Exploring linkages between floodplains and riparian vegetation in small mountain watersheds
by Denine Michelle Schmitz
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land
Resources and Environmental Sciences
Montana State University
© Copyright by Denine Michelle Schmitz (2003)
Abstract:
no abstract found in this volume
EXPLORING LINKAGES BETWEEN FLOODPLAINS AND.
RIPARIAN VEGETATION IN SMALL MOUNTAIN WATERSHEDS
by .
Denine Michelle Schmitz
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
April 2003
N 31?
ScL 5 -5 k s
ii
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Denine Michelle Schmitz
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been
found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic
style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies.
W P//6 7
Dr. Clifford Montague
(Co-chair)
(Signature)
Date
Dr. Duncan T. Patten
(Co-chair)
(Signature)
6ate 1
Approved for the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences
Dr. Jeffrey Jacobsen
(Signature)
Zz
Date
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Montana State University, I agree that, the Library shall make it available to
borrowers under rules of the Library.
•If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright
notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use”
as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the •
copyright holder.
'
Signature _
Date
//
T
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
!.INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... ........... ,.....I
Study Ar e a ........................................................................
7
2. METHODS................................................................................................................... 15
Site Selection....... -..................
15
Sampling M ethodology............................................................................................ 15
Parameter Selection................................................................................................ ;.15
Data Collection........................................................................................................ '19
Hydrogeomorphology........................................................................................... 20
Vegetation............................................................................................................. 21
Soil........................................................................................................................ 23
Data Analysis.................................................................
..24
3. RESULTS/DISCUSSION....................................................................................,....... 28
Basin Summaries........................................................................................................ 28
Cross Section Analysis .............................................................................................32
Hydrogeomorphology...............................................................................................32
Vegetation Communities.......................................................................................... 38
Univariate Analysis...........................................................
42
Zone Distinction - Vegetation.....................................:........................................ 48
Zone Distinction - Hydrogeomorphology............................................................. 55
Soils..................................................................................................................-.......59
Hydrogeomorphology and Vegetation..................................................................... 60
Canonical Correlation Analysis............................................................................ 60
Detrended Correspondence Analysis.................................................................... 69
4. SYNTHESIS...................................................................................
78
5. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS..............................................
85
REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................... 87
APPENDICES.............................................................'.................................................... 94
APPENDIX A: S0RENSEN indices....................................................
95
APPENDIX B: CORRELATIONS.............;...................................................................... 99
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Basin characteristics for sample watersheds in the Upper Yellowstone
River basin........................................................................................................... 12
2. Sample site characteristics..................................................................................... 17
3. Vegetation, hydrogeomorphic and soil variables used to characterize riparian
ecosystems........................................................................................................... 18
4. Wetland indicator status definitions and attributed scores adapted from
USDA National Plant Database (2002)............................................................... 23
5. Composition and structure data collected in each quadrat.................................... 23
6. Riparian physical and vegetation properties averaged by basin for
Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks......................................................... 29
7. Soil properties for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and CacheCreeks.............................. 32
8. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in
the 2-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks............................. 40
9. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in
the 5-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks............................. 41
10. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in
the 10-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks........................... 41
11. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in
the 100-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks......................... 42
12. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Tom Miner Basin .
for 2-, 5-, and 10-yr zones..............................................................................•.... 49
13. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Soda Butte Creek
for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones..........................................................................50
14. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Cache Creek
for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones......................................................................... 50
15. Sorensen indices between patches inundated in 2-, 5-, and 10-yr zones
in Tom Miner Basin.........i............ .......................... ..........................................56
V ll
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
16. Sorensen indices for patches 2-, 5-, 10-, 100-yr zones in Soda Butte Creek.
Shaded values indicate dissimilarity between the compositions of the
patches compared.................................. ,............................................................ 57
17. Sorensen indices for patches inundated at zones 2, 5, 10, and 100 in Cache
Creek....................................................................................................................58
18. Vegetation, hydrogeomorphology variable definitions used in canonical
correlation and regression analyses...............'..................................................... 62
19. Canonical variable coefficients for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in
Tom Miner Basin......................................................
63
20. Canonical variables for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in
Soda Butte Creek.................................................................................................66
21. Canonical variable coefficients for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in
Cache Creek.........................................................................................................68
22. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA
Axis I scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Tom Miner Basin.........70
23. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA
scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr recurrence intervals in Soda Butte Creek.......72
24. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA
scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Cache Creek.......................... ...76
25. Basin level indicators of mountain streams of the Northern-Range of the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem..........................................................................79
26. Indicators of riparian connectivity...................................................................... 80
27. Sorensen indices between patches in terms of functional groups in
Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte Creek (S) and Cache Creek (C)
inundated every 2 years......................
96
28. Sorensen indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte
Creek (S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 5 years....................................97
29. Sorensen1indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte
Creek (S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 10 years.................. ............... 97
viii
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
30. Sorensen indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte
Creek (S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 10 years..................................98
31. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for
Tom Miner Basin at the 2-yr zone....................................................................100
32. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for
Tom Miner Basin at the 5-yr zone.................................................................... 101
33. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for
. Tom Miner Basin at the 10-yr zone.................................................................. 102
34. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for
Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone................................................................103
35. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte
Creek at the 2-yr zone..................................................................... ................. 104
36. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte
Creek at the 5-yr zone........................................................................ ........ ..... 105
37. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte
Creek at the 10-yr zone.....................................................................................106
38. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte
Creek at the 100-yr zone....................................................................................107
39. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek
at the 2-yr zone........................................................................*........................ 108
40. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek
at the 5-yr zone.......... ........................................................................................ 109
41. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek
at the 10-yr zone................................................................................................ HO
42. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek
at the 100-yr zone................................................................:.........,.................. I l l
43. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for
TOm Miner Basin at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones.............................................112
ix
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
44. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for
Soda Butte Creek at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones.............................................113
45. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for
Cache Creek at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones.....................................................114
46. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Torn Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone.....................115
47. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone.....................116
48. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone.....................117
49. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone.....................118
50. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone.............................119
51. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone.............................120
52. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 2-yr zone...............................................121
53. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 5-yr zone...............................................121
54. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner B asin at the 10-yr zone.............................................122
55. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone...........................................122
56. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 2-yr zone...............................................123
57. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 5-yr zone...............................................123
X
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
58. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 10-yr zone......................... ................... 124
59. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 10-yr zone....................................... ..... 124
60. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 2-yr zone.........................;............................ 125
61. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 5-yr zone.......................................................125
62. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 10-yr zone.....................................................126
63. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone...................................................126
64. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for
Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone................................................................127
65. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for
Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone................................................................128
66. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for
Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone........................................................................129
67. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone........................................... 130
68. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone..................................... ..... 131
69. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil
variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone...................................................132
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Map of study area modified from Legleiter et al. (in press) courtesy of
Karen Wynn Fonstad............................................................................................. 8
2. Tom Miner Basin (top), Soda Butte Creek (middle) and Cache Creek
(bottom) taken 2000.............................................................................................10
3. Hydrograph of the Upper Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs,
Montana (USGS, 2003)....................................................................................... 11
4. Longitudinal profiles show the overall basin shape of Tom Miner Basin
to be convex, of Soda Butte Creek to be concave to linear and of Cache
Creek to be slightly concave................................................................................14
5. Three cross sectional transects were randomly placed along a
geomorphologically homogenous 100 m reach................................................... 19
6. Average patch type composition expressed as a percentage of terrestrial
transect length found in tributaries to the Upper Yellowstone R i v e r . ............30
7. Soil features compared among Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks......... 34
8. Stream power of a 100-yr flood at each zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte
and Cache Creeks................................................................................................ 35
9. Height above the thalweg for patches in 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr
zones in Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks............. .'....................... ....36
10. Representative channel cross sections................................................................ 37
11. Patch type distribution for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones in Tom Miner,
Soda Butte and Cache Creeks........... :......................................................... ...... 38
12. Number of canopy layers for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones in
Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks......................................................... 44
13. Herbaceous, shrub and tree cover for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr
zones in Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks..........................................45
14. Richness for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones in Tom Miner,
Soda Butte and Cache watersheds....................................................................... 46
xii
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
15. Soil organic matter, clay and carbon: nitrogen levels for zones in
Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks.........................................................61
16. The relationship between scaled biotic and abiotic canonical variables
within the 100-yr floodplain for Tom Miner Basin shows that floodplain
. morphology influences spatial and vertical community structure......................64
17. The relationship between abiotic and biotic canonical variables within
the 2-yr floodplain for Soda Butte Creek shows that floodplain
morphology and flood magnitude influence spatial and vertical
community structure as well as composition......................................................66
18. Distribution of patch types in a DCA plot for patches in Tom Miner
Basin 2-yr zones based upon herbaceous cover.................................................. 71
19. Distribution of Tom Miner Basin 2-yr floodplain patch types along an
environmental gradient model of canopy layers, total canopy cover and
channel width..................................................................................................... 71
20. Detrended correspondence analysis plot of Axis I and 2 patch scores
for patches in Soda Butte Creek 100-yr floodplain................ ............................ 73 .
21. Regression plot of Soda Butte Creek 100-yr floodplain DCA Axis I scores
along an environmental gradient of floodplain shape and patch width.............. 73
22. Detrended correspondence analysis plot of Axis I and 2 patch scores
for patches in Cache Creek 10-yr floodplain......................................... ............ 75
23. Regression plot of Cache Creek 10-yr floodplain DCA Axis I scores
along an environmental gradient of vegetation composition, basin and
flood magnitude variables...................................................................................76
I
INTRODUCTION
Riparian zones are linear areas adjacent to streams and, therefore, differ from
other landscape features. While riparian zones occupy only 1-5% of the landscape area,
(Hansen et ah, 1995) the ecosystem functions attributed to riparian zones reach far
beyond their boundaries. Riparian zones are considered ‘integrators’ of watersheds
responding hydrologically, topographically, chemically and biologically to reach scale
influences as well as to watershed scale ecological processes. Basin characteristics and
regional climate drive watershed hydrology and generate variable stream flow
characteristics—peak time, duration, rate of change, magnitude and frequency
(Homberger et ah, 1998; Poff et ah, 1997). Natural flow regimes drive spatial and
temporal variability in biotic and abiotic components of riparian environments. The
hydrologic environmental variability common to riparian zones yields a mosaic of
vegetation patches that characterizes the riparian community (Baker, 1989; Bendix, 1994;
Bendix & Hupp, 2000; Everett,; 1968; Friedman et ah, 1996; Gumell & Gregory, 1995;
Hupp & Osterkamp, 1996; Johnson, 1976; Piegay, 1997; Sigafoos, 1961). Riparian
processes vary geographically in response to elevational, latitudinal and hydrological
gradients (Patten, 1998). As these factors differ among basins, they create basin-specific
hydrological environments (Hewlett, 1982; Homberger et ah, 1998). Consequently, the
response of riparian vegetation to basin-specific hydrologic environments may produce
riparian systems that, although related to broader geographic similarities, are
representative of their individual basins.
2
Riparian ecosystems along single rivers have been the target of much attention
due to potential loss or alteration resulting from human impacts such as development,
flow regulation or changes in water quality or quantity (Johnson, 1976, 1994; Patten,
1998; Poff et ah, 1997). Examples include, the Platte River in Nebraska (Johnson, 1994),
the Animas in Colorado (Baker & Walford, 1995), the Provo River in Utah (Stromberg et
ah, 1999), the Snake River in Idaho (Merigliano, 1996), and the Missouri River in
Montana (Scott et ah, 1996). These studies focus on single large rivers or streams
because replicating large watersheds is unrealistic. However, riparian studies of single
streams or rivers can miss much of the regional variability in current and antecedent
environmental conditions as well as associated vegetational responses. Regional studies
of smaller watersheds do exist. Examples include investigations in the Great Basin of
Nevada (Chambers et ah, 1998; Miller et ah, 2001) and the Upper Colorado River basin
of Colorado (Baker, 1989, 1990). Studies of multiple smaller basins having common
climate and geology capture potential variability in physical conditions and biotic
responses of riparian zones. Regional studies offer a better understanding of withinregion variability in riparian vegetational processes.
Information on riparian processes operating in large river systems may lose
applicability when scaled to small streams. Physical and biological properties of fluvial
and aquatic environments influence riparian environments through overland flows,
channel migration, woody debris deposition and reworking of the channel and floodplain.
Discharge, width, velocity and suspended sediment load generally increase while slope
and bed sediment size tend to decrease with increasing basin size, distance downstream
3
and basin position (Knighton, 1998; Thome, 1997). Fluvial geomorphic processes
change from a stream’s headwaters to mouth. The upper third (smaller basin area) tends
to be erosional, the lower third (larger basin area) depositional and the middle third a
mix. Thus, the riparian zones in the upper third respond to predominantly erosional
processes and those of the lower third to depositional processes. The mixture of
aggrading and degrading processes drives yet another set of riparian responses along the
middle reaches. While hillslope processes, glaciation, and tectonic activity add variation
the longitudinal trend of erosional upper reaches to depositional lower reaches persists
(Knighton, 1998). Thus, riparian ecosystems of large watersheds may have a different
character than those of small watersheds due to associated scale-dependent processes.
Several examples of research in small watersheds (basin areas less than 500 km2)
illustrate both what is being learned and its limited extent. Geographically, small
watershed riparian studies have been conducted in humid regions such as Virginia, USA
(Hupp, 1983; Hupp & Osterkamp, 1985) and New Forest, Englandil (Gumell Sc Gregory,
1995) as well as arid regions like Southern California, (Bendix, 1994, 1997, 1999) and
the Great Basin, Nevada (Castelli et ah, 2000; Chambers et ah, 1999; Miller et ah, 2001).
The small watersheds in the semi-arid northern Rocky Mountains are relatively
unexamined (Patten, 1998).
Basin level variables such as elevation, fire history, landscape cover types and
valley width integrate with reach level variables such as elevation above the thalweg of a
floodplain position, substrate type and stream gradient to form an array of riparian
habitats (Baker, 1989; Bendix, 1994). Further, any change causing a shift in the
4
distribution of basin'or reach controls elicits change in the composition and structure of
the vegetation mosaic (Bendix, 1994). Because the distribution of basin and reach level
variables is dependent on basin size and position, riparian communities will likely reflect
these changes,
The influence of hydrologic and sedimentologic conditions creates spatial and
temporal diversity in riparian areas of both large and small watersheds. Temporally,
seasonal and annual patterns in physical processes form a variety of patch histories across
the floodplain (Baker, 1988; Bendix, 1994; Chambers et ah, 1998; Sigafoos, 1961).
Spatially, species composition and structure develop in relation to the effects of
hydrological processes as they vary across the floodplain. For example, flood-tolerant
species occur near the channel while those, sensitive to the effects of flooding tend to
grow higher on the floodplain (Gumell & Gregory, 1995; Hupp, 1983; Hupp &
Osterkamp, 1985, 1996). Woody debris creates safe sites for establishing vegetation and
potentially stabilizes portions of the floodplain. Time and space work synergistically in
that the influence of time-dependent variables has a spatial component (Bendix, 1994).
For instance, the spatial structure of riparian woody vegetation is influenced by the
spatial diversity of pre-flooding conditions, duration of inundation and time since the last
major flood event (Chambers et ah, 1998; Miller et ah, 2001). .Further, species
composition and structure are functions of floodplain topography and substrate properties
such as water table depth, soil texture and redox potential (Bendix, 1999; Castelli et ah,
2000; Gregory & Gumell, 1998; Stromberg et ah, 1996). While these processes exist in
small and large basins, their nature varies with basin size and position (i.e. erosional vs.
5
depositional). Thus, the spatial and temporal effects of physical processes on riparian
vegetation operating in small watersheds will likely differ from those in large basins.
Autogenic, or internal, processes also alter the environment through shading,
competition, facilitation, nitrogen fixation, etc. Allogenic, or external, changes such as
early ground water level decline, burial by coarse or fine sediment, herbivory, litter
accumulation, woody debris deposition, etc. can cause varying plant responses and alter
successional trajectories. Depending on the phenological phase of a plant, these changes
can cross environmental thresholds causing different plant responses (Chambers, 2000;
Chambers et ah, 1998). By increasing root mass, hindering shoot growth, inducing self­
thinning or dying (these are just a few of the possible responses) the responses of plants
across the floodplain create an array of patch communities, all of which are on
successional trajectories specific to the history of ecological conditions for a locale.
Thus, patch diversity is variable in a given zone.
Ranging from predominantly allogenic to predominantly autogenic, the
mechanisms shaping riparian vegetation within and among basins are diverse (Amoros et
ah, 1987). As floods of different magnitudes and frequencies physically alter the
floodplain environment within biological limits, associated plant communities respond
accordingly. Below biological thresholds, allogenic influences elicit little vegetation
response. This allows autogenic influences to predominate in such forms as competition,
nitrogen fixation, and litter formation (Malanson, 1993). Thus, sensitivity of riparian
plant composition and structure reflects the influence of allogenic factors associated with
fluvial dynamics.
6
The research described above documents how vegetation dynamics, watershed
hydrology and floodplain environment influence riparian vegetation. However, the
degree to which these linkages affect riparian composition and structure is not well
explored, especially for the herbaceous stratum. Herbaceous species compose the
majority of species in riparian zones of the intermountain west. These species are more
indicative of water table levels than woody species (Stromberg et ah, 1996). Herbaceous
roots tend to be fibrous and lend more stability to riparian soils than woody species
(Dunaway et ah, 1994; Kleinfelder et ah, 1992). Because the herbaceous layer represents
an important component of the vertical structure of the riparian community, farther
research is needed on its response to hydrogeomorphic processes and landforms.
The goals of this research are designed to address the role of herbaceous plants in
the riparian communities in the Northern Rocky Mountains by examining floodplain
dynamics of intraregional small mountain basins. Components of the small mountain
riparian systems explored in this study are:
1) differences in hydrogeomorphic environments
2) basin-specific characteristics in riparian plant community composition and
structure, emphasizing understory vegetation
3) differences in the set of biotic and abiotic (see Table 3 in Methods) variables that
best predict herbaceous understory composition at target recurrence intervals
This thesis addresses the goals above with three objectives. Using three basins in
the Upper Yellowstone River Watershed this project will:
7
1) describe the hydrogeomorphic environments and the corresponding riparian
vegetation composition and structure, with detailed characterization of the
herbaceous community. This description will serve as a baseline for
understanding ecological responses to future land use changes in subwatersheds
of this basin.
2) compare the between-basin relationships of biotic and abiotic factors that
contribute to riparian plant community composition and structure.
3) document and predict changes across the floodplain in the herbaceous uhderstory
based upon other vegetation and hydrogeomorphic parameters.
■ Study Area
The study included private and public lands in the Upper Yellowstone River
watershed (Figure I). The Northern Range of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) marked
the southern limits of the study area. Outside YNP, the northern boundary lay at the
mouth of Yankee Jim Canyon where Tom Miner Basin confluences with the Yellowstone.
River and included Tom Miner and Cinnabar basins (Figure I). Watersheds studied
within YNP were Soda Butte, Pebble and Cache Creek basins (Figure 2). Outside the
park, Tom Miner and Cinnabar Creeks were considered one watershed and will be
referred to as Tom Miner Basin hereafter. Soda Butte and Pebble Creeks were treated
similarly and will be referred to as Soda Butte Creek hereafter. Cache Creek will simply
be referred to as Cache Creek.
8
Figure I. Map of study area modified from Legleiter et al. (in press) courtesy of Karen
Wynn Fonstad.
Geologic environments are similar among the three basins. All three basins are
glaciated valleys with over-steepened valley sides and shallow surficial deposits and soils
making them prone to flash flooding during summer convective storms (Meyer, 2001).
The dominant bedrock geology of Tom Miner Basin includes Archean metamorphic,
Eocene volcanics and Paleozoic sedimentary (Vandeberg, 1993). Soda Butte and Cache
Creeks bedrock geology encompasses Tertiary Volcanics and Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks (Meyer, 2001; Prostka et al., 1975). Basin floor surficial geology in all three basins
9
is dominated by glacial alluvium and local flood and debris flow alluvium. Tom Miner
Basin also shows evidence of postglacial tectonism (Vandeberg, 1993).
All basins have similar land cover types including alpine plant communities,
coniferous forests, deciduous groves, mesic meadows, shrublands and riparian areas
(Marston & Anderson, 1991). Coniferous forests consisted of Picea engelmannii, Pinus
coniorta, Pseudotsuga mensizii, and Abies lasiocarpa. Populus tremuloides dominate the
deciduous groves. Shrublands were found on low elevation, south facing slopes and
included Rosa woodsii, Rubus spp., Lonicera spp., Symphoricarpos spp., Artemisia spp.,
Vaccinium Spp., and Ribes spp. Riparian plant associations ranged from Coniferous
Salix spp. in the upper reaches to Populus trichocarpa/Salix spp. in the lower
portions of the basins. The climate is semi-arid with cold winters, mild summers and 75-.
85% of the moisture comes as snow or rain on snow (Despain, 1987). Average winter
daily high temperatures range from -I S0C to -4°C while those of summer vary from 30C
to 230C (Vandeberg, 1993). Precipitation falls all year long with two peaks - one in
winter and one in early summer. Mean annual precipitation of the valley floors is -30-45
cm (Meyer, 2001). The majority of runoff occurs from snowmelt in late spring (Figure
3). Pacific maritime weather mixes with Great Plains weather over mountain-valley
topography to create precipitation distribution that varies with elevation (Despain, 1987;
Hansen et ah, 1995). In 1996 and 1997, large magnitude floods occurred in the Upper
Yellowstone River watershed, each estimated at 100-yr return intervals (Figure I). These
floods caused much channel reworking. While these were wide spread disturbance
events, some tributaries were affected more than others.
10
Figure 2. Tom Miner Basin (top). Soda Butte Creek (middle) and Cache Creek (bottom)
taken 2000. Cache Creek still shows the effects of 1988 fires.
DAILY MEAN STREAMFLOH, IN CUBIC FT PER SE
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
1900
20
1940
I960
DATES: 08/01/1889 to 09/30/2001
Figure 3. Hydrograph of the Upper Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, Montana (USGS, 2003). Data were lacking between
1894 and 1911.
12
Despite similar geology, climate, surface processes and land cover types among
the three study basins; there are differences among some basin characteristics (Table I).
Tom Miner Basin (combined with Cinnabar Creek) is lower in elevation than Soda Butte
Creek (combined with Pebble Creek) and Cache Creeks. Public lands dominate in the
upper reaches of the Tom Miner Basin while private lands sit in the lower reaches. On
the public lands, there is a short history of logging during the 1950’s. Currently, public
land uses include grazing, recreational hiking and hunting. Agricultural practices
dominate the land uses on private lands including water diversion for ranching and small
scale haying operations. The majority of Soda Butte Creek lies in Yellowstone National
Park. Outside YNP, land uses affecting Soda Butte Creek include a history of mining,
the “urban” impacts of Cooke City and Silver Gate (towns which sit along the creek) and
recreational activities. Cache Creek lies completely within YNP. About 15% of the Soda
Butte Creek and 57% of the Cache Creek basin areas were burned in the fires of 1988
(Legleiter et al., in press).
Table I. Basin characteristics for sample watersheds in the Upper Yellowstone River
basin. Adapted from Legleiter et al. (2003).______________________
Channel
Slope
(Avg)
Area
Burned
Tom Miner
Basin
Cinnabar
Pebble
Soda Butte
Creek
Cache
Creek
Total
(Z)
.S
15
m
#
14
km"
171
1543-2048
2.8
0
4
3
8
30
62
151
1929-1964
2097-2354
2085-2244
2.8
2.5
0.8
0
15
13
10
210
2049-2345
1.6
57
39
°
3
Basin
I
Elevation
N
13
Basin level hydrology varies among basins (Figure 4). Tom Miner Basin has
several convex sections and variable channel slope in the longitudinal profile indicating a
varied hydrologic environment from headwaters to mouth (Bendix, 1997; Schumm et ah,
1987; Wohl, 2000). Steeper reaches are more resilient to seasonal changes in discharge
and sediment supply (Montgomery & Buffington, 1997). The convexities follow'
confluences with tributaries where increases in sediment load occur. The associated
decrease in channel slope creates reaches that show prolonged response to sediment
supply and discharge (Montgomery & Buffington, 1997). However, depending on the
scale of observation, variability in slope can occur in response to tectonic activity or
inherited valley slope or, on a shorter time scale, to changes in sediment load, sediment
size and discharge induced by hillslope processes or confluences (Knighton, 1998).
Longitudinal profiles for Soda Butte and Cache Creeks are smoother than that of Tom
Miner Basin and slightly concave. While there are a few convexities in these profiles
introducing hydrologic variability, (Bendix, 1997) the hydrologic environments in Soda
Butte and Cache Creek are somewhat uniform at this scale. The relatively constant slope
suggests that decreases in sediment size offset increases in discharge with distance
downstream (Knighton, 1998).
Elevation (m)
14
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.30 -i
r 2400
Soda Butte Creek
M iller Cr.
0.25 -
- 2300
Republic Cr.
« 0.15 -
P ebble Cr.
Cha
Icebox Canyon
-
2200
-
2100
-
2000
A m phitheater Cr.
Elevation (m)
0
- 1900
0.30 i
Channel Slope
0.25 0.20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
i- 2400
N orth C ache Cr.
Cache Creek
- 2300
U nnam ed Trib.
-
0.15 0.10
5
South C ache Cr.
L a m a r R iver
-
0.05 -
-
2200
-
2100
-
2000
-
1900
ion (m)
0
Distance Downstream (m)
Figure 4. Longitudinal profiles show the overall basin shape of Tom Miner Basin to be
convex, of Soda Butte Creek to be concave to linear and of Cache Creek to be slightly
concave. Variability in channel slope corresponds to that in basin shape.
15
METHODS
Site Selection
Study reaches and sites were selected based on sub-watershed type, accessibility,
geomorphic and geologic homogeneity, lack of local impact and riparian vegetation
representative of the Upper Yellowstone River watershed. A combination of wide and
narrow valleys was selected spanning montane and subalpine vegetation zones. Local
impacts included cattle grazing and stream diversion in Tom Miner and Cinnabar basins
and wildlife grazing in YNP basins. Study sites were located near confluences because
they presented access to three sites with different sets of basin characteristics (i.e.
mainstem sites above and below a tributary and on the tributary). The upstream
contributing areas at confluences meant that each of the three sites had different basin
areas, basin positions and channel slopes (Table 2). Thirty-nine sites were sampled.
Sampling Methodology
Parameter Selection
Several hydrogeomorphic, vegetation and soil variables were employed (Table 3).
Basin characteristics gave an indication of the watershed level processes acting on each
site. Basin size and elevation above sea level at each site were the only basin
characteristics documented. Floodplain morphology, flow magnitude and flood
frequency variables characterized the fluvial environment at the cross section level.
Floodplain morphology variables included channel width, width: depth, channel
16
roughness and hydraulic radius (area/wetted perimeter) at a given discharge (Knighton,
1998). Width: depth is a measure of entrenchment or incision. Estimates of channel
roughness reflected the affect of the floodplain surface on moving waters. Hydraulic
radius is an approximation for depth as well as a numerical way of describing the overall
shape of the channel. Variables associated with flood magnitude included floodplain
position, channel slope and flow properties such as shear stress and stream power.
Floodplain morphology and flow magnitude are related through water depth at various
positions during variously sized floods. Distance and elevation above the thalweg
described floodplain position and, hence, flow magnitude. Topographic maps were used
to determine channel slope. Shear stress is a calculated variable that characterizes the
erosional force of flowing water. Stream power, also calculated, is the ability of flowing
water to do work (i.e. move an object some distance). Estimated recurrence intervals
functioned as measures of disturbance frequency at each vegetation patch (plant
association). The gradient of recurrence intervals ranged from I to 100 years including I,
2.33, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100. Emphasis placed on the higher frequencies targeted
variability in establishing vegetation. Mean annual flood (2.33-yr frequency, hereafter
noted as 2-yr for simplicity) and the 100-yr frequency were chosen because of there use
as reference points in other hydrologic research (Knighton, 1998).
Vegetation composition and structure potentially indicates differences in the
physical environment of different sites throughout a basin and of different patches across
a floodplain. Field data gathered on plant species diversity, cover by species, wetland
indicator score, density and biomass characterized riparian vegetation composition.
17
Wetland indicator scores reflect soil moisture during the growing season of a particular
species. Density and biomass was measured on woody plants, only. Vertical community
structure was assessed using age classes and cover at each stratum. Height classes served
as surrogates for age classes of woody vegetation. Patch width was the only horizontal
structure variable measured.
8
6.3
P13
00
m
km2
62
7.1
2097
Site
n
I
Channel Slope
M
S?
km2
i I
^
F 1 Basin Area
m
1951
Site
3
m
Channel Slope
Channel Slope
w
oS
CN3
II
^
Site
Soda Butte Creek
Elevation
Tom Miner Basin
8
JjT
Table 2. Sample site characteristics.
Cl
2049
210
1.5
57
2.8
1.5
CN3A
1964
16
3.6
P13.16A
2280
50
1.3
CU
2134
CN3B
1934
29
3.1
P13.33A
2354
32
1.3
C llA
2134
121
CN3BB
1929
30
2.4
SB 15
2098
24
5.0
C llB
2121
180
1.5
TM0.8
1543
171
1.7
SB15A
2098
126
1.4
C23
2220
28
3.9
TM 10.1
1903
13
2.8
SB15B
2085
151
1.4
C23A
2220
73
5.6
TM ll
1915
72
1.2
SB41
2220
85
5.0
C23B
2220
102
2.2
2220
5
0.8
C37
2345
23
2.1
TM 12.05
2048
12
3.1
SB41A
TM 13
2012
55
1.1
SB41B
2220
91
0.8
C37A
2345
18
2.9
TM 13.09
2024
45
1.4
SB46
2244
31
2.8
C37B
2345
41
2.1
TM 13 .1
2073
6
5.6
SB46B
2238
47
1.3
A vera g e
2213
85
2.6
A verage
2/P6
64
2.6
TM 14.01
2036
21
2.9
TM 14.1.01
2048
8
4.6
TM 14.1.1
2048
8
4.6
TM 5
1758
137
2.2
TM7.01
1794
27
7.1
TM7.1
1939
19
1.8
TM 8
1879
96
2.9
A vera g e
1933
43
3.2
18
Table 3. Vegetation, hydrogeomorphic and soil variables used to characterize riparian
ecosystems.___________________________________________________________
Hydrogeomorphology
Vegetation
Soil
B asin C h aracteristics
C om position
P h y sic a l p ro p erties
Basin size
Richness
Depth to coarse gravels
Elevation above sea level
Wetland Indicator Score
A horizon thickness
M a gnitude
Elevation above thalweg
Distance from thalweg
Herbs
Structure
Shrubs
Texture
Trees
% Coarse fragments
Cover
Channel slope
Tree by species
Shear stress
Shrub by species
Stream power
Herb by species
Density o f woody species
F lo o d F requency
Recurrence interval at each patch
M orp h o lo g y
Total
Per size class
C hem ical p ro p erties
Electrical conductivity
Total
PH
Tree
Cation exchange capacity
Shrub
Total C
Tree biomass
Total N
Channel width
Total
C: N
Hydraulic radius (area/perimeter)
By species
Phosphorus
Roughness
Width: depth
Structure
Age class
Tree
Shrub
# Canopy layers
Total cover
Herb
Shrub
Tree
Patch width
Soil environment characterization focused on the A horizon to determine the
amount of soil development that occurred since the most recent major disturbance.
Physical properties closely tied to vegetation composition and productivity included A
horizon depth, soil texture (fine and coarse fractions) and structure. Chemical properties
focused on nutrient availability and decomposition. The nutrient environment was
19
documented using pH, cation exchange capacity, electrical conductivity and total
phosphorus. Total C, total N and C: N depicted the decomposition environment.
Data Collection
At each of the 39 sites, three random cross-sectional transects spanning the width
of the 100-yr floodplain were placed along a 100 m geomorphologically homogenous
reach (Figure 5). The 108 transects were topographically surveyed in summer 2001 for
use in analyzing the hydrological environment of each patch (plant association) across the
floodplain. Vegetation and soil development data were taken at each of 329 vegetation
patches intersected by transects. Vegetation was sampled during summer 2000 and soils
during summer 2001 with the exception of Cinnabar basin in which both vegetation and
soils data were collected during the 2001 season.
Figure 5. Three cross sectional transects were randomly placed along a
geomorphologically homogenous 100 m reach.
20
Hydrogeomorphology. The hydrologic environment was assessed at basin and
reach scales. Basin level hydrologic parameters included site elevation and basin size.
Basin size for each site was acquired from digital elevation models. Topographic maps
were used to access site elevations above sea level. Morphological and magnitude data
were determined through topographic surveying techniques using a stadia rod and transit.
A hand level was used in backcountry locations (Pebble and Cache Creeks). Points
measured included breaks in floodplain topography and vegetation plots. Channel slope
was estimated using 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
Hydrologic analysis was conducted on each cross section using WinXSPro.
Roughness was estimated using the Jarrett equation, which was the best choice for small
mountain streams (Marcus et ah, 1992). This estimate of Manning’s n was developed
under conditions similar to those of this study—non-uniform flows, high gradients and
irregularly shaped channels (Jarrett, 1984). From the WinXSPro output, channel width,
roughness and hydraulic radius (floodplain shape complexity) were used to quantify
morphology while velocity and shear stress were used to quantify flow magnitude.
