Ecological types of the upper Gunnison Basin : review draft

548 Pages·1997·228.7 MB·English

by  Johnston, Barry C

iin
| LIBR
Barry C. Johnston, Ecologist
REVIEW DRAFT
May 1, 1997
USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management
Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Resource Area
216 N. Colorado St. 216 N. Colorado St.
Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197
[phone]
[phone]
Habitat Partnership Program
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Gunnison District
310 West New York Ave.
Gunnison, Colorado 81230
[phone]
eeOel e ee

AYO4IY
fé)f rat ;
Barry C. Johnston, Ecologist
REVIEW DRAFT
May 1, 1997
USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDA Forest Service
Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Resource Area
216 N. Colorado St. 216 N. Colorado St.
Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197
[phone] [phone]
Habitat Partnership Program
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Gunnison District
310 West New York Ave.
Gunnison, Colorado 81239
[phone]
Let them read the titles! Every plant has a story to tell about its environment,
Martin Luther’s lawyer, at the Diet of Worms ° especially soil conditions...
This story or indicator significance, is of great help in
As I did stand my watch upon the hill, interpreting conditions over an area
I look’d towards Birnam, and anon, as well as in utilizing the land to its fullest extent.
Methought, the wood began to move... Herbert C. Hanson, 1929
William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
Ecology is not to be regarded as a specialized field
In the administration of the National Forests the aim is comparable to physiology or morphology or even zoology,
to convey to the greatest possible number the full benefit of botany, or geology, but as a point of view and a plan of
all the resources which the Forests contain and at the attack.
same time to perpetuate those resources by regulating Frederic E. Clements, 1935
their use.
James Jardine and Mark Anderson, 1919 The natural plant communities are not merely the best
integrators of the effects of climate and soil, but
Every plant is an indicator. This is an inevitable axiomatically they are also by far the best judges of these
conclusion from the fact that each plant is the product of two complexes in terms of plant production.
the conditions under which it grows, and is thereby a Frederic E. Clements, 1935
measure of these conditions. ... The question of species
and community values is much simpler than appears at Who among these overland voyagers could have dreamed
first. Itis not a matter of employing one to the exclusion that within a few short decades other settlers would
of the other, but of taking advantage of their engage in fierce wars among themselves for possession of
complementary relation. There can be no doubt that the this “desert” land; how could they have guessed that this
community is a more reliable indicator than any single land would produce five times more wealth for the Nation
species of it. ... The community not only affords a better through the pasturage of livestock than all the gold they
norm for the major indications, but it is likewise, so to would dig out of the earth with their picks and shovels?
speak, more finely graduated and hence more sensitive, Richard E. McArdle and David F. Costello, 1936
owing to the fact that no two of its dominants or
subdominants are exactly equivalent. It is also a better The general correlation between
indicator of the whole habitat, since it levels the plant succession stages and range condition would
variations from one point to another. frequently not hold true were forage production
Frederic E. Clements, 1920 (pp. 28-30) as reflected by floristic composition
used as the sole criterion for determining condition.
Each [geographical area] is a complex of climax and R. R. Humphrey, 1947
developmental habitats of varying rank and extent, each
controlling a plant community which serves as the Since simple correlations [between climate, soils, and
indicator of it. vegetation] in small areas are of little or no value for
Frederic E. Clements, 1920 (p. 39) general use, it follows that vegetation and soil maps can
be constructed only by direct observation. There are no
It is a simple matter to trace the line of 20 inches of short cuts - unless one knows all the independent
rainfall, or the 60 per cent ratio of rainfall to evaporation variables.
and to assume that it marks the line between prairies and N. C. W. Beadle, 1951
plains. Such an assumption reverses the proper
procedure, in which the associations themselves must be
permitted to indicate their respective climates. When this The most significant biogeographic classification of the
has been done and the limits of the various communities land surface is that based on climax conditions
established, it will be possible to determine the correlated exclusively. One important fact that supports this
factors. conclusion is that seral communities are not well
Frederic E. Clements, 1920 (p. 40) organized.
