the pine is dominant, is termed the lodgepole pine—aspenforest type. While individual species identification is basic,further criteria such as sharpness of boundary and heightvariation between sub-types aid in forest type identification.The functions of tone and texture remain most useful in foresttype identification, particularly when the type limits must beestablished.Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia)This species is dominant in three associations of the southCariboo forests. Douglas fir occurs in pure stands, in associ—ation with lodgepole pine, and in association with ponderosapine. Pure stands are most easily identifiable since only theone tree species should be recognizable.P The criteria for identification of this species apply equally tothe type identification. Douglas fir in association withponderosa pine is easily recognizable from the characteristiclocation of the pine on arid valley slopes of the southerninterior, and the pines’ extreme openness of stand. It onlyremains to identify these open stands as ponderosa pine. TheDouglas fir will be identifiable by its specific criteria on thehigher slopes. A search of the more open regions at the higherelevations of the stand will usually result in both species beingfound. Douglas fir-lodgepole pine forests are first located bythe presence of D. fir trees. Two characteristics of thisassociation are apparent, the tone of the pine and theimmistakeab.Le aspen’s whiteness, The resultant heterogeneity aidsin the type identification. Specific identification of maturelodgepole pine trees follows, in the northern regions of thestudy district D. fir is near.Ly always restricted to ridges andso provides a topographic check.LodgepoJ.e pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia)Pure stands ot this species are restricted to the denseimmature forests which result on relatively dry rocky sitesfollowing removal of the previous forest by fire. These immaturestands present a fine textured, homogeneous appearing forest ofuniform height. A closed canopy exists so that the small numberof aspen trees present in the association are not visible in thephotograph. The uniformity of stand is diagnostic and permitsaccurate deljmination of this type on aerial photographs.-13-Locigepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) — recent burnsNewlyburned areas appear light in tone, ranging from nearwhite where much aspen is associated with the pine, to a lightgrey. The borders of burned areas are always sharply delimitedon the photographs and aid in identification of the type, Crondetail is not sufficiently developed in young trees to permitthe application of the criteria previously stated for thisspecies. An identification of lodgepole pine from relict treesin or near the burned area is considered sufficient proof due tothe known sequence of plant succession.IV. Cover Type MappingEach sample photograph was studied under the stereoscopeuntil the various forest and other cover types had beenidentified, The boundaries of these types were outlined on thephoto in red waterproof india ink and the areas so formed werenumbered for type identification. The area of each cover typewas then measured by means of a compensating polar planimeter,This instrument makes it possible to directly measure irregularly shaped plane figures such as those encountered when the foresttypes were outlined on the aerial photographs.To obtain the areas of each type on a sample photograph thefollowing technique is employed. The needle indicator of theplanimeter is held in the fingers and traced around theperimeter of the area to be measured without moving the weightedcylinder which acts as the centre about which the instrumentrotates.When the correct setting is established, a reading of thecalibrated cylinder is taken and recorded0 Then, the area’sperimeter is traced in a clockwise direction until the needleindicator has been returned to its starting point, and a secondreading taken. The difference between the readings is taken andrecorded as the unit measurement for that area. When all thedistinct areas have been measured, the planimeter readings aresummed. Their total is compared with the reading obtained bytracing the perimeter of the entire aerial photograph, Smalldiscrepancies are corrected by adjusting all values with acorrection factor. If the error exceeds one—tenth of a squaremile, the individual readings should be checked, The finalconversion from measured units to actual square miles isaccomplished by drawing out a square mile to the same scale asthe air photograph, and then measuring it with the planimeter.In this manner the number of planimeter units equivalent to asquare mile is obtained.The areas of the forest and other cover types in each of thesample Districts may be found in summarized form on pagefifteen, (Table I.). During the field work corrections and otherdifferences resulting from changes in type, or type area throughlogging, cultivation, or fire since the photographs were takenin l9÷8, were noted and indicated on the aerial photographs.TA3LE I.The Relative Extent of Forest and Other Cover Types in theKamloops North (I), and Kamloops South (II), DistrictsNo. sq. ml, No. sq. ml,Cover—type of cover type ezpressed as ofsample area.Areal II Areal IILodgepole pine—burns 32.08 72.01 8.61 3+.52Ponderosa pine—Douglas fir 29.66 +8,59 7.96 23,29Douglas fir—Lodgepole pine 86.02 / 23.09 /Lodgepole pine—mature l+3,52 35.17 38.52 16.86Douglas fir—logged. 28,+2 21,03 7,62 10,08Aspen—mature & parkiand 3.83 0.72 1.02Grassland19.28 17.80 5.17 8.53Swamp meadow 7.18 2.57 1.93Cultivated land 6,81 7.70 1.83 3.70Lakes & potholes 17,70 3.01 ,75V. Location of Air Photo Sample Plots on Base NapsSince the air photo index maps are small scale and poor inrelief features, the photo sample areas were remapped ontolarger scale contour maps to facilitate location of the studyareas from the ground. The east half of District II,,was plottedonto two base maps, 92 I , and 92 I , being the Merritt, andS.E. N.E.Kamloops Lake sheets of the Dept. of Nines and Technical Surveys,Surveys and Napping Branch. These maps are scaled at two milesto one inch and have one hundred foot contour intervals, Thewest half of District II., was traced onto copies of the B.C.Forest Service’s air photo base maps, notably, 92 I Highland11Valley region, 92 I and 92 I , west and east regions of6 7District II, south from the 50 30’ N. latitude, These last threemaps are Air Photo Base Naps compiled by the Air Survey Division,Surveys and Napping Branch, Victoria, B.C. Scale of one halfmile equals one inch,No single map was found adequate for District I. For generalreference, map sheet 92 N.E. of the Mines and Technicl Surveysseries, scale eight miles to one inch was utilized, Many errorsin relief and road location were present in this map so that itwas frequently discarded in favour of the East Lillooet andNorth Thompson pre...emption map sheets of scale two miles to oneinch and one hundred foot contour intervals,Comparison of aerial photo characteristics such as lakes androads, with similar features on the contour maps made itF possible to delimit the photo areas onto the base maps, Thisdone, the best means of ground access could be planned.-l71THODS AND PROCEDURES II.VI. Field Techniques — Statement of Objects(i)-to check identifications of forest types made bystereoscope(ii)—to check type boundaries(iii)—to obtain quantitative measurements of the floralcomposition of each forest type(iv)-to obtain quantitative measurement of the densityof moose browse species in each type(v)-to estimate the amount of available browse and itsdegree of utilization in each type(vi)to establish permanent plots so that successiveevaluations of floral composition and degree ofbrowsing in each type may be determinedVII. Field Technique —DetailWith the aid of the base map, the sample area wasapproached as closely as possible by road or trail. Then, bycomparing road positions, mountains, lake shapes and sizes,streams or small meadows found on the ground, with similarrelief on the air photos and on the base maps, it was usuallypossible to positively identify the study area locations andfind ones own position in them with accuracy.Each photo area was traversed in order to identify eachcover type and check its classification and extent with theearlier identification derived from the aerial photograph beforeentering the field.In major forest types, transects were located by thefollowing method. A tree was characteristically blazed with aletter ‘II’, and a twelve inch steel spike with a numbered tagattached, was driven into the ground nearby.A compass bearing was then taken from the stake in a directionconsidered representative of the ground cover of the type, Fromthe stake, a one hundred foot tape was run out, and the line-interception (Canfield, 1941, Horniay, 1949), method of browseinventory carried out, All plant species comprising the groundcover and shrubby overstorey were measured linearly in tenths ofa foot, Level of the tape varied slightly, but an attempt wasmade to standardize at the one foot level. Transects wereextended until the resultant plant density values did notmaterially change with further measurement, Trees standingwithin one foot on either side of the tape were tallied byspecies and D.B.H. (diameter breast height) classes. Shrubs andother browsed species were assessed for two important variables,amount o± available food, and degree of utilization of this food.The problems involved in the determination of the quantitiesof available and utilized moose browse are consicierable, Thenumber or variables affecting these determinations, and theirresolution, is beyond the scope or tflis study, Existing methodsof estimation do, however, provide useful management data,Browse availability was considered of three types, thatunavailable, that partially available, and that totallyavailable, Unavailable browse was the classification given whenthe species in question were (a) taller than twelve feet inheight or greater in diameter than four inches, with thebrowsable portions carried above this height; (b) species whosefoliage was shade killed below the twelve foot level,l9-The partially available browse classification included mostspecies, and required that some portion of the plant’s foliagebe within reach of the animal. The third type comprised totallyavailable browse. The conventions of height and diameter wereapplied to all three types. Included in the partially availablebrowse category are those cases in which availability has beenreduced due to past browsing, or where partial fire kill is inevidence, Even in classes as general as these, some criticismcan be raised. Seasonal changes in both the plant and theenvironment may be cited which present doubtful classifications.For example it is not possible to predict and thereby assesssuch winter variables as plant exposure, snow depth, snow crust,time of snowfall, drifting snow conditions, or leaf and twigdrop, which affect availability.The degree of browse utilization presents an even moredifficult problem. Numerous methods have been proposed and fieldtested. None are entirely satisfactory and many imply a degreeof accuracy not inherent in the method. In others the timeconsumed outweighs the value of the data obtained. Twig ratiocounts, plot clipping with air dry weights of forage, andcomparison of utilized species to standard or normally utilizedspecies are among the techniques in practice today. (Schwan andSwift, l9-fl, Cowan, Hoar, Hatter, 1950, Dasmann, 1951).Utilization, like availability while defying complete resolution,can be practically assessed withan ever increasing degree ofaccuracy as research continues.The method employed in this study is derived from the work ofBiologists P.W. Martin, and L.G. Sugden of the B.C. GameCommission. (Report of the B.C. Game Commission, 1953), In thiswork, five categories of browsing intensity or degree ofutilization are recognized. Quantitatively stated they are:‘ Severe or Excessive , . , , an excess of 80% of theprevious years twigs have been removedHeavy . . .. . . . . . . .80——60%Moderate ,........6o—+O%Light . , . . . . . . . . +0—l0%Trace . . . . . . . . . . . 10% to zero browsingThese categories may soon be rapidly and accurately determinedvisually by a practiced observer. P.W. Martin has reported(Report of the B.C. Game Commission, 195k), that thesecategories yield sufficiently accurate data to indicate yearlychanges in browsing intensity on interior moose ranges. Thosespecies upon which browsing was noted were rated in accordancewith these categories.The density o.f tree species comprising the various types wasnot especially measured, other than by means of the lihe-interception transects, except in a few typical locations wheretrees were tallied as to number and D,B.H. measurement, Accuratedata on tree densities has been compiled by the B.C. ForestService, through both the use of aerial photographs andextensive ground cruising.Records of the field data obtained in this study areavailable both at the University of B.C., and at the B.C. GameCommission office, 567 Burrard St., Vancouver, B.C.—21—VIII. Discussion of those Forest Associations of SouthernBritish Columbia which Constitute Moose Winter RangeThe major forest associations of British Columbia have beenadequately described by several researchers, (Halliday, 1937,Munro and Cowan, l9+7). However, the seral stages have receivedfar less attention, particularly when the quantitativemeasurement of their floral composition is considered. Atpresent, these seral stages will be described solely for thepurpose of identifying and interpreting their significance inplant succession. The two associations most frequentlyencountered during the study will first be considered.Montane ForestTwo trees, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga taxifolia) are the climax dominant species of theassociation. The forest is open in character and in the lowerarid slopes of the interior valleys it approaches a savannah,Typically, ponderosa pine is found in pure stands on the lowerslopes where it forms a park-like forest. The shrub cover islargely big sage (Artemisia tridentata), where grazing has beenextensive. Where less grazing has occurred the dominant grassspecies, Bluebunch wheat grass (Agropyron spicatuin), June grass(Koeleria cristata), and red fescue (Festuca rubra) are present.Doiny brome (Bromus teetorum), a weedy annual, occurs when thenative grasses are over utilized. Shrub species includeSheperdia canadensis and Rosa. Pine grass is the most commonherb, (Calamagrostis rubescens), while Carex, Arnica, Aster,Astragulus and Lathyrus spp. are also important.