The Botanical Review

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 115–143 | Cite as

The use of vegetation in assessing the productivity of forest lands

  • R. Daubenmire


The basic principles in the use of vegetation types as indicators on forest lands are enumerated and discussed. (1) Vegetation reflects the sum of all the elements of the environment which are important to plants. (2) The species with highest competitive powers are the best indicators. (3) Forests consist of superimposed groups (“unions”) which occur in different combinations ovethe landscape. (4) Each union is sensitive to certain special aspects of environment. (5) Many characters of vegetation have potential significance as ecologic indicators. (6) Types of environment (“habitat types”) are the most basic ecologic units of landscapes.

Examples of the practical value of vegetation indicators for predicting tree grown, appropriate silviculture, susceptibility to insect and fungus attacks, ecotypic variations among plants, hydrologic regimes, and the value of vegetation for wildlife are detailed.

Previous criticisms of the vegetation indicator method are reviewed and evaluated.


Habitat Type Forest Type Botanical Review Forest Land Forest Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Los principios básicos al empleo de tipos de vegetación en el evaluar de terreno forestál están enumerados y descutidos. (1) La vegetación refleja la suma de todos los elementos del medio ambiente que son importantes para las plantas. (2) Las especies con poderes en competencia más altos son las indicadores mejores. (3) Los bosques consisten en grupos (“unions”) sobrepuestos que occuren en combinaciones distintas sobre el paisaje. (4) Cada “union” es sensitiva a unos aspectos especiales del medio ambiente. (5) Muchos carácteres de vegetación tienen significación potencial como indicadores ecológicos. (6) Los tipos de medio ambiente (“habitat types”) son las unidades ecológicas más básicas del paisaje.

Los ejemplos del valor práctico de indicadores vegetales para la predicción de crecimiento de árboles, de silvicultura apropriada, de enfermedades de insectos y hongos, de variaciones raciales entre plantas, de facciones hidrológicas, y del valor de vegetación para el bienestar de animales están detallados.

Criticismos prévios del método de indicadores vegetales son resenados y evaluados.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alexander, R. R., D. Tackle, & W. G. Dahms. 1967. Site indexes for lodgepole pine with corrections for stand density: Methodology. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-29. pp. 18.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. L. 1961. The Selection of Tree Species. An Ecological Basis of Site Classification for Conditions Found in Great Britain and Ireland. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. 2nd ed. pp. 154.Google Scholar
  3. Anon. 1927. The theory of forest types. Indian For.53: 251–260.Google Scholar
  4. Arnborg, T. 1945. (Schedule of the Forest Types of Northern Sweden). Svenska Skogsf. Forlag, Stockholm. pp. 18.Google Scholar
  5. Arnborg, T. 1950. The North Swedish Forest Site Classification. Transl. by Forest Res. Div., Forestry Branch, Ottawa, Can. pp. 18.Google Scholar
  6. Base, S. R. & M. A. Fosberg. 1971. Soil-woodland correlation in northern Idaho. Northw. Sci. 1–6.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, D. E. 1962. Yellow-poplar site index curves. U. S. For. Serv., Southeast For. Exp. Sta. Res. Note 180. pp. 2.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, D. E. 1971. Polymorphic site index curves for white pine in the southern Appalachians. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper SE-80. pp. 8.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, D. E. and K. B. Trousdell. 1973. Site index: accuracy of prediction. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper SE-108. pp. 7.Google Scholar
  10. Becking, R. W. 1956. (The natural Douglas fir forest communities of Washington and Oregon). Allgem. Forst. u. Jagdz.127: 42–46.Google Scholar