Rexford Daubenmire, 1952
When the relation between the silvicultural
characteristics and the physical factors which affect tree One can, with knowledge of the ecology of the plants
growth and the correlation of increment with the which are growing there and the climate, make a good
associated shrubby and herbaceous species are better estimate of the moisture regime. The correlation between
understood, the different sites may be regarded as the vegetation and climate is generally pretty good.
integral biological units which the administrator can use Guy Smith, 1981
an a basis for the rational organization of his forest.
Clarence F. Korstian, 1920 A soil classification or map is not an ecological
classification if the relationship of the classes to the
vegetation of the area is unknown. Similarly, a vegetation
map is not an ecological classification unless the
interrelationships between the vegetation types and the
environmental factors is known.
Barnes, Pregitzer, Spies, and Spooner, 1982
il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
Ae EDA YG a aterscenel.. Gee eet Aaa MEME ee, Ee Mc PD Ini. sasscscorernsencscnesoieMitvncanseasennne l
CE MANU CMAAUCT LONI Lae ee, UTM ate ee Eo Besa os cnc snsec annon nade ven iQdeeind heim, Meliat LBRUA varcee ee. 3
Dapuueory One colosical Classification.,..\..,.1.4 eure A 8s 4
PACINO OM ENG CaSO ASU Macs «1, ites sic ert re oott cee c ce eee 10
DY Coetaulon OMthie Gamison Basin 198... SERA lee cccearoceoe racseneteé povgteoelensonseseoanns ze
Descriptowor Major Plant’ Species 3... Fi, AR, A eas AEE IN ne 21
BATRCES Wi ROT Me. 4. i a TE Ee MR 22
Joo) ee oi AG Oa RR LATE RR AR A nl a nee a 26
Ky STATE MO MO... achasedeates AMUSO ete NT, DUR Ie AE 44
LE POTS 2 25ic ceive <saden MO a. AIEEE, Ree eee ten ene) SIE 61
Weeds, Introduced Plants, and Poison Plants .................cccccccssecssssesseceesceeceseeseceeeecess 716
asuvasivePiants and Poison Plants). en ee eee ee ee vos
PRL OOOO. PE secioas tone snnlsaiisbal sc vas mansnipreacamiiecaiian nicenimensioreesees 82
6. SoilstandGoil- Vegetation Correlation Cae a OG Wa atieledeaaabvecs oh.
7s Methods Used fo ield Data and-Analysis’.:... Seo aa a eM ne eee 94
8. Keys to the Ecological Types and Community Types ...............0ccccccccesssscceesseessssesseeees 98
mK ey loscolopical Types & .2.h R eR en e 98
OC OMIT TPTy pe Sy, rite ee. ee eee ee ve wag ne 106
OU oesctipUuol.ol the REGlopicadl TYPES ..2..4..20.5. 2: ee ee ee 139
DAR OCKky MOUT(aIPTUNIPer Series | ee ee rere ee veccsentesacsectercesns 146
PRP ONUCEOSA INCI CHICA IR ANH Lyon, skenacuslcosennessnr sonkguabeccagmssfpieniesoiarnnyeasnvbaetisen 150
SrBristiccone Pine Series ates... Peek Both i open EO dh) al Beene 165
a. Dlucwpruice Uplands Series 3 f.....20.).. 7: iy Bune Behe We 171
5 AOOUSIAS-FAPISCHICS te Me coh da Me tee eee eerie eth saetirttesen 178
DPLOASCDOIE PING SETICS i. oi. hisccstadc Pe oe LE APU en izes 204
faoubalpine-bir-Douglas-Fit Series |. 8.0 eee eee eee e eer ctsdsnsncepédcens 217
8a. Subalpine Fir-Engelmann Spruce Series (Tall Forests) ............000.ceccscsccseseeeeees get
8b. Subalpine Fir-Engelmann Spruce Series (Krummholz,
Wind Deformed, Alpine Ecotone Forests) 27. Ne tetes iris cee- cs toteonersosscsteccseoees 243
SOSLAMPEE PING OCTICS 3h. Vas Gets ces eee re et crete hat miaetecu te teett erties. 247
TOPASDEIVDCIIES cen rete cicks chat ve eee ne ttt tee Meee stat marc octecteattere nse. : 250
LlgNarrowleat Cottonwood Series: hc. nceterret ere es cecetetetenctrtetirettesssesestetseters 270
12. Blue & Engelmann Spruces-Subalpine Fir Riparian Series...............0....:cccccceees 279