—22—The altitudinal limit of the ponderosa pine forest has beenestablished at 1500-2500’, extending to 3000’ on southernexposures C Canada, Dept. ot the Interior, Forest Service, 1935)and at 3200 to 350W, again on south and west facing sites, bySpilsbury and Tisdale, l9>-t4. While several species of willow(Salix), are present in the ponderosa pine zone, they do notoccur in high density, and their unsheltered sites are notconducive to a high degree ol utilization by moose.As the ponaerosa pine zone is limited altitudinaily in theinterior valleys, it soon merges with the Douglas fir stands ofthe higher regions of the Montane forest. The ecotone so formedis extensive (Tisdale et al, l95), and may exceed the pine zonein area. Altitudinally, the composition of the ecotone changestowards the dominance of Douglas fir, finally to the exclusionof ponderosa pine at the 35001 level. Beyond this, the 0. firforest extends upwards to the 000’ level where it merges toform an ecotone with the Sub-alpine forest.While the grasses of the ponderosa pine zone occur inreduced density in the 0. fir forest, they are largelyrestricted to the more arid sites, since pine grass and otherherbaceous species have achieved dominance under the moregenerally prevailing humid conditions.Tree cover of the Douglas fir region is largely dominatedby the climax fir, but spruce (Picea occurs alongstreams and in moist draws while aspen is commonly found in theI more open regions. Characteristically, the zone is open andrich in herbaceous as well as shrubby species.—23.-Vetch (Vicia), peavine (Lathyrus), aster (Aster), wild rose(Rosa), and lupine (Lupinus) are common. Upland willow, a highlypreferred moose food, reaches high densities in this forest type.The effects of forest fires are significant in that they createdense dense stands of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, or aspendepending primarily upon site. These effects will be discussedin the section on seral stages.Sub.-alpine ForestThe second forest association noteworthy for this study isthe Sub-alpine, which is the highest altitudinally, and islargely discontinuous as a type, being restricted to the higherridges and mountain tops of the interior plateaux. Spruce(Picea engelmanni), and alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), are thedominant tree species. Tree cover is dense with little browsefood produced except in openings due to burns or meadows. Mossesand lichens together with dwarf shrubs comprise the ground cover.Bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), and falsebox (Pachystimaites), are characteristic of the sub—alpine zone(Spilsbury and Tisdale, 191+)+).Seral StagesSeral stages in the development of the larger forestassociations previously ccxnsidered, are particularly importantas moose habitat, for it is in these stages of forest that thehighest densities of preferred moose browse are developed. Theextent of seral forests in B.C. is considerable, and largelythe result of early forest fires. (Howey, l9l+).Since the ponderosa pine is endowed with a fire—resistantbark, many stands have persisted through fires which would havekilled less tolerant species. In spite of this protection largeareas of this forest have been burned. Usually, however, somerelict trees persist to provide the observer with the knowledgethat the species was formerly present in the area. Frequentlythe close admixture with D. fir causes this latter species tobecome dominant on sites where ponderosa pine was originallyclimax, A common type is the lower region of the Montane forest,where both ponderosa pine and Douglas fir occur, and have beenburned. Dense young stands of D. fir result on the deeper soilswith the more arid sites being occupied with ponderosa pine.Ground cover is sparse and remains so for a relatively longperiod of time since shade killing by the Douglas thickets ispronounced. Little desirable browse is produced by the type.Seral Stages —Upper Montane —Douglas fir forestThe Douglas fir forest particularly, has been modified ythe agency of fire to produce many seral stages. The mostimportant of these in the study of moose habitat are thelodgepole pine communities. Lodgepole pine owes much to theability of its seed to survive fires with the result thatseedling growth is quick to regenerate on a burnt over area.That lodgepole pine seeds are already present in the burnt duffand so do not have to be transported onto the site, gives theman advantage in getting established, whereas the seeds of otherspecies have been fire killed so that their new seed must comefrom other sources.r.a25..Isaac and Hopkins, 1937, have established some pertinent factswhich may well explain the phenomenon of lodgepole pinesuccession in the Douglas fir type on the basis of the newlycreated physical and chemical situation in the forest soilfollowing a fire. These researchers state that eighty—ninepercent of the organic matter present in the duff is lost. Intheir analysis of the duff they found:- “ Duff in a Douglas firforest is 1.5 inches thick on the average. This gins about 32tons of duff per acre, composed of 28 tons of organic matter.Within this organic matter:- 591j lbs. Nitrogen, 76 lbs.Phosphorus, 555 lbs. Calcium and 121 lbs. Potassium. “ Otherimportant points in their suiary include:- “ There is an escapeof h35 lbs. of nitrogen per acre in smoke loss. More nutrientsare made available in soluble form. This resulted fromdeposition at the surface, in highly soluble form, of a part ofthe nutrients present in the duff, which in the absence of firewould probably have become available gradually over a longperiod of years. Serious subsequent losses by leaching appearprobable. Loss of mineral nutrients in the duff in th form ofsmoke is considerable. There is a reduction of the moistureholding capacity.” (Isaac and Hopkins, 1937) • Most apparent inthese statements is the fact that large amounts of plantnutrients are being lost as a result of fire. The net result isan impoverished soil with a reduced moisture holdtvag capacity—conditions more favourable to pine than Douglas fir.I—26—The fact that previously unavailable quantities of nutrients aremade soluble, may partially explain the vigourous growth ofshrubs such as upland Salix following a fire.When Douglas fir forest is burned and lodgepole pine assumesdominance, the transition is both abrupt and quick to appear.Even on arid, rocky sites, lodgepole pine is quick to establisha dense cover of young seedlings. Initially, litter values arehigh, but rapidly pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens),kinickinik (Arctostaphylos spp.), and rose (Rosa app.),recolonize the ground. Accompanying this increase in groundcover, the shrubby layer is soon developed and flourishes toproduce large quantities of moose browse. Upland willow (Salix),is especially prolific together with aspen (Populus tremuloides),alder (Alnus tenuifolia), and red osier dogwood (Cornusstolonifera), in tne moist sites, Soopolallie (Sheperdiacanadensis), is always present in high density, but is not apreferred browse species. The lodgepole pine burns so formedconstitute a basic habitat type of high food productivity, andare heaviiy utilized by moose. Due to the rapidity or successionthese burns do not remain productive for many years since thepines soon grow to form a closed canopy so dense that the groundand shrub layers are shaded out, When the lodgepole pine hasattained a diameter of from one to two inches, the foodproduction of the type is extremely low with ground coverlargely consisting of pine needles, kinickinik or rose and theoccasional willow or aspen shrub being found in openings towhich the light penetrates.27This stage persists for several years until the trees reach adiameter of from four to six inches, when the canopy againopens, due to many of the pines themselves being crowded out incompetition for adequate nutrients or shade killed, Again, theground cover, herb and shrub layers are re-established andproductivity is again increased, When the lodgepole pine forestis mature the ground and shrub layers are sufficiently developedso that the type is quite productive and supplies fair quantitiesof moose browse. Browsing is usually intense in the maturelodgepole pine forests, probably due to the superior cover(shelter) that the type produces. If the lodgepole pine forestis sufficiently open, and an adequate supply of seed trees arepresent, the Douglas fir forest may again be established, Athigher elevations the succession is sometimes directly to spruce(Picea engelmanni),Another type of seral community formed by fire in theDouglas fir association is the aspen type. This is developed onmore moist sites than the lodgepole pine community and producesa much richer ground flora of grasses and herbs, Frequentlyother deciduous shrubs such as swamp willow (Salix spp,), redosier dogwood (Cornus .stolonifera), and mountain alder (Alnustenuifolia), are present. Again, browsing is heavy in mostlocations so that. the younger seedlings and the more palatableshrubs are commonly broomed. Breakage of the smaller aspens, torender the terminal shoots available for browsing, is frequentlyseen in the sheltered draws,—28Ground cover commonly consists of pine grass (Calamagrostisrubescens), lupine (Lipinus !), aster (4ster peavine(us!), wild strawberry spp.), geranium(Geraniu, viscosissimum), fireweed (Epilobium spp,), timber milkvetch (alus spp.), and rose (RosaTwo main types of aspen forest may be established as theresult of fire burning off a Douglas fir forest, One, the aspenparkiands type, only develops in scattered groves on sites wheresufficient moisture is available, and when the surrounding landis generally toa arid for forest so that grassland results, Thistype soon develops a closed canopy due to the restricted habitatand resultant proximity of trees, Consequently little browse isproduced. Swamp willow (Salix 5ppo) is commonly present but inlow density. These aspen groves receive considerable browsingand grazing by domestic livestock. The other aspen type resultingfrom fire in a Douglas fir forest is round along streams and inmarshy draws where it develops linear stands which do not form aclosed canopy so quickly as the parklands type, hence theproduction of available browse is more enduring.nother seral stage present in the Douglas fir forest isthat type produced by logging. Current forest management practicein the south Cariboo is resulting in greatly increased cutting ofmature stands of Douglas fir, Selective logging of the largertrees, usually with bulldozers, is the technique employed. Slashdisposal is not required by law so little burning is done,—29—The result is an open stand of Douglas fir in which a few of theover mature and less merchantable timber remain, together withthe immature second growth fir. The breakage of willow and aspenrootstocks caused by the skidding of logs by bulldozers,stimulates succor growth in these species. A significantincrease in the density of these preferred browse foods is notedwith an accompanying increase in the carrying capacity of theforest type. Due to the remaining mature trees, seedling growthof Douglas fir is rapid, with dense thickets being formec. in afew years. The productivity of browse is not greatly affecteduntil the D. fir seedlings have spread out into a closed canopy,second growth stand. In some cases this may never develop due totopographic or edaphic conditions. More frequently, however, thethickets of seedling trees will be produced, so that thebrowse productivity of the type is reduced to a very low level.Ultimately the forest will thin itself and the density ofpalatable shrubs will reach former levels.Still another seral type is the mixed forest resulting fromthe burning of Douglas fir stands is one which has lodgepolepine(Pinus contorta var. latifolia), and aspen (Populustremuloides), together with spruce (Picea engelmanni). Thistype represents a more mature successional stage than the onespreviously described. On these sites, the removal of the D. firhas been very nearly complete. Lodgepole pine is the mostcommon dominant, but interspersed clumps of aspen and spruceare common, and may on some sites achieve local dominance.The presence of spruce in quantity is the result of the maturespruce escaping the fire due to their location on moist sites,Rapid establishment of spruce seedlings on the burnt over common. The stand often forms a semi—open canopy so thatshrubby growth is not noticeably decreased except in the denserthickets. This type is extensive in the Cariboo and is one of themost utilized winter habitats of moose. Mature spruce thicketsare present and provide excellent cover, while the mixedcharacter of the lod.gepole pines—aspen forest provides theinterspersion necessary to produce a good variety of food plants,enabling moose to browse this type throughout the entire winter,Where this type includes numerous swamp meadows and an adjacentstand of mature Douglas fir, the habitat may be considered ideal,The ecotone between the Montane and Sub—alpine forests isalso a seral type. The stands are dense and indicate greatlyreduced browse availability, compared to other forests. A mossand lichen flora usually replaces the grass and herb floracommon to the D. fir zone. Often a single species such asbunchberry (Cornus canadensis), will dominate the ground cover.Tree form was modified towards the alpine, with shorter, moreupright branches and smaller trunks evident. Many of the smallertrees were shade killed or crowded out due to stand denseness,The shrubs, such as upland willow, were also found shade killedor largely unavailable to moose as a result of their highergrowth as a response to reach adequate light. Actual density ofthe shrub species was low and browsing of the available forageof these shrubs was severe.IX. Treatment of Data.Data were obtained from sixty-four permanent plots locatedin seven forest types, Sampling was by the line—interceptiontransect method, twelve thousand feet of which was measured intenths of a foot and summarized from the field note books to: besubsequently listed on ‘transect data sheets’, one for eachsample plot.Two major bodies of data were obtained from the transects.Ground cover, expressed as percent, being the larger; shrubcover similarly expressed, was generally less prevalent andcomposed the second set of data. The relationships betweenground and shrub cover make these data inter-dependent.The transect data sheets list the plant species foundpresent on each transect together with the percentage of theground cover which the species occupied. For the shrub layer,which is more important as a source of moose browse,quantitative indicies for the amount of available browse and itsdegree of utilization appear. These indicies represent asimplification of these two variables, the reasons for whichhave been previously stated. (pp.l8—2O). The indicies used inthe summary of shrub cover are:-Availability . • . total . . 