Plant communities of Northeastern Montana : a first approximation /

Plant and animal resources and ecological condition of the Hanging Woman Basin in Big Horn County, Montana and Sheridan County, Wyoming /

“…For common communities, ranked G4 and lower, we noted their occurrence and made some observations on their position in the landscape and areal extent. It should be noted that no definitive plant association classification has been published for this local and thus the communities inventoried in this study were compared to those described in EcoArt (NatureServe 2002) or the classifications of greatest geographic and ecologic propinquity (DeVelice et al 1995;DeVelice and Lesica 1993;Vanderhorst et al 1998). Sampling sites for communities are depicted in Figure 1.…”

Wildfire succession in plant communities natural to the Alkali Creek vicinity, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

“…Canopy cover values by species, environmental descriptors, and plot location were recorded on a survey form that was subsequently entered into a permanent electronic database. Following data entry, plots were stratified by dominant lifeforms and by burned versus unburned and then run through pertinent vegetation keys (Roberts et al 1979;Mueggler and Stewart 1980;DeVelice et al 1995;Hansen and Hoffman 1988;Hanson et al 1995). Plots were also compared to descriptions of plant associations and community types for this region (references cited above) and to descriptions contained in a national database (ABI, 2001) and then assigned to plant associations or other types of plot assemblages.…”

“…The lack of Juniperus scopulorum in this type may be attributable to past fires killing this species and leaving the Pinus ponderosa overstory; this scenario has been documented by Culwell et al (1991) in the Bull Mountains of central Montana. Similar Associations: Pinus ponderosa / Festuca idahoensis Woodland (CEGL000857) Pinus ponderosa / Stipa comata Woodland (CEGL000879) Pinus ponderosa / Festuca kingii Woodland (CEGL000186) Synonymy: Pinus ponderosa / Agropyron spicatum Habitat Type (Clausnitzer and Zamora 1987, Cooper et al 1987, Daubenmire 1952, Daubenmire 1970, Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968, Hansen and Hoffman 1988, Hoffman and Alexander 1976, Jorgensen 1979, McLean 1970, Pfister et al 1977, Steele et al 1981) Pinus ponderosa / Agropyron spicatum Plant Association (DeVelice et al 1995, Hall 1973, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992, Johnson and Simon 1985, Johnson and Simon 1987 Pinus ponderosa / Agropyron spicatum Type (Culwell et al 1985, Western Technology and Engineering) Pinus ponderosa / Agropyron spicatum Coniferous Forest (Thilenius et al 1995) GRank and Reasons: G4 Comments: This is a very broadly distributed association and consequently evidences considerable variability in structure and the undergrowth composition, especially the forb component. The stands used to document the Pinus ponderosa / Pseudoroegneria spicata Woodland Habitat Type described by Hansen and Hoffman (1988) and Hoffman and Alexander (1976) had very high basal area and densities for a woodland, possibly due to their sampling procedure.…”

Lund easement baseline biological inventory

“…Its graminoid composition renders it only moderately attractive to cattle, and the scarcity of forbs decrease its value as sheep range. High-ranked species: Comments: In their vegetation key to this type, DeVelice et al (1995) allow for the occasional dominance of Bouteloua gracilis and/or Calamovilfa longifolia, in lieu of Hesperostipa comata (= Stipa comata) (which is by far the usual case), to be indicative of the association. The cover of Artemisia cana ranges widely, spanning the values defining shrub herbaceous and shrubland categories.…”