DO MCLIOU MW TIO Wier icSe meri ey tteaek i tune ety Re ME a) ape waatu ate 292
14. Blue Willow-Serviceberry Willow-Booth Willow Series.................c.:ccccsesseeeees 303
15. Planeleaf Willow-Wolf Willow-Bog Birch Series ..................ccccessccccseesssseseeeees 315
16. Grayleaf Willow-Barrenground Willow Series .................ccccccsssccceeeeessssseeeeeeeees 329
MEW DIED EG CC CE IOSIM oun ate ene CG Dso o CUREN oat d) besub stodary doues head vationd albensuaas sna cima 333
18. Indian Ricegrass-Needle-and-thread Series ...............ccssccccccssessssccessessserseceseeses 340
RATIO Tea PIC SCUC SHC IICS er arn ent ain arcs den sks amredirty tek vexsecdsab cet cews ye sshth vesaee 346
See MULT eke COGIC SSET ICS arene ert MnP, Core cs tocthcucnstraes cca nerteapuoasinnsstnsvvetsen 355
SARL tee LLCS morad ens maNeRts GeO LL eth N uty Hol MEER AAS FN enascc iacusind Raubacuat nested 369
IAD OSC HerC LG etre eee ee Ray Bieeeatn en annie, ha Tle Sys ccatcaulies 374
Po eRA IDS rC IALP TASS SCL carr thse HURL et ies Hany Wide Vile aun ay Meu Gd ati ep iuaae s paceneats 37
DAPI DIE AERCT A GS SCEIOS Keres toy rt snes ens tne eeagact ra alney ocean <a hecde Saaenvpemmvereomes 380
25. Utah Serviceberry-Saskatoon Serviceberry Series ..................ccccessesssssssceeeeeeeees 382
POP ROCKY Valle MIOLAINS SOLHOS ey atl Nidan see tavi es aes nq oaticciaeXerteea lean seuneneornenndaYavuadts 407
Pe eA VOLT sS L APCOTUSH MCT ES ot coera tts ween sre cot acai s tersta nndaeSonadgnaonmi bneeeonnenkey « Sk4 10
AAR CRA IMC OPIGIL OCLICS Oy eer tactile ya shed. & ced aetna say aeousnuy aden ievovewsanbobcaavays aus4 21
29. Big Sagebrush-Antelope Bitterbrush Series ...........0:0.:ccccsssssssscsssoesnssnnseseceseenens 428
SU WIOUNtAIIY ELD PARCOLUSIE SETICS 0.5 ,cecssiosteus cs ieasae ied ie Wiech iacseeesede<ocsnarguecinsdtavaens 449
SOW I eCOLII SSCS tee iy tet yet rere tn scree surance taudliy baatndelesmaasasten sas 461
Gee MoU WEA ORIELISI D RTLO S carly scanietaiecs cane trvitas chee naan cea aN es Spasnacainteccestonldeanc e 468
Appendices
ASPlaatspecies of the Upper Gunnison. Basin 2 c...cj2ii..sessnsieesiatessoravscnaseouseanssntens 472
B. Soils Mapped and Sampled by Ecological Type ...................ccccccccseeeesssessssereees 487
COONS VET As OTLE AAUIONIS ie Fae citn sey aesdey chgats Teiwrstat anes Meeroha abe tnduchud fesucutieakess 518
TARE LES ee eM aes Tene eeu, dak rsh bch Smastatk sskdend orc evs Mobiansanetecasintecanisemusciens 523
Bee Wicca LANL URECLICS yo phtea Leryn ss sou esdaterronp toast sek aniseidhescoiisdoikachcesiveawtoernhoden 538
ee Me EM er ae Ota cet cduic) 9 Coe Hint ka ecm oseandaas Module dadeles brokSuiuioa nviiewes 540
ili
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My heartfelt thanks to those wise, visionary resource Special thanks to Gay Austin, Art Hayes, and Sandy Hayes,
managers who were willing to allow the time and resources to my “techno” partners in this HPP project. They have done it all
finish this: Steve Marquardt, Bob Storch, Jim Dawson, Miles — advise, counsel, procuring vehicles, selling the program to
Hemstrom, Barry Tollefson, and Elizabeth Estill. Special thanks agency people and outsiders alike, coming up with funding
have to go to Craig Whittekiend, whose idea this was all along — when most needed, helping with field sampling, it goes on and
he guided it through the first, critical half. on. You three are the sine qua non of this classification, valued
The partners in this project — Forest Service, Bureau of Land friends.