  11. Berndt, H. W. and R. D. Gibbons. 1958. Root distribution of some native trees and understory plants growing on three sites within ponderosa pine watersheds in Colorado. U. S. For. Serv. Sta. Paper RM-37. pp. 14.Google Scholar
  12. Bess, H. A., S. H. Spurr, & E. W. Littlefield. 1947. Forest site conditions and the gypsy moth. Harvard For. Bul. 22. pp. 56.Google Scholar
  13. Bornebusch, C. H. 1931. (The floristic types of Danish beechwoods and their practical significance). Forstwiss. Centralb.53: 171–183.Google Scholar
  14. Boyd, R. J. 1969. Some case histories of natural regeneration in the western white pine type. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper INT-63. pp. 24.Google Scholar
  15. Branteseg, A. 1941. (Vegetation types on forest soils and their importance in forest management). Tidsskr. Skogbruk49 (1): 3–11, (2): 45–50.Google Scholar
  16. Brinkman, A. H. 1929. Hepatics and sites: A short study in the ecology of hepatics. Bryol.32: 29–31.Google Scholar
  17. Brinkman, A. H. 1931. Lichens in relation to forest site values. Bryol.34: 66–71.Google Scholar
  18. Brinkman, A. H. 1936. Mosses in relation to Cajander theory of forest types. For. Chron.12: 300–314.Google Scholar
  19. Broadfoot, W. M. 1969. Problems in relating soil to site index for southern hardwoods. For. Sci.15: 354–364.Google Scholar
  20. Bull, H. 1931. The use of polymorphic curves in determining site quality in young red pine plantations. J. Agric. Res.43: 1–28.Google Scholar
  21. Burger, D. 1972. Forest site classification in Canada. Mitt. Verein f. Forstliche Standortskunde u. Forstpflanz.21: 20–35.Google Scholar
  22. Cajander, A. K. 1926. The theory of forest types. Acta For. Fenn. 29. pp. 108.Google Scholar
  23. Cajander, A. K. 1949. Forest types and their significance. Acta For. Fenn. 56. pp. 71.Google Scholar
  24. Callaham, R. Z. 1965. Seed production areas and seed orchards in California. Northeast Forest Tree Improvement Conf.12th: 45–52.Google Scholar
  25. Callaham, R. Z. & A. R. Liddicoet. 1961. Altitudinal variation at 20 years in ponderosa and Jeffrey pines. J. For.59: 814–820.Google Scholar
  26. Canadian Soc. For. Engr. 1946. Reports of research standing committees: Silviculture. For. Chron.22: 73–82.Google Scholar
  27. Carbonnier, C. & C. M. Berntsen. 1971. Definition of forest land and methods of land and site classification. Internat. Union For. Res. Organ., Sec. 25, Report. Stockholm. pp. 56.Google Scholar
  28. Carmean, W. H. 1956. Suggested modifications of the standard Douglas-fir site curves for certain soils in southwestern Washington. For. Sci.2: 242–250.Google Scholar
  29. Carmean, W. H. 1972. Site index curves for upland oaks in the central states. For. Sci.18: 109–120.Google Scholar
  30. Cheney, E. G. 1932. The roots of a Jack pine tree. J. For.30: 929–932.Google Scholar
  31. Coile, T. S. 1938. Forest classification: Classification of forest sites with special reference to ground vegetation. J. For.36: 1062–1066.Google Scholar
  32. Covell, R. R. & D. C. McClurkin. 1967. Site index of loblolly pine on soils in the southeastern coastal plain. J. For.65: 263–264.Google Scholar
  33. Crandall, Dorothy L. 1958. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecol. Mono.28: 337–360.Google Scholar
  34. Curtis, J. T. & R. P. McIntosh. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairieforest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology32: 476–496.Google Scholar
  35. Curtis, R. O. 1964. A stem-analysis approach to site-index curves. For. Sci.10: 241–256.Google Scholar
  36. Czarnowski, M. S. 1964. Productive capacity of locality as a function of soil and climate with particular reference to forest land. La. State Univ. Press, Baton Rouge. pp. 174.Google Scholar
  37. Damman, A. W. H. 1964. Some forest types of central Newfoundland and their relation to environmental factors. For. Sci. Mono. 8. pp. 62.Google Scholar
  38. Daubenmire, R. 1961. Vegetative indicators of rate of height growth of ponderosa pine. For. Sci.7: 24–34.Google Scholar