Stream power was calculated from the estimated discharge at the target recurrence
intervals, channel slope, and specific weight (assumed to be I). Stream power was
calculated by using the equation
co = yDSo
Eq. I
where to is unit stream power in watts per square meter, y is the specific weight of the
water-sediment mixture in newtons per cubic meter, D is the average depth of flow in
21
meters at the target discharge, S is channel slope, and v is velocity in meters per second at
the target discharge.
With the exception of Soda Butte Creek, study area streams were ungaged.
Therefore, a regional flood hydrology equation was developed for the Northern GYE to
estimate at-a-site discharges for floods of different frequencies (Fonstad, 2001). Fourteen
•gages with 5 to 57 years of record were used to develop the equations. Discharges with
1-, 2- (2.33), 5-,TO-, 25-, 50- and lOO'-yr flood return intervals were calculated from the
following power function
Qx = CiDAp
Eq. 2
where Qx is the discharge at the target recurrence interval, DA is the upstream drainage
area at the sample site, and a and P are empirically derived constants (Fonstad, 2001).
Vegetation. Patches were categorized into, seven patch types - coniferous,
deciduous, mixed-coniferous/deciduous, mixed-coniferousASa/zx, shrub, grass, and edge.
Coniferous patches were dominated by Picea engelmannii, Pseudotsuga menziesii or
Pinus contorta. Deciduous patches were dominated by Alnus incana, Populus
trichocarpa, and P. tremuloides. A. incana, although multi-stemmed, was treated as a
tree species due to its high canopy. Two mixed patch types were observed. Mixed-coniferous/deciduous (Mixed-con/dec) patches were composed of coniferous species
codorninated with deciduous. Mixed-coniferousASb/zx (Mixed-con/sal) patches were
composed of coniferous species codominated with Salix spp. Shrub patch types were
most often dominated by Salix spp. but were occasionally dominated by one or more of
the following; Cornus stolonifera, Symphoricarpos alba, Lonicera involucrata, Ribes
22
oxyacanthoides, and Shepherdia canadensis. Grasses and other graminoids (including
sedges and rushes) dominated grass patch types. Edge patch types generally occurred
within the bankfull zone, were dominated by bare gravels and cobbles and were sparsely
vegetated with colonizing species.
Vegetation community composition and structure were assessed for each patch
along a cross sectional transect following methods adapted from Shaffoth and others
(Shafroth et ah, 1998). Nested quadrats were used to capture the differences in scale of
woody and herbaceous vegetation. Trees were sampled in 5 x 10 m quadrats, shrubs in 2
x 4 m and herbs in I x I m. All quadrats were oriented perpendicular to transects.
Composition parameters included total cover, cover per species, wetland indicator score,
as well as biomass of tree species based on diameter at breast height and density of tree
and shrub species. Nomenclature of vascular plants followed Dom, 1984. Total tree
cover was measured using a concave densiometer. Visual cover estimates were
employed for young trees, shrubs and herbs. Wetland indicator scores for each species
were acquired from USDA National Plants Databaise (2002). The wetland indicator
scores used here appear in Table 4. Stem diameters of multi-stemmed species were
measured individually then converted to total basal area. For trees and shrubs, height
classes were used as surrogates for age class structure. Trees and shrubs under 0.5 m
were considered seedlings; between 0.5 and I m saplings; trees between I and 3 m poles;
shrubs between I and 3 m mature; and trees above 3 m mature. Table 5 summarizes data
I
collected at each quadrat level.
23
Table 4. Wetland indicator status definitions and attributed scores adapted from USDA
National Plant Database (2002).
Status
UPLUPL
UPL+
FACUFACU
FACU+
FACFAC
FAC+
FACWFACW
FACW+
UPLUPL
UPL+
Definition
Obligate upland
Facultative upland
Facultative
Facultative wetland
Obligate wetland
Rank
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.3
Table 5. Composition and structure data collected in each quadrat.
Tree (5 x 10 m)
# Trees 1-3 m tall per species
# Trees over 3 m tall per species
Diameter at breast height
Total cover
Cover per species
Shrub (2 x 4 m)
# Shrubs 0.5-1 m tall per species
# Shrubs 1-3 m tall per species
# Tree saplings 0.5-1 m per species
Total cover
Cover per species
Herb (I x I m)
# Trees and shrubs under 0.5 m per species
Total cover
Cover per species
Soils. Soils were sampled at three random locations within each 5 x 1 0 m
vegetation plot to account for spatial variation in soil properties. A total of 856 soil
samples were collected and composited into 296 patch soil samples. Soil pits were dug to
50 cm or to coarse gravels, which ever came first. Horizonation, structure, % coarse
fragments in each size class, and presence of roots in each size class were described in
the field. These data were used to determine soil order and degree of soil development.
The coarse fragment size classes estimated included fine gravel, medium gravel, coarse
gravel and cobbles. Root size classes included very fine, fine, medium, coarse and very
coarse. A 500 g sample was taken from throughout the A horizon from each pit and
slowly dried at 48°C to prevent volatilization of ammonia. Soils were then stored in
24
airtight containers and kept refrigerated at 8°C to reduce nutrient conversions until
processing and analysis. Soils from the same quadrat were passed through a 2 mm sieve
and composited. Soils were analyzed by MDS Harris Agronomic Services for texture,
electrical conductivity, pH, cation exchange capacity, C: N and phosphorus. Texture was
done using the Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Day, 1965). Electrical conductivity and
pH were measured on 1:1 solutions. Cation exchange capacity was conducted using the '
ammonium acetate method. Carbon: nitrogen was calculated from total carbon based on
loss on ignition and total nitrogen using the Kjeldahl method (Bremner, 1996).
Data Analysis
Analyses at basin and cross section levels were used to describe differences in
hydrogeomorphic, vegetation and soil environments. Basin level summary statistics were
performed on hydrogeomorphic, vegetation and soil variables to provide a coarse
characterization of riparian environments. ■Summary statistics included averages,,
standard deviations, ranges and frequency analysis.
At the cross section level, data were stratified in two ways—by zone and by
floodplain. A zone refers to the terrestrial distance between two recurrence intervals.
The entire cross section for a given recurrence interval was referred to as the floodplain.
Note: a given floodplain includes all zones of higher frequencies. For example, the 5-yr
floodplain includes patches in the 1-, 2- and 5-yr zones as they all are affected by a
discharge that occurs every 5 years, on average. This approach is justified because the
fluvial environment associated with flood magnitude, channel morphology and flood
25
frequency at each floodplain position will vary with changes in discharge. Recurrence
intervals for each patch in a given cross section were used to determine zones.
At the cross section level, a univariate analysis included summary statistics that .
compared the hydrogeomorphic, vegetation and soil environments between zones for a
given basin. This allowed for comparison of patches and associated environments within
similar disturbance regimes. Zones included 1-, 2- (mean annual flood), 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-,
and 100-years.
Deeper analysis was done on vegetation at the cross section level. Three
approaches were taken to determine if vegetation composition was distinct between
zones. Two Way Indicator SPecies ANalysis (TWINSPAN) applied to understory cover
was used to determine if patch composition was different between zones for each basin. ■
I
TWINSPAN was applied to 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones to capture early and late serai
processes. Dominant species for each zone in each basin were determined by selecting
the top 5-7 species with a combination of the highest average cover and constancy
(Youngblood et ah, 1985). Constancy is the percentage of plots in the zone of interest in
which a particular species exists. Lastly, a Sorensen similarity index was used for
comparison of functional group composition among zones for each basin as well as
between basins for a given zone. All plant species were categorized into tree, shrub or
herb functional groups. A second level of functional groups was used where the shrub
group was further split into willow and non-willow groups and the herb group into forb,
grass, and sedge (including sedge-like species) groups.
The Sorensen similarity index was calculated using Eq. 3.
26
PS =
2a
2a + b + c
Eq. 3
PS is the percent similarity, a is the number of shared species, b is the number of species
found only in the first group and c is the number of species found only in the second
(Jongman et ah, 1995). This measure of similarity gives double weight to similarity
between patches relative to dissimilarity.
To characterize the relationships between biotic and abiotic factors the data was
stratified by floodplain (the entire cross-section inundated at the stated recurrence
interval). Sets of biotic and abiotic variables were identified, scaled and placed into a
canonical correlation analysis (CCA). The criterion used to detect the most explanatory
environmental and vegetation variables was the Pearson-moment correlations between
two variables. A correlation matrix at the 0.05 significance level was created using all
combinations of vegetation, soil and hydrogeomorphic variables for 2-, 5-, 10- and
100-yr recurrence intervals for each basin. The hydrogeomorphic group of variables was
selected from those with the highest number of significant vegetation correlates. The
vegetation group of variables was chosen from those vegetation variables with the highest
number of significant hydrogeomorphic correlates. A CCA was applied to the two
groups of variables—vegetation and hydrogeomorphic—for each floodplain in each
basin. The results were interpreted by categorizing the variables present and their
respective contributions as indicated by their coefficients.
Relationships between herbaceous cover and environmental variables were
determined using data stratified by floodplain, also. Biotic-abiotic relationships were
characterized by regressing ordination scores of herbaceous cover on other scaled
27
vegetation and hydrogeomorphic variables. Ordination was performed with PC Ord
using detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) where only the first axis was retained.
Stepwise regression was performed using S-Plus where variables with individual p-values
less than 0.05 were retained and models having overall p-values of less than 0.01 were
reported.
In summary, comparisons of hydrogeomorphology, vegetation and the
relationships between the two were made between basins. A comparison of summary
statistics was made of the hydro geomorphology in each basin at each zone. Vegetation
comparisons were made using both dominant species (based on average cover and
constancy) and Sorensen similarity indices of functional groups at common zones. The
relationships between hydrogeomorphology and vegetation as determined through
canonical correlation analysis were compared among basins at each floodplain. Lastly,
the response of herb cover DCA scores to hydrogeomorphic and vegetational variables
were compared among basins at each floodplain.
28
RESULTS/DISCUSSION
Basin Summaries
The northern portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) supports a
diversity of riparian communities. Study tributaries to the Upper Yellowstone River
(UPR) ranged from the foothills of Tom Miner Basin at 1500 m elevation to the
subalpine of Cache Creek at 2350 m (Table 6). These are small alluvial watersheds
carved by glaciers leaving steep-walled valleys through which flow steep to low gradient
streams. Multiple canopy layers and a mosaic of patch communities characterize
northern GYE riparian vegetation. Patch type composition varies from predominantly
pioneer species to willow thickets to coniferous forests (Figure 6). Native plants
dominate this species-rich environment (Table 6). Weighted averages of wetland
indicator scores for herbaceous species suggest dry to moist topsoil environments while
those Of shrubs indicate wet subsoil conditions. The soils at the study sites are
predominantly thin, sandy loams and loamy sands (Table 6).
Diversity in environmental and community characteristics is common at the
regional scale (Baker, 1990). Tom Miner Basin sites occur at the low end of the
elevation range. On average Tom Miner Basin sites drain smaller basin areas, and have
steeper channel slopes and narrower 100-yr floodplains than Soda Butte and Cache
Creeks, although much variability exists (Table 6). Tom Miner Basin has multiple
convexities along its longitudinal profile indicating a varied hydrologic environment from
headwaters to mouth (Bendix, 1997; Schumm et ah, 1987; Wohl, 2000) (Figure 4).
29
Longitudinal profiles of Soda Butte and Cache Creeks are smooth and tending toward
concave in shape. The relatively constant slope in YNP basins suggests that decreases in
sediment size offset increases in discharge with distance downstream (Knighton, 1998).
Table 6. Riparian physical and vegetation properties averaged by basin for Tom Miner,
Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Symbols for texture are S=sand, SL=Sandy loam,
LS=Ioamy sand. * Denotes a weighted average of all plots at a site._______________
Texture
Topsoil depth
§
Native species 5?
Species per site %
*
#
Patch types / site
23
210
85
67
I
WIS Shrub*
5
151
64
45
i
WIS Herb*
5.60
47.73
21.54
13.12
Patches / site %
E
6
171
43
48
Canopy Layers %
Slope
Floodplain width
E
Tom Miner Basin
Minimum
1543
Maximum
2073
Average
1933
S.D.
131
Soda Butte Creek
Minimum
2085
Maximum
2354
2196
Average
S.D.
89
Cache Creek
Minimum
2049
Maximum
2345
Average
2213
S.D.
106
Drainage Area Jj
Elevation
Name
I
0.011 3
0.071 4
0.032 4
0.018
0
3 1.00 FAC
13 4.33 UPL
8 2.57 FACU
3 0.88
FACW+
FACU
FACW-
I
6
3
I
20
52
38
7
55
86
72
8
3.0
21.3
14.5
5.1
S
SL
SL
12.07
141.17
41.57
36.71
0.013
0.050
0.026
0.022
2
4
4
I
6
13
8
2
OBL
FACU
FAC+
I
5
3
I
8
57
32
15
63
89
80
8
6.0
27.8
14.7
6.4
SL
LS
SL
18
118
44.08
32.93
0.015
0.056
0.026
0.013
2
4
3
I
6 2.00 FAC
OBL
16 5.33 FACU+ FACU
10 3.33 FACFACW3 1.05
I
5
3
I
20
50
36
10
80
89
84
3
8
41
20.2
11.4
S
SL
SL
2.00 FAC
4.33 UPL
2.82 FACU
0.72
In Tom Miner Basin, abrupt changes in channel slope, or nick points, follow the
introduction of sediment at confluences with tributaries (Figure 4). Coniferous, shrub
and deciduous community patch types dominate this watershed. Coniferous patch types
are indicative of steep sloped, narrow valleys found at higher elevation sites. Deciduous
and shrub patch types are characteristic of wider floodplains with gently sloped valley
bottoms found at lower elevation sites (Hansen et al., 1995). The combination of “steepslope” and “gentle-slope” patch types corresponds with the variability in channel slope
30
along the length of the valley (Figure 4). In Tom Miner Basin, the edge patch type is
present to a moderate degree. Grass, mixed-con/sal and mixed-con/dec make rare
appearances. Tom Miner Basin species composition has a higher proportion of non­
natives than Soda Butte or Cache Creeks (Table 6), although statistical significance is
questionable.
100% i
90% 80% □ %Coniferous
70%-
□ %Mixed-Con/Dec
60% -
□ %Mixed-Con/Sal
E %Deciduous
« 40% -
□ %Shrub
30% -
Q %Grass
20%
□ %Edge
-
10% -
Tom Miner
Soda Butte
Cache
Figure 6. Average patch type composition expressed as a percentage of terrestrial
transect length found in tributaries to the Upper Yellowstone River.
Soda Butte and Cache Creeks lack deciduous community types and have more
edge communities than Tom Miner Basin (Figure 6). Soda Butte Creek shows
comparable amounts of edge and coniferous communities but also includes shrub
community types. The consistent nature of the spatial distribution of edge and coniferous
community types may be due to the consistent channel slope throughout the length of the
stream. Edge types dominate while grass communities are present to a moderate degree
in Cache Creek. The grass community types in Cache Creek may be early-mid serai
31
stages following the 1988 fires, which greatly affected this basin in both severity and
intensity. Soda Butte and Cache Creeks sites possess higher ratios of native to non-native
plant species than Tom Miner Basin (Table 6).
The soil environment of the three sampled basins is similar as well as
homogenous within each basin with respect to soil development, profile characteristics
and physical and chemical properties (Table I). Figure 7 shows key physical and
chemical soil characteristics averaged for each basin. Soil orders in each basin are
indicative of disturbance-laden ecosystems, which include entisols, inceptisols and poorly
developed mollisols. Soils in Tom Miner Basin are generally more developed than those
in Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. A small number of observed soils in Tom Miner and
Soda Butte Creeks have B horizons, most have A over C horizonation characteristic of
riparian soils (Youngblood et ah, 1985). Topsoil depths appear to be greater in Cache
Creek due to an under representation of streamside community soil samples. Soil
structures are more developed in Tom Miner Basin than Soda Butte and Cache Creeks,
which is consistent with higher amounts of clay and greater soil development seen in
Tom Miner Basin. Soils in all three basins are coarse textured. Organic matter content
appears higher in Tom Miner Basin than in Soda Butte or Cache Creeks. Soils in all
three basins have low nutrient status given the low CEC values and relatively high C: N
values. However, the range of C: N values in Tom Miner and Soda Butte Creeks bridge
the threshold between net production and consumption of ammonium by
microorganisms, 20:1 (Sylvia et ah, 1998). Ofthe sites sampled in Cache Creek, none
32
drop below this threshold. Generally, C: N values above 20:1 indicate N-Iimited
environments (Sylvia et ah, 1998).
Table 7. Soil properties for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Symbols for
I
K
Oi
E
I
^
"O
%
2
£
Z
CEC
a?
Soluble Salts
Roots
%
5?
§
§
0C
Total % CF
Texture
Structure
Gravel Depth
Topsoil Depth
Name
Tom Miner Basin
Min.
3.0
3.0
Max.
21.3 42.3
Avg.
14.5 23.6
S.D.
5.1 10.2
Soda Butte Creek
Min.
6.0
6.0
Max.
27.8 25.0
Avg.
14.7 15.5
6.4
S.D.
6.2
Cache Creek
Min.
7.7
7.7
Max.
41.0 41.0
Avg.
20.2 20.2
S.D.
11.4 11.4
I
5S
Q
3
p
Z
%
Single grain
Mod. gran.
Wk. gran.
6 S
18 SL
12 SL
3
3.6
13.2
8.3
3.0
0 vf-m
62 vf-vc
14 vf-vc
16
2.100
10.414
6.600
2.300
6.09
6.80
6.50
0.20
0.200
0.560
0.300
0.100
12.167
31.671
21.500
5.200
0.043 15.2
0.439 44.0
0.200 22.3
0.100 8.4
Single grain
Mod. gran.
Single grain
5 LS
15 SL
10 SL
4
1.7
13.0
7.1
3.6
3 vf-m
31 vf-vc
19 vf-c
10
1.667
4.720
2.870
1.248
6.49
7.95
7.34
0.51
0.230
0.427
0.317
0.061
14.529
24.025
20.192
2.967
0.030
0.175
0.075
0.054
16.3
42.0
316
10.8
Single grain
Wk. gran.
Single grain
8 S
28 SL
14 SL
7
1.5
7.3
5.4
1.5
I vf-m
23 vf-vc
13 vf-vc
7
1.000
3.300
2.330
0.750
6.33
7.18
6.65
0.32
0.233
0.313
0.284
0.026
14.450
20.100
18.371
1.904
0.010
0.090
0.055
0.026
23.0
57.5
36.6
11.9
Cross Section Analysis
Hydrogeomorphology
Channel morphology parameters are associated with flood magnitude (Leopold et
ah, 1964). At sampled floodplain locations stream power decreased with increased
elevation above the thalweg (decreased water depth) for all three basins. This follows as
zones higher on the floodplain experience shallower water depths than zones lower on the
floodplain. Depth is directly proportional to stream power, Eq. I. Stream power varies
across the floodplains of each basin in different ways (Figure 8). In the 1-yr zone Cache
Creek has the lowest stream power and Soda Butte and Tom Miner Creeks have similar
33
stream power values. At the 2- and 5-yr zones Soda Butte Creek has the lowest stream
power while Cache and Tom Miner Creeks have higher, yet comparable, stream power
values. Stream power values for zones 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-yr are similar for all three
basins Average values for height above the thalweg were similar for all basins at
frequencies of I - 50 years (Figure 9). However, at the 100-yr return interval average
values for height above the thalweg for each basin ranked as follows, Soda Butte Creek >
■Tom Miner Basin > Cache Creek.
Cross section profiles show Tom Miner Basin to be somewhat entrenched while
Soda Butte and Cache Creeks have wide, shallow channels characteristic of braided
streams (Figure 10). Multiple convexities in the longitudinal profile indicate that Tom
Miner Basin has greater tendency toward entrenchment than Soda'Butte and Cache
Creeks (Schumm et ah, 1987). Average width: depth for Tom Miner Basin is 17 where
61% of the sampled cross sections have width: depths of < 15. Soda Butte and Cache
Creeks average width: depths are 34 and 28, respectively. Only 24% of Cache Creek and
20% of Soda Butte Creek cross-sections have width: depths <15. Further, Tom Miner
Basin has the narrowest channels and an overall triangular floodplain shape based on the
hydraulic radii. When values within a given zone are averaged for Tom Miner Basin,
channel widths range from 16-33 m and hydraulic radii 0.397-0.566 m across the
floodplain. Soda Butte and Cache Creeks have wide stream channels with rectangularand trapezoidal-shaped floodplains, respectively. Soda Butte Creek channels span
33-59 m widths and hydraulic radii vary from 0.460-0.773 m. Cache Creek channel
widths range 29-43 m with hydraulic radii 0.524-0.692.,
34
Texture
100% i
Soil Volume
90% 80% 70% -
DSilt
60% -
D Sand
a Clay
50% 30% 20%
-
10% Tom M iner
Soda Butte
Cache
Coarse Fragments
100%
90% Coarse Fragments
D Stones
70% 60% -
D Cobbles
50% -
D MGrav
40% 30% -
□ FGrav
20%
□ CGrav
-
10% Soda Butte
Cache
__
Tom Miner
OH
• CEC
D Na
OCa
OMg
DK
Tom Miner
Soda Butte
Cache
Figure 7. Soil features compared among Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks.
Graphed values are averages of each feature for the specified basin.
35
500
450 -
□ Tom Miner Creek
□ Soda Butte Creek
□ Cache Creek
400 350
^ 300
CS
B 250
£
£200
E
E 150
55
100
-
50
IE
0
I
2
5
10
25
Q iil
50
100
Figure 8. Stream power of a 100-yr flood at each zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and
Cache Creeks. Bars represent standard deviation.
Interpreting these results leads to an exploration of the interdependencies among
flood magnitude, floodplain morphology and vegetation as they relate to stream power
and velocity. Stream velocities respond to floodplain roughness. The variety of
vegetation patch types in each basin (Figure 6) and the diverse range of floodplain shapes
create varied degrees of roughness. Greater roughness slows flow velocity therefore
varied roughness translates into a varied velocity and stream power (Bendix, 1999;
Leopold et al., 1964). Further, floodplain shape diversity has an affect on flow depth at
each floodplain position within each floodplain, which, in turn, affects stream power.
Thus, stream power will vary, as well.
36
Tom Miner
^
16
I
1.2
_L_ Mean+/-SD
I___I Mean+/-SE
D Mean
.5P 0.4
°
Outliers
*
Extremes
Soda Butte
Cache
2.0
E, 1.6
"I
1.2
H
V
j 08
<
S 0.4
U
X
0.0
2
5
10
25
50
100
Zone (years)
Figure 9. Height above the thalweg for patches in 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones
in Torn Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Note the x-axes are temporal not distance
scales. Some patches in 2-yr zones appear higher than lower frequency zones because
each floodplain does not have distinct patches in each zone recorded.
37
Tom Miner
Soda Butte
S 0.8 :
Cache
S 0.8 :
Horizontal Distance (m)
Figure 10. Representative channel cross sections. Tom Miner Basin channels are
triangular-shaped. Channels of Soda Butte Creek are rectangular-shaped. Channels of
Cache Creek are trapezoidal-shaped. Stage levels are shown for 1-, 2.33-, 5-, 10-, 25-,
50- and 100-yr floods. Vertical exaggeration = 15.
38
Vegetation Communities
Basin Cross-Section Comparison. Comparisons of community composition using
patch type distribution, dominant species and species similarity were made among basins
at each target zone—2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr. Tom Miner Basin showed two patch types in
the 2-yr zone, 2A and 2B (Figure 11). Group 2A consisted of primarily shrub and
deciduous patch types while 2B was dominated by coniferous, deciduous and shrub patch
types. Zones inundated at the 5-, 10- and 100-yr intervals were predominantly occupied
by coniferous, deciduous and shrub patch types in Tom Miner Basin. Soda Butte Creek
patch types were similarly distributed in all four target zones. They consisted of
coniferous and edge patch types with higher proportions of the shrub patch type in the 5and 10-yr zones. Edge was the dominant patch type in Cache Creek in all target zones.
□ %Coniferous
□ %M ixed-Con/Dec
CJ
CL
□ %M ixed-Con/Sal
H
-C
□ %Deciduous
CS
CL.
■ %Shrub
s?
D 0ZoGrass
D 0ZoEdge
2A 2B
5
10 100
Tom Miner
2
5
10 100
Soda Butte
2A 2B
5
10 100
Cache
Flood Plain Zone (Years)
Figure 11. Patch type distribution for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones in Tom Miner, Soda
Butte and Cache Creeks.
39
The subtle shifts in patch type distribution across zones appear unrelated to
disturbance frequency. The limited areas occupied by patches, as seen by average patch
widths, maybe restricting the expression of more distinct patch boundaries seen in larger
systems such as the mainstem of the Upper Yellowstone River (Boggs & Weaver, 1994;
Merigliano & Polzin, 2003). While the patch type distribution varies little across the
floodplains of any of the three basins, the dominant patch type(s) is basin specific.
Dominant species results for each zone appear in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and
Table 11. In the 2-yr zones of Tom Miner and Soda Butte Creeks several tree and shrub
species play dominant roles whereas in Cache Creek only one woody species played a
dominant role (Table 8). Further, herbaceous species composition varies among basins in
terms of species’ presence and associated abundances in the 2-yr zone. Zones inundated,
on average, every 5 years have dominant species that are basin specific (Table 9).
Species composition in Soda Butte Creek differs at every level, tree, shrub and herb.
Alnus incana dominates the tree group in both Cache and Tom Miner Creeks but
dominant shrub and herbaceous species strongly differ between the two basins.
Dominant species in Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks differ at the 10-yr zone in
terms of tree, shrub and herb species (Table 10). Few patches lay at the 100-yr zone. Of
those plots in the 100-yr zone, none supported woody species that met the constancy and
average cover criteria for dominant species. The herbaceous communities in Soda Butte
and Cache Creeks differ.in species’ presence and abundances (Table 11). Only one site
lay at this stage in Tom Miner. Basin making comparisons inappropriate.
40
Table 8. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in the 2-yr
zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Two distinct patch types occur in
Tom Miner and Cache Creeks and are distinguished by “A” and “B.” Average cover is
noted for each species in each basin.__________________________
Criteria
Constancy/ Avg Cover
N
Trees
P icea en gelm annii
Shrubs
Tom Miner Basin
Patch A
Patch B
0.2/1.6
0.3/1.8
56
38
35
A ln u s incana
8
S a lix d rum m ondiana
3
Herbs
7
7
2
Sym p h o rica rp o s albus
3
Moss
4
13
E quisetum arvense
5
4
14
4
2
2
I
2
3
A ste r subspicatus
5
3
I
F ragaria virginiana
G lyceria striata
6
7
R ibes o xyacanlhoides
Taraxacum officinale
0.25/1.0
24
Cache Creek
Patch A
Patch B
0.2/1.50
0.2/0.9
13
12
16
S a lix fa r r ia e
S a lix tw eedyi
Soda Butte Creek
2
2
3
4
E pU obium angustifolium
A ste r cam pestris
2
A g o seris aurantiaca
I
E pilobium ciliatum
I
P hleum p reten se
I
I
M archantia po lym o rp h a
C arex m icroptera
2
Trifolium hybridum
7
G alium aparine
2
G eranium richardsonii
2
H eracleum sphondylium
5
41
Table 9. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in the 5-yr
zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Average cover is noted for each
species in each basin._______________
Criteria
Trees
Constancy/ Avg Cover
N
Tom Miner Basin
0.3/1.7
9
A ln u s incana
S a lix drum m ondiana
Equiseturn arvense
17
6
4
14
4
A ste r subspicatus
E pilobium angustifolium
G lyceria striata
M im u lu s Iew isii
Moss
L uzula p a rvijlo ra
Senecio triangularis
G eranium richardsonii
Taraxacum o fficinale
Trifoliurn hybridurn
3
5
3
6
4
11
I
2
2
3
C icuta rnaculata
F ragaria virginiana
C ynogIossum officinale
Cache Creek
0.35/3.0
8
7
3
P icea en gelm annii
P in u s contorta
Shrubs
Herbs
Soda Butte Creek
0.3/1.3
12
2
3
4
2
Table 10. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in the
10-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Average cover is noted for
each species in each basin._______________________________________
Criteria
Constancy/ Avg Cover
N
Trees
P icea en gelm annii
Tom Miner Basin
0.3/2.5
10
S a lix tw eedyi
11
Moss
G lyceria striata
E quisetum arvense
7
3
8
2
3
E pilobiurn angustifolium
E ragaria virginiana
6
3
A ste r su b sp ica tu s
P hleum p ra te n se
P oa p ra ten sis
Taraxacum officinale
Trifoliurn hybridurn
6
16
11
4
8
A g o seris aurantiaca
A lopeciirus p ra ten sis
Cache Creek
0.4/3.0
4
13
3
A ln u s incana
Shrubs
Herbs
Soda Butte Creek
0.4/2.2
3
5
6
5
42
Table 11. Comparison of dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species present in the
100-yr zone for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Average cover is noted for
each species in each basin.__________
Tom Miner Basin
Criteria
Constancy/ Avg Cover
N
Herbs
G lyceria striata
Taraxacum o fficinale
I
I site
Soda Butte Creek
0.5/3
2
11
8
A rtem isia cam pestris
C arex m icroptera
A ste r su b sp ica tu s
A gropyron trachycaulum
Cache Creek
0.4/1.5
4
2
2
2
3
4
4
Tables of Sorensen similarity values between basins for functional groups at each
target zone appear in Appendix A. Sorensen similarity index values above 0.50 indicate
similarity in composition (Barbour et ah, 1986; Pavlik, 1989). Sorensen indices show
both similarities and differences among tree species composition in the three sampled
basins, however, the number of tree species is quite low. Shrub composition, as a whole,
indicates dissimilarity between Tom Miner and Cache Creeks as well as between Tom
Miner and Soda Butte Creeks. Soda Butte and Cache Creeks appear similar in terms of
willow species, which is the basis for similarity between these two basins in the shrub
and woody species groups. With the exception of sedges, herbaceous functional groups
differ in composition between Tom Miner and Cache Creeks. Soda Butte and Cache
Creeks are similar in herb, forb and grass compositions. Overall, Tom Miner Basin is
dissimilar to Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Soda Butte and Cache Creeks are similar in
most functional groups surveyed in the 2- and 5-yr zones, yet are similar in tree and grass
groups only in the 10-yr zone.
Univariate Analysis. In Tom Miner and Soda Butte Creeks, no single vegetation
variable measured shows a discernible pattern across the floodplain. Community
43
structure is variable horizontally and vertically. Vertical structure in terms of number of
canopy layers as well as percent cover at each canopy layer (herb, shrub and tree) appears
homogenous across the floodplain (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Average patch widths for
Tom Miner Basin range from 6-13 m while those in Soda Butte Creek span 7-27 m.
There is no change in richness from younger to older surfaces of the Tom Miner Basin
floodplain (Figure 14). In Soda Butte Creek, there are slight changes in richness at the
2-yr and 50-yr zones. With few exceptions, Tom Miner Basin shows the highest average
cover at each canopy layer - herb, shrub and tree (Figure 13).
In Cache Creek, patterns in vegetation composition and structure across the
floodplain are more detectible than those in Tom Miner and Soda Butte Creeks. Patch
widths in Cache Creek are the smallest, 7-10 m. The number of canopy layers and
average cover for each canopy layer appear to peak in the 10-, 25- and 50-yr zones with
low values in the youngest and oldest zones. Species richness shows a similar, yet subtle,
pattern. While the intermediate disturbance hypothesis applies specifically to species
richness (Connell, 1978), the pattern of a peak community structure at zones of
intermediate disturbance frequency suggests a similar mechanism. One limitation to this
hypothesis is the nebulous idea of “intermediate” (Bendix & Hupp, 2000). Here both the
low and high limits are visible. Thus, “intermediate” disturbance frequency in the
context of this study could very well be between 10 and 50 years.
44
Tom Miner
I
I
□
i— Mean+/-SD
I Mean+ASE
D Mean
°
Outliers
*
Extremes
I
Soda Butte
2
5
10
25
50
100
25
50
100
Cache
5
4
I
£
U
-I
2
5
10
Zone (years)
Figure 12. Number of canopy layers for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones in Tom
Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Note the x-axes are temporal scales not distance
scales.
Tom M iner
Soda Butte
Cache
100
10
25
Zone (years)
5
10
25
Zone (years)
Zone (years)
Figure 13. Herbaceous, shrub and tree cover for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones in Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks.
Note the x-axes are temporal scales not distance scales.
46
Tom Miner
16
Richness (# s
U
Soda Butte
24
Richness (# species)
20
16
12
8
4
0
2
5
10
25
50
100
ichness (# species)
Cache
Floodplain Zone (years)
Figure 14. Richness for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-yr zones in Tom Miner, Soda Butte
and Cache watersheds.
47
The box plots in Figure 12,Figure 13 and Figure 14 show little statistical
difference between zones for each vegetation parameter. Larger sample sizes in zones 5,
10, 25, 50 and 100 may lend strength to this data set. The lack of discernible pattern
could be explained in several ways.
1) There is little or no connection between these vegetation communities and the
current (100-year scale) fluvial processes. The width: depths and multitude of
convexities in the longitudinal profile indicates that Tom Miner Basin is incised
(Schumm et ah, 1987). Incised channels tend to strand riparian zones disconnecting them
from groundwater surface water interactions and fluvial processes (Friedman et ah, 1996;
Hupp & Osterkamp, 1996; Johnson, 1994). This is not the case for Soda Butte and Cache
Creeks.
2) There is little connection between the measured vegetation variables (number
of canopy layers, percent cover at herb, tree and shrub layers and plot richness) and the
hydrologic environment although connections may exist with other variables. Vegetation
parameters such as frequency of indicator species, evenness and diversity indices may
illustrate floodplain position differences. Additionally, analysis of data stratified by
functional group may show sensitivity to fluvial environmental factors. Both approaches
are worthy avenues of further research yet are beyond the scope of this work.