100partial . 50nil.,. 0Utilization . , .trace. . , . . . , , 5light . . . . . . . . 25moderate. . . . . . , 50severe or excessive . 90The utilization indicies are merely the mean values of theamounts of the previous years twigs that have been removed bybrowsing0 (One category, “excessive”, was substituted for boththe heavy and excessive classes of Martin, Annual Report of theB.C. Game Commission, 1951÷.) For example, individual willowshrubs were included in the moderate’ classification if 1÷0 to6O of the previous year’s twigs were found browsed in the field,while for summary on the transect data sheets, all moderatelybrowsed shrubs were indexed at 50.Initially the transect data were summarized by plant speciesshowing their density of occurrence and proportions of thisdensity receiving the four different degrees of utilization forthe two large sample districts. District I., being the Kamloopsnorth, and District II., the Kamloops south region, bothpreviously described. (pp.1÷-.5), These data may be found inTable II,, pages 3638. They were not corrected for the factthat more transects were located in the northern district sothat the crude density values cannot be directly compared.Modification of these data to transform the crude densities topercentage of the sample cover, permits comparison of therelative amounts of each species present in each of the twosample districts, In compiling these data, only the so called‘shrub’ layer measurements were used, i.e., those measurementsmade above the tape during line-interception transecting.A general perspective of shrub density and its utilizationresults.-.33—Each of the line-interception transects was checked todetermine which forest type it represented. Division of thetransects in this manner resulted in the formation of sevenforest types. Each of the forest types was found to berepresented by a different number of transects. The apparenttypes were:- lodgepole pine burns, ponderosa pine—Douglas fir,Douglas fir—lodgepole pine, mature lodgepole pine, loggedDouglas fir, and aspen forests, Inspection of the ground coverof the lodgepole pine burn type lead to its division into olderand younger types. That further transition and sub—types existedin these data was evident from the amount of variation in therecorcLed cover densities.Ground cover was next considered. Tables III,—. VIII,,(pp. 4.5-63.), list the plant species comprising the groundcover, by transects, in each of the seven forest types.(Table III. lists both the lodgepole pine burn types). In thesetables, the occurring densities for each species were summarizedfor all transects and listed under the heading ‘total density’.The total density values were then expressed as ‘percent ofsample ground cover’. As comparison of ground cover density fromone forest type to another is difficult, Table IX., provides asummary of the relative ground cover densities of the plantspecies encountered in transecting the seven forest types,(pp. 6)+—67). Detailed percentages, sufficient to distinguishsome of the forest types were obtained.ILIAShrub cover, again meaning the upper portions of thetransects, was now analysed in detail. Tables X. to XVI.,(pp.7-i-.-85), list plant species, their density, amount ofavailable browse, and degree of utilization of available browse.In calculating the percentage of available browse utilizeci. toany of the indicated degrees, i.e., trace, light, etc.,quantities of unavailable browse were first subtracted from thetotal density recorded for the species. A comparison of therelative densities of shrub species in each of the forest typeswas attempted on the basis of their ‘percent of sample’ values.Percentage of sample was not found to be a representative indexsince the number of plant species, particularly in the case ofsmall samples, resulted in atypical modification of the densityvalues.Since a truly representative series of densities wasessential for the evaluation of the relative amounts of browsespecies within the forest types, it was decided to combine therecorded density values from both the ‘ground’ and ‘shrub’sections of the transects for those species most commonlyappearing in the ‘shrub’ section. It was felt that distinctionof the forest types on the basis of the purely ground-occurringspecies was valid, but that those plant species which wereencountered both below and above the tape should be consideredon their total density, as division would be artificial andunreal,9 Accordingly, Table XVII., (pp.86—87.), lists the most commonlyoccurring plant species of the Eshrubt layer with density valuesrepresenting the total measured occurrence of each species.Also, since the number of transects in each forest type varied,the recorded density values were corrected accordingly. Both theorder (relative density), and the actual recorded density valuesare of use in distinguishing between the forest types.As a further aid for distinguishing between the forest types,the degree of severe browsing was tabled for a few of the morefrequently occurring plant species which received this degree ofuse. Table XVIII., (p.96), is the result. The degrees of usagefor all species are shown in Tables X. to XVI.OBSERVATIONS ,X. Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the Northern District (I),and the Southern District (II).Upland willow (Salix spp.)Excessive browsing was found on 45.3% of this species in theNorthern District, while in the Southern District 63.8% of thisspecies encountered on transects was excessively browsed, Takingmoderate and excessive utilization to include that proportion ofthe species receiving at least the desired maximal degree ofuse, or greater, Area I indicates 78.3% and Area II 73.7 of thewillow to be utilized to this extent. In Area II, 26.3% of thisspecies is receiving light use, while 21.7% of the upland willowin Area I is similarly browsed. It is not surprising to find thehigher degree of utilization in Area II since upland willow wasfound to be considerably less common here than in Area I.(relative densities 71.0, Area I, 39.2, Area II.)—36—TABLE IIA Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the Northern District (I)and the Southern District (II) Data From Line—Intercept TransectsPlant Area Degree of UtilizationSpecies 0 5 25 50 90Upland willow I 0.0 3.6 11.8 23.-f 32.2 71.0 D.(Salix spp.)—.j. 16.6 33.0 +5.3II 0.0 0.2 10,1 3.9 25,0 39,2 D.—0.5 25.8 9.9 63,8Aspen I 0.’+ 15.2 0.5 2.9 10.b 29.6 D.(Populus— 52.0 1.7 9.9 36.’+tremuloides) 8.i 15.8 0.0 12.3 6,1+ ‘+2,6 1).—‘+5.8— 35.6 18.6Soopolailie I — ‘+5.6 0.9 28.5 8.3 83.3 D.(Sheperdia— 5’+,8 1,2 3’+.3 9.7canadensis) ii — 31.9— 9.7 10.1+ 52.0 D.61.3 — 18.6 20.0Douglas fir I 2.1 85.8 0,1+ 23.8 18.2 130.3 D.(Pseudotsuga— 66,9 0.3 18.5 1’+,2taxifolia) II 58.3 216.6 0.5 23.7 6.5 305.6 D.— 87.6 0.2 9.6 2.6Lodgepole pine I 19.7 63,6 0.0 9.3 6.1 98.7 D.(Pinus contorta 80.5 — 11.8 7,7var. latifolia) 77.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.7 D.— 100.0 — —Ponderosa pine I 2.0 1’+,3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 D.(Pinus ponderosa) 100.0II 18.2 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 D.-100.0 — - —Mt. Alder I 0.0 11,3 7,0 5.3 0.0 23,6 0.(Alnus—‘+7.9 29.7 22.1+ —tenuifolia) 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.1+ 0.0 ‘+.5 D.— 2’+,5—75.5 —Tabled figures are the amounts of the plant species measured intenths of a foot from line-intercept transects. The figuresrepresent relative densities of each species in each of the twosample districts.0. is the total recorded density for the percent of sample at degree of utilization indicated.—3?—TABLE II (Contd)A Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the Northern District (I)and the Southern District (II) Data From Line—Intercept TransectsPlant Area Degree of UtilizationSpecies 0 5 25 50 90Juniper I — 18.8 — — — 18.8 D.(Juniperus- ioo.o — - -communis)(J. soopulorum) II — 10.2 - 10.2 D.— 100.0 — - -Rose I — 21+. 0.1 1.2 - 26.1 D.(Rosa spp.)—95.2 0.3 +,5 —II 9.+ 1.9 — 5,8 0.2 17.3 D.— 2+.0— 73.5 2.5Swamp willow I O.+ 1.3 — 0.8 1i-.6 7.1 D.(Salix spp,)—19,+— 11.9 68.7II — — — — — D.S — — —-Red osier — — —— 10.0 o.o o.(Cornus — 5 5 /0stolonifera) II l.k 1,L. D.S - -- 100.0Paper birch I 0.3 2.2 — 1.5 0.5 )+•5 D.(Betula - 52.5- 35,7 11.8papyrifera) II — D.S S - SMt. Maple I — — — — 8.3 8.3 D.(Acer glabrum) - - - - 100.0II - — - - - D.S -Spruce I — — 5 5 1.+ 0.(Picea 100.0 — 5 -engelmanni) II 15.6 — — 20,0 D.- 100.0 - —-Arctic birch I — — — — tr. D.(Betulaglandulosa) II - — - - tr. D.—38—TABLE II (Conttd)A Comparison of Shrub Cover Between the Northern District (I)and the Southern District (II) Data From Line—Intercept TransectsPlant Area Degree of UtilizationSpecies 0 5 25 50 90lpine fir I — 0.9 — — —(bieslasiocara) II — - — - —1estern chokecherry I — 0.7 — — —C Prunusrirginiana) II — — — —demissa)Bigsage I — — — — —(Artemisia)tridentata II — 2.3 — — —gildgooseberry I — 0.2 — —(Ribesdivaricatum) II — - - -Snowbrush I—3.9 - 0.9 0.2(Ceanothusvelutinus) II — 1.0 — - —Jeedy annuals I — 1.9 — 0.9 —(unidentified)II — — — — —ill figures listed on this page are density values.—39—The reduced quantity of willow available for browsing, combinedwith the population growth of moose in the southern area mustaccount for the high degree of utilization found.Aspen (Populus tremuloides)This species indicated that while 36. overbrowsingoccurred in the northern district, and only 18.6% in thesouthern district, combination of the moderate and excessivecategories C as done for upland willow above ), changes thesituation and it is found that Area I increases slightly to+6.3% and Area II increases considerably to Area IIindicates more complete use of this species than does Area I.With 52 of the aspen only lightly utilized in Area I, theranges cannot be overbrowsed with respect to this species,although the high excessive utilization figure indicates thatthe tendency towards more extensive overbrowsing of the speciesis probable.Soopolallie (Sheperdia canadensis)This species is not preferred by moose to any extent,although it is eaten on the less productive ranges. Area Ishowed 9,7% and Area II, 20.0% of the species receivingexcessive use, Area I indicates that Sheperdia spp. isbeginning to receive more use, exemplified by 3i-.3% moderateutilization against 18.6% on Area II. This brings the maximaluse or greater value 6% higher in Area I. Both areas indicatethat more than 50% of this species is only lightly browsed.L_4H‘-ci--Sc-P1))CDH.t-’Hoz>HBoDCHCD0CD‘-S>40CD‘‘-S“0‘-51-5>4d‘-‘4C)H.09C)ci-C)CDCDCoCDC)0C)CDCD‘.31.Ci)CX)0P’0CDCoCDCDC))9ci‘-SH‘-SC)c+C)‘-Sl—3CD0CD‘—4CoCOCOH’0’‘-5‘-‘3H0ctCDY’H.H)P5H.CDCOCDHH.P5CD‘-SCDP5CDP5CD0‘—4c-P‘4ci-H.CO0H.CooP.CDitY’1HCD‘.4H.H.CDO.4P51-5c-pto9-’C)C)CDH‘-‘3CDCoCDCD‘-SCD“CD09-CD‘-‘CDCl)0‘-50CDCD9’P5(0H.1-50‘-5CDCDH“d1-5P5ci-P5$C)k‘-siCo0SP5P5H.‘-5HH’.4c-I-0F\)H‘-SCDc-FCDCoP5Coci-CDci-CoCoHci-H-H.‘-5•HCDC)CDc-FP.’1-”BH.9’H.CD9’Y’0CDH.HHP.’0’—P5H.c-f-tS9.’ci-.4CDNH.“4H.CD•CDCoH.9.’H-H‘-‘4HCD—‘-iCOC)H.P5Cl)NP-iHtoCDci-toCDCDH.H-”rj0Cl)ci-H.PSH.HH.i0)iC9.’H.CD0H.COici-H.i>4•9.’HCO02Cs)•CDC)‘-SCnc’I’01rJH.C)P50H.dH.0c-FH’——.coc-FNCDci-0COCoCD9’•C)3’1-5Cfs‘-5CoP50“4‘—‘CDC)H.H.COCDCDH.H.”‘-SCDCoCD0ci-H.c’t’CDSCt01-5‘-‘4CDC12CDCOCDPSH.H0orH.CDCt‘.4oCi)0H’C)CDH.COH.PS‘4P5PSH.9’CDi‘-aPSci-HCDc-f-Co‘-5Co‘-5‘-50‘-‘41--sci-1-5>4C)1-5HI-iH.H.CtH.CDc-F1-SCD00P5c-F‘t4CDCDPSH•.49.’P5toHtoCT)CDPS‘11-5ci-i0Ct)I-’.P)1t1-SCDCD>4P50dCDc-f-3’(YC)eici-•dP5H0‘-5H.Ci)c-f-9’CDcI’‘-SCDHCtPSH.CDU’c-I-•CDi9’C)-5i>4HCi)CoCDCDPSP.’CoCDC’0PSCDH’P5c-P•H..4s1P-iHH1-5‘-5.4H.HHoc-f-CD9’CDCoP5C)PS•H.-WCDCoctH.Co“4H.0CoCl)H-—31-SPS‘-‘‘-S•PS3’CDOH.P5H.H‘CDCi)Ci)Ci)•Cl)0‘-5‘-31\)ci-CDci-B‘—CDC)ci-H.H’CD‘-5CDT’H.H5’H.09C)c-F1-’4.4uCDHC)COCl)Co‘aPSH0PSCD‘-S1)>1t0CoH.CDC)PSJH.çCDc-I-C)HCOCi)CD‘-SH.BC)H.H-c-I’0Hq>4‘CDi.4ci-PtoCDH.c-I-1-SPS00jc-f-‘-50C)P5)1-501-5COHsCCD1-5CD.40CDHC)•H.H.CDPS0Hc+OPSCoCD1\)CDC)HCl)C)1--3PS.4H$))J’1-sc+HCO-.4O’Qe0H‘a1-3CD‘Ci)PSH’Ci)CDCDCDH.CDH0’3’‘-SLA)0P.’‘aH.PSCoPci-1-SCo‘41-5P5H.9’Q:i]CDCo0d‘—‘BCoCD”Cl)‘—(CD••CO.4‘-5H’0CDP-i‘aP-iU)H.CoC)H.H-P)CD‘-50CDPS‘-S1-’9-’H.Bci-CoH1-5C)•CO1-SOC’COCDH’CD9’psOCD3’0CD0CDCD1-SbC)1-SO’CDCl)1-Sc-lCDiPSP.’1-59.’CD9.’CD1-55CDCtOc-P9.’ci-CDP.’H’H.CDCoHP5CD>’CtCDCD0C)PSH-4Ci)CDH.4CDH.CD1-5‘-49-.’CD00)CDci-0HCl)CoC)H.H’0CDP-ici-.Cl)0•4I\)--aQ0CO0‘-5U’H‘4PSc-I’H.CDCT)Ci)H.C)H.Ct0c-f-‘4c-f-Ct‘-SHP5CI)CDHsH.CDc-PH.CDCO‘—0H’‘-SCDP5P-iCD‘-a‘UQ9-iH.PS0)N1-5fr.4Ci-1-5PSCDtY’H°CT)“4H.