  39. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Soil moisture in relation to vegetation distribution in the mountains of northern Idaho. Ecology49: 431–438.Google Scholar
  40. Daubenmire, R. 1973. A comparison of approaches to the mapping of forest land for intensive management. For. Chron.49: 87–92.Google Scholar
  41. Daubenmire, R. & J. B. Daubenmire. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 60. pp. 104.Google Scholar
  42. Day, W. R. 1950. The soil conditions which determine wind-throw in forests. Forestry23: 90–95.Google Scholar
  43. Dealy, E. J. 1971. Habitat characteristics of the Silver Lake mule deer range. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper PNW-125. pp. 99.Google Scholar
  44. Deitschman, G. H. 1973. Mapping of habitat types throughout a national forest. U. S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-11. pp. 14.Google Scholar
  45. Della-Bianca, L. & D. F. Olson, Jr. 1961. Soil-site studies in Piedmont hardwood and pine-hardwood upland forests. For. Sci.7: 320–329.Google Scholar
  46. Demounem, R. 1968. (Influence of the forest soil type on the growth of shrubby species of the understory in the Landes of Gascony). Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris 266 D: 1501–1504.Google Scholar
  47. Donahue, R. L. 1940. Forest-site quality studies in the Adirondacks. I. Tree growth as related to soil morphology. N.Y. (Cornell) Agric. Exp. Sta. Mem. 229. pp. 44.Google Scholar
  48. Doolittle, W. T. 1962. Range site measurement and evaluation: Experience in site evaluation methods for timber production. U. S. Dept. Agric. Misc. Publ.940: 64–68.Google Scholar
  49. Ellenberg, H. 1951. (Agricultural site mapping on a plant-conforming basis). Zeitschr. Pflanzenern., Düng. u. Bodenk. Abt. A u.B 53: 204–224.Google Scholar
  50. Ellenberg, H. (ed.) 1967. (Vegetation and soils approaches to forest habitat mapping). Veröff. Geobot. Inst. Eth., Stiftung Rübel, Zurich. 39. pp. 296.Google Scholar
  51. Ellison, L. 1954. Subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau. Ecol. Mono.24: 89–184.Google Scholar
  52. Erdmann, E. H. 1924. (Classification and evaluation of forest soils). Allgemeine Forstund Jagd-Zeitung100: 197–211. (U. S. For. Serv., Div. Silvics Transi. 309).Google Scholar
  53. Fenton, E. W. 1943. Some observations on heart rot in conifers from the ecological point of view. Forestry17: 55–60.Google Scholar
  54. Fenton, E. W. 1947. The transitory character of vegetation maps. Scottish Georgr. Mag.63: 129–130.Google Scholar
  55. Franklin, J. F., C. T. Dyrness, & W. H. Moir. 1970. A reconnaissance method for forest site classification. Shinrin Richi (Tokyo)12: 1–14.Google Scholar
  56. Frothingham, E. H. 1918. Height growth as a key to site. J. For.16: 754–760.Google Scholar
  57. Gagnon, J. D. & J. D. MacArthur. 1959. Ground vegetation as an index of site quality in white spruce plantations. Can. Dept. N. Affairs & Nat. Res., For. Branch, For. Res. Div. Tech. Note 70. pp. 12.Google Scholar
  58. Gaiser, R. N. 1951. Relation between topography, soil characteristics and the site index of white oak. Centr. States For. Exp. Sta. Tech. Paper 121. pp. 12.Google Scholar
  59. Gates, D. H., L. A. Stoddart, & C. W. Cook. 1956. Soil as a factor influencing plant distribution on salt-deserts of Utah. Ecol. Mono.26: 155–175.Google Scholar
  60. Glew, D. R. 1963. The results of stand treatment in the white spruce-alpine fir type of the northern interior of British Columbia. Brit. Col. For. Serv. For. Management Note 1. pp. 27.Google Scholar
  61. Graney, D. L. & H. E. Burkhart. 1973. Polymorphic site index curves for shortleaf pine in the Ouachita Forest Experiment Station. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper SO-85. pp. 14.Google Scholar
  62. Grosenbaugh, L. R. 1960. Quantification and estimation in future forest management. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1959: 117–121.Google Scholar