Management, and Colorado Division of Wildlife — have stuck Technical advice was kindly given by Dave Wheeler, Terry
with it to the end, and been most gracious in allowing me to Hughes, Floyd Reed, and Art Haines.
finish this project. Arden Anderson set up and supported a trip into the
The members of the Gunnison Habitat Partnership Powderhorn Wilderness that Joe and I will never forget. Beulah
Committee had the foresight to support this classification. The (Kathy) Kelly, Peggy Dobie, and Peggy Schick have been
non-agency people on the HPP committee have shown friends and helpers.
remarkable foresight, even though they are ranchers and Vera Komarkova kindly allowed the use of a few of her
sportsmen. Especially important to me were the agency samples from the early 1980’s.
members of this committee, Bill Wallis, Mark Hatcher, and Joe The interagency-plus-the-public spirit, “we can get it
Capodice. You have always been there for me, and I appreciate done if we work together for the good of the public” attitude
it greatly. shows abundantly in the way all of you have supported this
I have had the pleasure of working with some excellent field classification. This surely is the future, working together for
crew persons, from whom I have learned a great deal. The a common goal. Thanks very much!
biggest credit goes to Joseph (Joe) Pecor, one of the best field God bless you all!
people around — he’s an ecologist in the best sense of the word.
His commitment, hard work, humble attitude combined with a
high degree of technical ability, and ability to think critically
about science, makes him a special person. Thanks, Joe! Kim
Parker deserves special credit for commitment way beyond what
was needed, quality work, and a lot of sweat and extra time,
during the critical 1994 year. Other field people have been Les
Choy, Ed Mauch, Suzanne Parker, and Duane (Ken) Kenlon.
iv
Chapter 1. Summary
1. A classification of the ecological types of the Upper 4. The potential riparian types in the Upper Gunnison Basin
Gunnison Basin has been completed. Between 1982 and 1995, are:
we took data about the vegetation and soils at 978 points yellow willow, Salix lutea
throughout the Upper Gunnison Basin. The result is a blue-serviceberry-Booth willows, S. drummondiana-monticola-boothii
classification of 74 Ecological Types grouped into 33 Series. In planeleaf-Wolf willows, S. planifolia-wolfii
some cases, the Ecological Types were subdivided into Phases; grayleaf-barrenground willows, S. glauca-brachycarpa
water sedge, Carex aquatilis
there are 148 of those. Each Ecological Type represents a
blue spruce, Picea pungens!
balanced combination of potential vegetation, soil, landform, subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce, Abies bifolia-Picea engelmannii'
geology, climate, and water. Each Ecological Type is mappable. narrowleaf cottonwood, Populus angustifolia*
Therefore, each Ecological Type is a significantly different 5. The non-riparian potential grassland and forbland types in
regime for natural resource managers. the Upper Gunnison Basin are:
2. Each Ecological Type is represented by one to many Indian ricegrass-needle-and-thread, Stipa hymenoides-Stipa comata
Community Types, which are groupings of current vegetation Arizona fescue, Festuca arizonica
Thurber fescue, Festuca thurberi
within the limits of that Ecological Type.
osha, Ligusticum porteri
3. The potential forest types in the Upper Gunnison Basin are
Idaho fescue, Festuca idahoensis
(plant species names are listed in Appendix A): timber oatgrass, Danthonia intermedia
Rocky Mountain juniper, Juniperus scopulorum purple pinegrass, Calamagrostis purpurascens
ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa 6. The non-riparian potential shrubland types in the Upper
bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata Gunnison Basin are:
blue spruce, Picea pungens'
Utah-Saskatoon serviceberries, Amelanchier utahensis-alnifolia
Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii
rocky tall shrublands, dominated by Holodiscus dumosus, for example
lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta
Wyoming big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis
subalpine fir-Douglas-fir, Abies bifolia-Pseudotsuga menziesii
black sagebrush, Artemisia nova
subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce, Abies bifolia-Picea engelmannii'
big sagebrush-antelope bitterbrush, A. tridentata-Purshia tridentata
subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce timberline Krummholz
mountain big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana
limber pine, Pinus flexilis
low sagebrush, Artemisia arbuscula
aspen, Populus tremuloides
silver sagebrush, Artemisia cana
narrowleaf cottonwood, Populus angustifolia”