3) The zones examined have similar vegetational composition. The riparian
habitat type supports similar vegetation within which various phases or serai stages
emerge throughout the successional process (Hansen et ah, 1995).
48
4) The vegetation communities are responding to an interaction of several
variables, both biotic and abiotic.
5) Lumping the parameters by watersheds disguises the within-site and site-to-site
variability. This is another target of further research and will not be specifically
addressed in this work.
Option 3 will be addressed in the following paragraphs. Options I and 4 will be explored
in the Hydrogeomorpholqgy and Vegetation section.
Zone Distinction—Vegetation. Because few vegetation variables in the univariate
analysis showed differences between zones, three different approaches were taken to
determine the level of floristic and hydrogeomorphic distinctiveness between zones.
Applying Two Way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN) to herbaceous cover by
species in Tom Miner Basin detected two floristically distinct patches in the 2-yr ,zone
and single patches in the 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones. Single patches exist at each zone for
Soda Butte Creek. In Cache Creek, 2 patches were found in the 2-yr zone and single
patches in zones inundated every 5, 10, and 100 years. Patch distinctions based on the
presence of uncommon species in a few plots were disregarded. These results suggest
that environmental conditions in topsoil may vary within the 2-yr zone. This may also be
true of the 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones but variability is masked by small sample sizes from
these zones. Varied conditions instigate varied successional trajectories (Hansen et ah,
1995; Johnson, 1994; Wright & Chambers, 2002) leading to the mosaic of plant
communities that are characteristic of riparian zones.
49
Dominant species in terms of constancy and abundance (aerial cover by species
averaged across all plots in a basin at each zone) for each basin at target zones appear in
Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14 for Tom Miner, Soda Butte and Cache Creeks,
respectively. Major overstory species in Tom Miner Basin included Picea engelmannii
and Alnus incana whose average aerial cover, when present, ranged from 4-35% and
8-16%, respectively. Salix tweedyi and S. drummondiana comprised the major willow
species while other dominant shrub species include Ribes oxyacanthoides and
Symphoricarpos album. Average cover for Tom Miner Basin willow species ranged
from 3-15% compared to 2-3% for non-willow shrub species.
Table 12. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Tom Miner Basin for
2-, 5-, and 10-yr zones. Wetland indicator status for each species and the weighted (by
cover) average WIS for herbaceous species are shown for each patch. An “x” indicates
presence. Only I plot lay in the 100-yr zone.______________________________
WIS
Criteria Constancy / Avg Cover
N
Avg WIS for dominant herbs
Trees
P icea en gelm annii
A ln u s incana
Shrubs
Herbs
FAC
FACW
Q2-A
0.2/1.6
56
FAC
Q2-B
0.3/1.8
38
FACU+
Q5
0.3/1.7
9
FACU+
QlO
0.3/2.5
10
FAC-
X
X
X
X
S a lix d rum m ondiana
S a lix tw eedyi
R ibes oxyacanthoides
S ym p horicarpos albus
FACW
F AC W +
Taraxacum o fficinale
E q u isetw n arvense
FACU
FAC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Trifolium hybridum
F AC U +
X
X
X
C arex m icroptera
G lyceria striata
G alium a parine
H eracleum sphondylium
C ynoglossum officinale
A lo p ecu ru s p ra ten sis
P oa pra ten sis
F AC U +
X
X
X
X
F AC U +
FAC
O BL
FACU
NI
NO
FACW
X
X
NO
FACU
Moss
G eranium richardsonii
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
50
Table 13. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Soda Butte Creek for 2-,
5-, 10- and 100-yr zones. Wetland indicator status for each species and the average WIS
for herbaceous species are shown for each patch. An “x” indicates presence.
WIS
Criteria Constancy / Avg Cover
N
Avg WIS for dominant herbs
Trees
P icea en g elm a n n ii
Q2
0.25/1.0
24
FACU+
Q5
0.3/1.3
12
FAC
QIO
0.4/2.2
7
FAC+
X
X
FAC
FACFACW
X
P in u s co ntorta
A ln u s incana
Shrubs
S a lix fa r r ia e
O BL
X
X
Herbs
A ste r su b sp ica tu s
F ragaria virginiana
FACW
UPL
X
X
X
X
X
X
Moss
Taraxacum officinale
G lyceria striata
M a rch a n tia p o lym o rp h a
C icuta m aculata
L u zu la p a rviflo ra
S enecio triangularis
E quisetum arvense
P h leu m p ra te n se
A g ro p yro n trachycaulum
QlOO
0.5/3
2
FAC+
X
X
FACU
O BL
NO
NI
F AC FACW +
FAC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FACU
FAC
X
X
Table 14. Dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous species found in Cache Creek for 2-, 5-,
10- and 100-yr zones. Wetland indicator status for each species and the average WIS for
herbaceous species are shown for each patch. An “x” indicates presence._______
WIS
Criteria Constancy / Avg Cover
N
Avg WIS for dominant herbs
Trees
A ln u s incana
FACW
Shrubs
S a lix d rum m ondiana
FACW
Herbs
G lyceria striata
E pilobium angustifolium
F ragaria virginiana
F AC U +
UPL
FAC
FACW
Q2-B
0.2/0.9
12
FAC
Q10
0.4/3.0
4
FAC-
QlOO
0.4/1.5
4
FAC+
X
X
X
X
X
Q5
0.35/3.0
8
FACWX
X
OBL
Moss
E quisetum arvense
Q2-A
0.2/1.50
13
FAC-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A ste r sub sp ica tu s
A g o seris aurantiaca
A ste r cam pestris
E pilobium ciliatum
FAC
NO
FACW -
P hleum p ra te n se
M im u lu s Iew isii
F AC U +
F AC W +
A rtem isia cam pestris
C arex m icroplera
T araxacum officinale
NO
X
FAC
F AC U +
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
51
At first glance, herbaceous species composition in Tom Miner Basin appears to
vary little between zones, 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr. However, the two herbaceous species
common to all zones, T. officinale and Equisetum arvense, are listed as invasive (USDA
& NRCS, 2002). Further, the wetland indicator scores for these two species are in the
facultative range. Thus, these species are generalists and serve as poor indicators of
variation within the 100-yr floodplain. Herbaceous composition does vary across the
Tom Miner Basin floodplain when T. officinale and E. arvense, are excluded from
analysis.
In decreasing order of average aerial cover, herbs with the highest combination of
constancy and aerial cover in the Tom Miner Basin 2-yr zone for patch A consisted of
Trifolium hybridum, moss, Equisetum arvense, Taraxacum officinale, Glyceria striata
and Carex microptera (Table 12). Average aerial cover for these species ranged from
2-7%. Patch B in the 2-yr zone supported moss, Heracleum sphondylium, E. arvense, T
officinale. Geranium richardsonii and Galium aparine, in decreasing order. Aerial cover
for patch B dominant species varied between 2-13%. In the 5-yr zone, herbaceous
species ranked as follows in terms of aerial cover; E. arvense > T officinale > G.
richardsonii > T hybridum > Cynoglossum officinale and ranged from 2-4% in average
aerial cover. Ranking for herbs in the 10-yr zone was T officinale > T hybridum > Poa
pratensis > E. arvense > Alopecuruspratensis and ranged from 3-7%. Only one plot was
found in the 100-yr zone making comparisons inappropriate.
Dominant overstory species for Soda Butte Creek include P. engelmannii, Pinus
contorta and A. incana whose average aerial cover spanned 3-13% when present. Salix
52
farriae was the only willow species whose average aerial cover and constancy met the
criteria listed in Table 13. Its average aerial cover ranged from 7-20%.
Soda Butte Creek supported a variety of herbaceous patches across the floodplain.
Major herb species, in terms of average aerial cover and constancy, in the 2-yr zone rank
as follows; moss > Aster subspicatus > T. officinale > Fragaria virginiana - Marchantia
polymorpha. Average aerial cover for these species ranged from 1-14%. The 5-yr zone'
patch consisted of A. subspicatus > Senecio triangularis > F. virginiana > Luzula
parviflora > Cicuta maculata whose average cover ranged from 1-4%. Herbaceous
species found in the 10-yr zone include moss, A. subspicatus, Phleum pratense, E.
arvense and Glyceria striata, in decreasing order of average aerial cover which varied
from 2-8%. Ranking for herbs in the 100-yr zone was Glyceria striata > T. officinale >
Agropyron trachycaulum > A. subspicatus where average aerial cover varied from
4-11%.
Cache Creek supported only one overstory species that met the dominance
criteria—A. incana in,the 5-yr zone at 14% average aerial cover (Table 14).
S. drummondiana was the sole dominant willow species found at 7% average aerial cover
in the 2-yr zone. No non-willow shrub species met the dominance criteria.
Major herbaceous species found in Cache Creek in 2-yr zones fell out into two
patches. Species in patch A ranked as follows; moss > Epilobium angustifolium > E.
arvense > Aster campestris > F. virginiana in terms of average aerial cover and range
from 2-5%. Patch B species included Glyceria striata > Aster campestris > P. pratense >
Agoseris aurantiaca - E. angustifolium = F. virginiana ranging from 1-3% in average
53
aerial cover. The 5-yr zone consisted of moss > Glyceria striata > A. subspicatus >
Mimulus lewisii > E. angustifolium = E. arvense and varied from 3-11%. Average aerial
cover varied from 4-11% at the 10-yr zone and ranked as follows; Glyceria striata > A.
aurantiaca > F. virginiana > moss > E. angustifolium. Herbaceous species found in the
100-yr zone included C. microptera > A. campestris > Glyceria striata = T. officinale
where average aerial cover ranged from 2-3%.
Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14 also display wetland indicator status (WIS) for
each dominant species as well as the average WIS for dominant herbaceous species for
each zone. Woody species tend toward wetland environments while the herbs tend
toward drier environments. The predominantly sandy loam and loamy sand soils are well
drained and have little capillary fringe (Chambers et al., 1999). Thus, plants that cannot
reach the water table must adapt to drought conditions late in the growing season or
during dry years. The deep-rooted woody species can reach the water table, which places
them in wetter conditions while the herbaceous species generally reach shallower depths
and drier conditions. Plants such as P. contorta andP. engelmannii are facultative
species that opportunistically grow in riparian zones.
The distribution of herbaceous wetland species in Tom Miner Basin is sporadic.
Type A patches in the 2-yr zone and patches in the 10-yr zone support species indicative
of moist areas. Type B patches in the 2-yr zone and patches in the 5-yr zone support
species found in dry conditions. The two different environments within the 2-yr zone,
patch type A and patch type B, indicate stratification into xeric and mesic patch
communities. This stratification corresponds with the variable hydrologic environment
54
controlled by the longitudinal profile described previously (Figure 4). Average channel
slope at patch type A sites is 2.3% while that at patch type B sites is 3.9%. Increased
canopy density in steep reaches provides shade, which maintains higher soil moisture
levels. Conditions in a 2-yr zone on a steep reach compared to those on a less steep reach
may be different enough to support two distinctly different patch types.
In Cache and Soda Butte Creeks, dominant herbaceous composition is
■homogenously facultative. Patches in the 2-yr zones are scoured or buried often, receive
large amounts of sun, experience high surface temperatures and have permeable
substrates. These are drought-like conditions (Johnson, 1994) favoring upland and
facultative upland species.
' Plant species in the 100-yr zone are often unable to reach groundwater sources.
While these soils have higher organic matter contents and greater water holding
capacities, (Chambers et ah, 1999) they are reliant on seasonal precipitation as a water
source. Thus, species in this zone must adapt to more upland conditions for the majority
of the growing season. However, the moisture received early in the growing season and
periodic mid-summer rains allow more wetland species to survive in moist pockets.
Thus, there is a homogenous moisture gradient across the 100-yr floodplains of Soda
Butte and Cache Creeks riparian ecosystems:
The results from comparing the dominant species at each canopy layer (herb,
shrub and tree) refute option 3 from page 48, that zones are floristically similar. Indeed,
they are different beyond successional variability. Dominant species lists within each
zone have different compositions. Thus, both the TWINSPAN results on herbaceous
55
cover and the dominant species data indicate that patches occurring in 2-, 5- 10- and
100-yr zones support distinctly different vegetation communities. Option 3 stipulates that
the hydrogeomorphic environment is distinctly different across the floodplain, also. The
following section addresses this point.
Zone Distinction—Hydro geomorpholo gy. Sorensen similarity indices for tree,
shrub, willow, non-willow, woody, herb, forb, grass and sedge functional groups Were
used to indicate the degree of similarity of environmental conditions between zones in
each basin. Values of 0.50 and above indicate similarity while values below 0.50
indicate dissimilarity. In Tom Miner Basin, woody species show much homogeneity
across the floodplain (Table 15). Non-willow shrubs in 2- and 5-yr zones are more
similar to each other than to patches flooded every 10 years. Herbaceous functional
groups also showed much similarity between zones. Sedges responded to flood
frequency in an indiscernible pattern. These data correspond with the univariate analysis
results in that there is little distinction among vegetation responses to floodplain
environments disturbed at 100 years and more frequently in Tom Miner Basin. Yet, these
results contradict the groupings made by TWINSPAN. This discrepancy is due to the use
of species’ presence and abundance in TWINSPAN where only presence is used in
Sorensen making TWINSPAN the more sensitive comparative tool. However, the
Sorensen results indicate which guilds possess the most similarity (and dissimilarity)
between zones.
56
Table 15. Serensen indices between patches inundated in 2-, 5-, and 10-yr zones in Tom
Miner Basin. Shaded values indicate dissimilarity between the compositions of the
patches compared. Only I plot lay in the 100-yr zone.___________________
# Species
Q2-A
Q2-B
Q5
QlO
Tree
# Species
Q2-A
Q2-B
05
QlO
H erb
Q2-A
Q2-B
Q5
QIO
6
6
4
3
—
0.67
0.67
0.67
Q2-A
Q2-B
Q5
QlO
18
19
10
10
—
0.65
0.50
0.64
Q2-A
Q2-B
9
7
5
7
—
0.75
0.57
0.88
—
—
—
—
—
0.80
0X4 0.57
—
—
—
—
S h rub
91
61
42
37
—
0.53
0.54
0.50
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.60
0.51
—
0.66
---
F orb
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.55
0.55
—
--
0.50
—
W illow
58
48
26
21
—
0.60
0.52
0.46
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.65
0X9
—
0.60
—
—
G rass
Q5
QlO
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.50
0.71
—
0.50
—
—
N o n -w illo w
Q2-A
Q2-B
Q5
QIO
18
9
9
9
—
0.44
0.52
0.59
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.56
0.56
—
—
0.78
—
S edge
10
13
6
3
0.61
0.50
0.31
24
25
14
13
0.65
0.58
0.64
—
—
"
—
—
—
--
—
0.63
0.38
0.44
—
—
14
3
6
6
—
0.12
0.60
0.50
—
—
0.22
0.44
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.67
—
W oody
Q2-A
Q2-B
Q5
QlO
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.52
—
0.62
0.53
—
Sorensen index values for Soda Butte Creek functional groups in target zones
were different from those in Tom Miner Basin. Shrubs and sedges showed differences
among 2-, 5- and 10-yr zones while homogeneity appeared among the remaining
functional groups (Table 16). Because only one woody species occurred in 100-yr zones
no interpretations are made. The same is true for non-willow species in 5- and 10-yr
zones. However, differences between 100-yr and 2-, 5-, and 10-yr patches occurred in
each of the herbaceous functional groups. The number of values indicating dissimilarity
implies that herbaceous functional groups, as a whole and individually, are more
57
responsive to 100-yr events than to 10-yr and more frequent events in Soda Butte Creek.
Thus, vegetation responds to flooding frequency to varying degrees in Soda Butte Creek.
Table 16. Sorensen indices for patches 2-, 5-, 10-, 100-yr zones in Soda Butte Creek.
Shaded values indicate dissimilarity between the compositions of the patches compared.
#
Species
#
02
OS
QlO
Tree
Species
02
54
52
34
20
—
—
0.57
0.52
0.41
--
—
0.53
0.42
0.52
—
—
—
QS
QlO
H erb
Q2
Q5
QlO
QlOO
4
2
3
0
Q2
Q5
QlO
QlOO
6
5
5
I
—
—
—
0.67
0.86
na
—
0.80
na
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
na
S h rub
—
—
F orb
0.36
0.54
0.00
0.40
0.33
41
39
25
13
—
033
W illow
0.58
0.55
0.37
—
0.50
0.38
—
—
0.47
G rass
Q2
Q5
QlO
QlOO
3
4
4
I
—
0.57
0.57
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.50
0.00
0.00
—
N o n -w illo w
7
7
4
3
0.71
0.55
0.40
5
5
4
3
0.20
0.22
0.50
—
—
—
—
—
0.55
0.40
—
0.88
S edge
Q2
Q5
QlO
QlOO
3
I
I
0
—
0.00
0.50
na
—
—
—
—
0.00
na
na
Q2
QS
QlO
QlOO
10
7
8
I
—
—
—
0.47
0.67
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.67
0.50
—
0.29
W oody
0.53
0.25
—
0.22
Functional groups in Cache Creek followed similar trends to those in Soda Butte
Creek. Homogeneity among woody species within the 10-yr floodplain indicates little
patch distinction (Table 17). Woody species, as a whole, in Q2-B patches stand out as
responsive to disturbance frequency due to lack of shrub species. Patches flooded every
100 years supported only two woody species making interpretation moot. Patches within
the 5-yr zone were similar to those in the 2-yr zone for all four herbaceous functional
58
groups. The 10-yr and 100-yr floodplains supported different herb, forb and sedge
functional groups. No differences in grasses occur among the zones. Thus, similar to
Soda Butte Creek, herbaceous vegetation in Cache Creek responds to the 100-yr zone
more strongly than to the 10-yr or more frequent zones given the number of comparisons
indicating dissimilarity.
Table 17. Sorensen indices for patches inundated at zones 2, 5, 10, and 100 in Cache
Creek.
# Species
Q2 A
Q2 B
QS
QlO
Tree
# Species
Q2 A
Q2 B
OS
QlO
H erb
Q l-A
I
Q2-B
3
I
Q5
QlO
—
0.50
1.00
0.50
—
—
0.50
QlOO
3
I
Q2-A
4
Q2-B
0
Q5
QlO
6
0.80
—
na
4
0.75
na
QlOO
I
0.00
na
0.00
0.33
0.50
—
—
42
—
—
0.50
—
—
—
32
40
18
0.62
0.68
24
0 52
29
0.00
0.00
S h rub
—
0.47
—
—
0.58
Ojg
0.46
—
—
—
0.41
0.59
—
—
—
—
0.38
F orb
—
na
—
—
—
—
—
19
—
0.58
—
—
25
0.59
0.50
0.60
--
14
0.47
0.32
0.44
0.00
0.00
15
0.45
0.38
0.42
8
7
—
0.67
0.57
0.67
W illow
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.30
G rass
Q2-A
2
Q2-B
0
Q5
QlO
3
0.80
na
I
0.67
na
QlOO
0
na
na
—
na
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10
0.89
0.50
na
—
4
0.67
—
—
0.71
0.54
5
0.77
0.67
4
—
0.67
—
—
0.75
na
0.67
na
0.50
022
na
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.67
S edge
N on-w illow
Q2-A
Q2-B
2
0
Q5
QlO
3
QlOO
—
na
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.80
—
na
3
0.80
na
0.67
--
I
0.00
na
0.00
0.00
Q2-A
5
—
—
3
—
0.25
—
Q2-B
—
QS
QlO
7
0.20
0.83
0,67 I 0.20
—
—
7
—
—
0.57
QlOO
2
0.00
W oody
OjO
0.00
-0.00
5
4
0
4
—
—
—
—
na
—
—
0.50
—
na
59
Each basin shows more dissimilarity among herbaceous than woody functional
groups. Thus, depending on the scale of observation, the results from the similarity index
and dominant species either refute or support option 3 from page 48; that the vegetation
is similar among zones. Taking a large area view, focusing on woody vegetation, the
data show homogeneity among zones. Taking a small area view focusing on herbaceous
vegetation, heterogeneity among zones becomes apparent. Woody vegetation is often
the focus of riparian vegetation studies (Baker, 1988; Everett, 1968; Hupp & Osterkamp,
1985; Johnson, 1994; Merigliano & Polzin, 2003; Scott et ah, 1996). However, the
understory of small mountain streams can be more indicative of hydrogeomorphic
variability (Hansen et ah, 1995; Malanson, 1993). The above data support further
exploration of the role of herbaceous vegetation in the floodplain ecosystem.
Soils
Soils may help explain species composition across the floodplain; however the
floodplain soils environment is relatively homogenous for all three basins. The suite of
physical and chemical properties used to assess soil development and fertility showed
little if any statistically significant variation zones within a given basin. For example,
low organic matter, coarse textures and high C: N values (Figure 15) all indicate that little
soil development has occurred and that fertility remains low across all zones within the
100-yr floodplain. Soils found in riparian areas of the Toiyabe Mountain Range showed
similar trends (Chambers et ah, 1999). Carbon: nitrogen values in Tom Miner Basin
often drop below the 20:1 threshold indicating that net ammonium production occurs on
60
all target zones (Sylvia et al., 1998). In Soda Butte and Cache Creeks, C: N values are
consistently above 20:1. These data indicate that nitrogen is less limited in Tom Miner
Basin than in Soda Butte or Cache Creeks. More available nitrogen and organic matter is
likely associated with the increased cover in herb, shrub and tree layers in Tom Miner
Basin. Increased litter fall, root biomass and warmer temperatures associated with lower
elevation potentially increase decomposition rates. These patterns do not vary with
floodplain position.
Hydrogeomorphology and Vegetation
Canonical Correlation Analysis. Data were stratified by floodplain (the entire
cross section for a flood of a given frequency) to determine the relationships between
biotic and abiotic riparian factors. Significant correlations within and between
vegetation, hydrogeomorphic and soil variables are numerous and varied (Appendix B).
The vegetation variables with the highest number of statistically significant
hydrogeomorphic correlates were placed in a canonical correlation analysis (CCA) with
hydrogeomorphic variables that had the highest number of statistically significant
vegetation correlates. Soil variables were not included in the canonical correlation
analysis due to a high degree of homogeneity at the basin and cross section scales.
Definitions for vegetation and hydrogeomorphic variables used in CCA appear in Table
18.
61
2
5
10 25 50 100 2
5
10 25 50 100 2
5
10 25 50 100
2
5
10 25 50 100 2
5
10 25 50 100 2
5
10 25 50 100
2
5
10
5
10 25
25
50 100
Tom Miner
2
50 100
Zones (Years)
Soda Butte
2
5
10
25
50 100
Cache
Figure 15. Soil organic matter, clay and carbon: nitrogen levels for zones in Tom Miner,
Soda Butte and Cache Creeks. Error bars represent standard deviations. Note the x-axes
are temporal scales not distance scales.
62
Table 18. Vegetation, hydrogeomorphology variable definitions used in canonical
correlation and regression analyses.____________________________________
Variable Names
Description
V egetation variables
HERBcovQ
Total herb cover for quadrat
LAYERSq
# Structural layers per quadrat
NATIVEq
Ratio of native/non-native spp for quadrat
PATCHWIDTH
Width of patch, m
RICHq
# Spp per quadrat
SHRUBalIDENtot
Density of shrubs in all age classes, #/hectare
SHRUBcovQ
Total shrub cover for quadrat
SHRUBsapDEN
Density of shrubs in sapling age class, #/hectare
TOTALcovQ
Canopy density for quadrat
TREEsapDEN
Density of trees in sapling age class, #/hectare
WISherbQ
Weighted average wetland indicator score for herbs for quadrat
WISTreebaQ
Weighted average wetland indicator score for trees for quadrat
H y d ro g e o m o rp b ic variables
BA
Basin area at site
DISTTh
Distance to thalweg for quadrat
Elevation
Site elevation above sea level
ELEVTh
Elevation above thalweg for quadrat
POWER
Stream power at quadrat at specified return interval discharge
R
Hydraulic radius of floodplain inundated at the specified recurrence interval
SHEAR
Shear stress at quadrat at specified return interval discharge
SLOPE
Channel slope for the reach
WIDTH
Channel width at 1-yr specified return interval discharge
The relationship between riparian vegetation communities and local
hydrogeomorphology is strong and complex. Canonical variables show that vegetation
composition and structure are highly associated with flood frequency, magnitude and
floodplain morphology in all three basins. When interpreting canonical variable
coefficients, the actual number and sign of each coefficient as it relates to those of the
other variables in the model is of importance. Coefficients should not be compared
between models.
The relationships in Tom Miner Basin are strong and relatively consistent among
all floodplains (Table 19). The correlations between biotic and abiotic canonical
63
variables range between 0.670 and 0.742. For the 2-, 5- and 100-yr floodplains, patches
with high cover in the understory, open canopies and wide patch widths are highly
correlated with wide channels. Thus, vertical and spatial community structures are
correlated with floodplain shape (Figure 16). More specifically, wide channels are
associated with wide open-structured vegetation patches. The lack of influence by
SHRUBcovQ in the 5-yr floodplain and TOTALcovQ in the 10-yr floodplain
corresponds with the drop in these cover variables reported in Figure 13.
Table 19. Canonical variable coefficients for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Tom
Miner Basin, r - correlation. Variable definitions appear in Table 18. p < 0.01._____
Biotic Variables
Structure
I
m
£2
Z
7=
H
o
<
O
8
<
-O
8
<
O
0.027
-0.030
-0.030
H
O
Magnitude
~0
>
H
n
S S E I5
Rl
2
5
10
100
N
93
102
111
122
r
0.742
0.670
0.679
0.718
0.040
0.049
0.050
0.029
0.033
0.021
-0.047
Abiotic Variables
Morphology
H
K
0.072
0.067
0.066
0.045
m
<
Sr
-o
OO
m
73
>
73
I
S
r
O
-o
m
I
H
ad
-0.003
-0.004
0.047
-0.025
0.102
0.100
0.062
0.076
In Tom Miner Basin, flood magnitude parameters influence the 10- and 100-yr
floodplain models more than the 2- and 5-yr floodplain models (Table 19). Slope makes
a small yet significant contribution to the 2-yr model. In the IO- and 100-yr models,
elevation above the thalweg, shear stress and stream power make sizeable and significant
contributions to their respective models. The presence of these variables supports the
concept that flood magnitude plays a role in vegetation community development.
However, the role of flood magnitude for each recurrence interval in Tom Miner Basin is
best described by the morphological parameter WIDTH given the size of the WIDTH
64
coefficients compared to those of other abiotic variables in their respective models. This
relationship can be stated as wide channels with low magnitude flows are correlated with
wide vegetation patches on the terrestrial floodplain.
O O
o O
OO
WIDTHQ100, POWERQ100
Figure 16. The relationship between scaled biotic and abiotic canonical variables within
the 100-yr floodplain for Tom Miner Basin shows that floodplain morphology influences
spatial and vertical community structure. Variable definitions appear in Table 18.
The relationships between biotic and abiotic factors in Tom Miner Basin are
further supported by relationships between fluvial processes and riparian vegetation in
small to medium sized streams in western Colorado where channel width strongly
influenced spatial structure of woody species (Baker, 1989). Also, in the Transverse
Range of southern California flood magnitude was shown to influence spatial community
structure as well as community composition transversely (across the floodplain) and
longitudinally (down the valley) (Bendix, 1994, 1999). The fact that no community
65
composition variables play significant roles in the CCA models corroborates with the •
homogeneity found in the univariate and zone distinction analyses for Tom Miner Basin.
This suggests that the Tom Miner Basin riparian vegetation is primarily driven by
autogenic rather than allogenic succession.
The relationships between vegetation and hydrogeomorphology in Soda Butte
Creek vary with flood frequency more than in Tom Miner Basin. However, Soda Butte
Creek canonical correlations are stronger and contain more variables the Tom Miner
Basin models (Table 20). Elements of community composition and structure as well as
those of flood magnitude are present in models for all floodplains yet influence the bioticabiotic relationships differently. For example, patch width and canopy density
consistently make contributions to the models, although the magnitude and direction of
these contributions varies among the models for each floodplain. In the 2-yr floodplain,
narrow patches with dense canopies, lower richness, and species that occur in drier
environments are highly correlated with steeply sloped, deeper channels that are
influenced to lesser extents by elevation and stream power (Figure 17). The 5-yr model
represents the opposite end of the spectrum where wide patches with open canopies are
associated with wide, shallow channels. In the 10- and 100-yr floodplain models, wider
patches with low richness, sparse herbaceous cover, and closed canopies are highly
correlated with low elevation sites that experience higher stream powers.
66
Table 20. Canonical variables for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Soda Butte Creek,
r = correlation. Variable definitions appear in Table 18. p < 0.01.__________________
Biotic Variables
Composition
Structure
0.138 0.128
0.007 -0.050 -0.033
WIDTH
R
SLOPE
-0.020
SHEAR
0.108 -0.059 -0.006
-0.060 0.121
-0.074 0.030 0.044 -0.135
-0.083 0.036 0.037 -0.119
POWER
Elevation
PATCHWIDTH
0.013
TOTALcovQ
0.088
0.029
HERBcovQ
r
0.920 -0.043
0.901
0.744 -0.054
0.675 -0.038
WISherbQ
N
25
38
45
55
NATIVEq
2
5
10
100
RICHq
RI
Abiotic Variables
Magnitude
Morphology
Basin
0.124
0.051
0.049
Figure 17. The relationship between abiotic and biotic canonical variables within the
2-yr floodplain for Soda Butte Creek shows that floodplain morphology and flood
magnitude influence spatial and vertical community structure as well as composition.
Variable definitions appear in Table 18.
The temporal and spatial variability among biotic and abiotic factors in Soda
Butte Creek indicates a dynamic environment where the riparian vegetation responds to
changes in fluvial hydrology. The major changes in biotic-abiotic relationships between
67
the 2-, 5- and I O-yr floodplains suggest that the changes in environment between these
flood frequencies cross biological thresholds for the species present. Thus, changes in
community structure and, to a lesser extent, composition in Soda Butte Creek reflect the
disturbance regime. A system where the floodplain vegetation responds to the fluvial
environment creates a riparian ecosystem where fluvial processes act across the
floodplain at multiple temporal scales. Thus, the relationships between vegetation and '
hydrogeomorphology can take many forms over time and space (Baker, 1988; Bendix,
1997; Friedman et al., 1996; Poff et al., 1997; Scott et ah, 1996).
In Cache Creek, the relationship between vegetation and hydrogeomorphology is
strong where correlations range from 0.706 to 0.845 (Table 21). The biotic variables
present are consistent among Cache Creek models yet the abiotic are somewhat different.
Vegetation variables associated with vertical and horizontal community structure change
very little from one model to the next (Table 21). However, the associated abiotic
canonical variable for each floodplain differs. In the 2-yr floodplain, spatial and vertical
community structure are correlated with flood magnitude variables, only. In the 5-, 10and 100-yr floodplains, morphology variables make significant contributions to the
models. The influence of morphology is greater in the 5- and I O-yr floodplains than in
the 100-yr. The varied relationships illustrate the dynamic nature of the riparian
ecosystem in Cache Creek; one where the stream influences the floodplain vegetation by
introducing heterogeneous conditions to which vegetation responds.
68
Table 21. Canonical variable coefficients for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Cache
Creek, r = correlation. Variable definitions appear in Table 18. p < 0.01.___________
Biotic Variables
Structure
-0.077
-0.046
-0.040
-0.013
0.060
0.083
WIDTH
0.169
Morphology
R
0.161
0.155
0.140
0.095
SLOPE
0.105
0.060
0.060
0.079
POWER
r
0.845
0.799
0.789
0.706
DISTTh
N
26
34
38
61
PATCHWIDTH
2
5
10
100
HERBcovQ
RI
Abiotic Variables
Magnitude
-0.058
0.147
0.090
0.043
The biotic variables contributing to canonical correlations for floodplains in
Cache Creek are limited to herbaceous cover and patch width (Table 21). However, the
correlated abiotic canonical variables are quite varied. For example, in all models
floodplains with wide patches and high herbaceous cover are highly correlated with low
flow magnitude fluvial environments. However, the abiotic variables indicating a low
magnitude are quite different. And those that are the same influence the models to
varying degrees. Distance to the thalweg is the primary influence in the 2-yr model.
Channel width dominates the 5-yr model. Channel width and distance to the thalweg
codominate the 10-yr model. And distance to the thalweg and hydraulic radius
codominate the 100-yr model. The presence of this suite of abiotic variables undoubtedly
indicates the influence of a low magnitude environment. However, the character of the
low magnitude flows likely varies across the 100-yr floodplain.
The absence of higher structural layers, shrub cover and canopy density in Cache
Creek CCA models likely relates to the simpler vertical structure in Cache Creek
compared to Tom Miner and Soda Butte Creeks (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The 1988
69
fires that swept through Cache Creek were intense and severe. The uplands and riparian
zones are sparsely vegetated even 14 years later, (personal observation). The low number
of canopy layers (Figure 12), and the biotic canonical variables reflect juvenile
communities in recovery from these fires. Shrub cover and canopy density will likely
influence biotic-abiotic relationships of Cache Creek riparian zones with further recovery
from the 1988 fires.
Detrended Correspondence Analysis. Of the plant species sampled in this study
up to 90% are herbaceous . Herbaceous species are more indicative of water table levels
than woody species (Stromberg et ah, 1996). Herbaceous roots lend more stability to
shallow riparian soils than woody species (Dunaway et ah, 1994; Kleinfelder et ah,
1992). Although the herbaceous layer represents an important component of the vertical
structure of the riparian community, little research has been done on its response to
hydrogeomorphic processes and landforms. Results from dominant species, Sorensen
similarity index and canonical correlation analyses indicate that the herbaceous layer is
most responsive to fluvial environments. Further analysis was carried out on herbaceous
cover using detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) to detect gradients to which
riparian herbaceous species respond. Regression analysis was performed on the DCA
Axis I scores of herbaceous species cover to determine the environmental drivers of
these gradients.