  63. Guillebaud, W. H. 1930. The afforestation of hill ground in Great Britain with special reference to peat soils. Internat. Congr. For. Exp. Sta. Proc.1929: 490–498.Google Scholar
  64. Hall, I. G. 1961. Some common mosses as indicators in forestry. Forestry34: 25–42.Google Scholar
  65. Hazard, Helen E. 1937. Plant indicators of pure white pine sites in southern New Hampshire. J. For.35: 477–486.Google Scholar
  66. Heiberg, S. O. & D. P. White. 1956. A site evaluation concept. J. For.54: 7–10.Google Scholar
  67. Heimburger, C. C. 1934. Forest-type studies in the Adirondack region. N. Y. (Cornell) Agric. Exp. Sta. Mem. 165. pp. 122.Google Scholar
  68. Heimburger, C. C. 1941. Forest site classification and soil investigation on Lake Edward Forest Experimental Area. Can. Dominion For. Serv. Silv. Res. Note 66. pp. 60.Google Scholar
  69. Heringa, P. K. & R. G. H. Cormack. 1963. Relation of soils and ground cover vegetation in even-aged pine stands of central Alberta. For. Chron.39: 273–278.Google Scholar
  70. Hilitzer, A. 1934. (Finnish forest types). Czech. Acad. Agr. Ann.9: 288–290. (See: U. S. For. Serv., Div. Silvics Transi. #231).Google Scholar
  71. Hills, G. A. & G. Pierpont. 1960. Forest site evaluation in Ontario. Ontario Dept. Lands & For., Res. Branch, Tech. Ser., Res. Rept. 42. pp. 64.Google Scholar
  72. Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey & J. W. Thompson. 1955–1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. 5 vols. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
  73. Hodgkins, E. J. 1960. Forest site classification in the southwest: and evaluation. La. State Univ., Ann. For. Symposium Proc.8: 34–48.Google Scholar
  74. Hodgkins, E. J. 1961. Estimating site index for longleaf pine through quantitative evaluation of associated vegetation. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1960: 28–33.Google Scholar
  75. Holmes, J. R. B. & D. Tackle. 1962. Height growth of lodgepole pine in Montana related to soil and stand factors, Mont. State Univ. School For. Bul. 21. pp. 12.Google Scholar
  76. Hopkins, H. T. & R. L. Donahue. 1939. Forest tree root development as related to soil morphology. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.4: 353.Google Scholar
  77. Illingsworth, K. & J. W. C. Arlidge. 1960. Interim report on some forest site types in lodgepole pine and spruce-alpine fir stands. Brit. Col. For. Serv. Res. Note 35. pp. 44.Google Scholar
  78. Ilvessalo, Y. 1924. The forests of Finland, the forest resources and the condition of the forests. Comm. Inst. Quaest. For. Finl. 9.Google Scholar
  79. Ilvessalo, Y. 1937. (Growth of natural normal stands in central north Finland). Commun. Inst. For. Fenn.24(2). pp. 149.Google Scholar
  80. Ilvessalo, Y. 1954. (The concept of forest land and its quality classification in Finland). Svenska Skogsv. Tidskr.52: 213–216.Google Scholar
  81. Jameson. J. S. 1964. Preliminary yield tables for black spruce, Manitoba-Saskatchewan. Can. Dept. For. Publ. 1064. pp. 32.Google Scholar
  82. Jameson, J. S. 1965. Relation of Jack-pine height growth to site in the mixed wood forest section of Saskatchewan. N. A. For. Soils Conf.2: 299–316.Google Scholar
  83. Johnson, N. E., R. G. Mitchell, & K. H. Wright. 1963. Mortality and damage to Pacific silver fir by the balsam wooly aphid in southwestern Washington. J. For.6: 854–860.Google Scholar
  84. Jones, J. R. 1967. Aspen site index in the Rocky Mountains. J. For.65: 820–821.Google Scholar
  85. Jones, J. R. 1969. Review and comparison of site evaluation methods. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-51. pp. 27.Google Scholar
  86. Jones, J. R. 1971. An experiment in modelling Rocky Mountain forest ecosystems. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-75. pp. 19.Google Scholar
  87. Kabzems, A. 1951. Some principles of forest site-type classification. For. Chron.27: 157–163.Google Scholar
  88. Kalela, E. K. 1950. (On the horizontal roots in pine and spruce stands). Acta For. Fenn.57: 62–68.Google Scholar
  89. Kalninjs, A. I. 1949. (The relationship between wood properties and site conditions). Trud. Inst. Les.4: 98–101.Google Scholar