‘-SH.P5C)ci-CD“-)H.tYCDCDH.PS‘-SCOIici-0H.9-iThe apparent unpalatability of lodgepole pine, would indicatethat when this species is found browsed to any extent whatsoever,the more preferrable browse species must be in short supply,heavily overbrowsed, or else otherwise unavailable to moose.The fact that no browsing was recorded for the southerndistrict (Area II) is considered significant, and indicativethat these ranges are in better condition, i.e., currently havemore food available for moose than ranges of the northerndistrict,Ponderosa pine (Pinusponderosa)This species, typically occurring on the arid slopes of thesouthern valleys, was more commonly recorded in the southernarea (II), as expected. (relative densities of 16.3 Area I, and25.7 Area II). No browsing was observed on this species,partially perhaps because. the open sites preferred by theyellow pine do not provide sufficient cover for moose, and alsosince this type of forest is very low in browse production.Areas where yellow pine seedling groith was common, showed nobrowsing., although other browse species in the immediate areaindicated utilization.Mountain Alder (Alnus tenuifolialThis species was found utilized by moose in both districts,although never to an excessive degree. Area I indicated 22.4moderate, 29.7 light, while Area II indicated 75.5 moderateutilization.While this degree of utIlization is not excessive, the fact thatthe species is not generally preferred, would indicate that themore palatable browse species are being heavily utilized,Dwarf Juniper (Juniperus cornrnunis) and Rocky Mtn, JuniperThese species are restricted to the more arid regions ofboth districts, and are characteristic of the lower montaneforest in which ponderosa pine is dominant, Since no utilizationwas found, these species are considered unpalatable to moose,Rose (Rosa spp,)Various degrees of utilization were found for this species.In Area I, rose was found to be very lightly browsed, with 95,2%nil to trace browsing recorded, Area II indicates a differentsituation having only 2+,O% nil to trace browsing, with 73.5%moderate, and 2,5% excessive utilization recorded, There is thepossibility that the high degree of use recorded for Area II ismisleading in view of the small size of the sample,Swampwillow(Salixspp.)Since swamp meadows and their attendant fringes of willowgrowth were visually assessed, little of this species wastransected, In Area I, 11,9% moderate, and 68,7% excessiveutilization were recorded. These values are consideredcharacteristic of the situation, and again indicate that thepreferred browse species are heavily utilized so that this, aless preferred species, is being consumed to a large degree,LNo swamp willow was recorded for Area II. Visual observationsfor Area II indicate that swamp willow was also being utilizedto a considerable degree in this southern district.Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)While rarely encountered in transects, this species wasfound to be consistently overbrowsed to an excessive degree. Itis considered a preferred moose browse species.Paper birch (Betula paprifera)This species was usually found utilized to some extent.While reputed to be a preferred species, a small sample indicatesthat 52,5% nil to trace, 35.7% moderate, and only ll,87excessively utilized, The excessively utilized shrubs wereencountered on a Bridge Lake range which was in relatively goodcondition with quantities of upland willow not browsed to theextent o1 the paper birch. Probably a larger sample wouldindicate a higher preference for this species.Mountain Maple (Acer glabrum)This species was only rarely encountered, but all shrubs ofthis species transected were found to be excessively browsed.Mt. maple is most commonly found on moist sites, frequently inassociation with spruce, along stream edges. Moose utilizing thespruce thickets for cover, and finding little other foodavailabla, could be expected to browse the maple heavily.>Io0b0f-3Bc+020HOtrJeCD0‘d):0HOH•Ci2U)C)CDCDU)C)0U)0HU)CDBHCDCDCD•3U)C+U)+CD0U)0CD‘f-3C)Cl)CDb1<Q1-BC)•CDCD‘CDCD))0CDCDC)HC)HC_)C)biBC)U)U)_•CDU)0CDU)CDU)U)C) B0CDCDiU)COI-HU)1CDH Hct0HCDCDC)P.U)U)‘tC)C)Ht-’)OCTI-•P‘1020ci-ci-CDCDCD0H0U)U)IIB))0C)9-’C)‘CDHCD•CT)cFI-I1SBP’U)iI-‘HCD‘CDU)CDC)CDCDbJCDCDH9-’CDt0i-0)U)O)CD9-U)CDU)Cl)0)0)0iI.Cl)CD0U)O’c-F‘acv’‘-0,U)c-FCDCDc-FI-CDc+CDI-I0ci-U)0’Hci-0’H0OU)I-.,.00CD••d0U)0)U)CDI—f.c-F—3‘——.‘10CD0)Cl)0CDCfl0)ci-•CD0)U)CDC)•Dci-H0’HCD09-‘aU)OHP’CDCDCDU)Co0’c-FF—3CDSCDci-‘-CD0—CDLiCl)9-Li’9-0SH0’0’9-CD‘-riLiCDC)SHCD00)CD9-U)L’4LiI-O‘a9-CD‘tiHH‘aHc-i-C)•0)CDLiHU)I-IH‘a1-’U)U)B0CDCDLi’U)C)9-0’CDO0—s029-’ci-00CD0’0’00)CDU)—‘iCDc-FLi0cos—CoC/)CDd0PcC)Hci-&CC)9-Co)-0’ci-‘HU)>4Li(DOCDT’0CDF’0U)CI)U)TOc-F•I-Li<1HP)9-’U)9-Li09-BU)CD4ci-CDU)U)CDtoB0Oci-p)‘-Co•CDCD0CDc-i-C)0CDdI-9-’dD0-jCDctCDC)‘aCD9-9-0)029-CDU)OCDHLi(DCV0‘riU)CD0I-5Hc-FU)50‘aiU)&i000d(I)‘a0c-i-Cl)1_SU)0c-I-LiLi0U)ci-ci-U)P.5CI)C!)H0)1_So’in-f-‘-c-FCD0’pC)0-’I-a’H‘ac-FjhC)1_50,H-H-U)CDCDCDc-F0’LiCDCDU)PI_SHLiCD0’.(VU)LiI-tO)H-CDci-I-Li’0‘-5c-F(DO)U)Cl)9-0cYci-‘-50UCDCD9,D’p’’-s0H-H-cH‘-59,C)CD‘-5.I-’,CDHC)LiCDH9,0Ct)c-FCDU)c-i-U)C)‘a9’9-’Cl)H‘-t4H0’C!)cvHH-c-FCD1_S9)09’HCDH(I)H-ci-H0’C)U)ci-ci-CDc-iLiH’U)Hc+U)COH.,,Ct)•‘NH-9-H-Li\J1.H‘10’CDU)c-F0CDU)...-I-tci-H-OHH-H-Bo0‘1NCDCDc-I-H9’H02U)c-I-CD9)H9’-‘0H-0ci-ci-CD‘9-HNHI_S9’CD0CDCDHS.-,C)ci-10ci-ci-H-Li’•Li5’(I)(I)‘aCDCDU)—miTABLEIIIGroundCoverDensitiesintheLdgepolePineBurnForestTypesLodgepolepine-o1drburns-TypeI.Lodgepolepine-youngburnsTypeII,DatafroniLine-InterceptTransects÷TransectNumber490491492494495508515521T,0,%502505506T,0,‘4PlantSpeciesPinegrass40.642,563.858.826,023,420.430.8306,338.4———(CalamarostisrubescensKinickinik34,918.75,58,411,034,714.77.2135,116.911,816,28,136,112,0(Arctostaphylos)Rose(Rosaapp,)1,31,30,].1,7—3,22,72,913.21,6—0.71,23,51.6Juniper(J,conmiunis)0,3-—0.3tr,0,4—0,40,1(J.scopur3Aspen(Populus0,1-2,31,2-0,9——450,60,20,2tr,tremu1oTdTSoopolallle-5,12,9-——0.20,38.51,10.60,31,22.10,6(SheperdiacansdensisPeavine(Lathyrus—1,60,2-———1,53,30.4app.)Lodgepolepine(Pinus—4.2-6,520,3———31,03.92,70,60.53.81,3contortav,latifolia*cTABLEIII(Cont’dGroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineBurnForestrpesLodgapolepine-olderburns-TypeI.lodgenolepine-youngburns—TypeII.DatafromLine-IflterceptTransectsTransectNumber490491492494495508515521T,D.%502505506T,D,%PlantSpeciesUplandwillow—2,03,7——1,67,30,90,30,10,30.70,2(Salixspo.)Spruce(Picea—0.20,43,0—0,13.70.5———-engelmanni)Strawberry——-4.1——————(Fragariaapp.)Litter22.824.220.416.342.736.260.333.0255.932.084.181.585.4251.083.3Lupine(Lupinus-—-——0.7—————spp.)Timbermilkvetch-—--.—,2—----(1stragalusapp.)Pussytoes-short——————tr,—tr,tr,————(Antennariaapp.)Yarrow-—————tr,0,10,1tr,—————(Achilleaapp,)TABLEIII(Cont’d)GroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineBurnForestTypesLodgepolepine—olderburns-TypeI,JLodgepolepine—youngburns-TypeII,DatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransactNumber490491492494495508515521T.D.502505506T,D,PlantSpeciesSnowbrush-----—-————(Ceariothusspp.)Fireweed——-—-—-—---(EpilobiuniSwampwillow——0.20,2tr,—————(Salixspp,)Grass———————0,5—0,50,1(Stipacomata)Mt0alder————————————0,60,60.1(Alnustenuifolia)Bracken————————————2,42.40.7Weedyannuals-—--————--(Unidentified)Sedge(Carexpp.)————-——12.612.61.6-————A444‘IiFSLodgepo].eTABLEIII(Cont ‘d)GroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineBurnForestTypespineolderburnsTypeI,Lodgepolepine-youngburns-TypeII,DatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNupiber49049149249449550851552].T,D,%502505506T,1),%Alpinefir—0.60,60,1(Abieslasiocarpa)Douglasfir-—————-0,90.9o,:br,-——-(Pseudotsugataxifolia)÷TABLEIVGroundCoverDensitiesinthePonderos.Pine-DouglasFirForestTypeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber470471472473475476483484485486487499501530T.D.PlantSpeciesDouglasfir0.20.8—1,70.6-1,50.8-————3,50,5-1,62.7--0,3——8,60,6(Pinusosa)Aspen(Pou1us----1,2————1.2tr.tremuloides)Soopclallie———————11.83.916.64.0fl,72.7—39.72.8(ShepercILacnadensis)Kinickinik—2.1——15.222.927.2-3.50,325.9130,49.3(Arctostaphylosspp.)Pinegrass—83.3—57,6tr.62.7——30.5-—65.877.230,2407.328.9(Calamagrostisrubescens)Grass-bluebunch--62,3-------45,8---108,17,7wheat(AgropyronTABLIV(Cont ‘dGroundCoverDensitiesinthcPonderosaPine—DouglasFirForest1rpeDatafromino—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber470471472it73475476483484485486487499501530T,0,%PlantSpeciesGrass-Kentucky-—————81,7———---—81,75.8blue(Poapratensis)Grass—Downy—-————37,6————37,62.7brome(Broinustectorurn)0Sage(Artemjsia——12.2——————4,910.6———27,72,0tridenGrass—fescue29.2————————————29,22,0(Festucarubra)Yarrow3.8—tr,—tr,—0,3———tr.——0,14,20,2(AchilleaRabbitbrush0.9—-————————-—-0,9tr,(Chrysothamnusspp,)Pussytoesshortl,2——-——3,90,1——5,2°k3(Antennariaspp.)Cainus——-——————————1.4tr,(Zygederiusspp.)a_______AT4BLEIV(Coflt’d)GroundCoverDensitiesinthePonderosa.Pine—DouglasFirForestrpeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber470471472473475476483484485486487499501530T,D.%PlantSpeciesAz’rowleaf25—————————0.2———2.70,1Bals arnroot(BalsamorhizatataPasturesage0.9——————tr,———0.9tr.(rtomisiafrigida)Dandelion0,8———tr4—————tr.—OeStr.(Taraxacuxnapp.)Strawberry0,7———tr.-0.1—————0.41.2tr.(agariaapp.)Rose(Rosaapp,)0.20,1——0.22,62,94,1—0.1——tr.4.815,01,0Litter58,013,721.929,979.928,].13.960,951.49,242.629,219.321,9479,934.0Mt,Juniper———0,].————-—————0,1tr.(J,scopuloruin)(Ycommunis)Gooseberry———0.5——————————0.5tr.(Ribesapp.)TABLEIV(Cont’d)GroundCoverDsitiesinthePondaosaPine-DouglasFirForestTypeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber4704714724734754764834844854864874995015301,D,PlantSpeciesSnowbrush———2.1———10.6——0,4——13,10,9(Ceanothus)Oregongrape-——————2.40.5—————2.90.2(Mahonianervosa)Cactus————————0,3————0.3tr,(Opuntiaspp.)Peavine—————————————787.80.5(usspp.)Timbermilk-———————————3.93,90,3vetch(Astragalusspp.)Fireweed———4.64.60,3(Epilobiumspp,)Ii—mIIIWI1hiIaiImiibuiiiIaIiiINhIIihiITABLEVGroundCoverDensitiesIntheDouglasFir—lodgepolePIneForestTypeDatafromLineInterceptTransectsTransectNumber479488507516527T,1),%PlantSpeciesPinegrass(Calamagrostis18,821,52.720,733,897.519.6rubescens)Kinickinik(Arctostahy1osp)31,711.130,931,615,2120,524.1Soopolallie(Sheperdia4.4—0,60.35,31,1Rose(Rosaapp,)——2,40,912,816,13,2Timbermilkvetch(Astragalus———4,2—4.20,8Nt,Juniper(J,communis)—1,53,5——5,01,0(J,scopuloruSage(Artemisiatridontata)—7,5——7.51,5Aspentremuloides)1,0———1,0tr,Douglasfir(Pseudotsugetaxifolia)0,62,70,84w].0,8Lodgepolepine(Pinuscontortav,0,4—0,40,1latifolia)Litter44,057,658.938,23,9202.6408AI4Iia——ThBLEV(Iont’d)GroundCoverDensitiesIntheDouglasFir—Loc1gepoleDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsPineForestType.J1TransectNumber479488507516527T.D,%PlantSpeciesSnowbrush(Ceanothusspp.)———1.52,84.30.9Strawberry(Fraariapp.)-———-——12.712.72.5Lily(Calochortusspp.)————1.61.603Fireweed(Epilobiumspp.)———2,72.70.5Bracken-——-——————-0,30,0,1Salal(Gaultheriaapp,)———0,30,30,1Peavinesops)————1,21,20,2Yarrow(Achilleasop,)-—tr,tr,tr,———‘-—‘—4—TkBIEVI•GroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineForestTypeDatafromLine-InterceptTransectsTransectNumber497504509511514517518523528529531533T.D.%PlantSpeciesPinegrass(Calamagrostis69.3—29.233.433,129.078.429.953.648,539.6—450.147.9rubescens)Kinickinik(1.rctostaphy1os——27,213.723.331.910.35.54.421.436.821.4169.018.0spp.)Lupine(Lupinusspp.)———6.5———7.217.6———24.12.5Rose(Rosaspp.)1.515.43,——7.31.9——0.911.—20.72,2Timbermilkvetch——3,00.311.6—0.1—0.47.7--23.12,4(Astragalusspp.)Soopolallie(Sheperdia-—0.7——1.22.8—1.1——5.80.6canadensis)Uplandwillow(Sallysop.)——1.2——0.81.0——-—-3.00,3Aspen(Populustremi1odes)-—-0.3-tr.——--——0.3tr,Lodgepolepine(Pinuc0,6—1,40,].0,20,8——-—0.30,63.40,4contortav,latifolia)TABLEVI(Cont ‘d)GroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineForestrpeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsLii7ansectNumber49750450951].514517518523528529531533T.D,PlantSpeciesLitter27.684.622,236.323.831.24.210.612.110,014.132.7181.519.5Gooseberry(Ribes1.0-—-——-——--100tr,Salal(Gauitheriaspp.)—2,6——0,22,60,3Fireweed(Epilobiumspo.)——2.01.2-—,818.00.].0.9Strawberry(Fragaraspp.)——0.21.3—1.3-2.6—1.70,32.64.80,5Yarrow(chilieaspp.)—2,0——0.10,21.5-—3,70.4Heart—leafarnics.———0.6————-0.3——0.90,1(rnicacordifoija)Juniper(J,conimunis)——3,1————3,].0,3(J.scopuTri3Lily-(Chalochortusspp,)————————-———0,20.4—--——0,60,1speciosa)Pussytoes(Antermnariaspp.)——————-——0.6——0.60.1Bunchherry-(Cornus——————22.13.0——16.43.00,3canadensis)ITABLEVI(Contd)GroundCoverDensitiesintheLodgepolePineForestTypeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber4975045095115145175185235285295315359’,B,PlantSpeciesBracken--—2,02,00,2Snowbrush(Ceanothusspp,)—0,7—Blueberry(accinium--———————-—i31,3tr,cnadense)Spruce(Piceaengeimanni)———0,1——————0,1tr,—-—1•GroundCoverTtBLVIIDensitiesintheDouglasFir-LoggedForestTypeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransectNumber481482489490A493496503510512513520522525526535T,D,%PlantSpeciesPinegrass—4.221.749,342.861.840,451.822.341.618,337,,1(Calamagrostisrubescens)Kinickinik11.113.735,937.851.911525.815,021,916.71.20,99.81,745.1300.020,0(Arctostaphylospp.)Rose(Rosaspp.)--,—2,33.2———1.2-——0.30.4-—7.40.5(Sheperdiacanadensis)Timbermilkvetc--—-tr,—0.80.1——1,0-11,30,8(Astragalusspp.Yarrot-y(Achillea)——————0.60.83,00.9—————5.30.4Mt.Juniper(J.——1,12,5——————————3.60,2communis) (J.scopulor umrUplandwillow-.—3,3——0.6————0,4—0.91.8-7,00,5(Salixspp.)‘-‘1 co 9—1)TABLEVII(Corittd)GroundCoverDensitiesintheDouglasFir-LoggedForestTypeDatafroiLine-InterceptTransectsTransectNumber48].482489490A493496503510512513520522525526535T,DPlantSpeciesAspen(Populus-——tr.—0.8—-0.].—---.90,1tremuloides)Douglasfir0.———,620.732.530.966.918.37.37.735.6483.732.3Pussytoes-—————0.3——0.6—-—-—0.90.1(Antennariaapp.Fireweed————————22.203——28.92.0(Epilobiumspo.)Peavine———————0.65.2————--—-—2.2-1.6-11.70.8(‘agariaspp.)Snowbrush—-————-0.1—————5.85.90,4(Ceanothussp).)Ltpine(Lupinus—————--—3,7——6.4—2.3—12,408‘Ji‘0——IhTABL1VII(Cont’d)GroundCoverDensitiesintheDouglasFirLoggedForestTypeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsTransect!uber481482489490A493496503510512513520522525526535T,D,ZPlantSpeciesMilkweed————————0,5—————05tr,(AccleoiassosaSala].—--———-————-.