In Tom Miner Basin, herbaceous cover appear to respond to the same gradient of
biotic and abiotic variables at each recurrence interval sampled across the 100-yr
floodplain, (Table 22). Patch types appear clustered in the Axis I vs. Axis 2 plot
70
suggesting that the gradient detected is driven by autogenic processes e.g., shading, litter
formation and decomposition (Figure 18). Regression models for each floodplain in Tom
Miner Basin indicate that high herbaceous DCA scores are positively influenced by
communities along narrow channels that had multi-layered vertical structure and dense
canopies (Figure 19). This relationship held true for all recurrence intervals across the
100-yr floodplain. Additionally, at the 100-yr stage, native species and tree sapling
density had a strong positive influence, while species that occur in wet environments had
a slight negative influence on herbaceous species. The dominant influence of vegetation
structure variables and the homogeneity of the predicting models across 100-yr
floodplain suggest that autogenic processes are the primary drivers of herbaceous
community development. Further, the spatial and temporal homogeneity of autogenic
drivers suggests that the fluvial environment is less influential on the understory stratum.
Further research is needed into the influence of other environmental factors such as
hillslope related groundwater changes.
Table 22. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA Axis
I scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Tom Miner Basin. R2 = coefficient of
multiple determination; A.= eigenvalue. Variable definitions appear in Table 18.
Individual variables, p<0.05; whole model, p< 0.01.________ _____________
Composition
RI
2
5
10
100
N
93
102
111
122
I
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
R2
0.39
0.47
0.46
0.49
Abiotic Variables
Morphology
Biotic Variables
Structure
I I I i I
S
19.45
-O
-6.03
31.73
32.47
33.44
21.43
34.28
33.60
32.64
21.18
17.08
I
-29.79
-38.18
-35.21
-23.44
71
o Edge
Grass
• Shrub
* Deciduous
o Mixed-Con/Sal
+ Mixed-Con/Dec
■ Coniferous
500
a
450 400 350
M
I
"A
300
V
0
*
+ »*
**
+
250
200
•a * A jA
#
I. %
150
100
50 4
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Axis I
Figure 18. Distribution of patch types in a DCA plot for patches in Tom Miner Basin
2-yr zones based upon herbaceous cover.
700 -I
600
500 -
A Grass
* Shrub
a
300 -
200
Deciduous
M ixed-Con/Dec
M ixed-Con/Sal
-
Coniferous
p <0.001
-150
850
1850
2850
3850
4850
34280 LAYERSq + 31.728 TOTALcovQ - 29.789 WIDTH
Figure 19. Distribution of Tom Miner Basin 2-yr floodplain patch types along an
environmental gradient model of canopy layers, total canopy cover and channel width.
Environmental gradient was established through a multiple linear regression of DCA
Axis I scores on herbaceous cover.
72
The DCA scores of Soda Butte Creek herbaceous cover were driven by a
combination of autogenic and allogenic variables (Table 23). While there is more
separation apparent along Axis 2 (Figure 20), the rescaling and detrending functions in
DCA often cause enough mean displacement that its ecological meaning is nebulous, at
best (van Groenewoud, 1992). Regressions on herbaceous DCA Axis I scores from Soda
Butte Creek are statistically significant for the 2- and 100-yr floodplains, only (Table 23).
The drivers of herbaceous composition in the 2-yr floodplain are balanced between
community composition and flow magnitude variables. In the 100-yr floodplain,
herbaceous cover by species was strongly influenced by patch width and, to a lesser
degree, floodplain morphology (Figure 21).
Table 23. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA
scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr recurrence intervals in Soda Butte Creek. R2 =
coefficient of multiple determination; X= eigenvalue. Variable definitions appear in
Table 18. Individual variables, p<0.05; whole model, p< 0.01.________
Biotic Variables
Composition
Structure
CZ)
-o
ICO
N
X
R2
I
2
25
0.64
0.66
57.43
5
38
0.75
10
45
0.74
100
55
0.69
RI
I
Abiotic Variables
Magnitude
Morphology
CZ)
3
S
3.20
40.76
N o m odel. H igh p-va lu es
N o m odel. H igh p-va lu es
0.48
50.08
-25.08
73
400 n
350 300
250
(N
♦♦
.52 200 4♦
X
<
♦
♦♦♦♦
#
$
150
♦♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
100
r
50
♦
♦
♦
♦
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Axis I
Figure 20. Detrended correspondence analysis plot of Axis I and 2 patch scores for
patches in Soda Butte Creek 100-yr floodplain.
R = 0.478
p <0.001
#♦
♦ ♦
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
-25.084 R +50.078 PATCHWIDTH
Figure 21. Regression plot of Soda Butte Creek 100-yr floodplain DCA Axis I scores
along an environmental gradient of floodplain shape and patch width.
74
In Soda Butte Creek, the response of floodplain herbaceous vegetation to the
fluvial environment is indicated by the contributions made by autogenic and allogenic
variables to the DCA regression models. The. major influencing variables in the 2-yr
regression model for Soda Butte Creek are slope - a flow magnitude variable - and
density of shrub saplings - a community composition variable. The 2-yr floodplain
experiences the highest stream power levels during floods with recurrence intervals
greater than 2 years due to increased depth at these higher flood stages (Figure 8). Thus,
hydrologic factors associated with flow magnitude and microclimate changes associated
with establishing woody vegetation appear to affect herbaceous composition. In the
100-yr floodplain, patch width and hydraulic radius are influential on herbaceous cover.
The microtopography of the higher zones of the 100-yr floodplain affects the depth to
ground water and duration of inundation. Further, patch width is a product of floodplain
morphology. Depth to groundwater and substrate texture are functions of the fluvial
landfprms of which they are a part (Hupp, 1983; Hupp & Osterkamp, 1996; Malanson &
Butler, 1990). Thus, the environmental conditions associated with a particular landform
determine the width of the associated patch community. Stream power in 10-100-yr
zones is often much lower than in frequently disturbed zones due to shallower water
depths and boundary effects of floodplain vegetation (Bendix, 1999; Sigafoos, 1964).
Thus, the influence of hydrologic factors associated with magnitude on frequently
inundated portions of the floodplain and that of floodplain morphology on less frequently
inundated portions are expected.
75
Figure 22 indicates some structure to the DCA Axis I scores of herbaceous cover
by species in Cache Creek. The variables explaining herbaceous cover gradients are
different for each floodplain (Table 24). The models for the 2- and 5-yr floodplains were
positively influenced by community composition and structure. However, different
variables represent composition and structure in each model. In contrast, magnitude
variables dominate the 10-yr model by negatively influencing the DCA Axis I scores
(Figure 23). The balanced influence of autogenic and allogenic variables on the 100-yr
model indicate yet another set of herbaceous composition drivers where basin factors
exert an influence.
350 ,
300
250
M 200
.22
♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦
♦
♦
♦
< 150 ♦ V
100 -
♦
♦
50 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Axis I
Figure 22. Detrended correspondence analysis plot of Axis I and 2 patch scores for
patches in Cache Creek 10-yr floodplain.
76
Table 24. Multiple linear regression coefficients predicting herbaceous cover DCA
scores for 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr floodplains in Cache Creek. R 2 = coefficient of multiple
determination; A.= eigenvalue. Variable definitions appear in Table 18. Individual
variables, p<0.05; whole model, p< 0.01.__________________________________
Biotic Variables
Composition
Structure
SLOPE
BA
Elevation
PATCHWIDTH
SHRUBallDENtot
R2
0.40
0.60
0.67
0.59
HERBcovQ
X
0.67
0.56
0.55
0.55
WISTreebaQ
N
26
34
38
61
NATIVEq
2
5
10
100
RICHq
RI
Abiotic Variables
Basin
Magnitude
47.55
62.00
55.65
46.06
40.96
-37.14
66.10
-29.99
21.43
-122.44 -93.21
-34.87
-33.66
-21.52
500
450 400 350 300 250 -
200
-
150 -
100 -
R2 = 0.290
p < 0 .0 0 1
46 NATIVEq - 30 WISTreeba -122 Elevation - 93 BA -34 SLOPE
Figure 23. Regression plot of Cache Creek 10-yr floodplain DCA Axis I scores along an
environmental gradient of vegetation composition, basin and flood magnitude variables.
A number of unusual patterns arise when interpreting the Cache Creek data. First,
herbaceous vegetation responds to changes in the fluvial environment in Cache Creek but
only in the less frequently inundated 10- and 100-yr floodplains. Second, basin variables
play a minor yet statistically significant role in the environmental gradients of herbaceous
77
cover by species in Cache Creek but are absent in Soda Butte and Tom Miner Creeks.
Third, the community composition and structure are the most influential variables in the
most frequently flooded floodplains. The variability in.vegetation response suggests a
biological threshold (or set of biological thresholds) was crossed between the 5- and
10-yr floodplains for the respective species present. A possible explanation for these
variations relative to the other creeks may be that 57% of the Cache Creek basin,,
measured at the mouth, was burned in the 1988 fires (Legleiter et ah, in press). More
analysis is needed to establish if this link exists and, if so, to what degree.
78
SYNTHESIS
This study has shown that the interaction between fluvial processes and floodplain
vegetation varies in character and degree even among basins of similar geologic and
ecological settings. The concept of connectivity provides a useful framework in which to
synthesize these findings. The dictionary definition of “connectivity” is the state or
quality of being in relationship. To be hydrologically “connected” is merely a function of
the frequency of influence (i.e., flood frequency) (Ward et ah, 2002). Further, in terms of
floodplain environment alteration, connectivity is the exchange of energy, matter or
species between aquatic and terrestrial systems (Junk et ah, 1986). The results of this
study detected responses of riparian vegetation to varying floodplain environments.
Accordingly, the term “riparian connectivity” can be coined as a particular type of
connectivity that reflects the degree of responsiveness of riparian vegetation to the fluvial
environment. Thus, the sensitivity of riparian plant composition and structure to the
allogenic influence of fluvial dynamics becomes a measure of riparian connectivity.
The results of this study can be used to indicate varying degrees of riparian
connectivity at basin and patch levels. Basin level riparian connectivity can be assessed
by relating basin level vegetation composition and structure to catchment characteristics
(Table 25). Basin level floodplain characteristics vary from basin to basin as do
dominant patch types, although community structure variables do not. In Tom Miner
Basin, low elevation, wide-ranging channel slopes and confluence-associated convexities
(Figure 4) may be related to the patch type distribution dominated by coniferous, shrub
79
and deciduous types (Figure 11). Soda Butte and Cache Creeks have similar elevation
ranges, smooth longitudinal profiles and channel slope distributions (Figure 4).
Coniferous and edge patch types codominate in Soda Butte Creek while the edge patch
type is most abundant in Cache Creek (Figure 11). The dominant patch types of Cache
Creek differ from those of Soda Butte Creek because of the slow recovery of Cache
Creek vegetation from the basin-wide wildfires of 1988. Differences in basin level
dominant patch types correspond with differences in elevation, longitudinal profile shape
and channel slope. Thus, changes in patch type distribution may be used as indicators of
riparian connectivity at the basin level in the Northern Range of the GYE.
Dominant
Patch types
% Patches per site
Tom Miner Basin
1500-2000
Convex
3.2
Coniferous, Shrub, Deciduous
8
3
Soda Butte Creek
2000-2400
Linear
2.2
Coniferous, Edge
8
3
Cache Creek
2000-2400
Concave
2.6
Edge
10
3
3
Basin
Basin shape
§
I
Elevation
S? Channel Slope
Table 25. Basin level indicators of mountain streams of the Northern Range of the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.___________________________________
s.
S
#
Comparisons of vegetation composition, relationships between biotic and abiotic
factors, and herbaceous composition drivers were used to assess riparian connectivity at
the patch level (Table 26). Composition variables included dominant species and
functional group composition. Comparisons of dominant species showed differences
between zones within a basin (Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11). Dominant
species differences were most often seen in the herbaceous layer. Differences in
80
functional group composition between zones within the same basin detected using the
Sorensen similarity index yielded varying results for each basin, also. Only two
functional groups in Tom Miner Basin showed differences in composition (Table 15)
compared to the five groups in Soda Butte Creek (Table 16) and four groups in Cache
Creek (Table 17 and Table 26). The variable composition between zones within a basin
indicates that diversity in vegetation response varies throughout the floodplain
environment. Thus, differences dominant species and functional group composition can
be used to detect degrees of riparian connectivity.
Responsive
functional
groups
Biotic-abiotic
character
Type of
herbaceous
cover drivers
Basin
Tom Miner
Basin
Soda Butte
Creek
Cache Creek
Responsive
stratum
Table 26. Indicators of riparian connectivity. Responsive stratum entries indicate the
stratum with the greatest dominant species variability between zones. Responsive
functional group entries indicate groups showing dissimilarity between zones. Bioticabiotic character entries describe groups of biotic and abiotic factors as they varied
between floodplains. Types of herbaceous cover driver entries describe the dominant
type of factors influencing herbaceous cover.________________________________
Herb
Sedge*, Non-willow
Homogenous/Homogenous
Autogenic
Herb
Sedge*, Shrub, Herb,
Forb, Grass
Forb*, Woody,
Herb, Sedge
Heterogeneous/Heterogeneous
Mixed Autogenic/Allogenic
Homogenous/Heterogeneous
Allogenic/Autogenic
Herb
* D e n o te s th e f u n c t i o n a l g r o u p w ith th e g r e a t e s t n u m b e r o f d iffe r e n c e s b e tw e e n z o n e s
Compositionally, the herbaceous layer showed the most responsiveness to
variations within the floodplain environment. Variability in dominant species among
zones of a given basin was largely in the herbaceous layer. The responsive dominant
species and functional groups were predominantly herbaceous, even though herbaceous
groups only represented four of nine functional groups tested. Thus, the dominant
81
species and Sgrensen similarity data suggest that there is potential for herbaceous
composition to be used as an indicator of varying levels of riparian connectivity.
The relationships between biotic and abiotic factors as well as the drivers of
herbaceous cover (DCA scores of herbaceous cover) can be used to assess the character
of riparian connectivity. In Tom Miner Basin, neither the biotic-abiotic relationships nor
the drivers of herbaceous cover varied between floodplains. The most influential biotic
and abiotic factors of the CCA and DCA regression models were homogenous among
floodplains and indicated that patches with dense understories were highly correlated
with wide channels and that the primary successional processes for the herbaceous
stratum were autogenic (Table 19 and Table 22). The dominance of autogenic
herbaceous cover drivers suggests that fluvial environmental conditions are below
biological thresholds for the species present in Tom Miner Basin due to channel
entrenchment. Changes in the floodplain environment would have to take place before
allogenic factors would alter current successional trajectories. Riparian connectivity is
present in Tom Miner Basin as indicated by the consistency of the vegetation response to
the fluvial environment. However, the character of the riparian connectivity is autogenic
and uniform across the 100-yr floodplain. The uniform vegetation response is likely due
to channel incision.
The biotic-abiotic relationships and drivers of herbaceous cover of Soda Butte
Creek were temporally and spatially dynamic. The variables present in the CCA differed
among each floodplain indicating heterogeneity among abiotic as well as among biotic
factors (Table 20 and Table 23). Canonical correlation results implied that biological
82
thresholds were crossed between the 2- and 5-yr and between the 5- and 10-yr
floodplains. While the DCA regressions included only 2- and 100-yr'models, the results
potentially corroborate CCA findings. The responsiveness of Soda Butte Creek
vegetation to changes in floodplain environment indicates the presence of riparian
connectivity while varied relationships indicate a spatially, temporally and successionally
dynamic character to the riparian connectivity.
All relationships between biotic and abiotic factors in Cache Creek involved the
same set of biotic factors—herbaceous layer cover and patch width (Table 21). While all
sets of abiotic factors indicated that the present vegetation is associated with a low
magnitude fluvial environment, the heterogeneous nature of contributing variables
suggests that the character of the low magnitude environment varied between floodplains.
The drivers of herbaceous vegetation varied from primarily autogenic in the high
frequency floodplains to primarily allogenic in the low frequency floodplains (Table 24).
The homogenous vegetation response to a somewhat heterogeneous fluvial environment
as well as the switch from autogenic to allogenic drivers of herbaceous cover at the 10-yr
flood frequency indicates a low to moderate level of riparian connectivity that varies in
character (Table 26). Because the vegetation of Cache Creek is only in the early stages
of recovery from the 1988 fires there is potential for change in the degree of riparian
connectivity. Further monitoring is needed to determine the level of riparian connectivity
once the system approaches dynamic equilibrium.
The potential for the herbaceous stratum to be used as an indicator of riparian
connectivity is shown above. Variability among floodplain positions for a given basin
83
was pronounced in the herbaceous stratum. Herbaceous functional groups showed more
differences in composition between floodplain zones of a given basin than woody
functional groups. In the CCA results, ten of the twelve models included herbaceous
cover as a contributing variable. And, the sensitivity of herbaceous cover to changes in
floodplain environment is evident in the regression models predicting DCA scores of
herbaceous cover by species. Thus, focusing on the herbaceous component when
monitoring riparian condition may be worthy.
Disconnection between floodplains and streams often occurs due to human
imposed changes in hydrologic regimes such as dams, diversions and inputs. However,
the basins studied here have little, if any, flow regulation. Thus, varying degrees of
connectivity occur naturally. Geologic controls on longitudinal profiles of streams are
dominant. Tectonics, glacial remnants and inherited valley configurations impose
changes in base levels to which streams must respond (Knighton, 1998; Wohl, 2000).
Changes in channel slope cause corresponding changes in channel pattern, channel
configurations and floodplain processes which, in turn, produce reach specific hydrologic
regimes, floodplain topography and floodplain soil texture. Riparian connectivity is
indicative of the floodplain environment and its controls.
Riparian vegetation and floodplain hydrology are inextricably linked. The
temporal variability of the hydrologic regime imparts a basin-specific dynamic nature to
the hydrogeomorphic environment in small mountain riparian systems. The multi-scale
spatial and temporal processes that coincide at a given floodplain location create
innumerable floodplain environments to which existing, or establishing, vegetation can
84
respond. The ecological response to this heterogeneity is a mosaic of patch types where
the understory vegetation is most indicative of riparian connectivity.
I
85
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Management of riparian ecosystems requires a full understanding of the
connection between the river and the floodplain vegetation. The degree of riparian
connectivity and its character indicates the dependence of riparian vegetation on the
floodplain hydrologic environment. Identifying vegetation composition and structure
differences between regions of the floodplain inundated at different frequencies can be
used to indicate the degree of connectivity. The character of riparian connectivity can be
determined by identifying those factors that have maximum influence on a particular
responsive vegetation stratum, functional group, or group of species and by classifying
the relationships between biotic and abiotic factors. The current degree and character of
riparian connectivity along streams within a watershed can be used as baseline condition
prior to a land use or flow regime change. Monitoring for changes of riparian
connectivity can then be used to evaluate watershed and riparian condition.
To determine the character of riparian connectivity, relationships between biotic
and abiotic factors across the 100-yr floodplain must be classified. For example, if the
group of biotic factors for each flood frequency is relatively the same, the factors are said
to be homogenous. If they are different, then they are heterogeneous. The same holds
for the group of abiotic factors. This approach indicates the influence of flood frequency
on the biotic-abiotic relationships across the floodplain. Placed in the context of the
controls on flood frequency (e.g. flow regulation, bank stabilization, climate change,
beaver populations, etc.), the nature of biotic-abiotic relationships becomes a measurable
I
'
86
quality that responds to changes in these controls and thus can be used as an indicator of
riparian condition.
Determining whether drivers of the hydrologically responsive vegetative group
are autogenic or allogenic, that is, internally or externally influenced, illustrates the
character of the influence of environmental factors on this vegetation. In terms of
maintenance of existing riparian condition, the pertinent environmental factors and their
controls become the focus of preservation. In terms of restoration to a previous or new
condition, an understanding of the current type of succession leads to setting attainable
riparian restoration goals. Manipulating existing drivers of riparian vegetation for
restoration or management purposes will potentially result in more rapid results than
introducing a new set of drivers. Further, early change detection and evaluation allows
for timely redirection of restoration efforts, if necessary. Goals of restoring local
environmental factors to a previous or new condition without addressing the controls of
those factors can lead to costly labor, project failure and potential site degradation.
87
REFERENCES CITED
88
Amoros, C., Rostan, J., Pautou, G., & Bravard, J. (1987) The reversible process concept
applied to the environmental management of large river systems'. Environmental
management, 11, 607-617.
Baker, W.L. (1988) Size-class structure of contiguous riparian woodlands along a rocky
mountain fiver. Physical geography, 9, 1-14.
Baker, W.L. (1989) Macro- and micro-scale influences on riparian vegetation in Western
Colorado. Annals of association of American geographers, 79, 65-78.
Baker, W.L. (1990) Species richness of Colorado riparian vegetation. Journal of vegetation
science, I, 119-124.
Baker, W.L. & Walford, G.M. (1995) Multiple stable states and models of riparian
vegetation succession on the Animas River, Colorado: Annals of association of American
geographers, 85, 320-338.
Barbour, M.G., Burk, J.H., Pitts, W.D., Schwartz, M.W., & Gilliam, F. (1986) Terrestrial
plant ecology, 2nd edn. Benj amin/Cummings, Menlo Park, Ca.
Bendix, J. (1994) Scale, direction, and pattern in riparian vegetation-environment
relationships. Annals of the association of American geographers, 84, 652-665.
Bendix, J. (1997) Flood disturbance and the distribution of riparian species diversity. The
geographical review, 87, 468-483.
Bendix, J. (1999) Stream power influence on southern Californian riparian vegetation.
Journal of vegetation science, 10, 243-252:
Bendix, J. & Hupp, C.R. (2000) Hydrological and geomorphological impacts on riparian
plant communities. Hydrological processes, 14, 2977-2990.
Boggs, K. & Weaver, T. (1994) Changes in vegetation and nutrient pools during riparian
succession. Wetlands, 14, 98-109.
Bromner, J.M. (1996). Nitrogen-Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Vol. 5, pp. 1085-
1121. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
Castelli, R.M., Chambers, J.C., & Tausch, R.J. (2000) Soil-plant relations along a soil-water
gradient in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands, 20, 251-266.
Chambers, TC. (2000) Using threshold and alternative state concepts to restore degraded or
disturbed ecosystems. In High altitude revegetation workshop no. 14, pp. 134-145.
Colorado water resources research institute, Fort Collins.
89
Chambers, J.C., Blank, R.R., Zamudio, D.C., & Tausch, R.J. (1999) Central Nevada riparian
areas: Physical and chemical properties of meadow soils. Journal of range management,
52^ 92- 99.
Chambers, J.C., Farleigh, K., Tausch, R., Miller, J.R., Germanoski, D., Martin, D., & Nowak,
C. (1998) Understanding long- and short-term changes in vegetation and geomorphic
processes: the key to riparian restoration? In Rangeland management and water resources
(ed D.F. Potts), pp. 101-110. American Water Resources Association and Society for
Range Management, Reno, NY.
Connell, J.H. (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science, 199.
Day, P.R. (1965). Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil
Analysis (ed CA. Black), pp. 545-567. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison.
Despain, D.G. (1987) The two climates of Yellowstone National Park. In Montana academy
of sciences, Yol. 47, pp. 11-19.
Dunaway, D., Swanson, S.R., Wendel, J., & Clary, W. (1994) The effect of herbaceous plant
communities and soil textures on particle erosion of alluvial streambanks.
Geomorphology, 9, 47-56.
Everett, B.L. (1968) Use of the cottonwood in an investigation of the recent history of a flood
plain. American journal of science, 266, 417-439.
Fonstad, M.A. (2001) Construction of a very simple regional flood hydrology equation for
the Northern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unpublished.
Friedman, J.M., Osterkamp, W.R., & Lewis, W.M., Jr. (1996) Channel narrowing and
vegetation development following a Great-Plains flood. Ecology, 77, 2167-2181.
Gregory, K.J. & Gumell, A.M. (1998). Vegetation and river channel form and process. In
Biogeomorphology (ed H.A. Viles). Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Gumell, A.M. & Gregory, K.J. (1995) Interactions between semi-natural vegetation and
hydrogeomorphological processes. Geomorphology, 13, 49-69.
' Hansen, PU., Piaster, R.D., Boggs, K., Cook, B.J., Joy, J., & Hinckley, D.K. (1995)
Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites, 2nd edn.
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula, Montana. ■
Hewlett, J.D. (1982) Principles of forest hydrology. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Homberger, G.M., Raffensperger, J.P., Wiberg, PU., & Eshleman, K.N. (1998) Elements of
physical hydrology Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
90
H u p p , C .R . (1 9 8 3 ) V e g e ta tio n p a tte rn o n c h a n n e l fe a tu re s in th e P a s sa g e C re e k G orge,
V irg in ia . C a sta n e a , 4 8 , 6 2 -7 2 .
Hupp, C.R. & Osterkamp, W.R. (1985) Bottomland vegetation distribution along Passage
Creek, Virginia, in relation to fluvial landforms. Ecology, 66, 670-681.
Hupp, C.R. & Osterkamp, W.R. (1996) Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic
processes: Geomorphology, 14, 277-295.
Jarreft, R.D. (1984) Hydraulics of high-gradient streams. Journal of hydraulic engineering,
HO, 1519-1539.
Johnson, W.C. (1976) Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri River
floodplain in North Dakota. Ecological Monographs, 46, 59-84.
Johnson, W.C. (1994) Woodland expansion in the Platte River, Nebraska: patterns and
causes. Ecological monographs, 64, 45-84,
Jongman, R.H.G., ter Braak, C.J.F., & Tongeren, O.F.R. (1995) Data analysis in community
and landscape ecology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B., & Sparks, R.E. (1986) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain
systems. In Proceedings of the international large river symposium (LARS) (ed D.P.
Dodge), Vol. 106, pp. 110-127. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, Ontario, Canada.
Kleinfelder, D., Swanson, S.R., Norris, G., & Clary, W. (1992) Uncpnfmed compressive
strength of some streambank soils with herbaceous roots. Soil science society of America
journal, 56, 1920-1925.
Knighton, D. (1998) Fluvial forms and processes. A new perspective. Arnold, London.
Legleiter, C.J., Lawrence, R.L., Fonstad, M.A., Marcus, W.A., & Aspinall, R. (in press)
Fluvial response a decade after wildfire in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem: a
spatially explicit analysis. Geomorphology.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., & Miller, J.P. (1964) Fluvial processes in geomorphology W.
H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Malanson, G.P. (1993) Riparian landscapes Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Malanson, G.P. & Butler, D.R. (1990) Woody debris, sediment, and riparian vegetation of a
subalpine river, Montana, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research, 22, 183-194. .
91
M a rc u s , W .A ., R o b e rts, K ., H a rv e y , L.,, & T a e k m a n , G. (1 9 9 2 ) A n e v a lu a tio n o f m e th o d s fo r
e s tim a tin g M a n n in g 's n in sm a ll m o u n ta in stre a m s. M o u n ta in re s e a rc h a n d d e v e lo p m e n t,
1 2 ,2 2 7 -2 3 9 .
' '
Marston, RA. & Anderson, J.E. (1991) Watersheds and vegetation of the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation biology, 5, 338-346.
Merigliano, M.F. (1996). Ecology and management of the South Fork Snake River
cottonwood forest, Rep. No. 96-9. Bureau of Land Management, Boise.
Merigliano, M.F. & Polzin, M.L. (2003) Temporal patterns of channel migration, fluvial
events, and associated vegetation along the Yellowstone River, Montana. In Governor's
upper Yellowstone River task force. Unpublished, Livingston, Montana.
Meyer, GA. (2001) Recent large-magnitude floods and their impact on valley-floor
environments of northeastern Yellowstone. Geomorphology, 40, 271-290.
Miller, J., Germanoski, D., Waltman, K., Tausch, R., & Chambers, J.C. (2001) Influence of
late Holocene hillslope processes and landforms on modem channel dynamics in upland
watersheds of central Nevada. Geomorphology, 38, 373-391.
Montgomery, D.R. & Buffington, J.M. (1997) Channel-reach morphology in mountain
drainage basins. Geologic society of America Bulletin, 109, 596-611.
Patten, D.T. (1998) Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human
impacts. Wetlands, 18, 498-512.
Pavlik, B.M. (1989) Phytogeography of Sand Dunes in the Great Basin and Mojave Deserts.
Journal of biogeography, 16, 227-238.
Piegay, H. (1997) Interactions between floodplain forests and overbank flows: data from
three piedmont rivers of southeastern France. Global ecology and biogeography letters, 6,
187-196.
.
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E.,
& Stromberg, J.C. (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience, 47, 769784.
Prostka, H.J., Ruppel, E.T., & Christiansen, RA. (1975) Geologic map of the Abiathar Peak
quadrangle, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming and Montana. United States
Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Schumm, SA., Mosley, M.P., & Weaver, W.E. (1987) Experimental fluvial geomorphology
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Scott, M.L., Friedman, J.M., & Auble, G.T. (1996) Fluvial process and the establishment of
bottomland trees. Geomorphology, 14, 327-339.
92
S h a fro th , P .B ., A u b le , G .T ., S tro m b e rg , J.C ., & P a tte n , D .T . (1 9 9 8 ) E s ta b lis h m e n t o f w o o d y
rip a ria n v e g e ta tio n in re la tio n to a n n u a l p a tte rn s o f stre a m flo w , B ill W illia m s R iv er,
A riz o n a . W e tla n d s , 18, 5 7 7 -5 9 0 .
Sigafoos, R.S. (1961) Vegetation in relation to flood frequency near Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey professional paper, 424C, C248-C250.
Sigafoos, R.S. (1964) Botanical evidence of floods: and flood-plain deposition. United States
Geological Survey professional paper, 485-A.
Stromberg, J.C., Lite, S.J., & Patten, D.T. (1999). Provo river restoration project: riparian
vegetation. Utah Reclamation, and Conservation Commission, Salt Lake City.
Stromberg, J.C., Tiller, R., & Richter, B.D. (1996) Effects of groundwater decline on riparian
vegetation of semiarid regions: the San Pedro, Arizona. Ecological applications, 6,113131.
Sylvia, D.M., Fuhrmann, J.J., Hartel, P.G., & Zuberer, D.A. (1998) Principles and
applications of soil microbiology Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Thome, C. (1997). Channel types and morphological classification. In Applied fluvial
geomorphology for river engineering and management (eds C.R. Thome, R.D. Hey &
M.D. Newson), pp. 175-222. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK.
USDA & NRCS (2002) The PLANTS database, version 3.5, Vol. 2002. National Plant Data
Center.
USGS (2003) Water Resources of Montana. United States Geologic Survey,
http://mt.water.usgs.gov/.
van Groenewoud, H. (1992) The robustness of correspondence, detrended correspondence
and TWlNSPAN analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science, 3, 239-246.
Vandeberg, G.S. (1993) Temporal and spatial relations of late Quaternary valley and
piedmont glaciers in Tom Miner Basin, Montana. Master's, Montana State University,
Bozeman.
;
Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Arscott, D B., & Claret, C. (2002) Riverine landscape diversity.
Freshwater Biology, 47, 517-539.
Wohl, E. (2000) Mountain rivers American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Wright, J.M. & Chambers, J.C. (2002) Restoring riparian meadows currently dominated by
Artemisia using threshold and alternative state concepts-aboveground vegetation
response. Journal of vegetation science, In press.
93
Youngblood, A.P., Padgett, W.G., & Winward, A.H. (1985). Riparian community type
classification of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming, Rep. No. R4-Ecol-85-01. USDA.
APPENDICES
95
APPENDIX A
Stfrensen Indices
96
Table 27. Sorensen indices between patches in terms of functional groups in Tom Miner
Basin (T), Soda Butte Creek (S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 2 years.
O
O
NJ
# Species
n
XD
W
to
>
H
H
XD
NJ
X
D
to
>
Cd
# Species
Tree
O
X
D
to
O
X
D
to
H
H
X
D
to
>
Cd
>
XD
V
Dd
H erb
CQ2a
I
C Q2b
3
0.5
T Q2a
6
0.29
T Q2b
6
SQ 2
4
—
—
—
C Q2a
42
—
—
—
—
—
—
C Q2b
32
0.62
—
—
—
0.67
—
T Q2a
91
0.41
0.29
—
—
0.29
0.22
—
T Q2b
61
0.37
0.22
—
—
0.4
0.57
S Q2
54
0.54
0.37
—
C Q2a
29
C Q2b
19
0.6
0.4
S h rub
0.43
0.45
F orb
CQ2a
4
—
C Q2b
0
0
—
—
T Q2a
18
0.18
0
—
T Q2a
58
0.44
0.26
T Q2b
19
0.26
0
—
T Q2b
48
0.39
0.21
SQ2
6
0.6
0
S Q2
41
0.55
0.3
CQ2a
2
—
C Q2a
8
—
0.25
0.32
W illow
—
0.58
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.46
—
0.49
G rass
—
—
C Q2b
0
0
—
—
C Q2b
7
0.67
—
—
T Q2a
9
0.18
0
—
T Q2a
18
0.38
0.4
—
—
T Q2b
7
0.22
0
—
T Q2b
9
0.12
0.13
—
—
SQ2
3
0.8
S Q2
7
0.53
0.57
—
C Q2a
4
5
0.67
0.22
0.21
0 0.33
0.4
0.4
0.25
S edge
N o n -w illo w
C Q2a
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C Q2b
0
—
—
C Q2b
T Q2a
10
0.17
0
—
T Q2a
14
T Q2b
13
0.27
0
—
T Q2b
3
0.57
0.25
—
—
SQ2
3
0.4
0
0.15
S Q2
5
0.44
0.4
0.21
0.25
0
0.25
W oody
C Q2a
5
—
—
—
—
C Q2b
3
0.25
—
—
—
T Q2a
24
0.21
0.22
—
—
T Q2b
25
0.27
0.07
—
—
SQ2
10
0.53
0.31
0.35
0.34
97
Table 28. Sorensen indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte Creek
(S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 5 years.
