Browsing Journal of Range Management, Volume 53, Number 2 (March 2000) by Authors
A comparison of methods to determine plant successional stagesWinslow, S. R.; Sowell, B. F. (Society for Range Management, 2000-03-01)Twenty-six, 0.04 ha macroplots were sampled on 9 range sites in southwestern Montana to compare successional scores and condition classifications of range condition analysis and United States Forest Service (USFS) Ecodata and Ecopac (Strata) analysis methods. Range condition scores (0-100%) and range condition classes (poor, fair, good, excellent) were derived from the traditional Soil Conservation Service range condition analysis method, with the exception that only major decreaser and increaser graminoids and shrubs were individually clipped and bagged. Ecological status scores (1-100%) and ecological condition classes (low, mid, high, very high) were determined with United States Forest Service Ecodata methods. Range condition score means were greater (p < 0.02) than ecological status score means (48% vs 41%). Standing crop biomass affected differences (p < 0.001) between range condition scores and ecological status scores. Lower producing sites had greater range condition scores than ecological status scores and higher producing sites had greater ecological status scores than range condition scores. Range condition classes and ecological condition classes were not independent (p < 0.02). Differences between the 2 methods were attributable to the use of species composition by weight for the range condition analysis and the use of percent canopy cover by Ecodata methods. Rangeland managers trying to determine successional status should realize that range condition analysis and Ecodata methods produce similar condition classes but different condition scores.