scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

Production of Herbaceous Vegetation in Openings and under Canopies of Western Aspen

Lincoln Ellison, +1 more
- 01 Apr 1958 - 
- Vol. 39, Iss: 2, pp 337-345
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Differences in production and species composition on aspen ranges in Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and western Colorado are observed, and much less vegetation is produced in openings, as a rule, than beneath the aspen canopy.
Abstract
Extensive forests of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), which occur widely at intermediate elevations in the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain West, constitute an important resource, both esthetically and economically. The aspen type is esteemed among sightseers, picnickers, and campers because of its beauty. Aspen forests protect the soil of an important snow-collecting belt on western mountain watersheds. Although aspen is not one of the important timber species, aspen wood products are in considerable and increasing demand. Finally, the type supports undergrowth capable of furnishing a great amount of cover and forage for wildlife and livestock. On aspen range in good condition one may wade waist deep through a rich mixture of many plants, including species of Heracleum, Mertensia, Delphinium, Osmorphiza, Agastache, Erigeron, Rudbeckia, Senecio, Thalictrum, Agropyron, Bromus, Elymus, and Carex. Most aspen range in the Intermountain region is depleted from prolonged overgrazing, however, and palatable species that were formerly abundant are likely to be scarce or absent. Curiously, much less vegetation is produced in openings, as a rule, than beneath the aspen canopy.3 Usually the vegetation of openings is the sparser and shorter, and it tends to include a smaller proportion of desirable forage species (Houston 1954). It may, indeed, include undesirable species such as the annual Madia glomerata Hook., that are absent under the aspens. We have personally observed such differences in production and species composition on aspen ranges in Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and western Colorado. These observations have included a great variety of sites with respect to soil and exposure, and many variations in character of vegetation. Why should such a difference in ground-cover production exist? Is it a product of those factors. responsible initially for the existence of openings in an aspen forest? Is it caused by differences in microclimate under and away from the aspen canopy? Is it a result of heavier grazing in openings than under the aspen? Or is it the result of interactions between some or all of these factors? Whatever the cause, this widely observed difference seems anomalous, because it would appearthat demands upon the environment by the aspen trees themselves might be expected to infringe on the needs of plants of the shrub and herb layers. Logically, therefore, being free of such competi-tion, the openings should produce more vegetation, not less, than equal areas under aspens. Such a relation has been described by Moinat (1956) in the Quercus gambelii type in southwestern Colorado, a zone somewhat warmer and drier than the aspen-fir zone. Moinat shows that production ofthe field layer in grassy parks is markedly higher than in scrub-oak thickets. Many trenching experiments (reviewed byKorstian and Coile 1938) have demonstrated the adverse effects of root competition by forest overstory on growth of native ground vegetation or artificially planted trees. Shirley (1945), in a study carefully designed to test the relativeeffects of shade and root competition of aspen anct jack pine on tree seedlings and planting stock in Minnesota, demonstrated a root-competitive depression of conifer growth, although not of sur-vival. Shirley's comment is that, "In these studies, however intense the root competition of the overwood, its effect on survival was more than offset by the benefits of the shade, provided this did not reduce the light intensity below 20 percent." Weknow of no experiments of this kind involvingwestern aspen except for Pearson's (1914) comparisons of survival of planted Douglas-fir under aspen and in openings. These showed better sur-vival under aspen.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Field experiments on interspecific competition

TL;DR: Competition was found in 90% of the studies and 76% of their species, indicating its pervasive importance in ecological systems, and the Hairston-Slobodkin-Smith hypothesis concerning variation in the importance of competition between trophic levels was strongly supported.
Journal ArticleDOI

Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities

TL;DR: The roles of life stage, physiology, indirect interactions, and the physical environment on the balance of competition and facilitation in plant communities are discussed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Positive interactions among plants

TL;DR: The evidence for facilitation, the mechanisms by which facilitation operates, and the effects facilitation has on community structure are reviewed.
Journal ArticleDOI

The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities

TL;DR: A graphical model is used that visualizes how facilitative patterns can be understood from the simultaneous effects of plant canopies on microsite light and moisture, and the growth responses of establishing seedlings to those factors.
Journal ArticleDOI

Influences of Trees on Savanna Productivity: Tests of Shade, Nutrients, and Tree-Grass Competition

TL;DR: These studies suggest that savanna trees completed more intensely with understory plants at wetters sites, where their roots terminated in or near crown zones, than at drier sites,Where their roots extended farther into open grassland, and contributed more to regrowth after severe defoliation than to growth under more normal conditions.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

A Weight Estimate Method for the Determination of Range or Pasture Production1

TL;DR: A weight estimate method for use in determining grazing capacity was designed by the personnel of the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station during the summer of 1936 after preliminary intensive investigative pasture and open range studies on sagebrush-wheatgrass ranges showed wide variations to exist between grazing capacity calculated from plant cover density and that determined by grazing trials.
Journal ArticleDOI

Evapotranspiration and Other Water Losses on Some Aspen Forest Types in Relation to Water Available for Stream Flow

TL;DR: In this article, the effects of altering an aspen forest cover in Utah on evapotranspiration losses, overland flow, erosion, and mantle storage deficits during three successive growing seasons were investigated.