# Species
CQ5
TQ5
Tree
# Species
CQ5
TQ5
H erb
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
I
4
2
—
0.40
0.00
—
—
0.33
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
6
10
5
—
0.38
0.55
—
—
0.13
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
3
5
4
—
0.25
0.86
—
—
0.22
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
3
6
I
—
0.44
0.00
—
—
0.00
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
7
14
7
—
0.38
0.43
—
—
0.19
Shrub
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
40
42
52
—
0.41
0.50
—
—
0.40
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
25
26
39
—
0.47
0.50
—
—
0.40
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
10
9
7
—
0.32
0.47
—
—
0.38
CQ5
TQ5
SQ5
4
6
5
—
0.20
0.44
—
—
0.36
Forb
W illow
G rass
N o n -w illo w
Sedge
W oody
Table 29. Sorensen indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte Creek
(S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 10 years.
# Species
CQlO
TQlO
# Species
CQlO
TQlO
H erb
Tree
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
3
3
3
—
0.67
0.67
—
—
0.67
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
4
10
5
—
0.14
0.00
—
—
0.27
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
18
37
34
—
0.25
0.38
—
—
0.45
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
14
21
25
—
0.29
0.36
—
—
0.43
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
4
9
4
—
0.31
0.75
—
—
0.46
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
0
6
4
—
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.40
F orb
Shrub
G rass
W illow
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.36
3
I
—
0.33
0.00
—
—
0.00
7
13
8
—
0.30
0.27
—
—
0.38
I
7
4
—
Sedge
N on-w illow
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
3
W oody
CQlO
TQlO
SQlO
98
Table 30. Serensen indices between patches in Tom Miner Basin (T), Soda Butte Creek
(S) and Cache Creek (C) inundated every 10 years.
# Species
CQ100
H erb
CQ100
TQ100
SQ100
24
0
20
—
0.41
F orb
CQ100
TQ100
SQ100
15
0
13
..
—
0.43
APPENDIX B
Correlation
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
0.389
-0.218
0.164
0.150
0.068
0.211
0.519
0.252
0.384
0.267
-0.282
-0.042
0.304
HERBcovQ
-0.145
1.000
0.265
-0.240
0.039
0.429
0.308
0.225
0.265
-0.006
0.222
0.038
-0.090
-0.149
0.129
0.085
LAYERSq
0.426
0.265
1.000
0.412
-0.157
0.380
0.531
0.442
0.500
0.402
0.228
0.252
0.264
-0.161
0.326
0.457
NATIVEq
0.389
-0.240
0.412
1.000
-0.195
0.134
0.121
0.082
0.221
0.467
0.116
0.203
0.255
0.075
0.164
0.365
-0.218
0.039
-0.157
-0.195
1.000
-0.013
-0.017
0.036
-0.059
-0.371
-0.055
-0.145
-0.108
0.002
-0.033
-0.360
RICHq
0.164
0.429
0.380
0.134
-0.013
1.000
0.275
0.181
0.320
0.047
0.204
0.262
0.010
0.030
0.218
0.217
SHRUBallDENtot
0.150
0.308
0.531
0.121
-0.017
0.275
1.000
0.512
0.648
0.074
0.073
-0.057
0.131
-0.046
0.017
0.147
SH RUBcovQ
0.068
0.225
0.442
0.082
0.036
0.181
0.512
1.000
0.415
-0.015
-0.006
-0.121
0.036
-0.017
0.275
0.208
SHRUBsapDEN
0.211
0.265
0.500
0.221
-0.059
0.320
0.648
0.415
1.000
0.173
0.162
-0.002
0.176
-0.079
0.021
0.207
TOTALcovQ
0.519
-0.006
0.402
0.467
-0.371
0.047
0.074
-0.015
0.173
1.000
0.189
0.402
0.441
-0.197
-0.062
0.483
TREEallDEN
0.252
0.222
0.228
0.116
-0.055
0.204
0.073
-0.006
0.162
0.189
1.000
0.391
0.099
-0.105
-0.102
0.138
TREEsapDEN
0.384
0.038
0.252
0.203
-0.145
0.262
-0.057
-0.121
-0.002
0.402
0.391
1.000
0.169
-
0.111
0.036
0.173
TREEtotBA
0.267
-0.090
0.264
0.255
-0.108
0.010
0.131
0.036
0.176
0.441
0.099
0.169
1.000
-0.048
-0.134
0.264
WISherbQ
-0.282
-0.149
-0.161
0.075
0.002
0.030
-0.046
-0.017
-0.079
-0.197
-0.105
0.111
-0.048
1.000
0.212
-0.180
WISShrubQ
-0.042
0.129
0.326
0.164
-0.033
0.218
0.017
0.275
0.021
-0.062
-0.102
0.036
-0.134
0.212
1.000
0.069
WISTreeQ
0.304
0.085
0.457
0.365
-0.360
0.217
0.147
0.208
0.207
0.483
0.138
0.173
0.264
-0.180
0.069
1.000
PATCHWIDTH
-
WISTreeQ
RICHq
0.426
PATCHWIDTH
NATIVEq
-0.145
HERBcovAltmcn
HERBco vQ
1.000
Q2.33
HERBcovAItmcn
LAYERSq
Table 31. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.__________________________________________________________________
SHRUBaIlDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
0.354
-0.281
0.179
0.142
0.061
0.249
0.557
0.255
0.351
0.322
-0.193
-0.054
0.344
HERBcovQ
-0.172
1.000
0.221
-0.249
0.053
0.449
0.300
0.210
0.246
-0.043
0.200
-0.025
-0.161
-0.157
0.151
0.056
LAYERSq
0.449
0.221
1.000
0.336
-0.196
0.400
0.534
0.436
0.485
0.417
0.262
0.268
0.277
-0.075
0.321
0.458
NATIVEq
0.354
-0.249
0.336
1.000
-0.181
0.043
0.062
0.042
0.194
0.409
0.104
0.091
0.265
0.022
0.105
0.329
-0.281
0.053
-0.196
-0.181
1.000
-0.039
-0.046
0.028
-0.074
-0.391
-0.089
-0.132
-0.140
-0.025
-0.026
-0.383
RICHq
0.179
0.449
0.400
0.043
-0.039
1.000
0.338
0.187
0.331
0.071
0.230
0.247
-0.040
0.080
0.247
0.229
SHRUBallDENtot
0.142
0.300
0.534
0.062
-0.046
0.338
1.000
0.491
0.594
0.127
0.158
0.074
0.081
-0.022
0.025
0.121
SHRUBcovQ
0.061
0.210
0.436
0.042
0.028
0.187
0.491
1.000
0.414
0.003
0.002
-0.073
0.005
0.009
0.272
0.202
SHRUBsapDEN
0.249
0.246
0.485
0.194
-0.074
0.331
0.594
0.414
1.000
0.183
0.166
0.053
0.145
-0.055
0.024
0.237
TOTALcovQ
0.557
-0.043
0.417
0.409
-0.391
0.071
0.127
0.003
0.183
1.000
0.240
0.305
0.456
-0.161
-0.057
0.480
TREEallDEN
0.255
0.200
0.262
0.104
-0.089
0.230
0.158
0.002
0.166
0.240
1.000
0.329
0.123
-0.087
-0.104
0.147
TREEsapDEN
0.351
-0.025
0.268
0.091
-0.132
0.247
0.074
-0.073
0.053
0.305
0.329
1.000
0.106
-0.009
0.009
0.169
TREEtotBA
0.322
-0.161
0.277
0.265
-0.140
-0.040
0.081
0.005
0.145
0.456
0.123
0.106
1.000
-0.026
-0.127
0.264
WISherbQ
-0.193
-0.157
-0.075
0.022
-0.025
0.080
-0.022
0.009
-0.055
-0.161
-0.087
-0.009
-0.026
1.000
0.222
-0.125
WISShrubQ
-0.054
0.151
0.321
0.105
-0.026
0.247
0.025
0.272
0.024
-0.057
-0.104
0.009
-0.127
0.222
1.000
0.059
0.344
0.056
0.458
0.329
-0.383
0.229
0.121
0.202
0.237
0.480
0.147
0.169
0.264
-0.125
0.059
1.000
PATCHWIDTH
WISTreeQ
WISTreeQ
RICHq
0.449
PATCHWIDTH
NATIVEq
-0.172
HERBcovA I (men
HERBcovQ
1.000
QS
HERBcovAltmcn
LAYERSq
Table 32. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.____________________________________________________________________
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
0.191
0.154
0.047
0.269
0.577
0.268
0.349
0.301
-0.258
-0.054
0.328
HERBcovQ
-0.176
1.000
0.209
-0.278
0.090
0.377
0.275
0.170
0.235
-0.062
0.193
-0.032
-0.163
-0.139
0.123
0.052
LAYERSq
0.442
0.209
1.000
0.362
-0.147
0.384
0.524
0.400
0.485
0.402
0.263
0.264
0.274
-0.064
0.327
0.450
NATIVEq
0.407
-0.278
0.362
1.000
-0.191
0.109
0.089
0.064
0.212
0.417
0.119
0.098
0.259
0.015
0.145
0.338
-0.310
0.090
-0.147
-0.191
1.000
-0.066
-0.076
0.060
-0.100
-0.428
-0.074
-0.146
-0.152
0.053
0.029
-0.344
RICHq
0.191
0.377
0.384
0.109
-0.066
1.000
0.345
0.203
0.322
0.091
0.237
0.240
-0.036
0.054
0.260
0.204
SHRUBallDENtot
0.154
0.275
0.524
0.089
-0.076
0.345
1.000
0.448
0.598
0.165
0.169
0.083
0.088
-0.058
0.015
0.118
SHRUBcovQ
0.047
0.170
0.400
0.064
0.060
0.203
0.448
1.000
0.351
-0.036
0.003
-0.084
-0.008
0.058
0.312
0.177
SHRUBsapDEN
0.269
0.235
0.485
0.212
-0.100
0.322
0.598
0.351
1.000
0.218
0.173
0.064
0.153
-0.088
0.007
0.237
TOTALcovQ
0.577
-0.062
0.402
0.417
-0.428
0.091
0.165
-0.036
0.218
1.000
0.247
0.311
0.452
-0.212
-0.083
0.452
TREEallDEN
0.268
0.193
0.263
0.119
-0.074
0.237
0.169
0.003
0.173
0.247
1.000
0.319
0.117
-0.102
-0.090
0.140
TREEsapDEN
0.349
-0.032
0.264
0.098
-0.146
0.240
0.083
-0.084
0.064
0.311
0.319
1.000
0.117
-0.021
-0.005
0.179
TREEtotBA
0.301
-0.163
0.274
0.259
-0.152
-0.036
0.088
-0.008
0.153
0.452
0.117
0.117
1.000
-0.034
-0.135
0.276
WISherbQ
-0.258
-0.139
-0.064
0.015
0.053
0.054
-0.058
0.058
-0.088
-0.212
-0.102
-0.021
-0.034
1.000
0.255
-0.098
WISShrubQ
-0.054
0.123
0.327
0.145
0.029
0.260
0.015
0.312
0.007
-0.083
-0.090
-0.005
-0.135
0.255
1.000
0.042
WISTreeQ
0.328
0.052
0.450
0.338
-0.344
0.204
0.118
0.177
0.237
0.452
0.140
0.179
0.276
-0.098
0.042
1.000
PATCHWIDTH
WISTreeQ
SHRUBcovQ
-0.310
WISShrubQ
SHRUBallDENtot
0.407
WISherbQ
RICHq
0.442
PATCHWIDTH
NATIVEq
-0.176
HERBcovAltmcn
HERBcovQ
1.000
QlO
HERBcovAltmcn
LAYERSq
Table 33. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level._____________________________________________________________________
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
0.450
-0.277
0.194
0.145
0.024
0.268
0.548
0.300
0.381
0.298
-0.233
-0.083
0.322
HERBcovQ
-0.232
1.000
0.190
-0.299
0.077
0.360
0.278
0.192
0.239
-0.085
0.178
-0.037
-0.158
-0.153
0.148
0.031
LAYERSq
0.435
0.190
1.000
0.356
-0.145
0.411
0.525
0.347
0.485
0.375
0.287
0.293
0.283
-0.067
0.281
0.478
NATIVEq
0.450
-0.299
0.356
1.000
-0.212
0.130
0.090
-0.007
0.220
0.422
0.128
0.122
0.256
0.026
0.089
0.369
-0.277
0.077
-0.145
-0.212
1.000
-0.066
-0.088
0.098
-0.104
-0.434
-0.062
-0.124
-0.155
0.002
0.052
-0.328
RICHq
0.194
0.360
0.411
0.130
-0.066
1.000
0.344
0.208
0.326
0.081
0.247
0.238
-0.029
0.023
0.260
0.214
SHRUBallDENtot
0.145
0.278
0.525
0.090
-0.088
0.344
1.000
0.425
0.592
0.162
0.170
0.073
0.100
-0.055
0.003
0.136
SHRUBcovQ
0.024
0.192
0.347
-0.007
0.098
0.208
0.425
1.000
0.335
-0.023
0.009
-0.072
-0.021
-0.011
0.308
0.112
SHRUBsapDEN
0.268
0.239
0.485
0.220
-0.104
0.326
0.592
0.335
1.000
0.214
0.195
0.119
0.150
-0.124
0.000
0.260
TOTALcovQ
0.548
-0.085
0.375
0.422
-0.434
0.081
0.162
-0.023
0.214
1.000
0.242
0.300
0.438
-0.153
-0.114
0.420
TREEallDEN
0.300
0.178
0.287
0.128
-0.062
0.247
0.170
0.009
0.195
0.242
1.000
0.356
0.121
-0.114
-0.094
0.156
TREEsapDEN
0.381
-0.037
0.293
0.122
-0.124
0.238
0.073
-0.072
0.119
0.300
0.356
1.000
0.108
-0.072
-0.036
0.201
TREEtotBA
0.298
-0.158
0.283
0.256
-0.155
-0.029
0.100
-0.021
0.150
0.438
0.121
0.108
1.000
-0.019
-0.141
0.286
WISherbQ
-0.233
-0.153
-0.067
0.026
0.002
0.023
-0.055
-0.011
-0.124
-0.153
-0.114
-0.072
-0.019
1.000
0.198
-0.104
WISShrubQ
-0.083
0.148
0.281
0.089
0.052
0.260
0.003
0.308
0.000
-0.114
-0.094
-0.036
-0.141
0.198
1.000
0.012
WISTreeQ
0.322
0.031
0.478
0.369
-0.328
0.214
0.136
0.112
0.260
0.420
0.156
0.201
0.286
-0.104
0.012
1.000
PATCHWIDTH
WISTreeQ
RICHq
0.435
PATCHWIDTH
NATIVEq
-0.232
HERBcovA I (men
HERBcovQ
1.000
O lO O
HERBcovAltmcn
LAYERSq
Table 34. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.______________________________________________________________________
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
-0.018
0.496
0.209
0.470
0.171
0.042
-0.039
0.549
0.068
-0.057
0.095
HERBcovQ
-0.193
1.000
0.254
0.420
0.134
0.721
0.422
0.414
0.272
-0.233
0.023
0.469
0.172
0.357
0.241
0.141
LAYERSq
0.312
0.254
1.000
0.637
-0.245
0.229
0.579
0.507
0.500
0.265
0.385
0.457
0.573
-0.034
0.545
0.908
NATIVEq
0.375
0.420
0.637
1.000
0.294
0.578
0.431
0.412
0.411
-0.288
0.172
0.239
0.510
0.238
0.424
0.545
PATCHWIDTH
0.394
0.134
-0.245
0.294
1.000
0.204
0.050
0.014
-0.001
-0.324
-0.160
0.028
0.124
-0.036
-0.328
-0.334
-0.018
0.721
0.229
0.578
0.204
1.000
0.193
0.257
0.328
-0.456
0.234
0.131
0.041
0.494
0.237
0.126
SHRUBallDENtot
0.496
0.422
0.579
0.431
0.050
0.193
1.000
0.570
0.622
0.345
-0.022
0.399
0.432
0.148
0.186
0.338
SHRUBcovQ
0.209
0.414
0.507
0.412
0.014
0.257
0.570
1.000
0.579
0.090
-0.029
0.298
0.368
0.182
0.469
0.412
SHRUBsapDEN
0.470
0.272
0.500
0.411
-0.001
0.328
0.622
0.579
1.000
0.200
-0.024
-0.093
0.467
0.334
0.278
0.362
TOTALcovQ
0.171
-0.233
0.265
-0.288
-0.324
-0.456
0.345
0.090
0.200
1.000
-0.046
0.109
0.197
-0.224
-0.198
0.261
TREEallDEN
0.042
0.023
0.385
0.172
-0.160
0.234
-0.022
-0.029
-0.024
-0.046
1.000
0.213
0.017
0.050
0.187
0.384
TREEsapDEN
-0.039
0.469
0.457
0.239
0.028
0.131
0.399
0.298
-0.093
0.109
0.213
1.000
0.337
-0.128
0.035
0.303
TREEtotBA
0.549
0.172
0.573
0.510
0.124
0.041
0.432
0.368
0.467
0.197
0.017
0.337
1.000
-0.020
0.062
0.480
WISherbQ
0.068
0.357
-0.034
0.238
-0.036
0.494
0.148
0.182
0.334
-0.224
0.050
-0.128
-0.020
1.000
0.120
-0.160
WISShrubQ
-0.057
0.241
0.545
0.424
-0.328
0.237
0.186
0.469
0.278
-0.198
0.187
0.035
0.062
0.120
1.000
0.470
WISTreeQ
0.095
0.141
0.908
0.545
-0.334
0.126
0.338
0.412
0.362
0.261
0.384
0.303
0.480
-0.160
0.470
1.000
RICHq
WISTreeQ
SHRUBcovQ
0.394
WISShrubQ
SHRUBallDENK
0.375
TREEsapDEN
PATCHWIDTH
0.312
RICHq
NATIVEq
-0.193
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
1.000
Q2.33
HERBcovAlsbp
LAYERSq
Table 35. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________________________________
SHRUBallDENtc
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WlSTreeQ
-0.052
-0.004
0.030
-0.174
-0.118
-0.197
-0.146
0.074
0.079
0.025
-0.053
-0.197
-0.075
HERBcovQ
-0.051
1.000
0.199
0.276
-0.250
0.774
0.405
0.610
0.429
-0.224
-0.038
0.322
0.107
0.424
0.413
0.014
LAYERSq
-0.064
0.199
1.000
0.573
-0.007
0.208
0.574
0.350
0.390
0.221
0.278
0.432
0.584
-0.047
0.464
0.799
NATIVEq
-0.052
0.276
0.573
1.000
0.362
0.379
0.395
0.371
0.406
-0.297
0.091
0.122
0.422
0.165
0.344
0.472
PATCHWIDTH
-0.004
-0.250
-0.007
0.362
1.000
-0.185
0.111
-0.094
-0.187
-0.290
-0.183
-0.055
-0.018
-0.131
-0.225
0.181
0.030
0.774
0.208
0.379
-0.185
1.000
0.209
0.491
0.400
-0.374
0.121
0.067
0.004
0.467
0.369
0.063
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.174
0.405
0.574
0.395
-
0.111
0.209
1.000
0.477
0.607
0.313
-0.069
0.337
0.491
0.176
0.288
0.261
SHRUBcovQ
-0.118
0.610
0.350
0.371
-0.094
0.491
0.477
1.000
0.641
-0.062
0.111
0.143
0.186
0.278
0.491
0.196
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.197
0.429
0.390
0.406
-0.187
0.400
0.607
0.641
1.000
0.197
-0.100
-0.131
0.384
0.266
0.368
0.248
TOTALcovQ
-0.146
-0.224
0.221
-0.297
-0.290
-0.374
0.313
-0.062
0.197
1.000
-0.050
0.132
0.270
-0.303
-0.256
0.228
TREEallDEN
0.074
-0.038
0.278
0.091
-0.183
0.121
-0.069
0.111
-0.100
-0.050
1.000
0.194
-0.021
0.128
0.027
0.135
TREEsapDEN
0.079
0.322
0.432
0.122
-0.055
0.067
0.337
0.143
-0.131
0.132
0.194
1.000
0.318
-0.155
-0.022
0.209
TREEtotBA
0.025
0.107
0.584
0.422
-0.018
0.004
0.491
0.186
0.384
0.270
-0.021
0.318
1.000
-0.046
0.081
0.414
WISherbQ
-0.053
0.424
-0.047
0.165
-0.131
0.467
0.176
0.278
0.266
-0.303
0.128
-0.155
-0.046
1.000
0.195
-0.202
WISShrubQ
-0.197
0.413
0.464
0.344
-0.225
0.369
0.288
0.491
0.368
-0.256
0.027
-0.022
0.081
0.195
1.000
0.294
WISTreeQ
-0.075
0.014
0.799
0.472
0.181
0.063
0.261
0.196
0.248
0.228
0.135
0.209
0.414
-0.202
0.294
1.000
RICHq
-
-
TOTALcovQ
PATCHWIDTH
-0.064
•
NATIVEq
-0.051
HERBcovAlsbp
RICHq
LAYERSq
1.000
05
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
Table 36. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________________________________
-
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
0.013
-0.118
-0.122
-0.200
-0.014
0.114
0.147
0.012
-0.073
-0.174
-0.100
HERBcovQ
-0.014
1.000
0.221
0.258
-0.263
0.704
0.496
0.616
0.468
-0.189
-0.053
0.298
0.091
0.444
0.447
-0.002
LAYERSq
-0.042
0.221
1.000
0.542
-0.066
0.272
0.472
0.295
0.313
0.310
0.255
0.428
0.530
0.008
0.499
0.798
NATIVEq
-0.217
0.258
0.542
1.000
0.344
0.390
0.271
0.353
0.370
-0.263
0.095
0.122
0.422
0.168
0.341
0.469
PATCHWIDTH
-0.217
-0.263
-0.066
0.344
1.000
-0.198
-0.154
-0.084
-0.173
-0.306
-0.173
-0.088
-0.004
-0.153
-0.254
0.126
0.013
0.704
0.272
0.390
-0.198
1.000
0.176
0.418
0.321
-0.318
0.101
0.080
0.011
0.456
0.393
0.176
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.118
0.496
0.472
0.271
-0.154
0.176
1.000
0.449
0.594
0.221
-0.090
0.258
0.315
0.251
0.352
0.123
SHRUBcovQ
-0.122
0.616
0.295
0.353
-0.084
0.418
0.449
1.000
0.669
-0.081
-0.107
0.117
0.184
0.292
0.480
0.127
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.200
0.468
0.313
0.370
-0.173
0.321
0.594
0.669
1.000
0.123
-0.101
-0.132
0.348
0.291
0.372
0.143
TOTALcovQ
-0.014
-0.189
0.310
-0.263
-0.306
-0.318
0.221
-0.081
0.123
1.000
-0.031
0.163
0.243
-0.238
-0.163
0.272
TREEallDEN
0.114
-0.053
0.255
0.095
-0.173
0.101
-0.090
-0.107
-0.101
-0.031
1.000
0.191
-0.008
0.107
0.016
0.132
TREEsapDEN
0.147
0.298
0.428
0.122
-0.088
0.080
0.258
0.117
-0.132
0.163
0.191
1.000
0.262
-0.114
0.014
0.232
TREEtotBA
0.012
0.091
0.530
0.422
-0.004
0.011
0.315
0.184
0.348
0.243
-0.008
0.262
1.000
-0.071
0.061
0.378
WISherbQ
-0.073
0.444
0.008
0.168
-0.153
0.456
0.251
0.292
0.291
-0.238
0.107
-0.114
-0.071
1.000
0.265
-0.142
WISShrubQ
-0.174
0.447
0.499
0.341
-0.254
0.393
0.352
0.480
0.372
-0.163
0.016
0.014
0.061
0.265
1.000
0.320
WISTreeQ
-0.100
-0.002
0.798
0.469
0.126
0.176
0.123
0.127
0.143
0.272
0.132
0.232
0.378
-0.142
0.320
1.000
RICHq
TOTALcovQ
SHRUBcovQ
-0.217
SHRUBsapDEN
SHRUBallDENtc
-0.217
RICHq
-0.042
PATCHWIDTH
NATIVEq
-0.014
HERBcovA I sbp
HERBcovQ
1.000
QlO
HERBcovAlsbp
LAYERSq
Table 37. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level._____________________________________________________________________
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
0.028
0.109
-0.070
-0.139
-0.154
0.095
-0.078
0.061
0.221
HERBcovQ
-0.212
1.000
0.246
0.220
-0.238
0.717
0.294
0.527
0.323
-0.148
-0.015
0.320
0.249
0.321
0.440
-0.011
LAYERSq
0.103
0.246
1.000
0.523
-0.107
0.310
0.417
0.290
0.218
0.345
0.279
0.452
0.413
-0.034
0.516
0.779
NATIVEq
0.488
0.220
0.523
1.000
0.324
0.345
0.227
0.342
0.331
-0.229
0.107
0.147
0.263
0.188
0.350
0.443
PATCHWlDTH
0.647
-0.238
-0.107
0.324
1.000
-0.195
-0.112
-0.061
-0.100
-0.306
-0.154
-0.134
-0.064
-0.118
-0.229
0.057
-0.129
0.717
0.310
0.345
-0.195
1.000
0.115
0.322
0.137
-0.278
0.143
0.244
0.334
0.307
0.352
0.173
SHRUBallDENtot
0.020
0.294
0.417
0.227
-0.112
0.115
1.000
0.436
0.568
0.141
-0.063
0.112
0.057
0.253
0.373
0.064
SHRUBcovQ
0.028
0.527
0.290
0.342
-0.061
0.322
0.436
1.000
0.679
-0.058
-0.057
0.019
0.024
0.355
0.506
0.094
SHRUBsapDEN
0.109
0.323
0.218
0.331
-0.100
0.137
0.568
0.679
1.000
0.101
-0.114
-0.156
0.039
0.390
0.384
-0.011
TOTALcovQ
-0.070
-0.148
0.345
-0.229
-0.306
-0.278
0.141
-0.058
0.101
1.000
-0.016
0.174
0.150
-0.232
-0.094
0.309
TREEallDEN
-0.139
-0.015
0.279
0.107
-0.154
0.143
-0.063
-0.057
-0.114
-0.016
1.000
0.192
0.075
0.088
0.051
0.175
TREEsapDEN
-0.154
0.320
0.452
0.147
-0.134
0.244
0.112
0.019
-0.156
0.174
0.192
1.000
0.597
-0.146
0.039
0.298
0.095
0.249
0.413
0.263
-0.064
0.334
0.057
0.024
0.039
0.150
0.075
0.597
1.000
-0.130
0.076
0.277
-0.078
0.321
-0.034
0.188
-0.118
0.307
0.253
0.355
0.390
-0.232
0.088
-0.146
-0.130
1.000
0.281
-0.151
WISShrubQ
0.061
0.440
0.516
0.350
-0.229
0.352
0.373
0.506
0.384
-0.094
0.051
0.039
0.076
0.281
1.000
0.295
WISTreeQ
0.221
-0.011
0.779
0.443
0.057
0.173
0.064
0.094
-0.011
0.309
0.175
0.298
0.277
-0.151
0.295
1.000
RICHq
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISherbQ
0.020
TREEtotBA
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.129
TREEsapDEN
SHRUBcovQ
0.647
TREEallDEN
SHRUBallDENtt
0.488
TOTALcovQ
PATCHWIDTH
0.103
RICHq
NATIVEq
-0.212
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
1.000
O lO O
HERBcovAlsbp
LAYERSq
Table 38. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.