-2,32,30,1(GaultheriaE±)Bunchberry———--———0,1————0,1tr,(Cornuscanadensis)Lily—-——-———4,0——4,00,3(Calochortusapp,)Dandelion————-———tr,————trtr,(TaraxacumBracken————--——-—-—23,183—31,420Lodgepolepine——-—-——-—0,5—————0,5tr,(Pinscontortav,latifolia)Red—osier———————03———————0,3tr,dogwood(Cornusstolonifera)—*TABLEVIIIGroundCoverDensitiesintheAspenForestTmeDatafromLine—InterceptTransectsHTransectNumber474477500524480498519T,D,PlantSpeciesPinegrass(Calaniagrostis14.933.,)11,90.1————tr.12.01.7Strawberry(Fragariaj)1,60,10,17.60.1—12.221,73,1Rose(Rosaspp.),65,50.34.721.33,0tCnickanik(Arctost.aphylos1.3-7.6——8,2—17.12.4spp.)Yarrow(Achilleaso,)1,1——1,20,1—tx’,2.40,3Lupme(Lupxiusspn,)0,3-—2,3———2,60.4Peaiiine(Lathyrusspo.)0.3—1.53.1————0.2--0.10.4tr.soo.)Aspen(Populustremu1o:idea)0.90.80,30,22,20.3Litter59.257.074.96,8—7.3205,229,40TABlEVIII(Cont’d)GroundCoverDensitiesintheAspenForestrpeDatafromLine-InterceptTransectsTransectNumber474477500524480498519T,D,RLantSpeciesPussytoes(Antennariaspp.)0.8----——0.80.1Camus(Zygadenusspp.)0.4-————0.4br.Pasturesage(Artemisiatr,--—-.-tr,tr,ida)Nt,Juniper(J.communis2,0—2,00.3J,scopuiorumSocpo].allie(Sheperdia—2.00,3——2.5—4.80.7canadensis)Heart-leaf’ariiaa—2,0——tr.—2,00,3(rnicacordifolia)Snowbrush(Ceanothnsspp.)-—1.6————--2.00.3Lodgepolepine(Pixiuscontorta—0.2—————0,2tr.v,latifoija)Douglasfir(Pseudotsuga0,3———0.3—0,60.1taxifolia)IIIIIáIima—44j4TABLEVTII(Cøntd)GroundCoverDensitiestheAspenForestTypeDatafromLine-JnterceptTransectsTransectNumber474477500524480498519T,D,%PlantSpeciesWeedyannuals(Unidentified)2,7-2.70,4Swsmpwillow(Salix)-0,6-0.60,1Fireweed(lobiumspp,)—45.0--45.06.4Geranium(Geranium—0,2-—1,82,00.37iscosissiTThimbleberry(Rubusspn,)—————0,2—0,2tr,Clo•r(Trifoliumspp,)-—————0,70,70,1TABLE IX.Summary of the Relative Ground Cover Densities of PlantSpecies Encountered in Transecting Seven Forest TypesPlant Species Forest Type(Density expresse I II III IV V VI VIIas % of sample )Pine grass 38.1÷ 00.0 28.9 19.6 1÷7.9 33.1 1÷8.6(Calamagrostisrubescens)Kinickinik 16.9 12.0 9.3 2.l 18.0 20.0 2.1i(ArctostaphylosUva-ursi)Upland willow 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0,3 0,5 0.0(Salix spp.)Soopolallie 1.1 0.6 2.8 1.1 0,6 0.5 0.7(Sheperdiacanadensis)Rose 1.6 1.6 1.0 3,2 2,8 2,7 3.0(Rosa spp,)Peavine 0.1÷ 0.0 0.5 0.2 2,2 1.9 0.7(Lathyrus spp.)Timber milk vetch 0,2 0.0 0.3 0.8 2,1÷ 0.8 tr.(Astragalus spp,)Lupine 0.3 0.0 0.0 2,5 2.5 0.8(Lupinus spp.)Juniper tr. 0.1 tr. 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.3(Juniperus spp.)Strawberry 1.0 0.0 tr, 1.0 0.5 0. 3.1(Fragaria spp.)Yarrow tr. 0.0 0.2 tr. 0.1÷ 0.1÷ 0.3(Achhllea .)Fireweed 0,1 0,0 0.3 0,5 0.9 2.0(EpilobiumDandelion 0.0 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7(Taraxacum spp.)Litter 32,0 83.3 3+.0 1÷0.8 19.5 32.3 29.1÷65-TABLE IX, (Cont’d)Summary of the Relative Ground Cover Densities of PlantSpecies Encountered in Transecting Seven Forest TypesPlant Species Forest Type(Density expressed I II III IV V VI VIIas % of sample)Pussytoes tr, 0.0 0.3 0.0 0,1 0.1 0.1(Antennaria spp.)Snow brush 0.2 0.0 0,9 0.9 0.0 0,+ 1.0(Ceanothus spp,)Grass-spear 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0(Stipa comata)Grassb1uebunch 0.0 0.0 7,7 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0wheat(Agropyronspicatum)Grass—ientucky 0.0 0.0 5.8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0blue(Poa pratensi.s)Grass—.ciowny brorne 0.0 0.0 2,7 0.0 0,0 0.0 000(Bromus tectorum)Grass—fescue 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0(Festuca rubra)Ponderosa pine 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0(Pinus ponderosa)Alpine fir 0.1 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0(Abies ca)Mt. Alder 0,0 0.1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0(Alnus tenuifolia)Paper birch 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.3(Betula papyrifera)Swamp willow tr, 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1(Salix spp.)Spruce 0,5 0,0 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 0.0(Picea engelxnanni)Aspen 0.6 tr, tr, tr, tr, 0.1 0,3tremuloides)Lodgepole pine 3,9 1.3 0,0 0.1 tr,(Pinus contortavar. la?liTDouglas fir 0.1 0,0 0.8 0,0 1.0 0.1(Pseudot sugataxifolia)_______________66TABLE IX. (Contd)Summary of the Relative Ground Cover Densities of PlantSpecies Encountered in Transecting Seven Forest TypesPlant Species Forest Type(Density expressec I II III IV V VI VIIas % of sample)Bracken 0.0 0.7 0,0 0,f 0.2 2.0 090(Pteridium spp.)Sage 0.0 0,0 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 090(Artemisiatridentata)Rabbit bush 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0(Chrysothaninus spp,)Camus 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 0.0 0,0 tr,(Zygadenus spp.)Arrowleafbalsam foot 0.0 080 0,1 0.0 0.0 000 0,0(BalsamorhizasttaPasture sage 090 0.0 tr. 0,0 0.0 0.0 t r,(Artemisiafrigida)Gooseberry 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.0(RibesOregon grape 0,0 0.0 0.2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0(Mahonia nervosa)Cactus 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0(Opuntia spp.)Lily 0,0 0.0 090 0,3 0.2 0,3 0,0(CalochorBunchberry 0,0 0.0 0,0 1,0 0,3 tr, 0,0(Cornus canadensis)Salal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0,3 0.1 0,0(Gaultheria spp.)Sedge 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0(Carex spp.)Weedy annuals 0.]. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0(unidentified)—67wTABLE IX. (Contd)Summary of the Relative Ground Cover Densities of PlantSpecies Encountered in Transecting Seven Forest TypesPlant Species I Forest Type(Density expressed I I II III IV V VI VIIas of sample) I________________________________________Heart-leaf arnica Fö.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3(Arnjca cordifolia)Milkweed 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0,1 tr, 0,0(Asclepiassp eciosa)Blueberry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tr, 0.0 0.0(YcciniumCanadense)Red-osier dogwood(Cornus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tr. 0.0stolonifera)Geranium 000 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,3(Geraniumviscosissimum)Thimbleberry(Rubus 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 tr,parviflorus)Clover o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1(Trifolium spp.)Forest Type I Lodgepole pine — old burnsII Lodgepole pine — young burnsIII Ponderosa pine—Douglas firIV Douglas fir-.-iodgepo1e pineV Lodgepole pine —matureVI Douglas fir —loggedVII Aspen6 8..In the case of lodgepole pine, seedling growth reaches itsmaximum to produce the highest density of this species to occur(within a foot of the ground) in a forest type. The value of3.9% (percent of sample cover occupied by the species), for thistype is only approached by the 1.3% recorded in very younglodgepole pine burns. These young burns, (Forest type II, lessthan three years old), will ultimately produce this density ofpine, but as yet have not had sufficient time for succession tocreate this dense seedling cover. Aspen was found to be mostcommon in seedling or succor form within this forest type. Itseems odd that aspen, in this form, should be more common thelodgepole pine burn type than in the aspen forest type itself,until the closed canopy effect of the aspen type is considered.From the standpoint of moose browse the type is mostimportant since it recorded the highest density of upland willow,a preferred browse species. Upland willow (Salix spp.), isrecorded at 0,9% in this type, Next highest was the loggedDouglas fir forest which is also a good browse producer, with0.5%. The lodgepole pine —mature, and lodgepole pine — youngburns, were next with 0.3% and 0.2% respectively. Upland willowdid not occur in sufficient density to give sample values forthe Douglas fir—ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir—lodgepole pineforest types.69The older lodgepole pine burns are distinguished by havingvalues for pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens), of 38. and32,0% for litter, while the younger burns have no pine grassrecorded but have a litter value of 83.3% —.the highest of anyforest type. Larger densities of kinickinik (Arctostaphlos spp.),and soopolallie (Sheperdia canadensis), occur in the older burntype. Species such as peavine, lupine, strawberry and timbermilk vetch, typifying a later stage of succession, are notrecorded in the young burns. Rose (Rosa apparently quickto establish, is recorded at 1.6% in each burn type.Forest Type II. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia)Younger Burned Areas (stands approximately less than 3 years old)These young burns are typified by a lack of ground cover asexpressed by a litter value of 83.3%. Kinickinik is the dominantplant species with a value of 12.0%. Rose at 1.6% and lodgepolepine seedlings at 1.3% are also common. Upland willow occuringat 0.2% indicates that these burns are quick to produce thisdesirable browse species. Spear grass (! comata), wasrecorded in low density (0.1%), on an arid burn site. Individualtransects indicate a progression of plant species whereby theyoung burns become colonized and merge with the older type inplant composition and density.Forest Type III. Douglas fir—ponderosa pine(Pseudot suga taxifolia—Pinus ponderosa)This forest type is unique in that it records a mixture ofgrasses not found in the other forest types.Bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), Kentucky bluegrass(Poa pratensis), downy brome (Bromus tectorum), and red fescue(Festuca rubra), in varying amounts (Table IX.), comprise 18,2%of the ground cover of this forest type. The presence of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), rabbit bush (Chrysothainnusnauseosus), cactus (Opuntia spp.), and death camas (Zygadenusspp.), indicate an arid range type which is being overgrazed bydomestic livestock. (Stoddart and Smith, 191÷3). The presence ordowny brome and Kentucky bluegrass are also indications ofoveruse of the native grassland dominants. Ponderosa pineseedlings at a density of 0.6% were restricted to this foresttype. The litter value of 31+,Q% is surprisingly low when theopen aspect of these ranges is considered. In local regions ofcourse, severe overgrazing and erosion would result in aconsiderably higher litter value. Kinickinik (Aretostaphios spp,)at 9.3 is not common. Soopolallie (Sheperdia canadensis), ismost common in this forest type at a density of 2.8%. Thelowest for rose (Rosa spp.), at l.0 was recorded for this type.Forest Type IV. Douglas fir—lodgepole pine(Pseudotsugataxifolia—Pinus contorta var,This forest type recorded the highest densities for bothkinickinik at 21÷.l%, and rose at 3.2%. Excluding type II, younglodgepole pine burns, this forest type has the highest littervalue (1÷O.8), recorded in an established forest. This may bedue to the actions or the past fires which caused the formationof this type.ILupine (Lupinus spp.), present at a density of 2.5% both in this,and in the mature lodgepole pine forest types, is much morecommon than in any of the other forests0 Juniper (Juniperuscommunis and 3, scopulorum), at a density of 1,0% was mostcommonly recorded in this type. The density of Douglas fir,(0.8%), was next highest to that of the 0. fir—logged type.This is reasonable since seedling reproduction is increased andresults in a higher density being recorded for this speciesfollowing logging. Lodgepole pine at a density of 0.1% is morecommon in this type than in the ponderosa pine—Douglas fir(0.0%), logged Douglas fir (trace), and aspen (trace), foresttypes. Higher densities of lodgepole pine are found in both thepine burn types and in the mature lodgepole pine forest.Forest Type V. Lodgepole pine—mature:(Pinus contorta v. latifolia)This forest type is clearly distinguished from the othersby means of its increased cover of plant species with anaccompanying reduction in the litter density to the lowestrecorded for a forest type at 19.5%. Pine grass is common andoccurs at Lf7.9% a value only just exceeded in the aspen type(+8.6%). Kinickinik (Arctostaphlos spp.), and rose (Rosa spp.),do not occur in densities which aid in distinguishing the type.Lupine (Lupinus spp.), (2.5%), timber milk vetch (Astragalus spp.)(2,1d) and peavine (Lathyrus nuttallii), (2.2%), are at theirhighest density in this forest type.—72-.Lodgepole pine at a density of 0. is only exceeded in amountby the lodgepole pine burn types, Upland willow (Salix .),present at a density of 03% indicates that this forest type isthird highest in production of this species, being exceeded bythe older lodgepole pine burns and logged Douglas fir types.Forest Type VI. Douglas fir—logged(Pseudotsuga taxifolia)With the exception of the older class of lodgepole pineburns, this type is most productive with upland willow beingpresent at a density of 0.5. Douglas fir seedlings reach theirhighest abundance in this type, recording a value of 1.0%.Nearly equal quantities of pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens),(33.1%), and litter (32.3%), also characterize the type.Kinickinik (Arctostaphlos spp.), occurred at 20.0% —a densityonly surpassed by the Douglas fir—lodgepole pine forest type.Fireweed (Epilobiurn angustifoliuin), is common in this type.