  90. Kangas, E. 1952. (On the occurrence, infection and harmfulness of the root-rot fungusPolyporus annosus in Finland). Comm. Inst. For. Renn.40: 1–34.Google Scholar
  91. Kirstein, K. 1929. (Latvian forest types). Acta For. Fenn. 34. pp. 20.Google Scholar
  92. Kivenheimo, V. J. 1947. (The root systems of spermatophytes of the ground vegetation of Finnish forests). Annal. Bot. Soc. Zool. Bot. Fenn. Vanamo, Helsinki 22(2). pp. 180.Google Scholar
  93. Klement, O. 1951. (The ecological indicator value of lichens in forestry). Forstarchiv22: 138–140.Google Scholar
  94. Kochenderfer, J. N. 1973. Root distribution under some forest types native to West Virginia. Ecology54: 445–448.Google Scholar
  95. Korstian, C. F. 1917. The indicator significance of native vegetation in the determination of forest sites. Plant World20: 267–287.Google Scholar
  96. Köstler, J. (Transl. by M. L. Anderson) (1949) 1956. Silviculture. Oliver & Boyd, London. pp. 422.Google Scholar
  97. Kujala, V. 1960. Can we find a common platform for the different schools of forest type classification? Silva Fenn.105: 56–59.Google Scholar
  98. Lange, K. D. 1951. Effects of clearcutting understory hardwoods on the growth of a shortleaf-Virginia pine stand. J. For.49: 176–178.Google Scholar
  99. Layser, E. F. 1974. Vegetative classification: Its application to forestry in the northern Rocky Mountains. J. For.72: 354–357.Google Scholar
  100. Leaf, A. L. 1956. Growth of forest plantations on different soils of Finland. For. Sci.2: 121–126.Google Scholar
  101. Lemieux, G. J. 1961. An evaluation of Paterson’s CVP Index in eastern Canada. For. Br. Canada Tech. Note 112. pp. 11.Google Scholar
  102. Linkola, K. 1922. (Toward an understanding of the economically useful communities on the soils of different forest types in Finland). Acta For. Fenn. 22. pp. 67.Google Scholar
  103. Linteau, A. 1955. Forest site classification of the northeastern coniferous section, boreal forest region, Quebec. For. Br. Canada Bul. 118. pp. 78.Google Scholar
  104. Long, H. D. 1953. The site climax as an indicator of site conditions. Pulp & Paper Mag. Canada54: 155, 157.Google Scholar
  105. Lorenz, R. W. & J. N. Spaeth. 1947. The growth of conifers on prairie soil. J. For.45: 253–256.Google Scholar
  106. Lutz, H. J. & R. F. Chandler. 1946. Forest Soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 514.Google Scholar
  107. Lynch, D. W. 1958. Effects of stocking on site measurement and yield of secondgrowth ponderosa pine in the Inland Empire. U. S. For. Serv., Intermtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta. Res. Paper 56. pp. 36.Google Scholar
  108. Mackie, R. J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildl. Mono. 20. pp. 79.Google Scholar
  109. MacLean, C. D. & C. L. Bolsinger. 1973. Estimating productivity on sites with a low stocking capacity. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper PNW-152. pp. 18.Google Scholar
  110. Mader, D. L. 1963. Volume growth measurement-An analysis of function and characteristics in site evaluation. J. For.6: 193–198.Google Scholar
  111. Magyar, P. 1933. (The phytosociological bases for the forestation of sandy areas). Erdeszeti Kiserletek35: 199–227. (U. S. For. Serv. Silvics Transi. 158).Google Scholar
  112. Mason, R. R. & T. C. Tigner. 1972. Forest site relationships within an outbreak of lodgepole pine needle miner in central Oregon. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper PNW-146. pp. 18.Google Scholar
  113. McLean, A. 1969. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced by root systems. J. Range Man.22: 120–122.Google Scholar
  114. McLean, A. 1970. Plant communities of the Similkameen Valley, British Columbia. Ecol. Mono.40: 403–424.Google Scholar
  115. McLean, A., T. M. Lord, & A. J. Green. 1971. Utilization of the major plant communities in the Similkameen Valley, British Columbia. J. Range Man.24: 346–351.Google Scholar