1. Includes both riparian and upland types. 2. Riparian types only.
e
mY >V Redstone Nae | o
ee al : | oe x
ie Py Ge . i
To| amasLs ,i ice § P“a- N raned)i
waleagy ALUN ese
a tee 14265 ; Fissidies( slhee? , otn e
gasm a trQetsy “uAtaC r ‘ HoK Napes T : de ar aTAaYRL OR PARR aia . aDC atT—onePoades s. 14196
: 2
, <P) Sse GN] ae ;
(
. at Ww
He
RSIS
-. A
iB —< l fi
Trias WA
: | ee ales
ineB OO
Peu
ai se ate
Map I. The Upper Gunnison Basin (UGB).
Chapter 2. Introduction
The geographical scope of this classification is the area in the Goals of this classification include:
upper main (south) fork of the Gunnison River, bounded on the 1. Construct a classification based on a limited number of samples of
south and east by the Continental Divide, on the north and vegetation and soils, to meet resource management needs at the
northwest by the hydrographic divide with tributaries of the project level. Project level includes activities such as wildlife
habitat improvement, range allotment planning, management, and
upper Colorado River. The western boundary is drawn to include
improvement, timber sales, wildlife-livestock habitat analysis,
the whole watersheds of Big Blue Creek and Curecanti Creek,
road and trail management, and dispersed recreation
tributaries of the Gunnison River below Blue Mesa Dam. This
management.
area includes most of Gunnison County (County Seat in . Classify all Ecological Types in the area covered, including
Gunnison), and parts of Saguache County (Saguache) and riparian areas and wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, coniferous
Hinsdale County (Lake City). This area includes all of the forests, deciduous forests, and cultivated areas. The only areas not
following watersheds (see Map 1): yet classified are alpine areas, above timberline.
’ East River . Enough ecological types will be described to meet normal project
Taylor River needs.
Quartz Creek . The classification is to meet the needs of the Gunnison Basin
Tomichi, Quartz, and Cochetopa Creeks Habitat Partnership (HPP) Committee. The classification is to
Ohio Creek provide information that will assist the HPP in resolving several
Beaver, Steuben, East Elk, Red, West Elk, and Soap Creeks key questions:
South Beaver Creek a. What action should the HPP Committee take to resolve
Willow Creek livestock—big game conflicts?
Cebolla Creek b. What action should the HPP Committee take to reverse the
Lake Fork of the Gunnison River downward trend in sage grouse populations?
Big Blue and Pine Creeks . The classification is to sample relatively few sites. The
Curecanti Creek classification is to be coordinated with an independent inventory
The area covered by the classification includes about 2.5 effort, which will be focused on areas of priority concern to the
million acres, of which about 1,280,000 acres (51%) is National HPP Committee.
Forest, about 585,000 acres (24%) is Public Lands administered . The classification is to cover all lands within the Upper Gunnison
Basin, insofar as permission and cooperation permit.
by the Bureau of Land Management, and about 40,000 acres
. The classification is to produce a published product that can be
(2%) is in the National Park System. Private lands, State lands,
used by all those engaged in natural resource management in the
tribal lands, and municipal lands make up the rest, about 23%.
Upper Gunnison Basin, whether they are public or private.
. The classification is to use standard, interagency sampling
methods.
. The Ecological Types will be designed to meet the following
criteria:
a. Ecological type definitions and descriptions will be balanced
among the primary ecosystem components: potential
(climax) vegetation, soils, geology, water, and landform.
Other components, such as climate and animal populations
have been added as needed.
b. Each ecological type will represent significant differences
in management potentials, responses, and effects, from
other ecological types.
c. Potential vegetation is classified using climax concepts
(Daubenmire 1952-1976, Meeker and Merkel 1984).