_____ ______________________ _
WISTreebaQ
WISShrubQ
WISherbQ
TREEtotBA
TREEsapDEN
TREEallDEN
TOTALcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBallDENK
RICHq
PATCHWlDTH
NATIVEq
LAYERSq
HERBcovQ
Q2.33
HERBcovAIc
Table 39. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level._________________________________________________________________
HERBcovAlc
1.000
0.372
0.235
0.205
-0.129
0.522
0.393
0.249
0.178
-0.033
0.106
-0.046
0.015
0.417
0.405
-0.129
HERBcovQ
0.372
1.000
0.372
0.233
0.099
0.802
0.068
0.008
0.124
0.249
0.024
-0.005
0.266
-0.017
0.386
0.391
LAYERSq
0.235
0.372
1.000
0.104
-0.276
0.180
0.656
0.387
0.849
0.781
0.146
0.126
0.733
0.055
0.679
0.268
NATIVEq
0.205
0.233
0.104
1.000
0.196
0.349
0.163
0.117
-0.043
-0.081
0.051
0.007
-0.133
0.496
0.142
0.052
-0.129
0.099
-0.276
0.196
1.000
0.291
-0.343
-0.301
-0.320
-0.242
0.335
0.100
-0.276
0.005
-0.378
-0.118
-0.034
-0.124
0.009
0.078
-0.034
0.231
0.068
0.192
0.287
0.083
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
0.522
0.802
0.180
0.349
0.291
1.000
SHRUBallDENtot
0.393
0.068
0.656
0.163
-0.343
-0.034
1.000
0.624
0.648
0.247
-0.066
-0.070
0.257
0.059
0.634
-0.061
SHRUBcovQ
0.249
0.008
0.387
0.117
-0.301
-0.124
0.624
1.000
0.224
-0.027
-0.065
-0.019
-0.017
0.059
0.637
-0.126
SHRUBsapDEN
0.178
0.124
0.849
-0.043
-0.320
0.009
0.648
0.224
1.000
0.866
-0.050
-0.068
0.860
-0.097
0.428
0.090
TOTALcovQ
-0.033
0.249
0.781
-0.081
-0.242
0.078
0.247
-0.027
0.866
1.000
-0.046
-0.070
0.953
-0.117
0.245
0.346
TREEallDEN
0.106
0.024
0.146
0.051
0.335
-0.034
-0.066
-0.065
-0.050
-0.046
1.000
-0.032
-0.031
0.309
-0.090
-0.066
TREEsapDEN
-0.046
-0.005
0.126
0.007
0.100
0.231
-0.070
-0.019
-0.068
-0.070
-0.032
1.000
-0.059
0.030
0.413
-0.085
TREEtotBA
0.015
0.266
0.733
-0.133
-0.276
0.068
0.257
-0.017
0.860
0.953
-0.031
-0.059
1.000
-0.173
0.317
0.282
WISherbQ
0.417
-0.017
0.055
0.496
0.005
0.192
0.059
0.059
-0.097
-0.117
0.309
0.030
-0.173
1.000
0.048
0.038
WISShrubQ
0.405
0.386
0.679
0.142
-0.378
0.287
0.634
0.637
0.428
0.245
-0.090
0.413
0.317
0.048
1.000
-0.002
WISTreebaQ
-0.129
0.391
0.268
0.052
-0.118
0.083
-0.061
-0.126
0.090
0.346
-0.066
-0.085
0.282
0.038
-0.002
1.000
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTA LcovQ
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
0.467
0.558
-0.151
-0.059
-0.258
-0.108
-0.286
0.069
-0.279
-0.335
-0.052
-0.401
-0.265
-0.224
1.000
0.241
0.076
0.106
0.829
0.198
0.077
0.214
0.120
-0.030
0.046
0.184
-0.101
0.286
0.223
-0.433
0.207
0.440
0.532
0.571
0.680
0.101
0.287
0.536
0.169
0.798
0.499
0.026
-0.157
-0.295
0.387
0.083
0.029
-0.327
0.241
1.000
0.081
TREEalIDEN
SHRUBallDENti
-0.327
PATCHWIDTH
-0.224
NATIVEq
RICHq
LAYERSq
LAYERSq
HERBcovQ
1.000
HERBcovAlc
05
HERBcovAIc
HERBcovQ
Table 40. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level._________________________________________________________________
NATIVEq
0.467
0.076
0.081
1.000
0.052
0.124
0.058
0.126
0.071
-0.141
PATCHWIDTH
0.558
0.106
-0.433
0.052
1.000
0.185
-0.152
-0.345
-0.189
-0.325
0.264
-0.193
-0.341
-0.185
-0.519
-0.301
RICHq
-0.151
0.829
0.207
0.124
0.185
1.000
0.173
-0.017
0.234
0.090
0.001
0.185
0.065
0.042
0.258
0.129
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.059
0.198
0.440
0.058
-0.152
0.173
1.000
0.663
0.922
-0.042
-0.059
-0.034
-0.040
0.229
0.413
-0.054
SHRUBcovQ
-0.258
0.077
0.532
0.126
-0.345
-0.017
0.663
1.000
0.596
-0.028
-0.090
-0.052
-0.060
0.217
0.665
-0.043
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.108
0.214
0.571
0.071
-0.189
0.234
0.922
0.596
1.000
0.137
-0.074
0.052
0.076
0.213
0.471
0.155
1.000
-0.070
0.374
0.764
-0.140
0.396
0.574
TOTALcovQ
-0.286
0.120
0.680
-0.141
-0.325
0.090
-0.042
-0.028
0.137
TREEallDEN
0.069
-0.030
0.101
0.026
0.264
0.001
-0.059
-0.090
-0.074
-0.070
1.000
-0.010
-0.036
0.281
-0.118
-0.083
TREEsapDEN
-0.279
0.046
0.287
-0.157
-0.193
0.185
-0.034
-0.052
0.052
0.374
-0.010
1.000
0.472
-0.187
0.429
0.362
TREEtotBA
-0.335
0.184
0.536
-0.295
-0.341
0.065
-0.040
-0.060
0.076
0.764
-0.036
0.472
1.000
-0.288
0.360
0.373
WISherbQ
-0.052
-0.101
0.169
0.387
-0.185
0.042
0.229
0.217
0.213
-0.140
0.281
-0.187
-0.288
1.000
0.101
0.022
WISShrubQ
-0.401
0.286
0.798
0.083
-0.519
0.258
0.413
0.665
0.471
0.396
-0.118
0.429
0.360
0.101
1.000
0.314
0.155
0.574
-0.083
0.362
0.373
0.022
0.314
1.000
WISTreebaQ
-0.265
0.223
0.499
0.029
-0.301
0.129
-0.054
-0.043
SHRUBallDENK
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
0.504
0.509
-0.121
-0.059
-0.213
-0.169
-0.328
0.048
-0.034
-0.071
-0.019
-0.206
-0.318
HERBcovQ
-0.117
1.000
0.336
0.061
0.226
0.778
0.168
0.143
0.149
0.143
-0.031
0.332
0.422
-0.173
0.394
0.198
LAYERSq
-0.253
0.336
1.000
0.070
-0.386
0.225
0.458
0.557
0.613
0.707
0.059
0.109
0.571
-0.007
0.762
0.546
NATIVEq
0.504
0.061
0.070
1.000
0.047
0.118
0.051
0.104
0.040
-0.136
0.025
-0.088
-0.063
0.374
0.085
0.020
PATCHWIDTH
0.509
0.226
-0.386
0.047
1.000
0.229
-0.181
-0.309
-0.253
-0.345
0.255
0.156
-0.098
-0.152
-0.388
-0.330
RICHq
-0.121
0.778
0.225
0.118
0.229
1.000
0.170
0.027
0.195
0.098
-0.001
0.235
0.124
0.003
0.288
0.127
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.059
0.168
0.458
0.051
-0.181
0.170
1.000
0.669
0.853
0.041
-0.066
-0.068
0.083
0.157
0.375
0.027
SHRUBcovQ
-0.213
0.143
0.557
0.104
-0.309
0.027
0.669
1.000
0.644
0.078
-0.097
0.075
0.085
0.092
0.613
0.058
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.169
0.149
0.613
0.040
-0.253
0.195
0.853
0.644
1.000
0.294
-0.083
-0.060
0.174
0.020
0.377
0.301
TOTALcovQ
-0.328
0.143
0.707
-0.136
-0.345
0.098
0.041
0.078
0.294
1.000
-0.079
0.077
0.428
-0.216
0.371
0.626
TREEallDEN
0.048
-0.031
0.059
0.025
0.255
-0.001
-0.066
-0.097
-0.083
-0.079
1.000
-0.008
-0.042
0.282
-0.125
-0.090
TREEsapDEN
-0.034
0.332
0.109
-0.088
0.156
0.235
-0.068
0.075
-0.060
0.077
-0.008
1.000
-0.003
-0.135
0.403
0.058
TREEtotBA
-0.071
0.422
0.571
-0.063
-0.098
0.124
0.083
0.085
0.174
0.428
-0.042
-0.003
1.000
-0.259
0.385
0.282
WISherbQ
-0.019
-0.173
-0.007
0.374
-0.152
0.003
0.157
0.092
0.020
-0.216
0.282
-0.135
-0.259
1.000
0.007
-0.061
WISShrubQ
-0.206
0.394
0.762
0.085
-0.388
0.288
0.375
0.613
0.377
0.371
-0.125
0.403
0.385
0.007
1.000
0.283
WISTreebaQ
-0.318
0.198
0.546
0.020
-0.330
0.127
0.027
0.058
0.301
0.626
-0.090
0.058
0.282
-0.061
0.283
1.000
TREEallDEN
RICHq
-0.253
PATCHWIDTH
-0.117
NATIVEq
LAYERSq
1.000
OlO
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovQ
Table 41. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level._________________
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTA LcovQ
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
0.505
-0.156
-0.140
-0.143
-0.195
-0.160
0.070
0.017
-0.050
-0.120
-0.092
-0.194
HERBcovQ
-0.165
1.000
0.393
0.079
0.186
0.795
0.354
0.091
0.208
0.202
-0.044
0.417
0.307
-0.116
0.282
0.235
LAYERSq
-0.135
0.393
1.000
0.080
-0.338
0.304
0.455
0.532
0.591
0.669
0.095
0.274
0.459
0.043
0.720
0.585
NATIVEq
0.487
0.079
0.080
1.000
0.084
0.145
-0.030
0.102
0.025
-0.059
0.032
-0.035
-0.041
0.305
0.111
0.068
PATCHWIDTH
0.505
0.186
-0.338
0.084
1.000
0.155
-0.099
-0.296
-0.238
-0.254
0.199
0.152
-0.054
-0.212
-0.328
-0.307
RICHq
-0.156
0.795
0.304
0.145
0.155
1.000
0.291
0.041
0.203
0.123
-0.017
0.267
0.070
0.000
0.273
0.165
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.140
0.354
0.455
-0.030
-0.099
0.291
1.000
0.455
0.713
0.031
-0.047
0.197
0.001
0.141
0.353
0.006
0.017
0.037
0.133
0.642
0.099
TREEsapDEN
SHRUBallDENK
0.487
TREEallDEN
RICHq
-0.135
PATCHWIDTH
-0.165
NATIVEq
LAYERSq
1.000
QlOO
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovQ
Table 42. Pearson moment correlations among vegetation variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________________________________
SHRUBcovQ
-0.143
0.091
0.532
0.102
-0.296
0.041
0.455
1.000
0.681
0.108
0.012
SHRUBsapDEN
-0.195
0.208
0.591
0.025
-0.238
0.203
0.713
0.681
1.000
0.286
0.002
0.042
0.115
0.099
0.416
0.280
TOTALcovQ
-0.160
0.202
0.669
-0.059
-0.254
0.123
0.031
0.108
0.286
1.000
-0.016
0.202
0.458
-0.148
0.291
0.665
TREEallDEN
0.070
-0.044
0.095
0.032
0.199
-0.017
-0.047
0.012
0.002
-0.016
1.000
0.010
-0.036
0.307
-0.042
-0.022
TREEsapDEN
0.017
0.417
0.274
-0.035
0.152
0.267
0.197
0.017
0.042
0.202
0.010
1.000
-0.036
0.003
0.327
0.198
TREEtotBA
-0.050
0.307
0.459
-0.041
-0.054
0.070
0.001
0.037
0.115
0.458
-0.036
-0.036
1.000
-0.272
0.258
0.244
WISherbQ
-0.120
-0.116
0.043
0.305
-0.212
0.000
0.141
0.133
0.099
-0.148
0.307
0.003
-0.272
1.000
0.059
0.024
WISShrubQ
-0.092
0.282
0.720
0.111
-0.328
0.273
0.353
0.642
0.416
0.291
-0.042
0.327
0.258
0.059
1.000
0.245
WISTreebaQ
-0.194
0.235
0.585
0.068
-0.307
0.165
0.006
0.099
0.280
0.665
-0.022
0.198
0.244
0.024
0.245
1.000
112
Table 43. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for Tom
Miner Basin at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones. Shaded values are statistically significant to
the 0.05 level.
BA
DISTTh Elevation ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
R
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
Q2.33
BA
DISTTh
Elevation
ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
R
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
1.000
0.477
-0.858
0.700
0.017
0.084
0.801
-0.106
• -0.476
0.536
0.477
1.000
-0.370
0.441
-0.003
-0.276
0.180
-0.858
-0.370
1.000
-0.595
0.024
-0.201
0.700
0.441
-0.595
1.000
0.507
1.000
0.084
-0.276
-0.201
-0.542
0.953
0.084
0.084
1.000
0.493
-0.291
-0.262
0.051
0.590
-0.348
0.740
0.121
-0.146
-0.407
-0.566
0.452
-0.103
0.516
0.004
-0.539
-0.420
0.477
-0.542
-0.024
0.002
0.649
-0.099
0.041
0.446
0.170
0.030
-0.334
-0.149
0.417
1.000
-0.315
-0.836
-0.315
1.000
0.446
-0.560
-0.560
1.000
0.170
-0.334
0.030
-0.149
0.444
-0.384
0.121
-0.566
-0.003
0.452
-0.106
-0.345
-0.053
-0.539
0.313
1.000
-0.376
-0.487
1.000
-0.487
-0.468
0.647
0.801
0.180
-0.638
0.516
0.004
0.507
-0.376
-0.638
-0.053
0.237
-0.407
-0.345
0.017
-0.003
0.024
0.313
0.953
-0.476
-0.468
0.237
-0.420
-0.024
0.536
0.647
-0.407
0.477
0.002
0.493
-0.291
-0.262
0.590
1.000
-0.641
-0.348
-0.641
1.000
0.051
Q5
BA
DISTTh
Elevation
1.000
0.417
ELEVTh
-0.836
0.649
INUN
-0.099
POWER
R
0.041
SHEAR
0.740
-0.146
-0.407
SLOPE
-0.459
-0.444
0.170
WIDTH
0.510
0.584
-0.349
0.510
-0.003
-0.459
-0.444
0.170
0 584
-0.349
-0.558
-0.444
-0.368
0.079
0.403
-0.008
0.951
0.531
-0.216
-0.368
-0.009
-0.405
0.444
-0.384
1.000
-0.408
-0.103
-0.408
1.000
0.358
-0.558
-0.444
0.951
-0.368
0.403
0.079
0.531
-0.216
0.625
0.625
1.000
-0.008
-0.368
-0.009
-0.405
-0.633
-0.633
1.000
0.682
-0.011
-0.186
-0.470
0.450
-0.461
0.007
-0.426
0.165
-0.243
-0.404
0.436
-0.074
0.358
1.000
0.107
0.107
1.000
QlO
BA
1.000
0.328
-0.831
0.602
-0.043
-0.002
DISTTh
0.328
1.000
-0.192
0.481
0.474
Elevation
-0.831
0.602
-0.192
1.000
-0.489
0.075
-0.389
-0.138
0.481
0.474
-0.489
1.000
0.531
-0.417
-0.536
0.347
0.075
0.531
1.000
-0.391
-0.144
-0.593
-0.437
-0.389
-0.138
0.594
0.421
0.421
1.000
0.950
-0.536
0.007
-0.391
-0.144
1.000
0.011
-0.461
-0.417
0.347
0.241
-0.454
0.169
-0.140
-0.108
-0.470
0.450
-0.426
0.165
-0.593
-0.404
-0.437
-0.074
0.950
0.594
0.169
-0.140
1.000
0.683
1.000
-0.483
-0.665
0.579
-0.243
0.436
0.241
-0.454
-0.108
0.683
-0.483
-0.665
1.000
BA
1.000
0.294
-0.843
0.557
0.053
-0.081
0.639
-0.232
0.294
1.000
-0.179
0.445
0.154
-0.397
-0.017
-0.450
-0.469
-0.407
0.403
DISTTh
Elevation
-0.843
-0.179
1.000
-0.461
-0.067
-0.071
-0.468
0.046
0.178
-0.228
ELEVTh
0.557
0.445
-0.461
1.000
0.490
-0.449
0.154
-0.067
0.490
1.000
-0.058
0.118
-0.081
-0.397
-0.071
-0.449
0.330
-0.017
0.330
1.000
SHEAR
-0.232
-0.450
-0.407
-0.308
-0.058
0.968
0.690
0.125
0.759
-0.495
-0.469
0.403
0.326
-0.585
-0.384
0.690
-0.165
SLOPE
-0.468
0.046
0.178
0.968
0.125
1.000
-0.472
0.639
-0.276
0.066
-0.276
1.000
-0.585
-0.308
0.400
0.053
0.326
0.066
-0.384
INUN
-0.165
0.759
1.000
0.572
-0.228
0.400
0.118
-0.472
-0.108
-0.495
-0.628
-0.628
1.000
ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
R
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
-0.043
-0.002
0.682
-0.186
-
0.579
QlOO
POWER
R
WIDTH
0.572
-0.108
113
Table 44. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for Soda
Butte Creek at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones. Shaded values are statistically significant to
the 0.05 level.
BA
DISTTh Elevation ELEVTh
Q2.33
BA
DISTTh
Elevation
ELEVTh
INUN
-0.509
0.608
-0.121
0.541
POWER
-0.040
-0.535
R
-0.164
SHEAR
-0.048
SLOPE
WIDTH
QS
BA
DISTTh
Elevation
ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
1.000
0.270
0.270
1.000
0.056
0.605
-0.509
0.056
1.000
-0.003
1.000
POWER
R
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
-0.121
-0.040
-0.164
-0.048
0.158
0.752
0.541
0.293
-0.535
-0.443
-0.548
-0.603
-0.140
-0.561
-0.474
0.536
-0.344
-0.133
-0.266
-0.638
-0.550
-0.293
43.652
-0.204
0.438
1.000
0.979
0.336
0.336
1.000
0.621
-0.529
-0.248
0.290
0.553
0.553
1.000
-0.603
-0.561
-0.443
-0.140
-0.548
-0.133
-0.486
-0.266
-0.474
-0.550
0.438
0.979
0.158
0.752
-0.293
0.536
-0.652
-0.344
-0.638
-0.204
0.509
-0.297
0.074
0.611
-0.269
-0.529
0.621
-0.248
1.000
-0.259
-0.259
1.000
1.000
0.665
1.000
-0.387
0.703
-0.699
-0.387
1.000
0.744
0.302
-0.231
-0.220
-0.243
-0.129
0.854
0.703
-0.378
1.000
0.717
0.542
-0.159
-0.433
-0.207
-0.579
-0.348
-0.049
-0.186
-0.465
-0.211
0.769
-0.572
-0.670
-0.416
-0.340
-0.387
-0.484
-0.179
-0.559
-0.412
0.665
-0.699
0.744
0.302
-0.003
0.293
0.608
0.605
INUN
-0.378
-0.159
0.717
1.000
-0.486
1.000
-0.297
0.611
0.290
0 509
0.074
-0.269
0.700
0.404
-0.344
-0.231
0.542
-0.433
-0.207
-0.579
-0.484
1.000
R
-0.220
-0.348
-0.049
-0.186
-0.179
0.437
0.437
1.000
0.976
0.344
0.636
0.158
SHEAR
-0.243
-0.465
-0.211
-0.670
-0.559
0.976
0.344
1.000
0.663
-0.347
SLOPE
-0.129
-0.340
-0.387
-0.412
-0.572
0.700
0.404
-0.488
0.663
-0.347
1.000
0.854
0.636
-0.344
0.158
WIDTH
-0.416
0.769
-0.368
-0.368
1.000
QlO
BA
1.000
0.599
-0.613
-0.349
0.714
0.233
-0.259
-0.087
-0.288
-0.240
0.800
0.623
0.365
-0.378
-0.179
-0.419
-0.381
1.000
-0.424
-0.309
-0.135
-0.118
-0.122
-0.331
0.627
-0.461
-0.407
-0.262
0.596
0.167
DISTTh
0.599
1.000
Elevation
-0.613
-0.488
ELEVTh
0.714
-0.349
0.623
-0.424
1.000
0.709
-0.582
-0.006
-0.694
INUN
0.233
0.365
-0.309
0.709
1.000
-0.441
0.109
-0.528
0359
1.000
0.970
0.591
41.339
0.245
0.021
-0.441
POWER
-0.259
-0.378
-0.135
-0.582
-0.441
1.000
R
-0.087
-0.179
-0.118
-0.006
0.109
SHEAR
-0.288
-0.419
-0.122
-0.694
-0.528
-0.262
0.359
0.970
0.245
1.000
0.021
0.625
0.625
1.000
-0.343
0.591
-0.406
-0.240
-0.381
-0.331
-0.407
0.800
0.627
-0.461
0.596
0.167
-0.339
-0.441
-0.343
-0.406
1.000
0.604
1.000
0.622
0.597
0.109
0.190
-0.258
-0.362
-0.373
-0.170
-0.167
-0.420
-0.159
-0.432
-0.296
-0.073
-0.159
-0.127
-0.310
-0.521
-0.521
-0.296
1.000
-0.303
DISTTh
Elevation
1.000
0.604
-0.367
0.767
0.624
-0.374
ELEVTh
0.622
0.597
-0.373
1.000
0.590
-0.504
0.021
-0.634
-0.416
0.528
0.109
0.190
-0.170
0.590
1.000
-0.250
0.147
-0.317
-0.157
0.029
SLOPE
WIDTH
QlOO
BA
INUN
POWER
-0.258
-0.362
-0.167
-0.504
-0.250
1.000
0.483
0.968
0.571
-0.372
R
-0.073
-0.159
-0.127
0.021
0.147
0.483
1.000
-0.005
-0.402
SHEAR
-0.303
-0.420
-0.159
-0.634
-0.317
0.968
0.629
0.629
1.000
-0.397
0.571
0.383
-0.005
0.383
1.000
-0.372
-0.402
-0.397
-0.462
1.000
SLOPE
-0.310
-0.432
-0.367
-0.416
-0.157
WIDTH
0.767
0.624
-0.374
0.528
0.029
-0.462
114
Table 45. Pearson moment correlations among hydrogeomorphic variables for Cache
Creek at 2-, 5-, 10- and 100-yr zones. Shaded values are statistically significant to the
0.05 level.
BA
DISTTh Elevation ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
R
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
Q2.33
BA
DISTTh
Elevation I
ELEVTh
1.000
0.458
-0.862
0.458
1.000
-0.547
-0.862
-0.547
1.000
INUN
0.445
0.190
0.398
0.286
-0.446
-0.296
POWER
0.013
R
SHEAR
0.652
-0.241
-0.436
-0.112
0.135
-0.357
-0.515
0.335
0.153
-0.647
SLOPE
WIDTH
-0.360
-0.284
0.809
0.155
-0.107
-0.693
0.595
0.445
0.398
-0.446
1.000
0.762
-0.514
0.190
0.286
-0.296
0.762
1.000
0.013
-0.436
0.135
-0.514
-0.567
-0.057
-0.567
1.000
0.415
0.475
-0.643
0.129
0.437
0.944
0.178
-0.460
-0.869
0.380
-0.114
0.099
-0.551
1.000
0.384
0.091
0.040
-0.390
-0.008
0.512
1.000
-0.467
-0.629
1.000
0.652
-0.112
-0.357
0.153
-0.057
0.415
1.000
0.136
-0.241
-0.360
-0.284
-0.515
0.335
-0.647
0.155
-0.107
-0.643
0.944
0.129
0.178
0.136
1.000
-0.337
0.285
1.000
0.595
0.809
-0.693
0.475
0.437
-0.460
-0.161
-0.530
-0.213
1.000
-0.337
-0.161
0.285
-0.530
0.636
-0.064
-0.163
-0.329
-0.463
0.202
-0.288
0.122
0.556
0.750
-0.605
-0.564
-0.080
0.217
0.491
0.083
0.039
0.210
-0.222
-0.355
-0.225
-0.213
Q5
BA
1.000
DISTTh
0.492
Elevation
ELEVTh
-0.869
0.380
-0.114
-0.551
0.384
0.099
-0.390
-0.064
INUN
POWER
R
0.636
0.492
1.000
0.091
-0.358
0.040
-0.008
-0.358
1.000
0.512
-0.467
-0.418
0.202
0.089
-0.629
-0.122
-0.564
0.122
-0.080
-0.418
0.089
-0.122
0.381
1.000
-0.687
0.914
-0.687
0.381
0.914
0.039
1.000
0.265
-0.342
0.217
0.210
-0.222
1.000
-0.285
-0.285
1.000
0.563
0.712
SHEAR
-0.163
SLOPE
-0.329
-0.463
-0.288
WIDTH
0.556
0.750
-0.605
0.491
0.083
-0.355
-0.225
0.265
-0.342
1.000
0.491
-0.884
0.483
0.079
0.007
0.629
-0.215
-0.367
0.384
-0.443
1.000
0.096
-0.399
0.039
-0.490
-0.592
-0.034
-0.472
0.222
-0.308
-0.076
QlO
BA
DISTTh
0.491
1.000
-0.557
Elevation
-0.884
-0.557
1.000
ELEVTh
INUN
0.483
0.079
0.384
0.096
POWER
0.007
-0.399
-0.034
-0.443
-0.076
0.039
RQlO
SHEAR
0.629
-0.215
-0.472
-0.437
0.568
-0.490
0.568
1.000
-0.592
0.213
0.018
1.000
0.291
0.213
0.018
0.291
1.000
0.222
-0.603
-0.655
-0.018
0.935
0.394
0.005
-0.184
-0.437
-0.603
-0.655
0.175
-0.171
-0.018
0.394
-0.610
0.499
0.141
-0.184
-0.379
-0.216
1.000
0.422
-0.377
0.422
1.000
-0.346
0.935
0.005
SLOPE
-0.367
-0.308
0.175
-0.171
WIDTH
0.563
0.712
-0.610
0.499
0.141
-0.379
-0.216
-0.377
-0.346
1.000
1.000
0.545
1.000
-0.855
0.406
0.424
0.044
-0.005
-0.148
-0.400
0.067
-0.379
0.099
0.608
-0.024
-0.431
-0.411
0.220
-0.311
0.193
0.623
0.735
-0.579
0.070
-0.458
-0.065
-0.672
-0.491
-0.165
0.063
QlOO
BA
DISTTh
Elevation
ELEVTh
INUN
POWER
R
SHEAR
0.545
-0.855
0.406
0.044
-0.538
-0.538
1.000
-0.469
-0.137
0.424
-0.469
1.000
0.518
1.000
-0.625
0.477
-0.005
-0.379
0.099
-0.579
-0.458
1.000
0.963
0.443
0.608
-0.024
-0.411
0.070
-0.065
0.384
0.384
1.000
0.075
-0.365
0.179
-0.152
-0.175
-0.148
-0.431
0.220
-0.672
-0.491
0 963
0.179
1.000
0.463
-0.371
0.463
1.000
-0.405
-0.371
-0.405
1.000
0.067
-0.137
0.518
SLOPE
-0.400
-0.311
0.193
-0.165
0.063
0.443
-0.152
WIDTH
0.623
0.735
-0.625
0.477
0.075
-0.365
-0.175
115
% Sand
1.000 -0.925 -0.431
A Temperature
% Organic Matter
A Depth
Depth to Gravels
% Cobbles
% Coarse Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Fine Gravels
% Coarse Fragments
% Clay
% Silt
% Sand
Table 46. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.
0.554 0.513 0.533 0,497 0.412 -0.443 -0.261 -0.526 0.004
% Silt
-0.925
1.000 0.056 -0.491 -0.433 -0.468 -0.463 -0.376 0.397 0.280 0.485 -0.096
% Clay
-0.431
0.056
1.000 -0.289 -0.318 -0.289 -0.205 -0.190 0.220 0.020 0.232 0.219
1.000 0.911
% Coarse Fragments
0.554 -0.491 -0.289
% Fine Gravels
0.513 -0.433 -0.318 0.911
0.964 0.916 0.721 -0.593 -0.434 -0.561
1.000 0.844 0.722 0.581 -0.556 -0.397 -0.545 0.208
1.000 0.890 0.626 -0.558 -0.410 -0.517 0 J 1 0
% Medium Gravels
0.533 -0.468 -0.289 0.964 0.844
% Coarse Gravels
0.497 -0.463 -0.205 0.916 0.722 0.890
% Cobbles
0.412 -0.376 -0.190 0.721
0.581
1.000 0.576 -0.528 -0.385 -0.517 0.192
0.626 0.576
1.000 -0.432 -0.344 -0.381
Depth to Gravels
-0.443 0.397 0.220 -0.593 -0.556 -0.558 -0.528 -0.432
A Depth
-0.261
% Organic Matter
-0.526 0.485 0.232 -0.561 -0.545 -0.517 -0.517 -0.381
A Temperature
1.000 0.238 -0.263
0.410 0.238
% Carbon
-0.526 0.485 0.230 -0.560 -0.544 -0.516 -0.517 -0.380 0.412 0.238
% Nitrogen
-0.553
C: N
0.395 -0.327 -0.263 0.491
1.000 -0.174
0.208 0.210 0.192 0.042 -0.183 -0.263 -0.174
0.485 0.301 -0.543 -0.528 -0.499 -0.497 -0.375
0.042
1.000 0.579 0.410 -0.183
0.280 0.020 -0.434 -0.397 -0.410 -0.385 -0.344 0.579
0.004 -0.096 0.219 0.201
0.201
1.000
1.000 -0.174
0.429 0.233 0.905 -0.064
0.525 0.412 0.448 0J10 -0.363 -0.292 -0.431
0.139
Cation Exchange Capacity
-0.664 0.537 0.471 -0.640 -0.631 -0.614 -0.558 -0.413 0.653 0.383 0.666 -0.063
Ca (%CEC)
-0.085 0.165 -0.170 0.077 0.019 0.100 0.074 0.111
0.112 0.197 0.076 -0.091
H (%CEC)
0.070 -0.086 0.021 -0.227 -0.179 -0.236 -0.238 -0.152 0.138 0.009 0.220 -0.223
K (%CEC)
0.223 -0.242 -0.010 0.196 0.154 0.180 0.231
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
-0.042 -0.025 0.171
0.104 -0.330 -0.201 -0.318 O JlI
0.181 0.192 0.168 0.192 0.055 -0.251 -0.199 -0.322 0 J 4 6
0.078 -0.110 0.057 -0.015 -0.028 -0.022 -0.006 0.028 -0.055 -0.075 -0.097 0.021
pH
-0.060 0.033 0.080 0.330 0.316 0.295 0.290 0.299 -0.157 -0.068 -0.277 0J06
Electrical Conductivity
-0.577 0.433 0.490 -0.556 -0.561 -0.538 -0.460 -0.364 0.542 0.287 0.601
Ca ppm
-0.607 0.524 0.351 -0.540 -0.541 -0.511 -0.476 -0.332 0.608 0.400 0.602 -0.077
K ppm
-0.333 0.203 0.391 -0.319 -0.349 -0.312 -0.231 -0.214 0.171
Mg ppm
-0.575 0.416 0.524 -0.406 -0.412 -0.394 -0.307 -0.304 0.348 0.165 0.302 0.169
Na ppm
-0.153 0.078 0.217 -0.254 -0.276 -0.246 -0.204 -0.129 0.196 0.062 0.171 -0.065
P ppm
0.062 -0.017 -0.125 0.007 -0.064 0.025 0.033 0.050 -0.076 -0.003 0.219 -0.190
0.045
0.125 0.223 0.231
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% Coarse Fragments
% Fine Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
% Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
PH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
-0.526
0.485
0.230
-0.560
-0.544
-0.516
-0.517
-0.380
0.412
0.238
1.000
-0.174
1.000
0.905
-0.429
0.665
0.076
0.221
-0.318
-0.322
-0.097
-0.278
0.600
0.601
0.222
0.300
0.171
0.218
-0.553
0.485
0.301
-0.543
-0.528
-0.499
-0.497
-0.375
0.429
0.233
0.905
-0.064
0.905
1.000
-0.566
0.737
0.201
0.093
-0.224
-0.310
-0.179
-0.141
0.687
0.711
0.369
0.356
0.114
0.236
0.395
-0.327
-0.263
0.491
0.525
0.412
0.448
0.310
-0.363
-0.292
-0.431
0.139
-0.429
-0.566
1.000
-0.531
-0.125
-0.069
0.143
0.206
0.103
0.134
-0.482
-0.498
-0.324
-0.311
-0.128
-0.078
-0.664
0.537
0.471
-0.640
-0.631
-0.614
-0.558
-0.413
0.653
0.383
0.666
-0.063
0.665
0.737
-0.531
1.000
0.159
0.100
-0.343
-0.253
-0.069
-0.112
0.890
0.931
0.468
0.610
0.307
0.008
-0.085
0.165
-0.170
0.077
0.019
0.100
0.074
0.111
0.112
0.197
0.076
-0.091
0.076
0.201
-0.125
0.159
1.000
-0.640
-0.003
-0.303
-0.110
0.470
0.141
0.497
0.116
-0.125
-0.046
0.346
0.070
-0.086
0.021
-0.227
-0.179
-0.236
-0.238
-0.152
0.138
0.009
0.220
-0.223
0.221
0.093
-0.069
0.100
-0.640
1.000
-0.348
-0.526
-0.134
-0.849
-0.026
-0.152
-0.238
-0.326
-0.060
0.046
0.223
-0.242
-0.010
0.196
0.154
0.180
0.231
0.104
-0.330
-0.201
-0.318
0.311
-0.318
-0.224
0.143
-0.343
-0.003
-0.348
1.000
0.285
-0.068
0.229
-0.267
-0.293
0.634
-0.054
-0.205
0.148
-0.042
-0.025
0.171
0.181
0.192
0.168
0.192
0.055
-0.251
-0.199
-0.322
0.346
-0.322
-0.310
0.206
-0.253
-0.303
-0.526
0.285
1.000
0.264
0.545
-0.085
-0.318
0.068
0.591
0.120
-0.493
0.078
-0.110
0.057
-0.015
-0.028
-0.022
-0.006
0.028
-0.055
-0.075
-0.097
0.021
-0.097
-0.179
0.103
-0.069
- 0.110
-0.134
-0.068
0.264
1.000
0.126
0.111
-0.099
-0.121
0.147
0.910
-0.098
-0.060
0.033
0.080
0.330
0.316
0.295
0.290
0.299
-0.157
-0.068
-0.277
0.306
-0.278
-0.141
0.134
-0.112
0.470
-0.849
0.229
0.545
0.126
1.000
0.024
0.082
0.116
0.316
0.038
-0.137
-0.577
0.433
0.490
-0.556
-0.561
-0.538
-0.460
-0.364
0.542
0.287
0.601
0.045
0.600
0.687
-0.482
0.890
0.141
-0.026
-0.267
-0.085
0.111
0.024
1.000
0.832
0.469
0.659
0.440
0.046
-0.607
0.524
0.351
-0.540
-0.541
-0.511
-0.476
-0.332
0.608
0.400
0.602
-0.077
0.601
0.711
-0.498
0.931
0.497
-0.152
-0.293
-0.318
-0.099
0.082
0.832
1.000
0.460
0.493
0.248
0.133
-0.333
0.203
0.391
-0.319
-0.349
-0.312
-0.231
-0.214
0.171
0.125
0.223
0.231
0.222
0.369
-0.324
0.468
0.116
-0.238
0.634
0.068
-0.121
0.116
0.469
0.460
1.000
0.436
0.048
0.208
-0.575
0.416
0.524
-0.406
-0.412
-0.394
-0.307
-0.304
0.348
0.165
0.302
0.169
0.300
0.356
-0.311
0.610
-0.125