  116. Moir, W. H. 1972. Litter, foliage, branch and stem production in contrasting lodgepole pine habitats of the Colorado Front Range. Res. on Coniferous Forest Ecosystems Symposium, Bellingham, Wash., Proc. pp. 189–198.Google Scholar
  117. Morosov, G. F. 1904. (On stand types and their importance in forestry). Lesnoi Jour.34: 6–25.Google Scholar
  118. Mueller-Dombois, D. 1964. The forest habitat types in southeastern Manitoba and their application to forest management. Can. J. Bot.42: 1417–1444.Google Scholar
  119. Nelson, T. C. & W. R. Beaufait. 1957. Studies in site evaluation for southern hardwoods. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1956: 67–70.Google Scholar
  120. Pagel, H. U. 1970. (Vegetation, site and yield of beech forests in southern Uckermark). Arch. Forstw.19: 43–76.Google Scholar
  121. Parkhurst, D. F. & O. L. Loucks. 1972. Optimal leaf size in relation to environment. J. Ecol.60: 505–538.Google Scholar
  122. Paterson, S. S. 1962. Introduction to phytochorology of Scandinavia. Skogsfor. Inst. Stockholm Medd.50(5): 1–145.Google Scholar
  123. Pessin, I. J. 1939. Root habits of longleaf pine and associated species. Ecology20: 47–57.Google Scholar
  124. Pfister, R. D. 1972. Habitat types and regeneration. Western For. & Cons. Assoc., Portland, Oregon, Proc.63: 120–125.Google Scholar
  125. Pfister, R. D., S. F. Arno, R. C. Presby, & B. L. Kovalchik. 1975. Forest habitat types of Montana. U. S. For. Serv., Intermtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta. (in press).Google Scholar
  126. Phillips, J. J. & M. L. Markley. 1963. Site index of New Jersey sweet gum stands related to soil and water-table characteristics. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper NE-6. pp. 25.Google Scholar
  127. Ralston, C. W. 1964. Evaluation of forest site productivity. Int. Rev. For. Res.1: 171–202.Google Scholar
  128. Ray, R. G. 1941. Site-types and rate of growth, Lake Edward, Canada. Dominion For. Serv. Silv. Res. Note 65. pp. 56.Google Scholar
  129. Rehfeldt, G. E. 1974. Genetic variation of Douglas-fir in the northern Rocky Mountains. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Note INT-184. pp. 6.Google Scholar
  130. Rennie, P. J. 1963. Methods of assessing site capacity. Commw. For. Rev.42: 306–317.Google Scholar
  131. Ritchie, J. C. 1961. Soil and minor vegetation of pine forests in southeast Manitoba. Can. Dept. For. Tech. Note 96. pp. 21.Google Scholar
  132. Robertson, W. M. 1945. The forests of Newfoundland. For. Chron.21: 11–21.Google Scholar
  133. Roe, A. L. 1967. Productivity indicators in western larch forests. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Note INT-59. pp. 4.Google Scholar
  134. Roe, A. L. & G. D. Amman. 1970. The mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper INT-71. pp. 23.Google Scholar
  135. Rowe, J. S. 1953. Forest sites A discussion. For. Chron.29: 278–289.Google Scholar
  136. Rowe, J. S. 1956. Uses of undergrowth plant species in forestry. Ecology37: 461–473.Google Scholar
  137. Sampson, A. W. 1939. Plant indicators-Concept and status. Bot. Rev.5: 155–206.Google Scholar
  138. Schmidt, R. L. 1954. A method of estimating site quality of logged land in the coastal Douglas fir belt of British Columbia. Brit. Col. For. Serv. Res. Note 27. pp. 7.Google Scholar
  139. Schönau, A. P. G. 1973. Height growth and site index curves forAcacia mearnsii in the Uasin Gishu Plateau of Kenya. Commonw. For. Rev.52: 245–253.Google Scholar
  140. Schulz, J. P. 1960. Ecological studies on the rain forest of northern Suriname. Verhand. d Konik. Nederl. Akad. v Wetensch., Afd. Naturk. Tweede Reeks53(1): 1–267.Google Scholar
  141. Scully, N. J. 1942. Root distribution and environment in a maple-oak forest. Bot. Gaz.103: 492–517.Google Scholar
  142. Shea, K. R. 1964. Diameter increment of ponderosa pine infected with dwarf mistletoe in south central Oregon. J. For.62: 743–748.Google Scholar
  143. Shepherd, R. F. 1959. Phytosociological and environmental characteristics of outbreak and non-outbreak areas of the two-year cycle spruce budworm,Choristoneura fumiferana. Ecology40: 608–620.Google Scholar