(2.0%). This species is frequently a pioneer on newly clearedregions. Peavine (us spp.), lupine wildstrawberry (Fragaria spp.), and yarrow (Achillea rnillefolium),are also commonly present.Forest Type VII. Aspen(Populus tremuloides)Variation in type combined with the small size of thissample has resulted in the consideration of all aspen transectsas a unit, It is recognized that the mature aspen forest isprobably distinct in its cover fromthe aspen parklands type.Transect +77, (see Table VIII.), is definitely the parklandstype, while transect 519, is representative of the mature aspentype. The separation or these two aspen forest types will not beattempted from the existing data. It is however, possible todistinguish these aspen types from the coniferous forest typessampled.Pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens), was found to be themost common ground cover species, being recorded at 1+8.6. Thelitter value of 29. is not regarded as significant being tooclose to the litter value for the other forest types. If the twoaspen types are distinct, and transects 1+77 and 519 are at allrepresentative, then the litter value of 29 is a mean valueand does not characterize a type. Fireweed (Epilobiumangustifolium), is the most common in aspen types, beingrecorded at 6.1+?. Wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), at 3.1%, isconsiderably more common in this type than in the coniferousforests. Rose (Rosa spp.), is common at 3.0%. Dandelion(Taraxacum at 1.7%, is considered characteristic of theaspen parkiands type, where heavy grazing by domestic livestockis probably responsible for its abundance. Paper birch (Betulapapyrifera), and swamp willow (Salix spp.), are characteristically present in the aspen types. The presence o1 weedyannual plants, another indication of overgrazing, is typical forthe type particularly in the parkiands. Sticky geranium(Geranium viseosissirnum), and heart-leaf arnica (Arnicacordifolia), are also present.TABLE X.Forest Type I. Lodgepole pine older burnsDensity of Shrub CoverPlant Species Density A. U. s.u. % sampleLodgepole pine 65.5 100 5 86.9(Pinus contorta 0.5 50 5 0.7V. latifolia) 8.1 100 50 10,71.3 100 90 1.775.+ , . 62.2Mt. Alder 8.1 100 5 51.9(Alnus 2.2 100 25tenuifolia) 5.3 100 50 33.915.6 , . . 12,9Aspen 6.0 100 5(Populus 1.2 100 50 8.5tremuloides) 1.6 100 90 11.25.+ 50 50 38.1L.2 . 11.6Upland willow 0.9 100 25 11,8(Salix 2.11. 100 90 31.6)+.3 100 50 56.67.6 . . . 6.3Douglas fir 3.3 100 5 100.0 2.7(Pseudotsugataxifo1j)Swamp willow 1.3 100 5 11.3,14.(Salix spp.) 100 90 56.63.0 . . . 2.5Red-osierdogwood 1.14 100 90 100,0 1.1(Cornusstolonifera)Alpine fir 0.9 100 5 100.0 0.7(Abie slasiocarpa)A. Availability 0 — unavailable50 partially available100 totally availableU. — Utilization 5 - nil to trace utilization25 light U50 moderate90 severes.u. - percent of available browse utilized to theindicated degree (U.).I—75-IFig. 2. Forest Type I., Lodgepole pineolder burns, showing high densityof this species and moderatelybrowsed upland willow (Salix .)Fig. 3. Forest Type II., Lodgepole pineyoung burns (left), and olderimmature pine forest (background)F____*___.—.0 CD U) ci CD____________________________(flt CD H______________________C12CD CD0 0aq U’ COc+.—jc-F—.cc-F.—.>C)#-.Cl)<—s)0CD’c+CiVd‘CflP’0)0•1OH4ctF-•HCDO’dF1PF-•CDH$CD)CD‘ttHi0qH)HF-’•I—’•itid0DCDc+0PP’HU)HPHHCDCDHcFU)dHOrn0110‘-)I-’0U)I-c-t-HCDCnI-tnU)D,HI-(OHc,U)H)f-.H.H0j0CDCD—I•(dHCDC)O’-‘.—•HCn‘—cDI.jc-tI—’p,—o‘—CDIc-FCDH’,‘ CDIIHH00c*Jr\)0sZI1)L’JH000H,•e•9•e9.,.•99J1.OD0’H0’OD\0CX) HHHHHHHHH00•\J0Q••00000000000000•1’_)\S\O\O%J0•00‘J•0‘.J’J•0‘J%Jc .HHH00%.J4r(‘H\C)0Co000H-r0-0••••••••••••00-F0U’OC))0COHHI-’0HH9•9•.•\OroC))000’H LDT!Ib.-,%‘we.bhøIxj0 CD U) ‘-3 CDI-4U).I-,.ct•tj0P(1)0OCDCD0 H U) III Ic+.—..szt.—.(12cFC)Cl)C)CdtJ‘I’tJU)‘1CDc‘lCb0•0Ci0‘r50‘‘j0I—’CD10-‘Of-•i1o5-‘4c‘tCDcLctcD$1)IDHCDOqZi$Ft0CDDl---H)U)t-JcDCDf-0CD‘U)‘0e1I-0P.’d-(D00H0U)Ci)FU))U)H(I)U)P.’HSU)U)U)I-3.ct..c+I-’I--HH)O)I—CDCDU)p’.0cns..—C)U)-‘CD‘-p%—P.’CD 01%—.CDI1\)ICt)H-FlU)CIP.)U)‘JI.i0P.)P.)\O0”P.)-CI‘00O’.J0U)0.) C)J\ØU)••••••9999•je9•9•9FU)-P.)-‘J“0“01H0‘-Z-VU)4HHHHHHHHHH000000•0•\ij’i00000000000O0OO0.‘JI.‘0Jj‘JU)\3I.‘.rc0•0‘Jc‘.11.•‘.7’. 0•0‘-n0‘ji.’jc0•HHHHH000.00000PJ00HrOH‘ii.‘.P.)-9••••••••I••.•••1Cd)000‘.0H000’. -FU) 0a ‘H-00CU)0’.-rU)a•...0•,F-’0)‘.0P.)U)U)H CDFig. i. Farest Type III., Ponderosa pine—Douglas fir, showing parklikestand with abundant grassy openings.‘.; --‘Fig. 5. Forest Type IV., Douglas fir—lodgepole pine.-78-ii[VI0 I-s cp c-IH CDIi I-,.ct-Li0oC) 0CD 0 H CD I-i.CD1-3 I-1 aILC)-tiCD0)C)-0)c-F-Li•0‘tPtJ‘-5iCl)10c’I0)0•00HG-3’-SCD0tiOcoII04Cl)c’BI-CDOP’ICDI-.cDorJHCDOZJ50l-Hci0cDB’CDHHCDCDHcFwd5-DI-5-‘•oHOCO02Cl1-5CnØP’HHC)HI-ctdHI-H00(1)P’CnHCD0)Ct)(C)•HiC)I-sjU)s—.CDI-c+d)‘-SI-’.CDB‘—‘-S1Co‘—.1,LiICDHIf)00F3H000(.)001’)HI’Ji(\)HHI’3oD0I\)0\OD0).0000••0•00•I••.00••••••••I—,.H(0’-FrHLi’.)‘Co-FlH0-PI\H!V0H0P.)ci-HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH00•‘JC000•000•000•000•00000000000000000000000\0\0\T\OJ1.‘.0‘.0\J‘JL‘J•000‘-fl•00‘J•00‘-.-fl•00‘-IC0•00‘3’. 0HH000’HCo-FP.)P.)\0‘.000‘.0Co-F‘.0-F-FCoo’-r-F0H-F-F.••••••••••••••0•••••••ICl)00\.fl’3’’.)Li-)000CO\DL‘.0‘.0P.)4P.)-FaH(...)Cn001’.)001’)009••00H0)HHC’-F‘.0CD8o—TABLE XIV.Forest Type V. Lodgepole pine matureDensity of Shrub CoverPlant Species Density A. U. s.u. % sampleLodgepole pine 37.2 0 0(Pinus contorta 6.6 100 5 6÷.8var. latifolia) 3.6 100 90 35.2+7.)+ ..30.3Soopolallie 17.7 100 5 8.6(Sheperdia 0.9 100 25 2.+canadensis) 17.3 100 500.6 100 90 1.636.5 . . . 23.3Upland willow 7,÷ 0 0(Salix spp.) 0.3 100 5 1.12.3 100 25 10.111.3 100 909.0 50 90 39.330.3 . . 19.7Aspen +.5 0 0(Populus 9.9 100 5 51,1+tremuloides).15,2Rose 6.1+ 100 5 100.0(Rosa spp0)Mt. Alder +.8 100 25 100,0 3.0(Alnus tenuifolia)Douglas fir 4.5 100 5 100.0 2.8(Pseudotsugataxifolia)Spruce i.1+ 100 5 100.0 0.9(Picea en&elmanni)Wild Cherry 0.7 100 5 100.0 0.1+(Prunus spp.)Fireweed 0.7 100 5 100.0 0.1+(Epilobium spp.)bT—81—Fig. 6. Forest Type V., Lodgepole pine—mature, browsed upland willow(Salix spp.) in foreground.Fig. 7. Forest Type VI., Douglas fir—selectively logged, showingabundant upland willow (Salix spp.)——--———*———*——a-—————cC)—..Ci)—i.cicop0(120Cl2tSp0QHCDOCp’Hc5CDp0CDdHp0HDOI-’‘-Hc+I-H(DcDH01p00P2I-0(0Cl)o(0PHIuc1- (oH)CDCDIdH‘—C)Cl)‘—‘CDI.HIJ.‘——.0CD (0c1—4—ICD’C1)trJp00eO(D0(0I-’QfJ.c+CD(ncDHOcDO‘P’cDHCDOHFCndIto0Htt:jH)C)HI’tiOOCDIcl)c)•HId3%-Np00I- L IHIHHIHf’)I-F‘JHH1’.)o4ct0CX)0D0-Ol--FHI!f-0O()H-)LJ\JOD\C) -QD)\OIU)HO’r’) 40••)-e••.e•9•••e9••••990••9•,•J•ee1’3•H\n\QH-F0D\JV-rco-)-I-F0Coo’-r’010’00’(O0’CD Cl) I-I.c-i0 CD Cl) ciCD 1.900CDp0QI-CD l-I H 0 CDCo F)HHHHH0•0000HHHHE—’HHHHHHHHHH0000•0•0•‘Jt0000•000•‘-3-1.0000•‘J’J00000000000000000000000000•\1\)‘-.0\C)\J1.r’)\D\31.\Q\0\5r’)‘J‘.0‘‘.3).•0\3).’_fl•‘.3-).0•‘J).0•000flJ).0•00‘—Tt•000‘JC’-J).•0‘.3). 00\.T).0•HHH0\C)00HI”)‘.n.CoHHr’)(.*)CO0HCo00-F-.O0F31\)‘.0)c0’—.]0’-F’J).HO’10’•9•9•9••0909990999.999•••9Cl)0H\D00-.]CoH‘.]HHODH-F0Co0’0-U)-F0HH-FCi)Or’.)‘-71.\.T1.O‘.51C’‘.7).p0•••00••-.]0’CD0’CoCo-FH CDr83-TABLE XV. (Cont’d)Plant Species Density A. U. s.u. % sampleSnowbrush l. 100 5 100.0(Ceanothus spp.)Peavine 0.3 100 5 100.0 0.1(Lathyrus spp.)Bracken 0. 100 5 100.0 0.1(Pteridium spp.)Fig. 8.4Forest Type VII., Aspen (background)Browsed bog birch (Betula glandulosa),visible in foreground.Forest Type VI. DouglasDensity of Shrubfir — logged.CoverIt‘IJ0cDCflt120ucDcD—%Cl)-c,—.0—.(12-—zJCi)$)Q(T)>c+ctctQ(D•00)0(1200H0)0’IHC).001C300)H0(0H•CIIZCDHI-’-cDat0)DcHP’CoCDId(D000•I--H$1d0f-’0)Hco-‘$caH0’0ICD00)CDCDH0’00POxdcnI-dCDHOCO(0(12cop-d-C)HHCDHHCDçCnC0PHtHI--0(DP)CDCD‘H0)(nl-’I-HCDH‘0O0’CoH•o•00ctd‘—0)CDoH‘—H0‘—‘0r’I10’‘—0CDp.’Li0)*CD4—4——0)0 0 :iI CDHHHIHIHP31H1’.)()P.) 0-FCO0Ha’F1J0CX)‘.njHP30-Flo’‘a’\OCO00000900009909909991.••9000(_)\0-F\0(J()00-0L’a’\00)‘JCICO\0CoH30-FHHHHHHHHHHHHH0Q00•\J1Q0000•0000QQe0000000000000000000000•\0\0\0\0JL\0\7\J’.P3900\fl00•0Q0‘J•00‘Jo00\fl•0‘JI0HHHHH00000-FHCOP.)H‘rF’n.00000P.)0-F-F0-Fa’P.)9I•99909•99*99••9099909fl(000000-F030)-F-FP.)COO) -F0HHHHCoP3a’03HHCX)\C)9999099090“J0-FP3CX)a’H CD‘-302:iO CDCDCot’)l.-4cDCJ2Oco(DCD‘—30 0 $1‘‘Q‘tlCD)0O002EP’bi‘U)HCDO(DCDd(DOdcco‘OctCD)1(DCI)(DCDU)OU)0HHCD0c-t’l02c+U)U)(I)I-’FU)I-OP)U2CDU)30CD0•Cl)(DH-(DfU)CDçLU)U)%—0CDfriU)l•P,‘—i?HIQO0H1)l’)QHOF’30000•1..••••a••••aa-F1\DI’3a’0‘)\J\JJf\)a’\OHa’HHHHHH00000•00•‘_Ti00000000000000•\\0’Jl\0\D\YLaQJ‘-fl0•000•0000aHHa’LJ00a’L)\fl-FJ’.00-CT’ (3••••I••••I••••ICoç,—j00corko’rsr. • U)H0HHHH9090•a0H--F-’CDco— 86—TABLE XVII.A Comparison of the Relative Density of Selected BrowseSpecies in Seven Forest TypesForest Type I. Forest Type II.Lodgepole pinelodgepole pine—older burns —young burnsI Plant Species Density Plant Species DensityLodgepole pine 202.2 Lodgepole pine 176.0Aspen 35.5 Soopolallie 65.0Upland willow 28.3 Aspen 38.5Rose 25,1 Upland willow 36,0Soopolallie 16.1 Rose 17.5Douglas fir 7.9 Douglas fir 2.5Juniper 5.7 Juniper 2.0Forest Type III. Forest Type IV.Ponderosa pine— Douglas fir—Douglas fir Lodgepole pinePlant Species Density Plant Species DensityDouglas fir 23.6 Douglas fir 183.3Soopolallie 53,7 Lodgepole pine 99,3Juniper 19.8 Rose 58,2Rose 16.5 Soopolallie 50.1Aspen 1.7 Juniper 15.3Upland willow - Aspen 9.9Lodgepole pine - Upland willowFigures are relative density,corrected for the number ofsamples per forest type.0HcopdCOHop‘0(DcD3OcD0CDH0Ic-I-ca0CDc-FcFCDCOBCDP)H1c-FCDH’dtc1002-CO0Cl)-j0HHHHdCDHHCDH)f-J1-.CDi-i-CDCDC)F-’HI-’C)COCDHCD—‘CDH’CD0H’0CI)0H’CDH’InCOCT)HCDCD020HCD Od’CDCD(DCI)1-3COr)(,A)-F’J\C)CO-F’fl“J’302COC0”0-HF)HH’‘JC)0”0’HO’H’H’CDo099989c-F•o...c-f-a’r‘or.-F-FLU0’\0-F0\0LU.402ctCDH’HDDH029-Cl)citJ810H’0CO00d0Hgoo00tCO0H)H’SCO00UCDCDH’HCD0Hc-I-aHCoCOd’c-FCDC)CDCDtSH)OS)dd4COc+CI)0)COCI)CDI!)CDHH*1-30CDHH”-’CDCDH’HH’C)I-’-dCDHH-‘(D(Dci)0H’0Cl)(0(T)CO<1H0CDCDHCD•C)COCDc+CDc-I-H’CDI—,WtoLU\Dro\C) 0ro—FF-’0CDCDCD••••••e-l90’H—Z’Ji.r\)OO(1)COCD0H’—a—88-’OBSERVATIONSXII. Comparison of the Relative Density of Selected BrowseSpecies Occurring in Seven Forest TypesWhen the ground and shrub data are considered together as inthe case of those species listed in Table XVII., (p.86), somechanges in density result which apparently render spurious someearlier stated observations determined solely from analysis ofthe ground cover.In Table XVII,, only seven plant species are listed, yet theforest types may be adequately distinguished by their recordeddensities. Types I., II., and V., all are dominated bylodgepole pine as would be expected. The density values indicatefirst an increasing cover of pine, with age of stand, followedby a decrease in cover as the forest matures, This is alsosubstantiated by the ground cover densities tabled on pageThese types are also characterized by high densities of aspen.Type I may be distinguished from type II in that it containsImuch less soopolallie, less aspen but more rose, Douglas firand juniper. Similarly upland willow and rose are much commonerin types where the forests are more dense, eg., more common intype V than in type II, although both have lodgepole pine andsoopolallie in high density.Forest types III., IV,, and VI,, form another group, whichischaracterized by the dominance of Douglas fir.4—89—This species is most common in the ponderosa pine—Douglas firforest, then the Douglas fir—lodgepole pine and finally in thelogged Douglas fir type. Of these three, upland willow is mostcommon in the logged Douglas fir type—not being recorded ineither types III., or IV. The presence of lodgepole pine intype IV., will separate it from type III.The density data for type VII., the aspen forest, ispeculiar in that its characteristic species, aspen, is recordedat so low a density. This is attributed to errors in samplingthe type, evident from the high density of Douglas fir obtained.Also, the mature aspen type has little seedling growth to betransected, due to the closed canopy which is formed.The distinctness of these seven forest types will be basedupon the summed density data for the shrub layer and upon theground data for those species not included in Table XVII. Thediscrepancies in apparent density of the ‘shrub’ species arelargely attributed to the low occurrence densities recorded forthese shrub species in the ground data, The summed data isconsidered more representative for these species. The fact thatthe shrub species are less common (i.e., grow at lower density),than most of the ground occurring species, increases the chancefor sampling error. A much larger sample would be considereddesirable, in the writer’s opinion, before the recordeddensities are considered absolute and entirely representative.&H.01)CDCi.)Cl)HL-)C10<4<4000Cr00Dd00H.HHOHI-41bJPH)H.CDP<4P-’II£1PHCi2H.‘4H.CDCCDCD(DCDHC)HCDPCl)iCfC)H.CDCfIc+.d0(Dc+•I)CT)dCD‘-‘aHCtCtU’CfCt,H.Cl)0$1P)HHbiCl)H‘H•0O1-3CliF-’Hti-3CfHHCDtCt<4CT)P’Cl)0‘40‘(DOjHaH.H.U’‘tJCFCl)P<4CD(VHiC)0ic+CD0CDCl)dPC)OI-<T)(D‘-3H‘4HiH.H.ctHc-Fp(DCViCi2CDH0CDCDF-4CDCt)0HCD1)03’HCl)Cf‘4<4Cl)0CD11)UIHiCDP.CDCl)zi•H.Cl)H‘aU’‘-H.C))Cl)CDdH.Cl)H.CD<4iHtc+‘4H.<4Hict(D1Cl)0HiHCDH.))OH.Hip.’‘‘-SCDCD(DO‘40H.‘-SH.HCop.’UIH.CD)ct‘aDIP.’0‘‘-SCfCD‘aP’HOiCDCoc+<41.5‘4CV<4<4“0P.’HCliCDCt<41-I)Cl)Ct1U’‘-5‘<40‘-5CoH.Y’<40<4‘4CoOI1HH.H.HC)-OCDP)H.Pi9’ti<4ctHHiCJ2HHCDCDd9)5(oHP.’0HC)Cl)CDH.9)CDH•c-FCD9)9’•P.’H<40c+CDHP.’‘iHO4U’U’‘a9’9’H9’C)H‘4Hi<4HP.’P’CDCDHH.tjH’9’CD‘400Cf<49’0(oH’IiCT)HO<4P.’HH1HP.’9’•0H.Cl)<4ic9Hct9’HCo<40’H91(T)Hc-FH.<4U’H.CD9)91P.’U’HHi‘4005‘4HH.HCD9’CD‘-SH.CD00Ci)1.50gCDHCD‘a-9’CfHOH.<4£9)I1rJP.’CD<4H•Cl)H.9)HiC)‘aH0HH.c+U)D)0HHi0‘-SHc9’U’0PH.Hic+CD9,0<4iCfO5‘SHHc-Fci-S‘-5>tH.HiO‘a‘-5•CD•‘49’HCD3.’dCDCfco(DHi‘-3p..P.’HCoU’‘4‘a’CDCDHP.’0Cl)9)‘-5‘xJ9)HCDtic+C)CD9’<40C)H9)0‘49’9)5C)Cf0U’(DOi.<4CDH.H‘-5CDP.’ctO<4bCD9)CDCl)CC)•Hic+9)C’-tH9)P.’CDCDCD9)ID.’C)Cl)HH’‘—CfH.HH9’‘1HcF4H.0CD‘4CD$‘a0H.HP.’0P.’Cl)9)0C)H9)-5‘-5<41-5i9,<4<49,1-5CD9)Cl)p.,09)9’CDc+U’Cf<4Cl)9)Hc+U’dCDHi<1P-’H.i9)CfH9’H.H.p.CDp)CfHCDp.9’0HOCDiH‘aHCoCDc+H.9)0<4CDPH9’CiU)<4H.•P.’<4H<4U’£CD$’U’CT)<4CD09)0H9)’-S<41-5C)OODU’09’U’0CDCf‘-S•9)0H’9’<4\SCH.(+1-SCl)‘a•HO.Cf<4H.CoCoH.•CDCli1-5<4(DtiU.H.H9)9)C)H.‘tiCD‘a‘-SHH.(oCoCD\Jc-F9)HCDH.CfCD>CD09)0(T)aOD‘4Co9’H‘40Hi9’HP.’HCfo)CfC)9)H.H.0H1H.coHiHi9’‘j-i.9)<4HiH.9’U’0CD‘1P-H.‘—Hi00‘_5‘-S9)H.HiCl)H.P.’HU)oCf’-sCDCfCl)1-S(DOCDHH.‘a9’CfH<4H.9)HH.C)Cf0H•CfH.9’9)<4‘-SH.0Cf11)3.’0d9’CDCl)HCT)CoP’Hi‘4Cf(VCl)H.CD‘—(0(1)CD‘.5‘—CDCDf‘CoCD0p.’(1)CDHc-FCOC)-iCOPf)CDC)C)C)0pH0OCDCOCD00‘Ji.000i-GcpCDHC)dPCO1•COc+CDO-i0CDHHCDCDHCDCDHCDHCDCl)COti0HCl)COHHHH-pcod-P0ctI.kCDCD•HH0‘0CDCOD’00COci-&c-F0HHCDC)HPPHHct-PCDCDCDHc-t--3oOXCD0O•COCD0COHCOHc-FCD0PCDc+d$1PctCD‘CT)Hc-F)-CJCD<CDHH00CDeH))...pHpcoHHto10H1-IHHIHCD1—uHc+.c-FHctCOHCDPPCOcl-1—4H0CDPC)OCDP•CDHOPF-IHPc-FCDCOCDH-PH0‘oCOo-HOCDPHCDPi1HPHHPHci-CDS-COSOP-CDHzY0‘-HCDCO3’CD0H00P(PHH00COHCI)0PCOHQC)HCDPCDpCDPCOHCDHHCT)HCDHHHCYHC)HP0)-“ctOCO‘-.1—.PPPCDCDHHPHCXHpci-•CDHHHjCOCoIHP•CD‘—CDPPCOHHPCDCOCO-FHCDc+0COci-tCD0ci-—.‘JiHCD•I—d•HiH•H•HHCT)H0.)ppHCl)c-i-CDPP0‘J’C)1P0COc-I-0C)c-I-H%-CD•CDCoIp•COPCD,,0P.C)O\Ji.HHPHc-I<ICD‘‘CDICDCDPC)0H-FHPPHCO9CD0ciPJI.HH00H‘(‘3d-CDciP0C)ci•PF’.)CDci‘.0HCDH.c-FI—’0c-I-CDHDL&)CDciciHPHc-I-C)HCI)-J.OC%HH•Cl)CDPCD0c-Fc‘-0H‘tJ—.