Seral Status and
Vegetation
Structure Coding
Coding for seral status and vegetation structure may be used separately or combined
together as a description of current stand conditions. They also may be attached to a
PNC association code. A detailed discussion of coding is in appendix 5.
Seral Status Codes -
A complete discussion of seral status codes is contained in appendix 5. These codes
are keyed to a PNC series where each life-form layer may be rated for its seral status'
as being at PNC (P), late seral (L), mid seral (M), or early seral (E). A single
successional rating is provided.
An example would be rating a Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association for seral
status: a Douglas-fir PNC is coded CD, seral status is either estimated (E) or classified
by use of an investigation or study (C), tree layer might be late seral status (L), shrub
layer at mid seral (M), and an herb layer at PNC (P). The seral status code would be
CDCLMP. It a single seral status rating is desired, rate the tallest life-form (the tree
layer) as follows: CDCL.
Vegetation Structure
Codes
A complete discussion of vegetation structure codes is contained in appendix 5.
Codes are keyed to a PNC series where each life-form layer may be described by size,
canopy cover, and evenness of vegetation heights in the layer. Coding may be
assigned to one or all layers in a plant community. An example would be to code the
Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association rated for seral status: a Douglas-fir PNC
is CD, trees are large in diameter (LT; 21 to 29 inches d.b.h.) of moderate cover (M; 40
to 70 percent) and uneven heights (U), the shrub layer is dominated by tall shrubs (TS;
6.5 to 16.5 feet tall) of moderate canopy cover (M; 10 to 26 percent) and uneven (U)
heights, and the herb layer (HE) is dense in canopy cover (D; more than 67 percent)
and uneven (U) heights. The coding would be CDLTMU-TSMU-HEDU.
Combined Coding
All coding, PNC, seral status, and vegetation structure, may be combined as
discussed in appendix 5. Order of listing is PNC/seral status/tree structure-shrub
structure-herb structure. An example is CDS721/CLMPALTMU-TSMU-HEDU, which is
read as Douglas-fir/ninebark/meadowrue association as described by Steele and
others (1981). CDS721 has been classified (C) by use of a successional investigation
(Steele and Geier-Hayes 1989) as to late seral (L) tree layer, mid seral (M) shrub layer,
and PNC (P) herb layer that is currently in large-diameter trees (LT), of moderate (M)
canopy cover and uneven (U) tree heights, with a shrub layer of tall shrubs (TS) of
moderate (M) canopy cover and uneven (U) heights, and an herb layer (HE) of dense
canopy cover (D) and uneven (U) heights.
Metric Equivalents
When you know:
Multiply by:
To find:
Pounds
0.453
Kilograms
Acres
0.405
Hectares
Pounds per acre
1.1288
Kilograms per hectare
Inches
2.540
Centimeters
Feet
0.305
Meters
Cubic feet
0.028
Cubic meters
Cubic feet per acre
0.07
Cubic meters per hectare
Square feet per acre
0.2296
Square meters per hectare
°F
5/9 (°F-32)
°C
About This Page
This page was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified by the software have been corrected; however,
some mistakes may remain.
20
References
Allen, Barbara H. 1987. Ecological type classification for California: the Forest
Service approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-98. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 8 p.
Arno, S.F.; Simmermann, D.G.; Keane, R.E. 1985. Forest succession on four
habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range . Experimental Station. 74 p.
Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc.
Publ. 1391. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
(app. 3). 77 p.
Brown, E.R. tech. ad. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of
western Oregon and Washington. R6 F&WL 192-1985. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Brown, E. Reade, tech. ad. 1981. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in
forests of western Oregon and Washington. Part 1-Chapter narratives.
R6-FSWL-1921985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 332 p.
Busby, F.E.; Buckhouse, John C.; Clanton, Donald G. 1994. Rangeland health:
new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. Washington, DC:
Committee on Rangeland Classification, Board on Agriculture, National
Research Council; National Academy Press. 182 p.
Cain, Stanley A. 1939. The climax and its complexities. American
Midland Naturalist. 21: 147-158.
Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L. 1992.
Proceedings-symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub
communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 232 p.
Crowe, Elisabeth A.; Clausinitzer, Roderick R. 1996. Mid-mountain wetland plant
associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.
R6 NR TP-09-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region.
Daubenmire, R. 1952. Forest vegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent
Washington and its bearing on concepts of vegetation classification. Ecological
Monographs. 22:301-330.
Daubenmire, R.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern
Washington and northern Idaho. Tech. Bull. 62. Pullman, WA: Washington
State University, Washington Agricultural Experimental Station, College of
Agriculture. 104 p.
Diaz, Nancy M.; Mellen, T. Kim. 1996. Riparian ecological types-Gifford
Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests/Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area. R6 NR TP-09-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
About This Page
This page was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified by the software have been corrected; however, some
mistakes may remain.
21
Naiman, Robert J. 1992. Watershed management: balancing sustainability
and environmental change. New York: Springer-Verlag. 524 p.
Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian
community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4 ECOL-8901.
Ogden, UT:, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Region. 191 p.
Paulson, Richard W.; Chase, Edith B.; Roberts, Robert S.; Moody, David W.,
comps. 1991. National water summary 1988-1989-hydrologic events and
floods and droughts. Water-Supply Pap. 2375. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p.
Pfister, R.D.; S.F. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types on potential
climax vegetation. Forest Science. 26: 52-70.
Pielow, E.C. 1991. After the ice age: the return of life to glaciated North
America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 366 p.
Raedeke, Kenneth J., ad. 1988. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and
forestry interactions. Contrib. 59. Seattle, WA: University of Washington,
Institute of Forest Resources. 277 p.
Simpson, M.; Zalunardo, D.; Eglitis, A. [and others]. 1994. Viable ecosystem
management guide, Ochoco National Forest. Prineville, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ochoco National Forest. 131 p.
Steele, R.; Geier-Hayes, K. 1989. The Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in
central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-252. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 65 p.
Steele, R.; Pfister, R.D.; Ryker, R.A.; Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest habitat types of
central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental
Station. 138 p.
Tallman, Barbara; Cortner, Hanna J.; Wallace, Mary G. [and others]. 1993.
Riparian management: common threads and shred interests: a western
regional conference on river management strategies; 1993 February 4-6;
Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-226. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 419 p.
Thomas, Jack Ward. tech ad. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the
Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p.
Thomas, Jack Ward; Maser, Chris. tech ads. 1986. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands-the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
[Series].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook.
Washington, DC. 535 p. Available from: Clearing House for Federal Scientific
and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Ecological classification
and inventory handbook. Handb. Amend. 2090.11-91-1. Washington, DC. 20 p.
24
About This Page
This page was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified by the software have been corrected; however,
some mistakes may remain.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Service-wide range
analysis and management handbook. WO Amend. 2209.14-82-1. Washington,
DC. 9 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Excerpts from forest
ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment
(FEMAT report). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 139 p.
'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. A Federal agency guide
for pilot watershed analysis. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 150 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994a. PLANTS:
alphabetic listing for Oregon. Rep. 5. Vascular listing of 29 Mar 94.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. 177 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994b. PLANTS:
alphabetic listing for Washington. Rep. 5. Vascular listing of 29 Mar 94.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. 149 p.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1969. Sheet 90, (one
map). Washington, DC.
Whitlock, Cathy. 1993. Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton
and southern Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 63(2):
173-198.
Williams, C.K.; Lillybridge, T.R. 1983. Forested plant associations of the
Okanogan National Forest. R6 Ecol 132-1983. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 76 p.
Wykoff, W.R.; N.L. Crookston; A.R. Stage. 1982. User's guide to the stand
prognosis model. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-133. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experimental Station. 112 p.
Youngblood, Andrew P.; Padgett, Wayne G.; Winward, Alma H. 1985.
Riparian community type classification of eastern Idaho-western
Wyoming. R4 ECOL-8501. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p.
About This Page
This page was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some mistakes may remain.
25