  144. Shetron, S. G. 1972. Forest site productivity among soil taxonomic units in northern lower Michigan. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.36: 358–363.Google Scholar
  145. Shipman, R. D. 1955. Quantitative distribution: Forest soil microorganisms in a yellow poplar plantation. Am. Midl. Nat.54: 433–442.Google Scholar
  146. Silen, R. R. 1965. Regeneration aspects of the 50-year-old Douglas fir heredity study. West. Refor. Coord. Comm. Proc.1964: 35–39.Google Scholar
  147. Silker, T. H. 1966. Plant indicators convey species range of accommodation and site-silviculture-management relations. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1965: 50–54.Google Scholar
  148. Siren, G. 1955. The development of spruce forest on raw humus sites in northern Finland and its ecology. Acta For. Fenn. 62. pp. 408.Google Scholar
  149. Sisam, J. W. B. 1938a. The correlation of tree species and growth with site-types. Canada For. Br. Silv. Res. Note 33. pp. 20.Google Scholar
  150. Sisam, J. W. B. 1938b. Site as a factor in silviculture,—Its determination with special reference to the use of plant indicators. Dominion For. Serv. Res. Note 54. pp. 88.Google Scholar
  151. Smith, R. B. 1972. Relation of topography and vegetation to occurrence of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe at its northern limits in British Columbia. Ecology53: 729–734.Google Scholar
  152. Smithers, L. A. 1961. Lodgepole pine in Alberta. Can. Dept. For. Bul. 127. pp. 153.Google Scholar
  153. Soc. Amer. For. 1923. Classification of forest sites. J. For.21: 139–147.Google Scholar
  154. Solncev, A. A. 1949. (Effect of site conditions on the physical and mechanical properties of pine wood from Siberia). Trud. Inst. Les.4: 132–140.Google Scholar
  155. Spilsbury, R. H. & D. S. Smith. 1947. Forest site types of the Pacific Northwest. Brit. Col. For. Serv. Tech. Publ. 30. pp. 46.Google Scholar
  156. Spurr, S. H. 1956. Soils in relation to site-index curves. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1955: 80–85.Google Scholar
  157. Spurr, S. H. 1964. Forest Ecology. Ronald Press, Inc., New York. pp. 352.Google Scholar
  158. Stage, A. R. 1963. A mathematical approach to polymorphic site index curves for grand fir. For. Sci.9: 167–180.Google Scholar
  159. Stage, A. R. 1974. Personal correspondence.Google Scholar
  160. Stanley, O. B. 1938. Indicator significance of lesser vegetation in the Yale Forest near Keene, New Hampshire. Ecology19: 188–207.Google Scholar
  161. Stoeckeler, J. H. 1948. The growth of quaking aspen as affected by soil properties and fire. J. For.46: 727–737.Google Scholar
  162. Stoeckeler, J. H. & G. A. Limstrom. 1942. A site classification for reforestation on the national forests of Wisconsin. J. For.40: 308–315.Google Scholar
  163. Sukachev, V. N. & N. V. Dylis. 1968. Fundamentals of forest biogeocenology. (Transl. by J. M. MacLennan). W. A. Benjamin Co., New York. pp. 672.Google Scholar
  164. Swan, J. M. A. & R. L. Dix. 1966. The phytosociological structure of upland forest as Candle Lake, Saskatchewan. J. Ecol.54: 13–40.Google Scholar
  165. Taylor, R. F. 1932. Plant indicators in southeastern Alaska. J. For.30: 746.Google Scholar
  166. Taylor, R. F. 1933. Site prediction in virgin forests of southeastern Alaska. J. For.31: 14–18.Google Scholar
  167. Thelinius, J. F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-91. pp. 28.Google Scholar
  168. Thomas, G. P. 1958. The occurrence of the Indian paint fungus (Echinodontium tinctorium E. & E., in British Columbia. Can. Dept. Agric, For. Biol. Div. Publ. 1041. pp. 30.Google Scholar
  169. Tikka, P. S. 1950. (The character of birch stands in north Finland). Acta For. Fenn. 57. pp. 34.Google Scholar
  170. University of British Columbia Forestry Club. 1959. Forest classification. Pp. 572–616 in Forestry Handbook for British Columbia. 2nd ed. pp. 800.Google Scholar
  171. Ure, J. 1950. The natural vegetation of the Kaingaroa Plains as an indicator of site quality for exotic conifers. N. Z. J. For.6: 112–123.Google Scholar