‘-‘-H•zciCOciCDiHctHc-FpH000CDHCDHCDHPCDc-FCoCOCO•CD•HH0’c-f-•ppPPPCO•p‘.0CDCDCD•.CDatPCPCO•PHHPCDP‘JI.PPPHOHPHp.f-ic-F-•CDCY’1’.)HCl)PHPHPHPCDH0)PPCDCDHHHdH‘HCD•ciPci(1PH’.P.11.HCDP•0’HCOPPc-FCDHP0HHCOc-FC)H1-3•CoHCDCDH(1)HdI—’-PH01-CD‘d‘.HH‘P<H0Ii1iCDHHHPH‘tiHCOP0F’.)0Pc+C)Hc-FHHp\ØtoCDPHCDP\SI.PCo,‘’CD9HPCDHHHPH(,JPCl)OCD0HHH(0‘<HPHHH‘HHCDciuc-FiQCDHQHH‘01H•c-i-&Hc-I-c-FCDj92Forest Type VI. Douglas fir—logged(Pseudotsuga taxifolia)Soopolallie, rose and paper birch were totally available.Douglas fir showed 33,9% unavailable and 3.1% partiallyavailable. Sixteen percent (16%), of the upland willow waspartially avaIlable, and the remainder completely so, Aspenshowed 13.9% unavailable and l2.3 partially available. Sprucewas 23 unavailable,Forest Type VII. Aspen(Populus tremuloides)Upland willow, soopolallie, Douglas fir, red-osier aogwood,Mt. aider, were completely available. Rose showed 37.unavailable, Juniper had +,7% partially available, and all theMt. maple and lodgepo.Le pine were recorded as partiallyavailable. Swamp willow was 8% available, Aspen showed allthree degrees of availability with 27.3 not, an equally amountpartially, and 115,4% totally available. Paper birch was 87%available.OBSERVATIONS V.XIV. Degree of Utilization of Available Browse by Forest TypeForest Type I. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia)Older Burned Areas (stands approximately 3-8 years old)Lodgepole pine indicated slight utilization with 10.7%moderate, and 1.7% severe browsing being recorded. All of theupland willow in this type showed some degree of use, with 31.6%being severely browsed.IAspen was less utilized with a severe recording of 11.2%. Mt.alder was ll+.2% light, and 33.99 moderately browsed. Swampwillow was 56,6% severely browsed. Douglas fir and Alpine firreceived only nil to trace browsing. All the redosier dogwoodencountered was recorded as severely browsed.Forest Type II. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia)Younger Burned Areas (stands approximately less than 3 years old)Upland willow was 98.+% severely browsed indicating veryheavy usage in these young lodgepole pine burns, Lodgepole pinewas not browsed to any extent, Soopolallie received little usewith only 7.3% moderate usage recorded. A small sample ofDouglas fir Indicated light browsing. Aspen had 31-f.6 moderateusage. Mt. alder was all moderately browsed.Forest Type III. Ponderosa pine—Douglas fir(Pinus ponderosa—Pseudotsuga taxifolia)This type is evidently not plentifully supplied with browsesince no upland willow was recorded (it was present in the typein small quantities), and soopolallie showed 72.9% severebrowsing. Mt. alder was all moderately browsed, while aspenonly recorded nil to trace browsing. Douglas fir was the onlyother species to receive considerable browsing with 26.3% beingrecorded as moderate._9kf..Forest Type IV. Douglas fir—lodgepole pine(Pseudotsuga taxifolia—Pinus contorta var, latifolia)Douglas fir was little utilized in this type with 9-i-, nilto trace browsing being recorded. One decimal four (l.)percent severe browsing and +.2% moderate were also recorded forthis species. Four decimal nine (+.9%) percent of the lodgepolepine was severely browsed and an equal amount recorded asmoderate, Aspen was 87% severely, and 8.7% moderately browsed,indicating very heavy usage. Soopolallie recorded f08% áeverebrowsing—another indication of heavy usage and a range low inavailable moose food.Forest Type V. Lodgepole pine—mature(Pinus contorta v. latifolia)Lodgepole pine was 78.5% unavailable in this mature foresttype, while 35.2% of the available lodgepole pine was severelybrowsed, Aspen indicated that 38,3% severe, and 10.3% moderatebrowsing were prevalent. Soopolallie was commonly browsed to amoderate degree with )+7•)+% being recorded at this usage. Uplandwillow showed that 21+.2% was unavailable while 88.8% of theavailable willow was severely browsed. Rose, Douglas fir,spruce, and wild cherry were not browsed. Mt. alder was found tobe lightly utilized.—95—Forest Te VI, Douglas firlogged(Pseudotsuga taxifolia)Douglas fir, the characteristic species of this type, waslargely divided into two utilization classes being eitherunavailable (3Li%), representing the remaining mature trees, orslightly utilized (87.1), indicating that the abundant seedlinggrowth following logging was only rarely browsed, Six decimalseven (6.7%) percent of this species was severely browsedindicating increased use with increased availability. Uplandwillow found to be most abundant in this type, showed 33.59severe, 26.7% moderate and light utilization. Aspen wasshown to be 2,5% severely, 20,1% moderately, and 2.7% lightlybrowsed. Lodgepole pine and spruce did not record any browsingabove the trace level. Soopolallie had 9.l severe browsing,7,1% moderate usage and 83.8% nil to trace utilization, Rose,paper birch, and snowbrush were very lightly browsed,Forest Type VII, Aspen(Populus tremuloides)Aspen, the characteristic tree of this type was found to beseverely browsed with 93,8% of the available browse of thisspecies recording an extreme degree of use, Soopolallie had10.i-% severe browsing and 8)+.1+% classed as moderate. Uplandwillow exhibited all three classes of utilization with 56.’+%light, l5,b moderate, and 27,8 severe utilization. All theswamp willow sampled was found to be severely browsed.t-’c-t-—.o—crct•-tiOP2Op2C120tiCnidOCnF-P>4a(DOP’Hc12CDHOFDOP2DddCDHP’P22CD-HdOF-HIHcdOP’CDCDHHH2CD(‘2H0H0cP20Z‘riQHIc*cnH-‘.coci0IO(DP2(nI-’HL‘df-CD•HH-HCD—CDn•HP2“—‘0CDCD CD1c+(DIP’CD0(/2HHHHI-ICDI•19•r’30’PCD CDODHII•I—I4c+-FCD•1-3xjH>I_i.0CroHCD(DIII•IIHCDI—’-Cl)\C)H(/20ctI-IH01-30I-ICDP4ZOD0’-F’H%ICD<SC)999•(i2H0ciOD1-3H(jJODP2CDCDHCDI•I••HCDC)100’0)CDCDCD ci-10U)0i0’\O-FU)0c+0IIo9•(flHCDH I-’.s1,w 0c+I-’--FH\010I-H.00U)II9•9•I—ICD-F-F’0)ODHH CDw————,—‘t-iC-F--%eO—’tJ)ct-•OP’IOp)020ICs02Hoc4JcCDI0dP’F-4&(DHOI-ICDOp’CDd[dCDHP’P’CD‘-IH0CDctndOP’(DCDHHCo0HIOCoiP’0Cl)‘-IC)HIctCo1H(I)CoCD0!OCDP’Ito-I-I-Hf2’CD•HI—I::I-’.CoP’F-’CDdHC)Ic1-d‘-‘Cl)COHCDP’I0I-’IP’‘—0CDCDIc+CD0 0 CDH-F‘JIo0”0”H•99a’a’CD02H-FIHCDIIV• 0’1-’•r’_)op,0’ctCDI—’I•III‘iCDl—(WA)0COO1-3CDCDH(0f-SQCDf-r’.)Ct4H-F-F029ee•I-JCD>C‘0i’O‘0‘4(04HOC)CDNCOct-FHHcDCDCD0C.,-III•I-FU)HOCDCDCDIC‘CDC)f\)000’0P-c-f-•99•(0‘0HHCDoOLII-F02H01’J-F-F0”oJ••••H(I)02-Fl’\)021-1CD—98-A considerable amount of Douglas fir was present in the coverof this type, apparently encountered at the ends of thetransects and represents sampling error since this species isnot typical of the type. Utilization data showed severe,indicating available seedling growth, and 5+.3 nil to tracebrowsing. Mt. maple, a rarely occurring species, was found to beseverely browsed wherever it was encountered. Red—osier dogwoodwas also found to be severely browsed in all instances, Paperbirch showed 65,2% moderate, and 3+.8% severe utilization, Mt.alder, juniper, snowbrush and lodgepole pine were not browsed,Rose showed some utilization with +2.7% moderate browsing beingrecorded.Table XVIII., shows the percentages of available browsereceiving severe utilization in the case of five commonlyoccuring browse species. While the data are in some sectionsincomplete, due to the limitations of sampling, ctifferences maybe readily seen by which the seven listed forest types may beassessed br the degree of utilization that they receive frommoose. For the purpose of establishing that the same plantspecies in various forest types receive distinct degrees ofutilization, the fact that a species is not severely browsed toany extent in some types is considered significant. In TableXVIII., the dashes indicate that the plant species in questionwas not encountered on the sample transects but may occur in thetype. The fact that the species were not encountered in theseforest types is attributed to their apparently low—occurringdensities.Upland willow (Salix spp,), by far the most important moosebrowse food sampled, was found to be most heavily browsed in theyoung lodgepole pine burns, While this forest type does notcontain the highest density of this species, all the willowshrubs encountered will be totally available at the outset sothat a high degree Qf utilization is to be anticipated. Themature lodgepole pine forest showed the next highest degree ofutilization of upland willow. This forest is also rated secondhighest in upland willow density by this study. The degree ofutilization of this species was next highest in the loggedDouglas fir forests. Upland willow was also found at its highestdensity within this forest type, A higher degree of utilizationwould probably be evident were it not for the large amounts ofthe species which are available. Again, as was the case with theyoung lodgepole pine burns, most of the willow is available,having arisen as succors from the existing rootstocks of thespecies which were broken and thereby stimulated to growthduring logging.The degree of utilization of upland willow was less in theolder lodgepole pine burns, and still less in the aspen forests,No upland willow was sampled in the ponderosa pine .Douglas firforest, although it is known to occur in low density in the type.Observations lead me to believe that a high degree ofutilization exists for upland willow in this type. The highpreference and low occurrence of the species supposedly beingthe causative factors.-loo•The Douglas fir—lodgepole pine forest transects did not providequantitative data on upland willow sufficient to allow analysisof its density and utilization. Field observations made on thetransect locations indicate that upland willow is scarce andheavily browsed in this forest type.Aspen (Populus tremuloides), provides a good indicator ofuse in the various forest types. Aspen was found most heavilyutilized in the forest type which it characterizes—the aspenforest, While availability was considered on the basis of heightand D.B.H. measurement, the phenomenon of aspen breakage wasoverlooked. This obviously increases the amounts of availableaspen browse. The utilization rate is probably connected withthe low availability of the species in its type. The nexthighest degree of utilization of aspen was found in the Douglasfir—lodgepole pine forest. Again, the density of aspen is low,its preference fairly high and its availability found to begreatly reduced. High utilization is inevitable. A heavierdegree of utilization of aspen was found in the mature lodgepolepine forest than in the logged Douglas fir type. In this casethe density of aspen was found to be highest in the maturelodgepole pine type and although the availability was slightlyless in this type, the abundance of aspen may cause its heavieruse. Heavier use of aspen was evident in the older lodgepolepine burns than in the younger burns. The abundance of uplandwillow together with its high prererence, may account for lessutilization of aspen in the younger burns.-1Ol—Soopolallie (Sheperdia canadensis), although not a palatablespecies and found utilized by moose in a study by Hatter, (1950)in this general region, was found to receive a considerableamount of utilization in the less productive forest types.The ponderosa pine—Douglas fir forest showed particularly highutilization with 72.9% of the sample shrub density of thisspecies being severely browsed. The generally low productivityof this forest as exemplified by the scarcity of upland willowand aspen has apparently forced moose to consume thisunpalatable species to a high degree. The Douglas fir—lodgepolepine iorest also showed a high degree of usage for soopolalliewith ++.79 severe browsing recorded for this species. Again,upland willow was found to occur in low density and to be veryheavily browsed, Aspen was also present in low density. LesserIamounts of severe browsing of soopolallie were found in both thelogged Douglas fir and aspen forest types. No severe utilizationof Sheperdia canadensis was found in the young lodgepole pineand only 1,6% severe usage in the mature lodgepole pine forests.Browsing of this species was also very light in the olderlodgepole pine burns, (Observation from field notes).Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia), was not generallybrowsed to an excessive degree, and only in the aspen foresttype was any amount of excessive usage noted. The recordedvalue of 1+0,4% excessive use is not considered to be significantsince the bulk of the Douglas fir encountered in the aspen typecame from one transect,(1+98), in the Back Valley region,Northwest of Savona.• -CDddCDCDc-I-c-FHHIn1-3CDIF-‘40CD‘-(12‘I0CD00H•c-I-(iSP5CDCt)‘tCD0c-f-lJ.fCDCD(12ci-c-I-<‘-CT)()oCD-1P5CDPCT)p’Ot)0Q0CDCDCDP’oHc-FI-•CDfJ.c-F‘-nCDoicisd1c+04C)HCDCD-.1Il.c-Fpc-CDI-i..•c-fPCDNC)OPs3Hj0O1-3CDCDPDC)CDc-FCD—‘•c-I-CD0CD‘-9.c-I-HCD00dHdCDCT)(040c-FdOo0c-F•HOOH)H1-9(12‘H(is‘0Ct)PS4‘11YCDCT)4PsPSCDCDCT)PS1-34CD0ci-PSCDCDCOCDOIf)4c-fH3’CD44CD•CDc-I-dCD(X0CDci-CDc-FF-4H5‘-CDCD1UCD14CD0H-CD4P5CD(12QtY’CDPSCDH5P5CDci-C)-)OSp5c-I-CD1-3CDCT)‘-0c-FI-’-CD‘-IHPsdic-F—0CDS—.CDCDInc-FCDHH5‘-P540Jc-I-I’Tj(1)c-F4CDCD•004HHCDusCDc-i-‘-I4CDC)CD(isCT)Ci)Ct)0OI0H5c-f-CD0f.iCDIn‘-1c-F4CDPs4InCs)H-CDdc-F105c-FP5p5c-FCDH-‘ihI(0P’InCDCDc-FCDCY’HOCDPCDCDdHc-I-001°‘4CD1CD(12P)CDC)HCDP5010C)P5Q\C)Hoc-F0CD04C)c-FH-CDCoCDhIc+•CDIH5hIH-PCoCDjc-FInCD-‘]COCD,-o-hII0PCYCDoH-”10(12HbC)•H00hICDhI(0HtnIhIH-P•“H-CDC)\004hICDP0CDddH-Ic-I-4I-’(is(1)(124P5CD0(0IP’CDiPS(DhI-a’CDCDc-FususCoC)hIHH.