-0.326
-0.054
0.591
0.147
0.316
0.659
0.493
0.436
1.000
0.358
-0.365
-0.153
0.078
0.217
-0.254
-0.276
-0.246
-0.204
-0.129
0.196
0.062
0.171
-0.065
0.171
0.114
-0.128
0.307
-0.046
-0.060
-0.205
0.120
0.910
0.038
0.440
0.248
0.048
0.358
1.000
-0.059
P ppm
MU
Na ppm
H
Mg ppm
CL
K ppm
X
Ca ppm
Na (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
Ca (%CEC)
Cation Exchanj
Capacity
I
C: N
% Nitrogen
% Carbon
Table 47. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and chemical soil variables for Tom Miner Basin at
the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the 0.05 level.__________________________________
0.062
-0.017
-0.125
0.007
-0.064
0.025
0.033
0.050
-0.076
-0.003
0.219
-0.190
0.218
0.236
-0.078
0.008
0.346
0.046
0.148
-0.493
-0.098
-0.137
0.046
0.133
0.208
-0.365
-0.059
1.000
117
% Sand
1.000 -0.915 -0.518
0.465
% Silt
% Clay
-0.518 0.128
A Temperature
% Organic Matter
A Depth
0.462 0.510 0.400 -0.030 -0.417 -0.287 -0.641
1.000 0.128 -0.455 -0.486 -0.525 -0.380 0.095
-0.915
Depth to Gravels
% Cobbles
% Coarse Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Fine Gravels
% Coarse
Fragments
% Clay
% Silt
% Sand
Table 48. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________
0.168
0.502 0.373 0.595 -0.282
1.000 -0.177 -0.104 -0.139 -0.176 -0.126 -0.040 -0.087 0.315 0.185
1.000 0.880 0.945 0.892 0.440 -0.670 -0.647 -0.403
0.427
% Coarse Fragments
0.465 -0.455 -0.177
% Fine Gravels
0.462 -0.486 -0.104 0.880
% Medium Gravels
0.510 -0.525 -0.139 0.945 0.907
1.000 0.773 0.210 -0.612 -0.595 -0.416 0.432
% Coarse Gravels
0.400 -0.380 -0.176 0.892 0.615
0.773
1.000 0.907 0.615 0.112 -0.501 -0.496 -0.391
1.000 0.577 -0.665 -0.637 -0.305 0.281
1.000 -0.342 -0.316 -0.080 0.278
% Cobbles
-0.030 0.095 -0.126 0.440 0.112 0.210 0.577
Depth to Gravels
-0.417 0.502 -0.040 -0.670 -0.501 -0.612 -0.665 -0.342
1.000 0.829 0.335 -0.352
A Depth
-0.287 0.373 -0.087 -0.647 -0.496 -0.595 -0.637 -0.316 0.829
% Organic Matter
-0.641
A Temperature
0.595 0.315 -0.403 -0.391 -0.416 -0.305 -0.080 0.335
0.168 -0.282 0.185
0.466
0.427 0.466 0.432 0.281
1.000 0.265 -0.306
0.265
1.000 -0.452
0.278 -0.352 -0.306 -0.452
1.000
1.000 -0.450
% Carbon
-0.640 0.592 0.317 -0.397 -0.384 -0.410 -0.300 -0.080
0.329 0.261
% Nitrogen
-0.598 0.599 0.200 -0.324 -0.327 -0.349 -0.216 -0.067
0.356 0.197 0.947 -0.500
C: N
0.081 -0.103
0.019 0.003
0.047 0.012 -0.081
Cation Exchange Capacity -0.304 0.363 -0.024 -0.430 -0.454 -0.438 -0.361
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K(%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
0.136 -0.157 -0.134 -0.323 0.353
0.023
0.387 0.356 0.532 -0.358
0.236 -0.030 -0.514 0.056 0.043 0.017 0.063 0.057 0.158
-0.215 0.175 0.158 -0.180 -0.151 -0.114 -0.182 -0.147
0.165 -0.325
-0.203 -0.021
0.283 0.096 0.103
0.123
0.145 -0.023 -0.206
0 086 0.174 0.206 -0.077
0.044 0.006 -0.394 -0.332 -0.422 0.378
0.543 0.030 0.029 0.038 0.036 -0.010 -0.209 -0.261
0.004 0.225
0.154 0.168 -0.397
0.339
Na (0ZoCEC)
0.060 0.032 -0.215 -0.031 -0.061 -0.093 -0.079 0.361
pH
0.224 -0.119 -0.299 0.318 0.274 0.236 0.307 0.314 -0.083 -0.143 -0.213 0.148
Electrical Conductivity
-0.170 0.276 -0.167 -0.442 -0.448 -0.447 -0.402 0.069
0.510 0.571
Ca ppm
-0.130 0.246 -0.202 -0.313 -0.334 -0.330 -0.259 0.027
0.352 0.330 0.397 -0.329
Kppm
Mgppm
Na ppm
P ppm
0.009 -0.116 0.223 -0.077 -0.110 -0.064 -0.101
0.287 -0.231
0.100 -0.265 -0.204 -0.231
0.459 -0.146
-0.489 0.339 0.484 -0.325 -0.359 -0.338 -0.251
0.045
0.154
0.041
0.072 -0.232 -0.079 -0.139 -0.143 -0.105
0.404
0.171
0.200 -0.267
0.033
-0.352 0.289 0.251 -0.338 -0.376 -0.337 -0.287 -0.109
0.170
0.276
0.041 -0.014 0.269 -0.267
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% Coarse Fragments
% Fine Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
% Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
pH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
-0.640
0.592
0.317
-0.397
-0.384
-0.410
-0.300
-0.080
0.329
0.261
1.000
-0.450
1.000
0.945
-0.318
0.524
-0.026
0.206
-0.421
0.009
-0.402
-0.215
0.277
0.390
-0.235
0.457
-0.274
0.272
-0.598
0.599
0.200
-0.324
-0.327
-0.349
-0.216
-0.067
0.356
0.197
0.947
-0.500
0.945
1.000
-0.485
0.533
0.069
0.130
-0.486
-0.050
-0.460
-0.095
0.257
0.428
-0.294
0.429
-0.327
0.176
0.081
-0.103
0.019
0.003
0.047
0.012
-0.081
0.136
-0.157
-0.134
-0.323
0.353
-0.318
-0.485
1.000
-0.271
-0.221
0.099
0.255
0.136
0.484
-0.216
-0.095
-0.291
0.135
-0.107
0.384
0.222
-0.304
0.363
-0.024
-0.430
-0.454
-0.438
-0.361
0.023
0.387
0.356
0.532
-0.358
0.524
0.533
-0.271
1.000
0.381
0.007
-0.536
-0.410
0.016
0.266
0.788
0.928
-0.079
0.426
0.274
0.021
0.236
-0.030
-0.514
0.056
0.043
0.017
0.063
0.057
0.158
0.145
-0.023
-0.206
-0.026
0.069
-0.221
0.381
1.000
-0.561
-0.615
-0.852
0.190
0.718
0.399
0.689
-0.422
-0.522
0.263
-0.535
-0.215
0.175
0.158
-0.180
-0.151
-0.114
-0.182
-0.147
0.086
0.174
0.206
-0.077
0.206
0.130
0.099
0.007
-0.561
1.000
0.115
0.067
-0.118
-0.553
-0.046
-0.244
0.190
0.103
-0.125
0.357
0.165
-0.325
0.283
0.096
0.103
0.123
0.044
0.006
-0.394
-0.332
-0.422
0.378
-0.421
-0.486
0.255
-0.536
-0.615
0.115
1.000
0.557
0.001
-0.460
-0.453
-0.654
0.837
0.070
-0.103
0.336
-0.203
-0.021
0.543
0.030
0.029
0.038
0.036
-0.010
-0.209
-0.261
0.004
0.225
0.009
-0.050
0.136
-0.410
-0.852
0.067
0.557
1.000
-0.261
-0.524
-0.445
-0.635
0.277
0.628
-0.330
0.431
0.060
0.032
-0.215
-0.031
-0.061
-0.093
-0.079
0.361
0.154
0.168
-0.397
0.339
-0.402
-0.460
0.484
0.016
0.190
-0.118
0.001
-0.261
1.000
0.295
0.373
0.083
0.085
-0.245
0.954
-0.247
0.224
-0.119
-0.299
0.318
0.274
0.236
0.307
0.314
-0.083
-0.143
-0.213
0.148
-0.215
-0.095
-0.216
0.266
0.718
-0.553
-0.460
-0.524
0.295
1.000
0.177
0.494
-0.337
-0.292
0.366
-0.739
-0.170
0.276
-0.167
-0.442
-0.448
-0.447
-0.402
0.069
0.510
0.571
0.287
-0.231
0.277
0.257
-0.095
0.788
0.399
-0.046
-0.453
-0.445
0.373
0.177
1.000
0.769
-0.076
0.214
0.549
-0.107
-0.130
0.246
-0.202
-0.313
-0.334
-0.330
-0.259
0.027
0.352
0.330
0.397
-0.329
0.390
0.428
-0.291
0.928
0.689
-0.244
-0.654
-0.635
0.083
0.494
0.769
1.000
-0.239
0.131
0.316
-0.202
0.009
-0.116
0.223
-0.077
-0.110
-0.064
-0.101
0.100
-0.265
-0.204
-0.231
0.170
-0.235
-0.294
0.135
-0.079
-0.422
0.190
0.837
0.277
0.085
-0.337
-0.076
-0.239
1.000
0.202
0.097
0.389
-0.489
0.339
0.484
-0.325
-0.359
-0.338
-0.251
0.045
0.154
0.041
0.459
-0.146
0.457
0.429
-0.107
0.426
-0.522
0.103
0.070
0.628
-0.245
-0.292
0.214
0.131
0.202
1.000
-0.109
0.467
0.033
0.072
-0.232
-0.079
-0.139
-0.143
-0.105
0.404
0.171
0.200
-0.267
0.276
-0.274
-0.327
0.384
0.274
0.263
-0.125
-0.103
-0.330
0.954
0.366
0.549
0.316
0.097
-0.109
1.000
-0.246
P ppm
Na ppm
Mg ppm
K ppm
CL
Ca ppm
X
Electrical
Conductivity
Na (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
Ca (%CEC)
Cation Exchan]
Capacity
C: N
% Nitrogen
% Carbon
Table 49. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and chemical soil variables for Soda Butte Creek at
the IQO-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________
-0.352
0.289
0.251
-0.338
-0.376
-0.337
-0.287
-0.109
0.041
-0.014
0.269
-0.267
0.272
0.176
0.222
0.021
-0.535
0.357
0.336
0.431
-0.247
-0.739
-0.107
-0.202
0.389
0.467
-0.246
1.000
119
% Sand
1.000 -0.976 -0.670 0.690 0.584 0.637 0.691
% Silt
-0.976
% Clay
-0.670 0.494
A Temperature
% Organic Matter
0.590 -0.559 -0.559 -0.844 0.637
1.000 0.494 -0.683 -0.579 -0.635 -0.683 -0.572 0.525
1.000 -0.430 -0.364 -0.382 -0.435 -0.408
1.000 0.894 0.950 0.921
A Depth
Depth to Gravels
% Cobbles
% Coarse Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Fine Gravels
% Coarse Fragments
% Clay
% Silt
% Sand
Table 50. Pearson moment correlations among physical and between physical and
chemical soil variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are
statistically significant to the 0.05 level.__________________________________
0.525 0.802 -0.618
0.448 0.448 0.644 -0.439
% Coarse Fragments
0.690 -0.683 -0.430
% Fine Gravels
0.584 -0.579 -0.364 0.894
% Medium Gravels
0.637 -0.635 -0.382 0.950 0.741
% Coarse Gravels
0.691 -0.683 -0.435 0.921
0.696 0.910 _1.000 0.671 -0.686 -0.686 -0.575 0.533
% Cobbles
0.590 -0.572 -0.408 0.821
0.760 0.719 0.671
1.000 0.741
0.821 -0.737 -0.737 -0.613 0.615
0.696 0.760 -0.644 -0.644 -0.576 0.612
1.000 0.910 0.719 -0.719 -0.719 -0.539 0.524
1.000 -0.570 -0.570 -0.524 0.586
Depth to Gravels
-0.559 0.525 0.448 -0.737 -0.644 -0.719 -0.686 -0.570
1.000
1.000 0.554 -0.562
A Depth
-0.559 0525
0.448 -0.737 -0.644 -0.719 -0.686 -0.570
1.000
1.000 0.554 -0.562
% Organic Matter
-0.844 0.802 0.644 -0.613 -0.576 -0.539 -0.575 -0.524 0.554 0.554
A Temperature
0.637 -0.618 -0.439 0.615 0.612 0.524 0.533 0.586 -0.562 -0.562 -0.609
% Carbon
-0.844 0.804 0.637 -0.613 -0.577 -0.537 -0.575 -0.527 0.553
% Nitrogen
-0.778 0.763 0.511 -0.587 -0.541 -0.523 -0.565 -0.485
C: N
0.656 -0.657 -0.382 0.637 0.579 0.599 0.631
H (%CEC)
1.000
0.553 0.999 -0.612
0.459 0.459 0.906 -0.538
0.407 -0.504 -0.504 -0.610 0.640
Cation Exchange Capacity -0.898 0.866 0.639 -0.664 -0.609 -0.602 -0.604 -0.602
Ca (%CEC)
1.000 -0.609
0.519 0.519 0.849 -0.653
0.568 4.523 -0.489 0.448 0.460 0369 0.400 0 399 -0.537 -0.537 -0.488 0.495
-0.694 0.641
0.590 -0.579 -0.567 -0.500 -0.515 -0.526 0.628 0.628 0.715 -0.619
K (%CEC)
0.317 -0.250 -0.416 0.176 0.128
0.175
0.177 0.181 -0.236 -0.236 -0.207 0.118
Mg (%CEC)
0.656 -0.617 -0.518 0.604 0.566 0.549 0.532 0.553 -0.570 -0.570 -0.808 0.639
Na (%CEC)
0.221 -0.207 -0.180 0.136 0.204 0.048 0.117 0.139 -0.210 -0.210 -0.456 0.152
pH
0.684 -0.659 -0.488 0.599 0.673
0.464 0.494 0.541 -0.658 -0.658 -0.778 0.729
Electrical Conductivity
-0.884 0 859 0.605 -0.651 -0.575 -0.612 -0.592 -0.599 0.485
Ca ppm
-0.744 0.738 0.459 -0.536 -0.463 -0.514 -0.488 -0.493
0.296 0.296 0.728 -0.495
K ppm
-0,190 0.246 -0.079 -0.216 -0.230 -0.187 -0.178 -0.171
0.063
0.063 0.253 -0.259
Mg ppm
-0.563 0.570 0.307 -0.313 -0.274 -0.294 -0.293 -0.280 0.165
0.165 0.273 -0.251
Na ppm
-0.191
0.196 0.095 -0.158 -0.077 -0.213 -0.136 -0.149
0.035 -0.106 -0.157
P ppm
-0.312 0362
0.035
0.485 0.762 -0.641
0.013 -0.411 -0.424 -0.340 -0.361 -0.360 0.214 0.214 0.376 -0.524
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% Coarse Fragments
% Fine Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
% Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
pH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
-0.844
0.804
0.637
-0.613
-0.577
-0.537
-0.575
-0.527
0.553
0.553
0.999
-0.612
1.000
0.908
-0.610
0.846
-0.487
0.716
-0.208
-0.811
-0.455
-0.779
0.760
0.726
0.251
0.265
-0.107
0.376
-0.778
0.763
0.511
-0.587
-0.541
-0.523
-0.565
-0.485
0.459
0.459
0.906
-0.538
0.908
1.000
-0.713
0.721
-0.350
0.576
-0.068
-0.732
-0.362
-0.660
0.663
0.668
0.334
0.194
-0.059
0.438
0.656
-0.657
-0.382
0.637
0.579
0.599
0.631
0.407
-0.504
-0.504
-0.610
0.640
-0.610
-0.713
1.000
-0.585
0.334
-0.438
0.066
0.469
0.188
0.582
-0.547
-0.520
-0.276
-0.342
-0.089
-0.481
-0.898
0.866
0.639
-0.664
-0.609
-0.602
-0.604
-0.602
0.519
0.519
0.849
-0.653
0.846
0.721
-0.585
1.000
-0.633
0.789
-0.418
-0.745
-0.286
-0.741
0.953
0.811
0.138
0.581
0.151
0.289
0.568
-0.523
-0.489
0.448
0.460
0.369
0.400
0.399
-0.537
-0.537
-0.488
0.495
-0.487
-0.350
0.334
-0.633
1.000
-0.918
0.544
0.513
0.153
0.722
-0.602
-0.067
0.220
-0.314
-0.114
0.066
-0.694
0.641
0.590
-0.579
-0.567
-0.500
-0.515
-0.526
0.628
0.628
0.715
-0.619
0.716
0.576
-0.438
0.789
-0.918
1.000
-0.479
-0.803
-0.300
-0.839
0.725
0.322
-0.056
0.194
0.004
0.074
0.317
-0.250
-0.416
0.176
0.128
0.175
0.177
0.181
-0.236
-0.236
-0.207
0.118
-0.208
-0.068
0.066
-0.418
0.544
-0.479
1.000
0.104
-0.134
0.237
-0.428
-0.114
0.836
-0.449
-0.290
0.543
0.656
-0.617
-0.518
0.604
0.566
0.549
0.532
0.553
-0.570
-0.570
-0.808
0.639
-0.811
-0.732
0.469
-0.745
0.513
-0.803
0.104
1.000
0.368
0.745
-0.676
-0.569
-0.329
0.090
0.111
-0.343
0.221
-0.207
-0.180
0.136
0.204
0.048
0.117
0.139
-0.210
-0.210
-0.456
0.152
-0.455
-0.362
0.188
-0.286
0.153
-0.300
-0.134
0.368
1.000
0.524
-0.013
-0.235
-0.295
0.090
0.880
-0.262
0.684
-0.659
-0.488
0.599
0.673
0.464
0.494
0.541
-0.658
-0.658
-0.778
0.729
-0.779
-0.660
0.582
-0.741
0.722
-0.839
0.237
0.745
0.524
1.000
-0.628
-0.421
-0.163
-0.217
0.204
-0.376
-0.884
0.859
0.605
-0.651
-0.575
-0.612
-0.592
-0.599
0.485
0.485
0.762
-0.641
0.760
0.663
-0.547
0.953
-0.602
0.725
-0.428
-0.676
-0.013
-0.628
1.000
0.783
0.106
0.618
0.417
0.249
-0.744
0.738
0.459
-0.536
-0.463
-0.514
-0.488
-0.493
0.296
0.296
0.728
-0.495
0.726
0 668
-0.520
0.811
-0.067
0.322
-0.114
-0.569
-0.235
-0.421
0.783
1.000
0.361
0.531
0.139
0.437
-0.190
0.246
-0.079
-0.216
-0.230
-0.187
-0.178
-0.171
0.063
0.063
0.253
-0.259
0.251
0.334
-0.276
0.138
0.220
-0.056
0.836
-0.329
-0.295
-0.163
0.106
0.361
1.000
-0.138
-0.202
0.762
-0.563
0.570
0.307
-0.313
-0.274
-0.294
-0.293
-0.280
0.165
0.165
0.273
-0.251
0.265
0.194
-0.342
0.581
-0.314
0.194
-0.449
0.090
0.090
-0.217
0.618
0.531
-0.138
1.000
0.449
0.085
-0.191
0.196
0.095
-0.158
-0.077
-0.213
-0.136
-0.149
0.035
0.035
-0.106
-0.157
-0.107
-0.059
-0.089
0.151
-0.114
0.004
-0.290
0.111
0.880
0.204
0.417
0.139
-0.202
0.449
1.000
-0.097
P ppm
Na ppm
Mg ppm
K ppm
Cl
Ca ppm
X
Electrical
Conductivity
Na (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
Ca (%CEC)
Cation Exchani
Capacity
I
C: N
% Nitrogen
% Carbon
Table 5 1. Pearson moment correlations among chemical and between physical and chemical soil variables for Cache Creek at the
100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the 0.05 level._____________________________________________
-0.312
0.362
0.013
-0.411
-0.424
-0.340
-0.361
-0.360
0.214
0.214
0.376
-0.524
0.376
0.438
-0.481
0.289
0.066
0.074
0.543
-0.343
-0.262
-0.376
0.249
0.437
0.762
0.085
-0.097
1.000
121
HERBcovAltmcn
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBaIlDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEalIDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
-0.140
0.338
0.221
-0.091
0.094
0.043
0.296
0.435
0.234
0.004
-0.027
-0.090
0.179
-0.005
-0.059
0.077
-0.236
0.251
-0.016
-0.114
0.455
0.017
0.026
0.180
0.045
-0.241
-0.027
-0.148
-0.144
0.074
-0.023
-0.207
0.218
-0.358
-0.170
0.081
0.040
0.022
40 325
-0.432
-0.276
-0.069
0.093
0.190
-0.162
0.112
0.137
-0.154
-0.140
0.451
0.202
-0.154
0.239
0.143
0.230
0.321
0.204
-0.088
0.091
0.063
0.066
-0.196
-0.057
0.024
0.033
0.252
0.142
-0.026
0.093
0.191
-0.019
-0.013
-0.091
0.035
0.233
0.255
-0.049
-0.267
0.053
0.124
0.284
-0.166
0.133
0.174
-0.263
-0.094
0.274
0.085
0.253
0.360
0.000
-0.119
0.155
-0.084
-0.205
0.183
0.101
0.232
0.280
0.102
-0.171
0.097
0.377
0.306
0.280
0.189
0.008
0.034
0.146
-0.039
-0.056
0.150
0 280
-0.276
0.044
0.143
-0.279
-0.170
0.155
-0.007
0.144
0.328
-0.026
-0.114
0.149
-0.030
-0.212
0.153
0.411
-0.239
0.143
0.356
-0.337
0.026
0.103
-0.162
0.134
0.432
0.168
0.206
0.185
-0.195
-0.224
0.329
WIDTH
SLOPE
Ph
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
CO
Elevation
<
0 2 .3 3
DISTTh
Table 52. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________
-0.386
0.352
-0.005
-0.396
0.610
0.010
0.069
0.276
0.056
-0.402
-0.064
-0.275
-0.069
0.057
0.065
-0.236
-0.084
0.300
0.181
-0.077
0.104
0.003
0.238
0.430
0.221
-0.008
-0.042
-0.100
0.140
-0.010
-0.076
0.062
-0.303
0.276
-0.119
-0.050
0.455
-0.016
-0.025
0.119
0.036
-0.277
-0.071
-0.157
-0.184
-0.035
-0.023
-0.224
0.164
-0.344
-0.169
0.098
0.046
-0.009
-0.338
-0.434
-0.281
-0.081
0.064
0.080
-0.114
0.104
0.143
-0.152
-0.115
0.444
0.179
-0.112
0.241
0.144
0.236
0.289
0.191
-0.122
0.085
0.081
0.029
-0.203
-0.054
-0.006
-0.036
0.215
0.102
0.041
0.057
0.167
0.126
-0.082
-0.066
-0.023
0.175
0.262
0.007
-0.210
0.061
-0.002
0.356
-0.202
0.144
0.194
-0.291
-0.059
0.242
0.046
0.288
0.395
0.040
-0.022
0.140
-0.070
-0.232
0.226
0.242
0.124
0.251
0.108
-0.157
0.054
0.349
0.271
0.268
0.163
0.026
0.026
0.132
-0.025
-0.075
0.085
0.321
-0.288
0.073
0.168
-0.306
-0.106
0.128
-0.024
0.178
0.367
0.012
-0.026
0.129
-0.018
-0.217
0.229
0.420
-0.225
0.211
0.286
-0.355
0.108
0.226
-0.123
0.165
0.477
0.244
0.295
0.198
-0.143
-0.201
0.336
WIDTH
SLOPE
04
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
CQ
Elevation
<
OS
HERBcovA Itmcn
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
DISTTh
Table 53. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.
-0.481
0.361
-0.065
-0.311
0.551
-0.044
-0.007
0.222
0.039
-0.395
-0.106
-0.235
-0.144
0.024
0.056
-0.204
122
-0.301
0.216
-0.111
-0.062
0.484
-0.005
-0.084
0.163
-0.048
-0.340
-0.037
-0.171
-0.192
0.096
0.099
-0.231
0.410
-0.220
0.179
0.243
-0.339
-0.012
0.299
-0.018
0.336
0.439
0.076
0.072
0.178
-0.104
-0.257
0.265
0.283
0.091
0269
0.144
-0.151
0.023
0.318
0.216
0.286
0.202
0.049
0.069
0.162
-0.088
-0.139
0.159
0 369
-0.305
0.111
0.222
-0.366
-0.047
0.194
-0.093
0.226
0.422
0.045
0.069
0.166
-0.053
-0.229
0.263
0.446
-0.220
0.192
0.280
-0.391
0.117
0.250
-0.158
0.196
0.517
0.258
0.292
0.198
-0.203
-0.221
0.298
WIDTH
-0.129
0.157
-0.011
-0.109
0.230
0.048
-0.028
0.097
-0.123
-0.198
0.101
0.020
-0.095
0.014
0.145
-0.171
SLOPE
-0.177
0.433
0.139
-0.170
0.318
0.096
0.161
0.315
0.118
-0.218
0.068
0.031
-0.016
-0.109
0.003
-0.064
0=2
SHEAR
0.149
-0.342
-0.177
0.086
0.045
0.006
-0.332
-0.392
-0.284
-0.082
0.072
0.071
-0.121
0.101
0.151
-0.165
POWER
INUN
-0.098
0296
0.193
-0.064
0.125
-0.008
0.221
0.416
0.208
-0.033
-0.055
-0.098
0.139
0.021
-0.057
0.078
ELEVTh
<
CO
Elevation
OlO
HERBcovAltmcn
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShmbQ
WISTreeQ
DISTTh
Table 54. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.
-0.486
0.314
-0.069
-0.269
0.528
-0.016
-0.042
0.222
-0.030
40.475
-0.133
-0.244
-0.193
0.222
0.207
-0.256
HERBcovAltmcn
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
-0.113
0.310
0.195
-0.083
0.100
-0.002
0.254
0.423
0.214
-0.029
-0.063
-0.115
0.141
0.013
-0.062
0.071
-0.279
0.229
-0.146
-0.074
0.461
-0.007
-0.100
0.158
-0.072
-0.335
-0.058
-0.179
-0.197
0.064
0.129
-0.245
0.187
-0.363
-0.176
0.105
0.061
0.000
-0.356
-0.398
-0.282
-0.070
0.086
0.094
-0.121
0.104
0.145
-0.152
-0.175
0.404
0.069
-0.207
0.299
0.079
0.135
0.362
0.120
-0.193
0.046
0.043
-0.053
-0.154
0.021
-0.130
-0.034
0.088
-0.122
-0.178
0.129
-0.001
-0.038
0.300
0.007
-0.045
-0.009
0.044
-0.112
-0.154
0.077
-0.202
0.396
-0.243
0.208
0.264
-0.332
0.012
0.338
-0.089
0.314
0.426
0.137
0.114
0.214
-0.045
-0.270
0.281
0.240
0.062
0.233
0.126
-0.109
-0.011
0.307
0.196
0.276
0.173
0.055
0.090
0.120
-0.026
-0.124
0.082
0.358
-0.292
0.158
0.254
-0.358
0.000
0.264
-0.148
0.240
0.414
0.115
0.098
0.212
-0.010
-0.246
0.288
W
S
CZD
0.425
-0.227
0.179
0.286
-0.373
0.113
0.234
-0.172
0.183
0.492
0.255
0.276
0.196
-0.196
-0.216
0.296
WIDTH
Cd
SHEARQ
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
DQ
Elevation
<
QlOO
DISTTh
Table 55. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.
-0.489
0.300
-0.131
-0.321
0.549
0.018
-0.032
0.273
-0.067
-0.513
-0.145
-0.276
-0.214
0.176
0.195
-0.273
123
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
0.544
-0.299
-0.091
0.018
0.397
-0.342
0.147
-0.196
-0.004
-0.045
-0.221
0.099
0.389
-0.073
-0.470
-0.178
0.398
0.347
-0.165
0.255
0.702
0.431
0.263
0.014
0.213
-0.316
-0.132
-0.081
0.173
0.205
-0.201
-0.330
-0.291
0.560
0.148
0.472
-0.024
0.616
0.138
0.372
0.314
-0.304
-0.270
0.049
-0.108
0.440
0.442
0.091
0.239
0.171
-0.327
-0.060
0.392
0.006
0.259
0.064
0.191
-0.182
-0.498
0.030
0.167
0.218
-0.353
-0.443
-0.180
0.384
-0.265
-0.083
0.154
0.318
0.060
0.190
0.196
-0.358
-0.242
-0.251
-0.216
0.307
0.193
-0.300
-0.052
-0.403
0.036
-0.381
-0.221
-0.503
-0.176
-0.193
-0.163
0.302
0.118
-0.090
-0.126
-0.524
0.027
0.135
-0.439
-0.242
-0.169
-0.562
-0.530
-0.551
-0.134
-0.084
-0.145
0.481
-0.335
-0.034
-0.164
-0.459
-0.155
-0.012
WIDTH
OC
SLOPE
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
<
CO
ELEVTh
DISTTh
02.33
Elevation
Table 56. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________
-0.015
-0.440
0.113
-0.288
-0.227
-0.471
-0.200
-0.213
-0.176
0.268
0.276
-0.081
-0.102
-0.510
0.074
0.219
0.235
-0.333
0.218
-0.358
-0.205
-0.520
0.174
-0.037
0.046
0.693
0.227
0.088
0.159
-0.505
-0.155
0.269
0.488
-0.107
-0.203
0.155
0.574
-0.011
-0.061
-0.211
-0.128
-0.411
-0.093
0.017
0.276
0.177
-0.304
-0.329
-0.034
-0.003
-0.189
0.199
0.692
-0.056
0.066
0.040
0.061
-0.289
-0.402
-0.095
0.009
0.154
-0.223
0.012
-0.021
0.241
-0.089
0.246
0.481
0.245
-0.019
0.295
0.159
-0.422
-0.101
-0.238
-0.208
0.387
0.138
0.071
-0.025
-0.340
-0.053
-0.555
-0.285
-0.434
-0.191
-0.257
-0.236
0.379
0.121
-0.025
-0.084
-0.478
-0.076
-0.055
WIDTH
0.010
0.660
0.100
0.159
-0.547
0.639
0.217
0.515
0.419
-0.117
-0.190
0.068
-0.055
0.323
0.470
-0.121
SLOPE
-0.034
0.002
-0.028
0.346
0.810
0.054
0.013
0.050
-0.023
-0.362
-0.232
-0.110
-0.010
0.001
-0.009
0.148
SHEAR
POWER
-0.111
-0.283
-0.005
0.195
-0.195
-0.320
0.213
INUN
-0.023
-0.428
-0.004
0.202
0.769
-0.399
-0.007
-0.288
-0.167
ELEVTh
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
<
03
Elevation
QS
DISTTh
Table 57. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.
0.011
-0.045
-0.131
-0.379
-0.286
0.040
-0.460
-0.706
-0.306
-0.376
-0.304
-0.422
-0.190
-0.238
-0.239
-0.283
-0.241
-0.245
0.369
0.383
-0.191
0.257
-0.040
-0.005
-0.195
-0.042
- 0 .2 1 18 -0.482
-0.030
-0.209
-0.098
0.017
0.021
-0.345
0.150
-0.342
-0.304
-0.460
0.141
-0.167
-0.005
0.667
0.326
0.127
0.174
-0.413
-0.246
0.080
-0.071
-0.274
-0.034
0.360
0.876
-0.186
-0.107
-0.161
-0.193
-0.405
-0.190
-0.061
0.107
-0.031
-0.161
0.091
cC
124
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
-0.197
-0.338
0.003
0.154
0.697
-0.339
0.083
-0.266
-0.139
-0.126
-0.280
-0.015
0.158
-0.209
-0.295
0.145
-0.159
-0.012
-0.159
0.214
0.660
-0.037
0.023
-0.003
-0.038
-0.365
-0.228
-0.157
-0.042
-0.060
-0.099
-0.037
0.077
0.620
0.066
0.163
-0.464
0.558
0.192
0.535
0.442
-0.164
-0.168
0.001
0.006
0.291
0.423
-0.132
-0.176
0.051
-0.083
0.143
0.531
0.006
0.191
-0.016
0.021
-0.191
-0.386
-0.031
-0.065
0.160
-0.134
0.036
-0.042
0.200
0.105
0.099
0.106
0.224
0.242
0.055
0.021
-0.076
-0.112
0.009
-0.238
0.302
0.198
0.130
0.110
-0.331
-0.142
-0.588
-0.241
-0.424
-0.241
-0.222
-0.222
0.303
0.130
-0.073
-0.071
-0.460
-0.139
-0.120
0.122
-0.118
-0.220
-0.664
-0.348
-0.254
-0.165
-0.254
-0.284
0.294
-0.195
0.022
-0.260
-0.240
-0.173
-0.103
0.141
-0.369
-0.064
-0.480
-0.256
-0.412
-0.258
-0.237
-0.220
0.280
0.293
-0.064
-0.023
-0.455
-0.105
-0.062
0.141
-0.383
0.099
-0.292
-0.269
-0.424
-0.073
-0.177
-0.057
0.601
0.322
0.138
0.160
-0.362
-0.240
0.096
WIDTH
SLOPE
OS
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
CQ
Elevation
<
OlO
DISTTh
Table 58. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.___________________________________________
-0.284
-0.203
-0.042
0.353
0 846
-0.122
-0.021
-0.116
-0.134
-0.416
-0.182
-0.098
0.112
0.000
-0.138
0.052
HERBcovAlsbp
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreeQ
0.527
-0.249
-0.063
0.090
0.667
-0.307
-0.072
-0.249
-0.113
-0.108
-0.277
-0.067
0.019
-0.245
-0.306
0.061
0.346
0.007
-0.187
0.130
0.599
-0.066
-0.004
0.023
-0.028
-0.350
-0.213
-0.217
-0.141
-0.082
-0.118
-0.089
-0.244
0.573
0.080
0.189
-0.397
0.488
0.115
0.526
0.414
-0.133
-0.115
0.038
0.115
0.286
0.443
-0.130
0.195
0.138
-0.151
0.041
0.429
0.049
0.059
-0.043
0.013
-0.206
-0.357
-0.032
-0.017
0.117
-0.124
-0.098
-0.180
0.229
-0.052
-0.098
-0.012
0.179
0.117
-0.039
0.050
-0.082
-0.099
0.074
0.124
0.015
0.004
-0.173
-0.226
-0.330
-0.191
-0.641
-0.234
-0.405
-0.225
-0.231
-0.219
0.337
0.105
-0.088
-0.117
-0.390
-0.168
-0.124
-0.448
-0.081
-0.270
-0.677
-0.338
-0.213
-0.262
-0.301
-0.252
0.266
-0.184
-0.051
-0.189
-0.256
-0.222
-0.177
-0.219
-0.383
-0.119
-0.539
-0.253
-0.410
-0.240
-0.253
-0.228
0.330
0.274
-0.086
-0.113
-0.382
-0.134
-0.065
-0.132
-0.414
0.107
-0.239
-0.269
-0.381
0.011
-0.199
-0.106
0.535
0.278
0.094
-0.008
-0.284
-0.223
0.144
WIDTH
SLOPE
Cd
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
CO
Elevation
<
QlOO
DISTTh
Table 59. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically
significant to the 0.05 level.