  172. Valleala, E. 1954. Effect of silvicultural measures on the well-being of game. Suomen Riista9: 111–123.Google Scholar
  173. Vallee, G.& G. L. Lowry. 1970. Forest soil/site studies. II. The use of forest vegetation for evaluating site fertility of black spruce. Woodl. Paper & Pulp Res. Inst. Can. 16. pp. 32.Google Scholar
  174. Van Arsdel, E. P. 1961. Growing white pine in the Lake States to avoid blister rust. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper LS-92.Google Scholar
  175. Van Eck, W. A. & E. P. Whiteside. 1963. Site evaluation studies in red pine plantations in Michigan. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.27: 709–714.Google Scholar
  176. Van Groenewald, H. 1956. A root disease complex in Saskatchewan white spruce. For. Chron.32: 11–13.Google Scholar
  177. Van Groenewald, H. 1965. An analysis and classification of white spruce communities in relation to certain habitat factors. Can. J. Bot.43: 1025–1036.Google Scholar
  178. Vihrov, V. E. 1949. (Macroscopic structure and physical and mechanical wood properties of oak wood in relation to conditions of growth). Trud. Inst. Les.4: 108–131.Google Scholar
  179. Vincent, A. B. 1961. Is height/age a reliable index of site? For. Chron.37: 144–150.Google Scholar
  180. Viro, P. J. 1961. Evolution of site fertility. Unasylva15: 91–97.Google Scholar
  181. Waenink, A. W. 1974. (Ground vegetation as an aid in assessing site suitability forLarix leptolepis). Nederl. Bosbouw Tijds.46: 63–78.Google Scholar
  182. Waring, R. H. & J. Major. 1964. Vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light and temperature. Ecol. Mono.34: 167–215.Google Scholar
  183. Watt, R. F. 1953. Site index changes in western white pine forests. N. Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta. Res. Note 132. pp. 2.Google Scholar
  184. Webb, L. J., J. G. Tracey, W. T. Williams & G. N. Lance. 1967. Studies in the numerical analysis of complex rain-forest communities. I. A comparison of methods applicable to site/species data. J. Ecol.55: 171–191.Google Scholar
  185. Wellner, C. A. 1972. Wildlife and wildlife habitat in ecosystem research. West. Assoc. State Game & Fish Comm., Prof. Ann. Conf.52: 452–465.Google Scholar
  186. Westveld, M. 1951. Vegetation mapping as a guide to better silviculture. Ecology32: 508–517.Google Scholar
  187. Westveld. 1953. Ecology and silviculture of the spruce-fir forests of eastern North America. J. For.51: 422–430.Google Scholar
  188. White, K. L. 1960. Differential range use by mule deer in the spruce-fir zone. Northw. Sci.34: 118–126.Google Scholar
  189. Wiedmann, E. 1934. (The relation of site to growth and successful forest management). Deut. Forschung34: 5–103. (U. S. For. Serv., Div. Silvics Transl. 222).Google Scholar
  190. Williamson, R. L. 1963. Growth and yield records from well-stocked stands of Douglas-fir. U. S. For. Serv. Res. Paper PNW-2. pp. 24.Google Scholar
  191. Wolak, J. 1967. (Theoretical foundations for the classification of forest sites). Sylwan111: 1–16.Google Scholar
  192. Wollum, G. G., II, C. T. Youngberg, & F. Chichester. 1968. Relation of previous timber stand age to nodulation ofCeanothus velutinus. For. Sci.14: 114–118.Google Scholar
  193. Youngberg, C. T. & W. G. Dahms. 1970. Productivity indices for lodgepole pine on pumice soils. J. For.68: 90–94.Google Scholar
  194. Zack, L. W. 1950. A northern climax, forest or muskeg. Ecology31: 304–307.Google Scholar
  195. Zahner, R. 1962. Loblolly pine site curves by soil groups. For. Sci.8: 104–110.Google Scholar
  196. Zinke, P. J. 1959. Forest site quality as related to soil nitrogen content. Internat. Congr. Soil Sci. 7th3: 411–418.Google Scholar
  197. Zon, R. 1906. Principles involved in determining forest types. Soc. Am. For. Proc.1: 179–189.Google Scholar
  198. Zon, R. 1913. Quality classes and forest types. Soc. Am. For. Proc.8: 100–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Daubenmire
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyWashington State UniversityPullman

Personalised recommendations