Ecological Classification
Chapter 3. Theory of Ecological Classification
1. Classification
Classification is the process of putting objects into classes. 1982, Moir and Ludwig 1983). The habitat type method uses
The process of classification is usually logical, sequential, and (and further refines) concepts of dominance, climax, and the
yields classes that are discrete, that is, non-overlapping. A indicator plant method developed by the great American
classification can be artificial or natural. ecologist, Frederic Clements (1916, 1920). The habitat type
Each class is defined by stated key characteristics; the key method is a vegetation classification, from which conclusions
characteristics may well be different for each class. Thus, the are then inferred about soils, landforms, and management
process of classification can be broken into several subprocesses, implications for each of the defined classes (habitat types).
that may nonetheless be going on at the same time: Soil Survey classifies land according to the soils currently
1. Selection of objects for classification found there, by designing soil map units. These soil map units
2. Delimitation of outer boundaries of classification are made up of combinations of soil taxa that usually are defined
(geographical, taxonomic, etc.) according to the standard USDA soil taxonomy (Soil Survey
. Determination of goals and priorities for classification Staff 1975-1996). The soil survey method is a soil inventory
S.W D etermination of necessary facts to know about each based on a soil classification, from which conclusions are then
object inferred about vegetation that occurs on the land, and
am Gathering data about objects, field sampling, interpretations for management for each of the defined classes
measurements
(soil map units).
. Mathematical analysis of data The habitat type classification and the soil survey are
. Inferring key and diagnostic characteristics for classes different classifications and inventories, which often are applied
loao n . yD efinition and design of classes based on data and to the same areas of land, but for different purposes. Both
analysis of data methods work within limits (the contexts and assumptions
9. Description of classes within which they were done). Both methods are special purpose
Inventory has the task of finding out quantities of resources methods. Both methods make claims to validity as being
that are present at each location within an area. Therefore, ‘ecological,’ but both fall short of being an all-purpose tool for
inventory, which often includes mapping, is different from resource management. I will give a few examples of how these
Classification. Classification samples from a small fraction of fall short:
sites, then defines classes based on that limited sample. 1. Habitat type classifications usually do not have enough
Predictions are made about what future sites, yet to be sampled, management information for soil-based resource management,
might contain. Inventory, on the other hand, deals with reality such as amount of coarse material in the soil or interpretations
more directly, and deals with every site in the area being for road cuts or other constructed facilities.
inventoried. Some kind of inventory is usually necessary for 2. Normal soil surveys usually are insufficient for predicting
almost every resource management project. However, inventory timber site quality for normal silvicultural activities (Carmean
1961).
is relatively expensive, because every site must be looked at; so
3. Habitat type classifications typically do not sample soil
the amount of inventory must be kept to a minimum to be
characteristics sufficiently to allow resource managers to make
efficient. I hope that, with this classification in hand, resource
their own interpretations. Some habitat type classifications do
managers will be enabled to restrict the amount of direct not sample soils at all.
inventory they must do, and so save money and time. 4. Soil surveys usually contain little or no information on certain
Taxonomy is the process of defining classes and naming critical factors to resource management, such as tree
them. Taxa (singular, taxon) are the classes themselves in regeneration or community succession.
general. Examples of common taxonomic classifications include 5. The productivity estimates in soil surveys (both for forage and
plant species classifications (for example, Barneby 1964), trees) are not specific enough for many resource management
projects.
animal species classifications (Armstrong 19xx), soil
6. Most of the older habitat type classifications do not have
classifications (Soil Survey Staff 1975, 1994), habitat type
information about riparian areas, or else it is insufficient for
classifications (Pfister and others 1977, Hess and Wasser 1982).
modern management.
The last two classifications focus on classification of land for
7. Most of the older soil surveys do not have information about
management — also the focus of this project. riparian areas, or else it is insufficient for modern management.
Habitat Type Classification is fundamentally a vegetation With these failings in mind, I believe that what is needed is a
Classification, that classifies land according to the several general-purpose classification based on ecological principles.
dominant species on the land at the last seral stage — climax, Ecosystem components (such as potential vegetation and soils)
that is, the last progressive stage in natural vegetation should be weighted equally and given equivalent roles in
development (Daubenmire 1952-1970, Poulton and Tisdale constructing the classification.
1961, Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968, Pfister and Amo