0.624
-0.150
-0.073
0.299
0.800
-0.087
0.003
-0.076
-0.081
-0.431
-0.155
-0.091
0.057
0.031
-0.117
-0.005
125
-0.090
0.133
-0.005
-0.183
0.297
0.111
-0.183
-0.036
-0.051
-0.011
0.137
0.366
-0.003
-0.155
0.018
-0.051
-0.121
0.521
-0.034
0.200
0666
0.517
-0.201
-0.162
-0.124
0.005
-0.014
0.079
-0.087
-0.084
-0.193
0.208
0.345
-0.075
0.055
0.054
-0.549
-0.028
0.293
0.147
0.122
-0.006
-0.164
-0.297
0.015
0.210
0.126
-0.069
-0.071
0.158
0.150
-0.154
0.359
0.097
-0.102
0.056
0.144
0.197
0.448
-0.055
0.231
-0.014
-0.054
0.070
-0.199
0.246
0.298
-0.074
0.099
-0.033
-0.015
0.142
0.254
0.354
0.264
-0.158
0.361
-0.295
0.047
0.320
0.059
-0.312
-0.155
-0.264
-0.464
-0.244
0.004
-0.188
-0.054
-0.139
-0.137
0.170
-0.125
0.010
-0.037
-0.235
0.043
-0.180
0.062
-0.384
-0.286
-0.106
-0.040
0.208
0.082
0.038
-0.060
0.437
0.068
-0.044
0.243
-0.196
0.123
-0.299
-0.160
-0.111
-0.469
-0.225
0.066
-0.190
-0.076
-0.177
-0.132
0.057
-0.175
0.106
-0.049
-0.230
-0.109
0.024
0.106
0.184
-0.243
-0.143
-0.003
-0.071
0.154
0.263
-0.138
-0.153
0.332
-0.090
-0.216
na
WIDTH
SLOPE
Cd
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
<
m
Elevation
02.33
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBco vQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
DISTTh
Table 60. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 2-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to
the 0.05 level.
-0.167
0.462
-0.020
0.043
0.651
0.288
-0.194
-0.192
-0.137
-0.021
0.244
-0.019
-0.073
-0.259
-0.224
0.216
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
0.215
-0.007
-0.115
-0.165
0.355
-0.014
-0.142
-0.145
-0.135
-0.028
0.194
0.096
0.013
-0.216
-0.108
-0.108
0.331
0.434
-0.109
0.065
0.643
0.383
-0.023
-0.162
-0.037
-0.013
-0.034
0.002
-0.104
-0.245
-0.217
0.074
-0.454
0.023
0.142
0.032
-0.508
0.023
0.220
0.258
0.191
0.003
-0.221
-0.118
-0.030
0.278
0.195
-0.023
-0.053
0.195
0.234
-0.106
0.301
0.222
0.050
0.064
0.145
0.233
0.475
0.024
0.188
0.036
0.018
0.149
-0.175
0.368
0.610
0.084
-0.073
0.464
0.343
0.280
0.513
0.431
0.201
0.352
0.255
0.035
0.424
0.505
-0.128
-0.376
-0.322
-0.226
-0.367
-0.415
-0.239
-0.227
-0.330
-0.139
-0.202
-0.092
-0.018
-0.038
-0.164
-0.284
-0.133
-0.325
0.100
-0.319
-0.235
-0.234
-0.068
0.118
0.024
0.157
-0.132
0.127
0.096
-0.089
0.196
0.017
-0.112
-0.330
-0.391
-0.090
-0.347
-0.414
-0.255
-0.272
-0.366
-0.209
-0.175
-0.172
-0.083
0.041
-0.242
-0.323
-0.245
0.073
0.189
0.025
-0.366
-0.002
-0.056
-0.091
0.032
0.382
-0.164
0.467
0.513
-0.203
-0.065
na
WIDTHQ5
SLOPE
SHEARQ5
RQ5
POWERQ5
INUN
ELEVTh
CD
Elevation
<
QS
DISTTh
Table 61. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 5-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to
the 0.05 level.
0.381
0.329
-0.207
0.029
0.727
0.203
-0.110
-0.248
-0.177
-0.175
0.443
-0.075
-0.106
-0.198
-0.344
-0.121
126
0.229
-0.079
-0.148
-0.148
0.302
-0.029
-0.147
-0.110
-0.107
-0.083
0.170
0.204
-0.192
-0.176
-0.047
-0.151
0.311
0.383
-0.134
0.061
0.647
0.389
-0.046
-0.140
-0.075
-0.059
-0.031
0.177
-0.115
-0.219
-0.163
0.020
-0.422
0.072
0.188
0.028
-0.462
0.031
0.231
0.225
0.183
0.075
-0.202
-0.226
0.188
0.224
0.131
0.050
0.003
0.151
0.209
-0.087
0.250
0.203
0.048
0.128
0.163
0.169
0.385
0.279
-0.017
-0.013
0.153
0.094
-0.009
0.427
0.602
0.052
-0.015
0.347
0.265
0.362
0.470
0.349
0.062
0.479
0.442
-0.172
0.547
0.352
-0.244
-0.395
-0.303
-0.220
-0.401
-0.389
-0.227
-0.245
-0.282
-0.050
-0.186
-0.186
-0.157
0.026
-0.219
-0.156
-0.093
-0.388
0.104
-0.209
-0.283
-0.219
-0.020
0.177
0.166
0.199
-0.167
0.011
-0.183
-0.085
0.176
0.096
-0.240
-0.371
-0.387
-0.136
-0.384
-0.408
-0.245
-0.312
-0.336
-0.139
-0.152
-0.246
-0.170
0.091
-0.316
-0.217
-0.293
0.036
0.151
0.024
-0.355
-0.015
-0.050
-0.112
0.014
0.364
-0.154
0.096
0.181
-0.177
-0.052
0.109
WIDTH
SLOPE
Cd
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
<
03
Elevation
QlO
HERBcovAIc
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBalIDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
DISTTh
Table 62. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 10-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to
the 0.05 level.
0.330
0.320
-0.234
-0.018
0.715
0.225
-0.144
-0.215
-0.230
-0.254
0.478
0.266
-0.131
-0.124
-0.245
-0.224
0.443
-0.103
-0.138
0.005
0.377
-0.144
-0.132
-0.156
-0.150
-0.049
0.114
0.207
-0.096
-0.204
-0.047
-0.113
0.390
0.367
-0.009
0.130
0.548
0.340
0.041
-0.132
-0.080
-0.007
-0.054
0.257
-0.048
-0.218
-0.057
0.089
-0.537
0.071
0.155
-0.088
-0.469
0.066
0.210
0.274
0.260
0.069
-0.116
-0.232
0.115
0.280
0.133
0.065
0.279
0.208
0.239
-0.015
0.281
0.212
0.142
0.061
0.067
0.128
0.179
0.339
-0.044
-0.139
0.100
0.089
0.080
0.157
0.049
0.012
0.093
0.110
0.214
-0.049
0.028
-0.053
-0.087
0.045
-0.052
-0.130
-0.164
-0.018
-0.339
-0.371
-0.190
-0.163
-0.383
-0.375
-0.216
-0.163
-0.133
0.069
-0.109
-0.139
-0.037
0.069
-0.047
-0.006
0.074
-0.432
-0.069
-0.180
-0.131
-0.362
-0.110
0.034
0.061
0.083
-0.155
-0.072
-0.154
-0.105
0.033
-0.017
-0.358
-0.352
-0.242
-0.094
-0.369
-0.380
-0.225
-0.197
-0.169
0.003
-0.080
-0.171
-0.030
0.120
-0.090
-0.051
-0.411
-0.006
0.124
-0.093
-0.386
0.034
0.095
-0.126
-0.012
0.150
-0.141
-0.017
0.088
-0.112
-0.101
0.376
WIDTH
SLOPE
Cd
SHEAR
POWER
INUN
ELEVTh
CO
Elevation
<
QlOO
HERBcovAlc
HERBcovQ
LAYERSq
NATIVEq
PATCHWIDTH
RICHq
SHRUBallDENtot
SHRUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
TOTALcovQ
TREEallDEN
TREEsapDEN
TREEtotBA
WISherbQ
WISShrubQ
WISTreebaQ
DISTTh
Table 63. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and hydrogeomorphic
variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant
to the 0.05 level.
0.445
0.303
-0.041
0.130
0.586
0.188
-0.054
-0.181
-0.202
-0.060
0.349
0.378
-0.007
-0.118
-0.077
-0.058
SHRUBcovQ
-0.165
0.146
0.086
-0.309
-0.231
-0.279
-0.357
-0.235
0.190
0.143
0.243
-0.043
0.242
0.155
-0.134
0.195
-0.058
0.133
-0.198
-0.067
-0.100
-0.085
0.082
0.167
-0.033
0.084
-0.047
-0.145
-0.177
0.212
-0.037
-0.276
-0.262
-0.262
-0.255
-0.183
0.285
0.231
0.209
0.055
0.207
0.170
-0.149
0.264
0.164
-0.119
-0.019
-0.031
0.042
-0.021
0.189
0.303
0.204
0.172
0.107
0.003
-0.339
0.314
0.147
-0.269
-0.262
-0.221
-0.253
-0.204
0.325
0.223
0.229
0.143
0.228
0.226
-0.162
0.392
0.113
-0.074
-0.078
-0.007
-0.183
-0.015
0.325
0.403
0.247
0.279
-0.083
-0.133
-0.099
0.090
0.047
-0.224
-0.198
-0.213
-0.218
-0.151
0.183
0.163
0.214
-0.028
0.211
0.196
-0.115
0.185
0.246
-0.184
-0.045
-0.036
0.081
0.055
0.166
0.269
0.128
0.109
0.108
-0.004
0.082
-0.067
-0.057
-0.070
-0.134
-0.077
-0.012
0.010
0.128
0.072
0.105
-0.387
0.103
0.035
0.053
0.124
0.304
-0.014
-0.072
-0.332
0.089
-0.043
0.110
0.208
0.018
-0.113
0.189
0.354
-0.112
0.096
0.066
-0.178
-0.170
-0.168
-0.159
-0.130
0.135
0.086
0.194
-0.231
0.185
0.119
-0.061
0.135
0.083
0.019
-0.227
-0.075
-0.077
-0.101
0.061
0.149
-0.105
0.075
0.006
-0.005
-0.071
0.010
0.164
-0.159
-0.126
-0.149
-0.167
-0.119
0.105
0.024
0.225
-0.197
0.224
0.155
-0.097
0.146
0.152
0.062
-0.085
-0.248
0.011
-0.106
0.080
0.180
0.059
-0.076
0.075
0.129
-0.058
0.077
-0.033
-0.149
-0.166
-0.151
-0.151
-0.040
0.084
0.074
0.209
-0.173
0.208
0.175
-0.125
0.221
0.197
-0.041
-0.150
-0.157
0.143
-0.030
0.214
0.260
0.052
0.073
0.233
0.167
WISherbQ
SHRUBallDENtot
-0.096
0.054
0.124
-0.129
-0.043
-0.136
-0.170
-0.119
-0.024
-0.101
0.069
0.187
0.069
0.059
-0.053
0.032
-0.232
-0.039
0.223
0.283
0.014
0.048
0.075
-0.046
0.252
0.239
0.008
-0.133
TREEtotBA
RICHq
0.151
-0.189
0.054
0.113
0.013
0.093
0.164
0.184
-0.088
-0.054
0.049
-0.114
0.048
-0.043
0.099
-0.053
-0.010
-0.008
-0.023
0.018
0.150
0.023
0.039
-0.053
-0.085
0.020
0.165
0.065
TREEsapDEN
PATCHWIDTH
-0.178
0.114
0.198
-0.429
-0.434
-0.386
-0.394
-0.280
0.315
0.172
0.353
-0.165
0.351
0.340
-0.374
0.368
0.158
0.014
-0.204
-0.168
0.056
-0.105
0.285
0.392
0.101
0.180
0.210
0.044
TREEalIDEN
NATIVEq
-0.212
0.203
0.076
-0.527
-0.450
-0.471
-0.507
-0.466
0.359
0.312
0.266
-0.013
0.264
0.304
-0.353
0.297
-0.030
0.090
-0.051
-0.068
-0.125
-0.143
0.236
0.265
0.205
0.206
-0.022
-0.039
TOTALcovQ
LAYERSq
0.013
0.005
-0.046
-0.058
-0.066
-0.074
-0.061
0.035
0.064
0.024
0.196
-0.360
0.196
0.069
0.038
0.079
0.197
0.033
-0.299
-0.223
0.071
-0.068
-0.018
0.139
-0.258
-0.090
0.103
0.051
SHRUBsapDEN
HERBcovQ
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% Coarse Fragments
% Fine Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
% Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
pH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
HERBcovAltmcn
Table 64. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone. Shaded
values are statistically significant to the 0.05 level._____________________________________________________________
-0.035
0.013
0.061
0.068
0.074
0.090
0.049
0.004
-0.096
-0.175
-0.187
0.375
-0.187
-0.141
0.019
-0.100
-0.201
-0.052
0.178
0.264
0.151
0.060
-0.107
-0.164
0.074
0.101
0.051
-0.322
Table 65. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded
values are statistically significant to the 0.05 level.
CL
<
§
m
2
W
X
%
%
%
%
Sand
Silt
Clay
Coarse Fragments
% Fine Gravels
% Medium Gravels
% Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
% Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
PH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
0.157
-0.260
0.166
0.039
-0.053
0.133
0.112
-0.122
-0.220
-0.216
-0.111
-0.148
-0.113
-0.122
-0.060
-0.091
0.022
-0.162
0.173
0.065
-0.193
-0.008
-0.121
-0.068
0.161
0.010
-0.179
-0.083
<y
§
CO
Cd
M
I
K
Q
Cd
X
M
>
<
U
-0.149
0.286
-0.238
-0.151
-0.106
-0.187
-0.090
0.006
0.406
0.312
0.369
-0.336
0.374
0.446
-0.119
0.116
0.348
-0.133
-0.513
-0.267
-0.159
0.147
0.071
0.215
-0.519
-0.121
-0.177
-0.180
-0.060
0.010
0.124
-0.321
-0.289
-0.304
-0.247
-0.288
0.078
0.231
0.194
-0.214
0.193
0.086
0.037
0.167
0.097
0.036
0.038
-0.142
-0.161
-0.112
0.131
0.183
0.090
-0.041
-0.131
0.060
gf
>
H
X
Q
GT
U
Z
U
H
<
D-
-0.016
-0.109
0.270
0.033
-0.016
0.044
0.116
-0.125
-0.255
-0.259
0.064
-0.219
0.066
0.066
-0.079
-0.198
-0.150
-0.011
0.173
0.209
-0.411
-0.048
-0.342
-0.217
0.093
0.066
-0.446
-0.066
0.233
-0.304
0.071
0.158
0.080
0.173
0.232
-0.018
-0.278
-0.308
-0.270
-0.012
-0.267
-0.220
-0.003
-0.352
-0.101
-0.102
0.287
0.161
-0.123
-0.122
-0.323
-0.322
0.113
-0.107
-0.189
-0.075
-0.300
0.386
-0.082
-0.212
-0.162
-0.267
-0.121
-0.031
0.304
0.287
0.397
-0.280
0.401
0.430
-0.210
0.000
0.189
-0.209
-0.364
-0.026
-0.232
0.030
-0.023
0.076
-0.435
-0.007
-0.270
-0.072
<
Cd
I
Cd
X
(Z)
-0.122
0.143
-0.002
-0.184
-0.086
-0.151
-0.196
-0.185
0.024
0.060
0.281
-0.053
0.284
0.196
0.032
-0.025
-0.115
0.191
0.136
0.017
-0.205
-0.170
-0.062
-0.071
0.092
-0.019
-0.201
0.090
W
Q
WI
m
D
Cd
X
CZD
-0.353
0.421
-0.026
-0.392
-0.276
-0.348
-0.385
-0.273
0.417
0.228
0.526
-0.418
0.522
0.607
-0.177
0.327
0.057
0.125
-0.257
-0.082
-0.361
-0.209
0.274
0.251
-0.099
0.263
-0.300
0.158
D
Cd
X
CZD
-0.365
0.404
0.040
-0.274
-0.139
-0.246
-0.287
-0.258
0.223
0.169
0.469
-0.312
0.468
0.477
-0.191
0.303
0.012
0.281
-0.215
-0.140
-0.303
0.007
0.102
0.212
-0.029
0.155
-0.230
0.021
a
§
g
Q
<
H
O
H
LU
Cd
H
2
0.089
-0.133
0.065
-0.156
-0.110
-0.166
-0.163
-0.106
0.100
0.237
0.062
-0.079
0.061
-0.093
0.059
0.286
0.125
0.126
-0.001
-0.251
0.065
-0.003
0.246
0.268
0.187
-0.014
0.132
0.233
I
-0.198
0.024
0.434
0.124
0.224
0.135
0.045
-0.086
-0.130
-0.066
-0.067
0.318
-0.060
-0.133
0.309
-0.308
-0.259
-0.055
0.138
0.353
-0.004
-0.190
-0.179
-0.311
-0.081
0.022
-0.108
0.087
W
Q
<
LU
E-
LU
LU
Cd
E-
-0.084
0.051
0.098
0.063
-0.060
0.000
0.176
0.224
-0.001
0.084
0.229
-0.089
0.238
0.175
0.115
0.015
0.018
0.076
-0.021
-0.060
-0.097
-0.115
-0.058
0.022
-0.040
-0.042
-0.093
0.179
-0.209
0.162
0.170
-0.138
-0.157
-0.178
-0.118
0.168
0.098
0.229
0.241
-0.208
0.246
0.130
0.103
0.058
0.111
-0.074
-0.104
-0.076
-0.011
-0.002
0.030
0.079
-0.042
0.008
-0.020
0 089
I
Cd
I
I
CZD
-0.365
0.372
0.109
0.022
0.044
0.065
-0.001
0.082
0.101
0.044
0.243
0.120
0.243
0.248
-0.003
0.062
-0.213
0.277
-0.193
0.128
0.015
-0.084
0.076
-0.045
-0.147
0.206
0.038
0.036
SHRUBalIDENh
SH RUBcovQ
SHRUBsapDEN
0.013
-0.010
-0.021
0.067
0.130
0.052
-0.007
0.044
-0.182
-0.182
-0.037
0.133
-0.047
-0.103
0.004
0.073
0.067
-0.041
0.090
-0.016
-0.051
0.114
0.051
0.130
0.113
0.070
-0.017
-0.078
0.360
-0.337
-0.291
0.208
0.266
0.100
0.190
0.235
-0.337
-0.337
-0.369
0.507
-0.372
-0.269
0.196
-0.377
0.471
-0.488
0.324
0.343
0.084
0.533
-0.368
-0.133
0.129
-0.177
-0.099
-0.148
-0.418
0.407
0.284
-0.335
-0.292
-0.292
-0.320
-0.361
0.252
0.252
0.432
-0.534
0.442
0.411
-0.489
0.423
-0.274
0.414
-0.013
-0.500
-0.298
-0.451
0.334
0.333
0.223
0.012
-0.189
0.353
-0.307
0.236
0.424
-0.316
-0.258
-0.306
-0.310
-0.271
0.439
0.439
0.364
-0.341
0.369
0.335
-0.228
0.158
-0.023
0.222
0.136
-0.460
-0.238
-0.277
0.129
0.219
0.245
-0.273
-0.174
0.140
-0.159
0.157
0.098
-0.124
-0.127
-0.064
-0.150
-0.135
0.238
0.238
0.184
-0.244
0.191
0.084
-0.192
0.064
-0.034
0.117
-0.001
-0.173
-0.313
-0.271
-0.017
0.074
0.047
-0.102
-0.259
0.020
-0.244
0.230
0.193
-0.288
-0.245
-0.251
-0.278
-0.316
0.369
0.369
0.291
-0.379
0.300
0.257
-0.251
0.156
-0.112
0.255
0.011
-0.374
-0.301
-0.334
0.074
0.144
0.114
-0.175
-0.220
0.083
-0.356
0.367
0.170
-0.346
-0.340
-0.271
-0.345
-0.313
0.427
0.427
0.448
-0.374
0.453
0.561
-0.448
0.327
-0.325
0.383
-0.143
-0.347
-0.146
-0.450
0.280
0.189
0.023
0.125
0.034
0.263
0.209
-0.197
-0.164
0.506
0.577
0.405
0.371
0.501
-0.225
-0.225
-0.194
0.277
-0.200
-0.167
0.221
-0.243
0.156
-0.192
0.071
0.163
0.244
0.261
-0.192
-0.209
-0.080
-0.178
0.087
-0.195
-0.143
0.178
-0.037
-0.227
-0.163
-0.232
-0.245
-0.178
0.221
0.221
0.219
-0.119
0.229
0.392
-0.240
-0.006
0.176
-0.067
0.417
-0.184
-0.013
-0.088
0.015
0.127
0.442
-0.169
-0.005
0.413
-0.150
0.164
0.039
-0.220
-0.213
-0.202
-0.177
-0.214
0.221
0.221
0.192
-0.204
0.195
0.181
-0.059
0.129
-0.383
0.353
-0.006
-0.246
-0.033
-0.271
0.137
-0.098
0.070
-0.071
0.045
0.114
WISherbQ
RICHq
-0.419
0.414
0.264
-0.356
-0.310
-0.302
-0.407
-0.249
0.573
0.573
0.519
-0.506
0.523
0.495
-0.461
0.295
-0.346
0.449
0.006
-0.483
-0.263
-0.534
0.234
0.140
0.172
-0.089
-0.109
0.301
TREEtotBA
PATCHWIDTH
-0.487
0.527
0.149
-0.435
-0.377
-0.418
-0.391
-0.399
0.368
0.368
0.574
-0.494
0.582
0.578
-0.454
0.443
-0.158
0.355
0.229
-0.579
-0.352
-0.448
0.387
0.460
0.495
-0.039
-0.196
0.461
<
TREEsapDEN
NATIVEq
0.504
-0.509
-0.278
0.303
0.349
0.244
0.202
0.330
-0.318
-0.318
-0.387
0.706
-0.392
-0.361
0.358
-0.470
0.462
-0.491
0.240
0.399
-0.030
0.510
-0.511
-0.278
-0.043
-0.264
-0.252
-0.221
?
TREEaIlDEN
LAYERSq
Sand
Silt
Clay
Coarse Fragments
Fine Gravels
Medium Gravels
%Coarse Gravels
% Cobbles
Depth to Gravels
A Depth
% Organic Matter
A Temperature
%Carbon
% Nitrogen
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
Ca (%CEC)
H (%CEC)
K (%CEC)
Mg (%CEC)
Na (%CEC)
pH
Electrical Conductivity
Ca ppm
K ppm
Mg ppm
Na ppm
P ppm
HERBcovQ
%
%
%
%
%
%
HERBcovAIc
Table 66. Pearson moment correlations between vegetation and soil variables for Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values
are statistically significant to the 0.05 level._____________________________________________________________________
-0.049
0.067
-0.031
0.077
0.064
0.048
0.078
0.143
0.168
0.168
0.102
-0.282
0.094
0.028
-0.163
0.116
-0.114
0.133
0.130
-0.163
0.007
-0.139
0.105
0.070
0.204
-0.005
0.073
0.196
130
WIDTH
SLOPE
-0.279
-0.297
0.183
-0.335
-0.144
0.126
-0.117
0.178
0.149
-0.220
% Silt
0.196
0.250
-0.156
0.258
0.157
-0.080
0.078
-0.120
-0.081
0.131
% Clay
0.270
0.186
-0.111
0.269
0.006
-0.142
0.122
-0.183
-0.199
0.266
%Coarse Fragments
-0.249
-0.225
0.211
-0.369
-0.057
0.185
-0.065
0.231
0.132
-0.158
% Fine Gravels
-0.227
-0.146
0.198
-0.255
0.018
0.092
-0.104
0.125
0.060
-0.074
% Medium Gravels
-0.222
-0.224
0.183
-0.350
-0.073
0.174
-0.047
0.220
0.112
-0.135
% Coarse Gravels
-0.233
-0.241
0.185
-0.372
-0.076
-0.058
0.233
0.165
-0.176
% Cobbles
-0.191
-0.208
0.176
-0.378
0.179
f ■■
-0.115
0.288
0.025
0.303
0.148
-0.228
Depth to Gravels
0.367
0.112
-0.385
0.300
0.154
0.073
0.341
-0.029
-0.065
0.017
A Depth
0.157
0.038
-0.263
0.106
0.042
0.059
0.119
0.019
0.047
-0.094
% Organic Matter
0.232
0.262
-0.250
0.323
0.070
-0.022
0.162
-0.095
0.021
0.028
A Temperature
0.216
0.183
-0.169
0,179
0.028
-0.194
0.013
-0.197
-0.346
0.490
% Carbon
0.232
0.262
-0.250
0.325
0.071
-0.023
0.164
-0.096
0.021
0.027
% Nitrogen
0.342
0.281
-0.408
0.353
0.048
-0.043
0.178
-0.120
-0.077
0.101
-0.248
-0.182
0.275
-0.225
-0.022
0 086
-0.072
0.131
0.166
-0.233
Cation Exchange Capacity
0.521
0.236
-0.518
0.384
0.203
-0.008
0.286
-0.095
-0.103
0.126
Ca (%CEC)
0.215
-0.220
-0.412
-0.095
-0.001
0.357
0.242
0.336
0.264
-0.282
H (%CEC)
-0.321
0.016
0.264
0.065
0.129
-0.179
-0.225
-0.161
0.055
-0.152
K (%CEC)
-0.043
0.071
0.018
0.041
-0.046
-0.103
-0.029
-0.086
-0.139
0.180
Mg (%CEC)
0.192
0.235
0.113
0.031
-0.153
-0.164
0.028
-0.168
-0.359
0.501
Na (%CEC)
-0.034
-0.194
0.175| -0.241
-0.200
0.106
-0.029
0.143
-0.001
0.039
pH
0.278
0.029
-0.210
-0,119
-0.126
0.124
0.108
0.125
-0.101
0.176
Electrical Conductivity
0.609
0.263
-0.597
0.396
0.226
-0.047
0.284
-0.121
-0.175
0.240
Ca ppm
0.559
0.138
-0.623
0.325
0.187
0.108
0.351
0.023
-0.009
0.019
K ppm
0.356
0.270
-0.410
0.336
0.122
-0.092
0.147
-0.133
-0.173
0.296
Mg ppm
0.559
0.387
-0.308
0.334
0.016
-0.128
0.251
-0.204
-0.346
0.487
Na ppm
0.125
-0.117
-0.005
-0.088
-0.126
0.113
0.059
0.120
0.009
0.036
P ppm
-0.251
-0.092
-0.049
-0.070
0.107
0.129
-0.154
0.182
0.381
-0.294
<
m
% Sand
C: N
INUN
SHEAR
POWER
ELEVTh
Elevatio
n
DISTTh
Table 67. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil variables for
Tom Miner Basin at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the
0.05 level.
Cd
131
Elevation
ELEVTh
INUN
SHEAR
SLOPE
WIDTH
0.311
0.187
-0.248
-0.007
-0.203
0.073
0.042
0.071
0.083
0.199
% Silt
-0.357
-0.186
0.453
0.001
0.246
-0.086
0.065
-0.120
-0.252
-0.224
% Clay
-0.006
-0.063
-0.348
0.016
-0.021
0.001
-0.240
0.080
0.331
-0.013
% Coarse Fragments
0.104
-0.052
-0.021
-0.189
-0.277
0.072
-0.131
0.172
0.114
0.058
% Fine Gravels
0.051
-0.041
-0.067
-0.134
-0.148
0.098
-0.119
0.208
0.196
-0.003
% Medium Gravels
0.140
0.027
-0.121
-0.130
-0.249
0.034
-0.164
0.141
0.153
0.121
% Coarse Gravels
0.148
-0.005
0.036
-0.159
-0.314
-0.071
-0.181
0.022
0.004
0.125
% Cobbles
0.007
-0.214
0.187
-0.159
-0.159
-0.035
0.031
-0.003
-0.092
-0.083
Depth to Gravels
-0.181
0.116
0.242
0.351
0.516
-0.206
0.246
-0.297
-0.272
-0.184
A Depth
-0.125
0.060
0.098
0.286
0.467
-0.126
0.276
-0.229
-0.202
-0.139
% Organic Matter
-0.234
-0.154
0.384
0.037
0.051
-0.233
0.041
-0.295
-0.254
-0.196
0.102
-0.103
-0.465
0.084
0.100
-0.015
-0.085
0.107
0.424
-0.062
% Carbon
-0.236
-0.156
0.384
0.037
0.051
-0.235
0.038
-0.296
-0.252
-0.195
% Nitrogen
-0.241
-0.103
0.512
0.020
0.023
-0.284
-0.016
-0.329
-0.349
-0.173
C: N
-0.015
-0.076
-0.262
-0.061
0.057
0.253
0.148
0.257
0.206
-0.051
0.110
0.323
-0.040
-0.085
-0.062
0.324
-0.147
-0.266
-0.216
CO
% Sand
A Temperature
POWER
<
DISTTh
Table 68. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil variables for
Soda Butte Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the
0.05 level.
Cation Exchange Capacity
0.043
Ca (%CEC)
0.345
0.041
0.325
0.155
0.018
-0.182
0.176
-0.203
-0.430
0.081
H (%CEC)
-0.232
-0.118
-0.033
-0.034
0.140
0.090
0.070
0.034
0.134
-0.136
K (%CEC)
-0.016
-0.044
-0.517
-0.126
-0.124
0.285
-0.239
0.314
0.565
0.072
Mg (%CEC)
-0.314
0.035
-0.300
-0.175
-0.116
0.123
-0.263
0.182
0.385
-0.032
Na (%CEC)
0.207
-0.044
-0.181
0.183
0.249
0.099
0.317
0.102
-0.080
0.034
pH
0.330
-0.028
0.230
0.071
0.013
-0.255
0.009
-0.159
-0.189
0.007
Electrical Conductivity
0.074
0.001
0.192
0.071
0.011
-0.061
0.305
-0.135
-0.281
-0.103
Ca ppm
0.172
-0.078
0.343
0.031
-0.068
-0.116
0.334
-0.187
-0.358
-0.139
K ppm
-0.025
-0.190
-0.264
-0.236
-0.253
0.340
-0.121
0.317
0.461
-0.053
Mg ppm
-0.284
-0.016
0.060
-0.204
-0.164
0.040
-0.044
0.022
0.118
-0.205
Na ppm
0.226
-0.093
-0.107
0.136
0.143
0.085
0.381
0.068
-0.135
-0.007
P ppm
-0.449
-0.243
0.001
-0.339
-0.143
0.442
0.118
0.336
0.261
-0.262
-
132
SHEAR
SLOPE
0.040
-0.219
0.025
-0.061
-0.105
0.176
-0.094
-0.349
0.063
% Silt
-0.230
-0.041
0.201
-0.036
0.029
0.137
-0.222
0.131
0.346
-0.021
% Clay
-0.086
-0.021
0.191
0.022
0.148
-0.048
0.052
-0.071
0.217
-0.181
0.210
-0.059
-0.131
0.134
-0.043
-0.167
0.081
-0.135
-0.392
0.131
% Fine Gravels
0.350
-0.012
-0.308
0.319
0.039
-0.175
0.169
-0.167
-0.324
0.198
% Medium Gravels
0.138
-0.088
-0.019
0.070
-0.082
-0.134
0.062
- 0 . 1 11
-0.377
0.071
% Coarse Gravels
0.057
-0.085
0.023
-0.088
-0.084
-0.124
-0.013
-0.061
-0.372
0.037
% Cobbles
0.198
0.006
-0.202
0.181
-0.035
-0.209
0.018
-0.172
-0.362
0.228
Depth to Gravels
-0.060
0.099
0.153
-0.054
-0.066
0.173
0.094
0.106
0.327
-0.095
A Depth
-0.060
0.099
0.153
-0.054
-0.066
0.173
0.094
0.106
0.327
-0.095
% Organic Matter
-0.181
-0.005
0.298
0 .0 0 0
0.062
0.032
-0.117
0.004
0.145
-0.059
0.522
0.244
-0.573
0.187
-0.049
-0.071
0.189
-0.084
-0.277
0.388
% Carbon
-0.184
-0.010
0.300
0 .0 0 0
0.060
0.032
-0.115
0.003
0.145
-0.065
% Nitrogen
-0.041
0.118
0.094
0.119
0.076
0.039
-0.086
-0.010
0.169
0.101
0.122
-0.225
-0.047
-0.026
-0.043
0.061
0.169
0.090
-0.157
-0.106
-0.328
-0.112
0.356
-0.213
-0.060
0.181
-0.189
0.200
0.260
-0.181
Ca (%CEC)
0.275
0.275
-0.384
0.371
0.2711 -0.385
-0.001
-0.383
-0.432
0.342
H (%CEC)
-0.306
-0.235
0.446
-0.310
-0.198
0.301
-0.021
0.292
0.339
-0.322
K (%CEC)
0.262
0.322
-0.242
0.313
0.196
-0.424
-0.209
-0.356
-0.368
0.492
Mg (%CEC)
0.250
0.095
-0.380
0.126
0.038
-0.074
0.105
-0.079
-0.109
0.141
Na (%CEC)
-0.107
-0.262
-0.174
-0.219
-0.177
0.322
-0.077
0.391
0.318
-0.094
0.358
0.117
-0.546
0.181
0.084
-0.106
0.173
-0.095
-0.206
0.199
Electrical Conductivity
-0.361
-0.174
0.322
-0.278
-0.112
0.294
-0.242
0.342
0.387
-0.190
Ca ppm
-0.222
0.067
0.179
0 .0 0 0
0.127
-0.057
-0.250
-0.032
0.025
0.021
K ppm
0.085
0.285
-0.057
0.217
0.174
-0.347
-0.340
-0.262
-0.219
0.421
Mg ppm
-0.218
-0.056
0.073
-0.157
-0.042
0.205
-0.173
0.225
0.324
-0.114
Na ppm
-0.241
-0.280
-0.030
-0.301
-0.191
0.414
-0.147
0.488
0.461
-0.184
P ppm
-0.168
0.101
0.085
0.166
0.184
-0.189
-0.304
-0.172
0.041
0.148
% Sand
% Coarse Fragments
A Temperature
C: N
Cation Exchange Capacity
PH
Pd
WIDTH
POWER
0.218
<
CQ
DISTTh
INUN
ELEVTh
Elevation
Table 69. Pearson moment correlations between hydrogeomorphic and soil variables for
Cache Creek at the 100-yr zone. Shaded values are statistically significant to the 0.05
level.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY -
762 10382377 7