Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />OIH 57' <br /> <br />- Direct gradient analYsis <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The result (Table 1) that the major gradient or first <br />principal component in the vegetation is highly re- <br />lated to snow duration was further investigated by <br />plotting the response of vegetational parameters <br />directly on a snow duration gradient. Figure 1 <br />illustrates how some species. frequency values re- <br />spond to snow duration. For example, Achillea <br />lanulosa in Figure l(a), FraRsria vir~iniana in <br />Figure l(b) and Svmphorlcarpcs oreophilus in Figure <br />1 (d) all show decreases in frequency as snow lies <br />later. Vaccinium spp. and Polemonium pulcherrimum in <br />Figure l(b) increase in frequency with increased snow <br />duration. Some species, such as Geranium richardsonii <br />in Figure lea), show maximum frequencies somewhere <br />between the extremes of snow duration. Other species <br />with this latter behavior were included in Table 1. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Species which show maximum frequencies at intermediate <br />positions along the snow duration gradient may have <br />very little of their variance accounted for by the peA <br />analysis in Table 1. The analysis assumes a statisti- <br />cal model that may not fit the response of every <br />species to the major gradients. This is not to say, <br />necessarily, that the species is not responding to <br />factors determining the major gradients in the vegeta- <br />tionj the species may be responding in a manner not <br />accounted for by the analytical model. The ecological <br />significance of the analysis should not be judged <br />wholly on the basis of correlation to the assumed <br />model. In this instance, however, an important envi- <br />ronmental parameter has been found" over which many <br />species do seem to respond. With many more stands <br />with snow duration data, deterministic models might be <br />derived that could predict species behavior with <br />statistical certainty. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />If the understory species are related to the snow <br />duration gradient, the question of how the tree <br />species behave with respect to snow duration naturally <br />arises. Figure 2 shows the response of the densities <br />of important tree species to snow duration. At sites <br />where snow is clear very early, aspen is the only <br />species present. As the snow lies later spruce and <br />fir begin to make up a larger part of the stems <br />present, and the number of aspen stems decreases. As <br />snow lies even later fir becomes the most dense <br />species. Finally, as snow continues to persist, <br />spruce becomes the most dense species and aspen is no <br />longer present. At the latest dates of snow duration <br />provided for in the data, fir becomes a minor compo- <br />nent of the dominant vegetation and spruce reaches its <br />maximum densities. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Figure 3 shows the relationship of important tree <br />seedling densities to snow duration. Aspen seedling <br />densities reach their highest values in those stands <br />where snow clears early. Aspen seedling densities <br />decrease as snow lies late while densities of spruce <br />and fir increase, fir with the higher densities. As <br />snow lies very late, seedling densities of all species <br />decrease considerably, the density of fir falling <br />below that of spruce. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In addition to the 57 subalpine stands, 4 stands were <br />selected that occur near timberline on Lime Mesa. <br />These stands are beyond the extent of aerial photo <br />coverage and no quantitative estimate can be made for <br />their position along a snow duration gradient. In <br />general subalpine fir is not present in these timber- <br />line stands. Here Eng1emann spruce forms stands in <br />ribbons and patches, associated with rock outcrops, <br />topography, and apparent prevailing weather influ- <br />ences. The parent material is limestone of the Ouray <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Formation. This limestone is essentially different <br />from the parent material of the remainder of Mission- <br />ary Ridge, which is prtmarily a limestone of the <br />Hermosa Formation (Larsen and Cross, 1956). <br /> <br />The vegetational composition of these timberline <br />stands is vastly different from the subalpine stands. <br />Within each stand, species from subalpine and alpine <br />meadows are found with subalpine forest species. <br />Species diversity is consequently very high, and <br />these stands represent a wide range of species <br />composition. The inability of obtaining snow data <br />for these stands, the difficulty in understory <br />species identification due to a much belated phenol- <br />ogy, and the apparent wide range of composition with- <br />in this structural type forced the investigators, in <br />the interest of time and economy, to concentrate <br />studies on the lower, subalpine stands. Although no <br />snow duration data were available for these stands, <br />personal on-site observation in the 1973 season <br />suggest snowmelt and phenological events several <br />weeks later than sites 300 to 400 meters lower. A <br />discussion is given below of the apparent influence <br />of snow on this vegetation. <br /> <br />4.3. D Discussion <br /> <br />The slow response of communities dominated by 10ng- <br />lived perennials to manipulative experiments pre- <br />cluded its use in studies as short-lived as the <br />present one. Instead, this project was organized as <br />a process study. An understanding of how the envi- <br />ronment is related to community composition and <br />structure was sought and from this the effects of an <br />increased snowfall might then be evaluated. <br /> <br />It was assumed that as the snowfall increased, there <br />would be an increased snowpack resulting in a delayed <br />snowmelt. Concomitant with this longer snow duration <br />at a site would be the following factors: <br /> <br />(1) delayed soil moisture depletion. <br />(2) delayed rise in soil temperatures. <br />(3) lower light levels until site is snow free. <br />(4) increase in and longer duration of physical <br />pressure on vegetation. <br />(5) longer duration of protection of vegetation <br />from extremes of non-snowpack environment. <br />(6) increased susceptability to pathogens <br />(snowmo1ds) . <br /> <br />Each species would, of course, react differently to <br />the above factors; as a result there would be an <br />alteration in community structure. <br /> <br />It was evident from the 1972-73 snowfall that large <br />increases in snowpack can delay snowmelt several <br />weeks. As stated above, the same general pattern of <br />snowmelt was noted in 1973 as in 1971. Such observa- <br />tions were also made in studies cited by Geiger <br />(1971). On page 451, Geiger states: <br /> <br />"The way snow melts in mountain areas is <br />closely related to topography...; that is <br />to say, even if the snow melts at different <br />times in different years, the melting pattern <br />is always the same." <br /> <br />In addition, Geiger cites relevant studies which <br />relate the melting pattern of snow to phenological <br />and vegetational differences. (These references <br />include Friedel, 1952; Kreeb, 1954; Aulitzky, 1958; <br />and Waldmann, 1959). <br /> <br />14 <br />