-’c-ihICDP.CT)CDdH-c-FiCDPSc-I-44HCDP5C).CTQP5usQci-L’4CDCDp5usi4‘-PShIH-CDCDCDHH-CDC)ci)00hICDdH-PSCD•(1)o()c-F4hIC)hIH-InCT)0c-i-hICDP54PH0P’dhIPSHC)H‘-I—bCD0(it)CT)ci-H-hII—3(fi)QCi)H-Cb1—ICl)1-bCD(1)CDInc-PP5CD5ci)CDHCDc-I-H0c-FusCDC)CDCDCDhIOX)H-OX)C)U)HI--bHH-0CDc-FH-cl)CD0d0H-InCDH-1jc-FLjhIc-F-<IH-H-C)CD4hIci’04CD000C)L4CD0H-0Ct)‘—dhICDPSHCt)ci)H-0c-P“(it)CDCDat)c-f-HCDci)HHCDhICDHHCl)PHH-CDci)ci)4IP5CH1c-I-05PSH5HhICDhIusCDhIPsC)‘-:1Cl)4Cl)0hICDHc-FOX)0Cl)H-CDhICDHej4CD1-bCT)OX)I--bl-C)I—bH000(isP5HCD0CDH-H-CD3I-’•c-F40Cl)I--bPSInCl)c-I-hIhIOX)OX)CDOX)CD”P5P51-bICDHCi)CDH4CD)C)H000CDdPSCD00ci)HhIC)0InhI4eCDci’HCDci’j\)P-.HCDH-COP5HIICD-103-SIThfl4ARYEVALUATION OF FOREST TYPESTo determine the utilization ratings for the seven foresttypes, the following technique. was used, First the degree ofsevere utilization was considered. (Table XVIII.). The tabledvalues for each species were visually inspected and the foresttypes ranked accordingly, from the highest to the lowest, withregard to the value of the amount of utilization. A rating ofseven (7), was assigned to the forest type in which the highestdegree of severe utilization occurred, then a rating of six (6),for the next highest, and so on down to one (1). Then the ratingvalues for each fcrest type were summed and indicated:—Severe UtilizationForest Type Rating ValueHighest IV 30VII 22V 21VI 19I 12II 7Lowest III 7(The higher the rating value the greater the amount ofutilization and therefore the poorer the range condition,)This treatment was repeated for moderate utilization and yieldsthe following result.Moderate UtilizationForest Type Rating Value Adjusted Rating V.Highest VII 26IV 25 13VI 20 11I l+ 7II 10 5V 10 5Lowest III 7L0B4Cl)H)c-FH)0H)c-FP50H’CDCD0P*0H’H0H’c-f0H’CD0BHCD1CDii-’riCDCDSCDP’CDCl)CD0H’CDHH)p’H’CnCDPCl)HH‘JCl)C)•H’f3Cl)CD0HC12NCDP)P.Cl)Cl)ctCDHc-FH)0CDNCDC)1H’CDC)Cl)lCDCD‘aPH0CDCD‘-3CDCDcc-FCDH•‘aH’HCD01Cl)c-FCl)c-f-CDHCDBoOBP5Cl)i—‘c-f-c-f-CDCDH’ri-H’H•‘-f‘10c-f-dCDctCnPSHOX)CC)P-(4Cl)Cl)0CD(C)sCDcF\DCDH’0pCDCDc-i-c+CDic-f-c-F‘-5P5H)C)‘tfH•CD‘a)-5OX)‘—H’H)ci-0-F’J1.CD0PCDC)OX)0‘-5H’‘.jCD”c-FP)CDOCD’a‘—4c-I-‘-S0Hc-FCDi0-OX)H’C)CDCDP5c-f-CO(1)H’CDCDC)OX)‘-SCDHc-FuC)5BJctCDC)CDPCt)CDCDCD<H’0‘aCDP5CDCDOOjc-FP5OX)0CDtiHCDCl)P‘1PN‘-Sc-FH’Cl)i0‘-5H’1Hc-FCDHCD‘ac-f-H’CDrniOX)c-f-0ci-Cl)H)0tc-f-CDHH)c-I0HHCD0H’Cl)CDHI-3H’Cl)CDH’tCD0CDCD0H)Cl)P5CDHII-ICl)0CDP5c-FH)(DCJ)OX)CDc-FCDU’c-I-SI—IH<CDBiH’CDH’HCDCi)HeuH’Cl)H’c-FCoCDH0CDOCDHz•Cl)‘aCDOX)H’‘-50CDCT)POX)HCDH’dH•Oc-F‘SCDHCDSiOX)Cl)‘SCi)c-I-NCD’-S•‘aCDCD•Ct)Cl)OX)Ct)CDH’U’CDcnP5BI‘aCDH’c-I-P55)P5i-’-c-ICC)0OX)CTX)Cr)H’OX)0Cl)0iH•CD0OX)‘-SCDH•f3’ciCDH)O0BU’‘-SCDHc-I-00CDC!)c-t-oc-i-,.—c).,‘CDCDHCl)CDC0Cl)C)H’iJ’‘xjH)c-Fdcr)0CDCD1OX)ic-FH’HIH’CD‘-5H’D’PHCoCl)CFC)0‘SCD0c-I-HOX)OX)CT)H’0<CDC).40H)CDCDHPCl)NH’CDB0CD$1fP5’aBCl)l5H)Cl)CDCl)SP5CD‘aCDI5hIS‘ac-FCl)toCl)OX)c-FCDc--.CDCl)PCDH’H’U’5CDH)HhIc-f-H’gc-fBH’HCD(Dcl)tif0hIH)BH’0H)(I)Y’0Cl)H-0P5OH’P5Cl)•S00dC)‘-SH’CDC!)U’c-I-Hc-Fc-FCD1tS5<H’C)hIHCDOX)hICI)HCDH.-5CD<O•CDCl)CDCT)dH)CD‘a0eiNhICl)<CD‘aCDCl)CDc-t0dH)0c-I-P5CDc-f-H’hI0P5H’P5H’‘-SCD0CDHCDOX)0CDH’CDP5c-ICl)pzo:CDc-f-•hISCl)CDc-Fc-FHH0CDCDH’Cl)H’‘—CDc-FH’CDH’HOX)HCDHdhICl)H‘a0dhIHCl)0CDc-Fc-F‘-5I-iH’(I)H’H)H-CDH’CDhIC)H’P)CDNCl)Nc-FNHzHH)HHCDPSCDH)c-FH-CDHCDH’HHHF\CD0CDH’CDc-F00BU’c-FCDhI00c-f-hIODU\JiCoHdCDhICl)Ni0H’QhICDO0H’Cl)0CDJ’U’H-CDC)Cl)P5H)0glCDc-f-H)I0CDBOX)0c-f-3’B(0c-f-P5Cl)P5c-I-SPH’hICDiHH’0Cl)H’Cl)PSPCl)‘a0H)P-‘a0c-FP5(D0H‘-5H’c-f-Cl)1Cl)0OX)0CDPSH’hIPSCnOc-FH’CDH’‘aHc-f-OX)hIhIHCD<pH’HCDi0CDCDCDP•PSH’H’C1)hIc-f-H’PSCDdCi)c-i-j\)c-FNH0CT)‘aNc-ftid0c-FCDC)CD0PQdCl)CDCDH’CDH•‘-.31,c-I-c-F<10c-FCDCD‘—‘0H’CDhIH’CT)id‘a00I—5c-F0‘aCD-105-The high degree of utilization found in the logged Douglas firforest type is not regarded as opposed to this observation, sincethe severe utilization recorded probably resulted prior tologging (most of these areas have only recently been logged).The position of the aspen forest type is considered doubtful.That most of the transects were taken in aspen stands which werethemselves within the more dense forests may possibly account forthe high degree of browsing recorded.Table XVII., indicates the relative densities at which thevarious plant species occur in the forest types. Consideringupland willow (Salix spp.), and aspen (Populus trenuloides),as the most important browse species recorded in Table XVII,,these forest types were rated accordingly on the basis of theirdensity:— Mature lodgepole pine forests were most productive,then logged Douglas fir, young lodgepole pine burns, olderlodgepole pine burns, aspen, Douglas fir—lodgepole pine,and finally the ponderosa pine—Douglas fir forest type leastproductive.DISCUSSIONWith the areas of the forest types, the density of browsespecies within these forests and the degree of utilization ofthis browse known, it follows that the individual aerialphotographs used for samples, may be appraised for their valueas moose range.-io6Also, the larger sample districts may be similarly appraised,since the method may be extended to include the appraisal ofany aerial photograph area drawn from the sample districts.Finally, the method may be used to evaluate the moose habitatin any region where the sample forest types appear. In otherregions different forest types may be encountered. They may beidentified using the same general principles of photointerpretation, and once ground checking and evaluation ofthese new forest types has been undertaken, the moose rangesmay be appraised in a similar manner to that described in thisstudy. In this way specific areas i.e., a restricted moosewinter range, may be examined; viz., the forest typesidentified, the areas of each forest type obtained, and anestimate of the available browse food and the probable degreeof browse utilization predicted by an observer even if he hadnever actually seen the area in question from the ground.Certain sources of error are evident in the technique.First, sampling errors exist. The apparent variation withintypes, would indicate that a larger sample would be desirableto more accurately establish the relative densities of someplant species. For example, upland willow is present in boththe ponderosa pineDouglas fir, and the Douglas firlodgepole pine forests although it was not recorded bytransecting. A larger sample would aid in establishing thestatus of these types.-107—Also, a larger sample would probably result in theestablishment of sub-types, particularly in the case of aspen,and ineture lodgepole pine forest types. Plant successionconstitutes a source of error in that the forest types arecontinually being modified (i.e•, young burns to older burnsto a mature lodgepole pine forest). Thus the relative areas ofthe forest types is constantly changing. To a limited extentthe data could be corrected for this if accurate agedeterminations were obtained for the dominsnt tree species.Furthermore the forest types are being modified by the variedagenciesof fire, logging, and settlement. Special industrialdevelopments, such as the Trans Mountain Pipeline and theproposed natural gas pipeline further modify both the area andthe browse production of the forest types through which theypass. In the case of Trans Mountain Pipeline, the edge-effectso created by its cut has resulted in an abundant ribbon ofupland willow growth throughout much of its length. Othersources of error exist in that the degree of utilization of abrowse species can change annually and is dependent upon agreat many variables, and may only be accurately assessed fromthe ground. For this reason it cannot be expected that atechnique such as described in this study will wholly replaceaccurate ground observation. It is maintained, however, thatthe extent of field observations may be considerably limitedthrough the use of this technique so that only sufficient fieldfield observations necessary to establish the annual changes inbrowse utilization are required.-108—It should be stressed that the chief value of the dataobtained in this study can only be realized by periodicrepetitions of the transect technique upon the establishedpermanent plots. In this manner specific changes in plantcomposition, density, availability and utilization winimmediately be apparent.When more accurate browse survey methods are derived,thereby permitting much greater refinement in the evaluationof available browse and browse utilization, the value oflimited sampling wifl be even more important, since it ispossible that the more accurate browse evaluation methods willof necessity be more time consnmlng. Accurate evaluation ofbrowse conditions througbnlimited sampling, extended througha method such as proposed in this study would permit bettermanagement of extensive game ranges such as exist inBritish Columbia.lO9CONCLUSIONS(1) Individual tree species and at least seven forest typesof importance to moose in central B.C. are identifiablefrom the study of aerial photographs.(2) The extent of these forest types can be delimited andmeasured on aerial photographs.(3) Ground sub-sampling by means of lineinterceptiontransects provides data characteristic of the floralcomposition of the seven forest types.(+) These forest types are apparently distinct in floralcomposition, moose browse availability, and degree ofutilization of the available browse by moose.(5) The forest types so distinguished may be rated inaccordance with their density and utilization of availablemoose browse.(6) Degree of browse utilization by moose is more intensein the mature, dense forest types, than in the open foresttypes.(7) The study of aerial photographs, together with limitedground sub-sampling may be combined to assess the foodproductivity and degree of browse utilization of mooseranges in central British Columbia.M.NAGEMENT RECOMMENDATI ON S(1) That the permanent plots established by this study beperiodically re—appraised, and that more extensive samplingbe undertaken to provide further data for the refinement ofthis method.(2) Since overbrowsing of many ranges is evident, furtherreduction in the size of moose populations should beundertaken by either sex hunting seasons.(3) The selective logging of mature Douglas fir forestsshould be encouraged due to the increased production ofupland Salix which results.(1f) Controlled burning of certain overbrowsed forest ranges.LITERATURE CITEDCanfield, R.H., Application of the line interception metnoal9+]. in sampling range vegetation, Jour. Forestry3.2:388-39+.Cowan, I.McT,, Hoar, W.S,, and Hatter, J., The effect of forest1950 succession upon the quantity and upon thenutritive values or woody plants used as foodby moose, Canadian Journal of Research, D, 28(5):2-i-9—27l. —Dasrnann, W,P., Some deer range survey methods, Calif. Fish195]. and Game IZ:1+3—52.Department of the Interior, Canada Forest Service, The forests1935 of Canada, pp.1-62.Halliday, W.E.D., A forest classification for Canada, Can.1937 Dept. Mines and Resources, Dominion Forest.Service Bull., §2:1—50.Harris, R,W,, Use of aerial photos and sub-sampling in1951 range inventories, Jour, Range Management‘f+) :270—278.Hatter, J., The moose of central British Columbia,1950 unpub. PhD. thesis, The State Collegeof Washington, Pullman, pp. 356.Hormay, Getting better records of vegetation changes191+9 with the line-interception method, Jour.Range Management 2 (2):67—69.Howey, F.W., and E,0.S. Scholefield, British Columbia from1911+ the earliest times to the present, The S.J.Clarke Pub. Co., Vancouver, Vol. II. Historicalpp.1—68 +Isaac, L.A., and H.G. Hopkins, The forest soil of the Douglas1937 fir region, and changes wrought upon it bylogging and slash burning, Ecology :261+—279.Leedy, D.J., Aerial photographs, their interpretation andsuggested uses in wildlife management, Jour.Wildlife Management (2):l9l-210,-ill-Munro, J.A., and I.McT. Cowan, A review of the bird fauna ofl9+7 British Columbia, Published by the BritishColumbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C.Report of the British Columbia Provincial Game Commission,Annual Report for the years l952—5÷.Ryker, H.C., Aerial photography: method of determining1933 timber species, Timberman (5):1l-l7.Schwan, H,E., and Lloyd Swift, Forage inventory methods,l9+l with special reference to big game ranges,Sixth North American Wildlife ConferenceTransactions, pp. 118-126.Sisam, J,W,B,, The use of aerial survey in forestry and19+7 agriculture, Imperial Agricultural BureauxJoint Publication No. 9. Published by theImperial Forestry Bureau, Oxford—ImperialBureau of Pastures and Field Crops,Aberystwyth, pp.59.Spilsbury, R.H., and E.W. Tisdale, Soil—plant relationshipsl9 and vertical zonation in the southern interiorof British Columbia, Scientific Agriculture 2+(9): 395—+36.$purr, S,H,, Aerial photographs in forestry, The Ronald19f8 Press Co., New York, pp.l-3+O.Stoddart, L.A., and A.D. Smith, Range Management, McGraw-Hilll9+3 Book Co. Inc., New York, pp. 151+,Tisdale, E.W., A. McLean, and S.E, Clarke, Range resourcesand their management in British Columbia,Jour. Range Management z (l):3-9.ê)JStHeroHI>4IILIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SAMPLE AREASSAMPLE DISTRICT I. KANLOOPS NORTHPhoto Sample No. Air Photo No. LocationI- 123111315182326293132333k1.363?1+61+950515357B.C. 629:96636:136+6:286+9:9+702:8962O:+7636:911÷76:11636:96702:76l7+: 98620 :26631+:8636:102702:13702:70715:60929:11930:52931:131153:35908:82633:971153:28Cache CreekBack ValleyDeadman Creekx Red Lake P.O.Pass Lakex ClintonChasmx Upper Loon Lakex Dagger LakeBarriere70 Mile HouseGreen LakeYoung Lakex Bonaparte Lakex Bonaparte LakePressy LakeTaylor LakeBridge LakeBridge LakeLac des Rochesx Taweel LakeLone Buttex Taweel LakeSAMPLE DISTRICT II. KAMLOOPS SOUTH567812131617192125.262728B.C. 622:981100:53865:101612:72626:2623:111+617:77616:80623:111623:2623:6622:117623:80612:99Kamloopsx Highland Valleyx Highland ValleyTunkwa Lakex Highland ValleyHighland ValleyLac le JeuneBrigade Lake P.O.x Merritt, N,W,Stump Lakex Mabel Lake—Fox L.Nicola LakeCanfordMerrittx No transects takenon sample areaLocations of these areas areindicated by photo samplenumbers on the outline mapfacing this page.IIISELECTED LITERATURE : USE OF AERIAL PHOTOSFOR WILDLIFE MANAGENTAndrews, G.S., Notes on interpretation of vertical airl9O photographs, Forest Chronicle :2O2—2l5,Colwell, R.N., Photographic interpretation for civil1952 purposes, section in Manual of Photogrammetry,2nd. edit., American Society of Photogramnietry,Washington, D.C., pp. 535—602,Jensen, H.A., A system for classifying vegetation in19+7 California, California Fish and Game 33(‘+):199266, —Smith, H.T.U., Aerial photographs and their applications,l9+3 D. Appleton Century Co. Inc., pp.1-372.Stegeman, L.C., The use of three-diamensional photography1939 in wildlife studies, Fourth Transactions ofthe North American Wildlife Conference,pp. 623-627.Mottishaw, J.S., Aerial forest surveys in British Columbia,l9+l-+2 Univ. Wash, For. Club Quarterly (3):l8—2l,Wieslander, A,E,, and R.C. Wilson, Classifying forest and191+2 other vegetation from air photographs,Photogranunetric Engineering 8 (3):203—2l0,


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items