MOUNT RAINIER The Forest Communities of Mount Rainier National Park

Cover

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Physical Setting

Climate
Geology
Topography
Soils

Chapter 3. Biological Features

Vegetation
Disturbances to Vegetation

Chapter 4. Methods

Field Sampling
Data Analysis
Terminology and Nomenclature

Chapter 5. Forest Classification

Moist Forest Ecosystems
   Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla Association
   Tsuga heterophylla/Polystichum munitum Association
   Tsuga heterophylla/Oplopanax horridum Association
   Alnus rubra/Rubus spectabilis Community Type
   Abies amabilis/Oplopanax horridum Association
   Abies amabilis/Tiarella unifoliata Association
Modal Forest Ecosystems
   Abies amabilis/Vaccinium alaskaense Association
      Vaccinium alaskaense Phase
      Berberis nervosa Phase
      Rubus pedatus Phase
      Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Phase
      General Relationships of Type
Dry Forest Ecosystems
   Tsuga heterophylla/Gaultheria shallon Association
   Pseudotsuga menziesii/Ceanothus velutinus Community Type
   Pseudotsuga menziesii/Xerophyllum tenax Community Type
   Pseudotsuga menziesii/Viola sempervirens Community Type
   Abies amabilis/Gaultheria shallon Association
   Abies amabilis/Berberis nervosa Association
   Abies amabilis/Xerophyllum tenax Association
Cold Forest Ecosystems
   Abies amabilis/Rubus lasiococcus Association
      Erythronium montanum Phase
      Rubus lasiococcus Phase
   Abies lasiocarpa/Valeriana sitchensis Community Type
   Abies amabilis/Menziesia ferruginea Association
   Chamaecyparis nootkatensis/Vaccinium ovalifolium Association
   Abies amabilis/Rhododendron albiflorum Association
Other Forest Communities
   Pseudotsuga menziesii/Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Association

Chapter 6. Environmental and Floristic Relationships

Topographic-Elevational Patterns
Classification Insights from Similarity, Discriminant, and Principal Component Analysis
   Similarity Analysis
   Discriminant Analysis
   Principal Component Analysis

Chapter 7. Forest Dynamics

Large-Scale Disturbances
Successional Sequences
Tree Mortality and Small-Scale Disturbances

Chapter 8. Management Interpretations of the Habitat Types

Physical Conditions
Biological Conditions
Potential for Disturbances
Development Potential

Literature Cited

Appendix A. Key to Typical Forest Types of Mount Rainier National Park

Appendix B. Synopses of the Forest Types of Mount Rainier National Park

Index (omitted from online edition)

Plate 1. Map showing distribution of habitat types in Mount Rainier National Park.

Plate 2. Map showing distribution of forest age classes in Mount Rainier National Park.

Frontispiece. Mosaic of forest stands of varying age and composition on Sunrise Ridge, Mount Rainier National Park.

Figure 1. Outline of Mount Rainier National Park showing major features and subdrainages.

Figure 2. Temperature and precipitation regimes in Mount Rainier National Park: A, mean monthly temperatures from Paradise station (x) at 1665 m (5,550 ft) and Longmire station (&bul;) at 829 m (2,762 ft); B, mean monthly precipitation from Paradise station (x, 31-39 years of record, 1665 m or 5,550 ft elevation), Longmire (&bul;, 48-50 years of record, 829 m or 2,762 ft elevation), Ohanapecosh (—, 24-28 years of record, 577 m or 1,925 ft elevation), Carbon River (c, 21-22 years of record, 608 m or 2,026 ft elevation), and Parkway (Δ, 13-17 years of record, 945 m or 3,150 ft elevation). (Adapted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1965.)

Figure 3. Mudflows have periodically destroyed forests in some of the major river valleys. Kautz Creek mudflow, pictured here in 1978, occurred in October of 1947 and killed most of the trees by burying their root systems.

Figure 4. Forests typically occupy rugged mountain slopes and ridgetops in Mount Rainier National Park. A portion of the White River valley.

Figure 5. Many of the soils in Mount Rainier National Park are formed in pyroclastic materials such as the conspicuous tephra W, the whitish deposit, underlain by coarse-textured lapilli of the tephra C.

Figure 6. Parkland mosaics of tree stringers and patches and subalpine meadows extend about 300 m (1,000 ft) above forest line with permanent snowfields, rock, and barren ground common above the parkland. Headwaters of Nickel Creek.

Figure 7. This massive 1,000-year-old Douglas-fir grows in a stand of the Abies amabilis/Vaccinium alaskaense habitat type along the upper Ohanapecosh River.

Figure 8. Forest reestablishment is typically slow on harsh sites and following multiple wildfires; both conditions exist on this site near Louise Lake, which is still only partially forested almost 100 years after it burned (in 1886 or 1887).

Figure 9. Snow avalanches are second only to wildfire as an agent of forest destruction; tracks may be kept clear of forest by annual avalanches or eliminate forests developed on less frequently affected tracks such as this one near Spray Park.

Figure 10. The classification hierarchy (from Henderson and Peter 1981).

Figure 11. Generalized distribution of habitat types in relation to an idealized two-dimensional environmental field. The horizontal axis represents a moisture gradient and the vertical axis a temperature gradient that is correlated to elevation and forest zones. Becanse the moisture span may not be as broad at high elevations as it is at low, the rectangular shape of the environmental field is merely for visual convenience (see Fig. 34 for detailed example). Diagonal boundaries between habitat types suggest general effects of slope; for example, the warm, dry environment of a habitat type may be found at higher elevations on southerly slopes, and cool, wet environment of a habitat type at lower elevations on northerly slopes. Minor forest types are not shown except for localized swamp forests on wettest sites at low and intermediate elevations.

The Tsuga hererophylla/Berberis nervosa and Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus discolor habitat types have not been found within the Park but occur on adjacent forest lands. Abbreviations are defined on the inside front cover.

Figure 12. Mature 250-year-old Pseudotsuga menziesii forest in Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla habitat type; the herbaceous understory is unusually dense in this stand located near the Ohanapecosh Ranger Station.

Figure 13. High densities of large trees are characteristic of mature stands in the Tsuga heterophylla/Polystichum munitum habitat type. Pseudotsuga menziesii and Thuja plicata are visible in this stand along the Chenuis Falls trail.

Figure 14. Luxuriant herbaceous understories are typical of forests comprising the Tsuga heterophylla/Oplopanax horridum habitat type, although substantial shifts in the herb dominants take place within and between stands.

Figure 15. The Alnus rubra/Rubus spectabilis community type is a seral community occurring on the Tsuga heterophylla/Oplopanax horridum and Abies amabilis/Oplopanax horridum habitat types; Alnus rubra dominates the tree layer, and there is a dense shrubby understory which is a favorite habitat for elk. In this stand along Tahoma Creek, Oplopanax horridum is conspicuous in the understory.

Figure 16. This stand in the Abies amabilis/Oplopanax horridum habitat type has a very dense layer of Oplopanax horridum; a well-developed herb layer is also present. Along lower Chinook Creek.

Figure 17. Outstanding examples of Abies procera are common on Abies amabilis/Tiarella unifoliata habitat type.

Figure 18. Mature forests of Abies amabilis, Tsuga heterophylla, and Pseudotsuga menziesii characterize the very widespread Abies amabilis/Vaccinium alaskaense habitat type. This type occupies modal environments, can be considered the climatic climax of the Abies amabilis zone, and is the forest archetype for Mount Rainier National Park.

Figure 19. Tsuga heterophylla reproduction in the Abies amabilis/Vaccinium alaskaense habitat type is essentially confined to rotten logs and other raised seedbeds; this is true in most other associations as well.

Figure 20. Acer circinatum may form a significant tall shrub layer over the uniformly present Gaultheria shallon in the Tsuga hererophylla/Gaultheria shallon habitat type. Near the Ohanapecosh entrance.

Figure 21. The Pseudotsuga menziesii/Ceanothus velutinus community type is found on exposed southerly sites that have reburned several times during recent centuries. A typical area of this community is apparent here in the Shriner Peak burn which last burned in 1934.

Figure 22. Pteridium aquilinum dominates the understory of this 91-year-old Pseudotsuga menziesii/Xerophyllum tenax community on Backbone Ridge. The meter stick is near a charred snag.

Figure 23. Representative stand of the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Viola sempervirens community type; note the rich herbaceous understory, nearly pure Pseudotsuga menziesii stand, and snag of Thuja plicata still persisting 75 years after the last wildfire.

Figure 24. Understory of a stand in the Abies amabilis/Gaultheria shallon habitat type.

Figure 25. Stands in the Abies amabilis/Berberis nervosa habitat type often have few plant species and sparse cover in the understory. This stand is near Crystal Creek.

Figure 26. Xerophyllum tenax and Vaccinium membranaceum dominate the depauperate understories found in Abies amabilis/Xerophyllum tenax stands.

Figure 27. Xerophyllum tenax plants often survive wildfires even though most of the leaves are burned away. Leaves of these plants have resumed growth from surviving meristems buried deep in the clump less than 6 weeks after a wildfire. Headwaters of Deer Creek.

Figure 28. The understory in the Erythronium montanum phase of the Abies amabilis/Rubus lasiococcus is characterized by Erythronium montanum and Vaccinium membranaceum.

Figure 29. Representative stand belonging to the Abies lasiocarpa/Valeriana sitchensis community type; dominants are Abies lasiocarpa and Vaccinium membranaceum in the tree and shrub layers, respectively.

Figure 30. Representative mature stand on Abies amabilis/Menziesia ferruginea habitat type.

Figure 31. Mature stand of Abies amabilis, Tsuga mertensiana, and Chamaecyparis nootkakensis on Abies amabilis/Rhododendron albiflorum habitat type; the dense tangle of tall shrubs is characteristic.

Figure 32. Low stature forest dominated by Pinus contorta and Pseudotsuga menziesii on Pseudotsuga menziesii/Arctostaphylos uva-ursi habitat type along the Nisqually River; such sites are typically low in productivity but with a rich and distinctive ground cover of mosses, lichens, Juniperus communis, and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi.

Figure 33. Lysichitum americanum is indicative of the wettest forested habitats or swamps; here it forms a stand in a seasonally-ponded depression within a forest matrix (Silver Falls loop trail, Ohanapecosh drainage).

Figure 34. Generalized distribution of forest habitat types in the Ohanapecosh drainage. The horizontal axis depicts a generalized topographic moisture gradient from wet river valleys (left) to dry ridgetops (right). The shape of the overall forested area is determined by topographic features within the Ohanapecosh watershed. Numbers between adjoining habitat types are mean similarities (as percents) suggesting the degree of floristic relationship.

Figure 35. Generalized distribution of forest habitat types on northwestern drainages (Carbon, Mowich, Puyallup) of Mount Rainier. The horizontal axis depicts a generalized topographic moisture gradient from wet river valleys (left) to dry ridgetops (right). Numbers between adjoining types suggest the degree of floristic similarity based upon mean percent similarity.

Figure 36. Generalized distribution of the Nisqually drainage of Mount Rainier National Park. The horizontal axis depicts a generalized topographic moisture gradient from wet river valleys (left) to dry ridgetops (right). The shape of the overall forested area is determined by topographic features within the Nisqually watershed. Numbers between adjoining habitat types are mean similarities (as percents) suggesting the degree of floristic relationship.

Figure 37. Generalized distribution of forest habitat types in the drainages of the White River. The horizontal axis depicts a generalized topographic moisture gradient from wet river valleys (left) to dry ridgetops (right). The shape of the overall forested area is determined by topographic features within the White watershed. Numbers between adjoining habitat types are mean similarities (as percents) suggesting the degree of floristic relationship.

Figure 38. Age-class distribution of trees in stands developed following wildfires in the later 1800's in the Cowlitz River drainage, Mount Rainier National Park, Washington (from Hemstrom, 1979).

Figure 39. Superlative specimen trees of Pseudotsuga and Thuja are characteristic of the moist, alluvial and lower slope habitat types.

Table 1. Classification of forests in Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 2. Average basal area by tree species for all forest types, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 3. Average tree density (stems per hectare) for the moist forest types by species and stem-diameter class, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 4. Constancy and characteristic cover of all shrub and herb taxa for the moist forest community types of Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 5. Average tree density (stems per hectare) for the modal forest types by species and stem-diameter class, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 6. Constancy and characteristic cover of all shrub and herb taxa for the modal forest community types of Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 7. Average tree density (stems per hectare) for the dry forest types by species and stem-diameter class, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 8. Constancy and characteristic cover of all shrub and herb taxa for the dry forest community types of Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 9. Average tree density (stems per hectare) for the cold forest types by species and stem-diameter class, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 10. Constancy and characteristic cover of all shrub and herb taxa for the cold forest community types of Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 11. Classes of percent similarity between all forest types in Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 12. Summary of discriminant analysis on forest types in Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 13. Factor loadings of tree and understory variables on the first four components from principal component analysis, 125 cold or high-elevation plots, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 14. Factor loadings of tree and understory variables on the first three components from factor analysis, on 78 streamside or lower slope plots, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 15. Factor loadings of tree and understory variables on the first three components from principal component analysis, 98 plots on mesic slopes and benches at intermediate elevation, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 16. Factor loadings of tree and understory variables on the first four components from principal component analysis, 94 plots on warm or dry sites at low elevations, Mount Rainier National Park.

Table 17. Major fires, their correspondence to periods of drought, and the present and reconstructed original extent of resulting seral forests at Mount Rainier National Park (after Hemstrom and Franklin 1982).

Table 18. Fire frequency (FF) and natural fire rotation (NFR) by habitat type for Mount Rainier National Park (excluding Carbon and Puyallup River drainages) (from Hemstrom 1982).

Table 19. Successional roles for major tree species on habitat types in Mount Rainier National Park; s = minor seral species, S = major seral species, c = minor climax species, and C = major climax species.

Table 20. Management-related features of the various forest habitat types at Mount Rainier National Park.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Forest Communities of Mount Rainier National Park.

(Scientific monograph series; no. 19)
Supt. of Docs. no.: I 29.80:19
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Forest ecology—Washington (State)—Mount Rainier National Park. 2. Mount Rainier National Park (Wash.) I. Franklin, Jerry F. II. Series: National Park Service scientific monograph series; no. 19.
QK192.F66 1988 574.5'2642'0979778
ISBN 0-943475-01-5 (pbk.)

Published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, with support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon

JERRY F. FRANKLIN is Chief Plant Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Analysts, College of Forest Resources AR-10, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. WILLIAM H. MOIR is Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Federal Building, 517 Gold Avenue, S.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. MILES A. HEMSTROM is Area Ecologist, Willamette National Forest, 211 East 7th Street, Eugene, Oregon 97440. SARAH E. GREENE is Research Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 97331. BRADLEY G. SMITH is Research Assistant, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331.

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environment and cultural value of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.