hofert control site monitoring site establishment and ... · years, 1% of grassland and open forest...

Hofert Control Site Monitoring Site Establishment and Summary Report

January 2007

Submitted to: John Krebs Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

Suite 103-333 Victoria Nelson, BC

V1L 4K3

Submitted by: Hillary Page M.Sc. R.P.Bio Box 2455

Invermere, BC V0A 1K0

Ecosystem Restoration Control Site Monitoring – Site Establishment Report

March 2007 i

Summary

In 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) installed two monitoring sites at the Nature

Trust Hofert Property as part of a multi-year field study designed to monitor the effects of dry forest

ecosystem restoration treatments on overstory and understory vegetation characteristics. In 2006, the

FWCP installed an additional site as a spatial control. The control was established for the purposes of

regional restoration monitoring in the East Kootenay Valley and to more accurately monitor restoration

effects on the Hofert Property. This report summarizes activities associated with establishing and first-year

monitoring of the spatial control (2006).

The control site was established about 25km south of Invermere (IDFdm2/IDFxk). Plots were permanently

located and systematically sampled at each site. Understory and overstory monitoring was conducted

according to general methods outlined in Machmer et al. (2002). Understory sampling (forage production

(kg/ha)) was conducted from September 1 - 15, 2006. Overstory sampling (% crown closure, and tree

density by species, diameter, and decay class in nested fixed radius plots) and forage production

assessments were completed from September 15-30, 2005. The data were entered into EXCEL

spreadsheets for easy import into a relational database. A summary of baseline vegetation conditions is

provided for the control site.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank John Krebs, Larry Ingham and Doug Adama of the Columbia Basin Fish and

Wildlife Compensation Program for initiating and administering this contract. Beth Woodbridge provided

valuable administrative support. Amy Waterhouse (FWCP) prepared the maps included in this report. The

author would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Meredith

Hamstead, Paul Denchuk and Christian Zehnder.


March 2007 ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Study area ....................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Restoration objectives ..................................................................................................................4

2.3 Monitoring methodology..............................................................................................................4

2.3 Data entry.....................................................................................................................................7

2.4 Data summary and analysis ........................................................................................................7

3. Results and observations......................................................................................................9

3.1 Hofert Control Block overstory characteristics...............................................................................9

3.2 Hofert Control Block production..................................................................................................10

4. Recommendations ..............................................................................................................11

5. Literature Cited....................................................................................................................12


March 2007 iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Layer descriptions used for overstory data collection .............................................................. 5 Table 2. Mature stems/hectare at the Hofert Control Block, classified by layer1, as sampled in

2006 ........................................................................................................................................................10 Table 3. Overstory characteristics at the Hofert Control Block as sampled in 2006........................10 Table 4. Summary of pre-treatment understory production (kg/ha) characteristics by

functional/descriptive group at the Hofert Control Block as sampled in 2006. .......................11

List of Figures

Figure 1. Restoration monitoring plot layout at the Hofert Control Block.............................................. 6 Figure 2. Layout of overstory (a) and understory (b) sampling plots adapted from DeLong et al.

(2001)........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Stem diameter distributions for pre-treatment layers 1a, 1, 2 and 3 sampled at the

Hofert Control Block in 2006. ............................................................................................................... 9

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 List of EXCEL raw data files and their descriptions (RW-CD format)...........................14

Appendix 2. Names and descriptions of EXCEL spreadsheets in the “Summary Data” file (RW-CD

format). ....................................................................................................................................................14


January 2007 1

1. Introduction

Conifer encroachment has contributed to the disappearance of grassland ranges and open forests in BC

(Strang and Parminter 1980, Gayton 1997, Bai et al. 2001). Gayton (1997) estimated that over 50 – 60

years, 1% of grassland and open forest is lost annually in NDT4 and dry NDT3 systems of the Rocky

Mountain Trench due to forest ingrowth or encroachment. This is equivalent to an annual loss of 3000 ha

(the loss of grassland is not equivalent across years. The rate of loss is similar to estimates made in other

areas of BC that exhibit similar ecosystem changes (Bai et al. 2001). Extensive forest ingrowth and

encroachment within NDT4 ecosystems of the southern interior of BC has resulted in a loss of wildlife

habitat as well as in decreased timber and forage production (Powell et al. 1998). Forest structure

conversions have partially contributed to increased pressure on a declining land base by both native

ungulates and domestic livestock. Increased use of remaining grassland habitats by ungulates and livestock

may also result in further degradation of plant communities by noxious weeds. Additionally, densely

stocked stands are prone to severe insect outbreaks and to catastrophic crown fires (Powell et al. 1998;

Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000).

Conservation of historic grassland and of NDT4 habitats is of primary concern to the Nature Trust of British

Columbia. The Nature Trust is a non-profit land conservation organization with a mandate to protect BC’s

natural diversity of wildlife, plants and critical habitat through the acquisition and management of

ecologically significant land. In order to fulfill its mandate, the Nature Trust, with several conservation

partners, including the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP), purchased the 4037 ha Hofert

Property in 2003. Located in the East Kootenay Valley, between Fairmont Hot Springs and Invermere, the

property features internationally significant wetlands, forests, extensive grasslands, and hoodoo

formations on the southern perimeter of the property. The Hofert property contains habitat for several red

and blue listed species (e.g. badger, Lewis’s woodpecker) and serves as a vital wildlife corridor.

The vision statement for the Hofert property is, “to maintain, restore and enhance the ecological integrity

of the Hofert property in order to ensure the property’s biodiversity values are maintained in perpetuity.”

(The Nature Trust 2004). In order to maintain biodiversity values, a priority management issue must be the

restoration and enhancement of ecosystems that have been adversely affected by forest ingrowth and

encroachment. Land management agencies (FWCP, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment) as well as

agriculture and conservation stakeholders throughout the East Kootenay Valley have adopted ecosystem

restoration or habitat enhancement programs intended to restore the required ecological processes of fire-

maintained systems in the Rocky Mountain Trench (Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering

Committee 2000). The primary objective of the Trench ecosystem restoration program is to restore 47% of


January 2007 2

Crown NDT4 to open forest or open range condition and maintain open conditions in perpetuity (Rocky

Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2006). This is in addition to restoration

activities conducted on private conservation (e.g. The Nature Trust) and Federal land (Kootenay National

Park). Restoration activities are primarily intended to restore key wildlife winter range, red- and blue-

listed species habitat and increase forage for livestock, thus diminishing the wildlife/livestock conflict

(Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2006). The Trench Restoration Program

is the largest, longest running terrestrial initiative underway in the Province of BC (Machmer et al. 2002).

An integral component of a restoration plan is a detailed and thorough monitoring plan. Long-term

monitoring of vegetation, of a particular species of interest, or of a key physical parameter is the only

way to determine the success of a restoration effort (Gayton 2001b). Monitoring must focus on the

recovery of vegetation structure, species diversity and on ecosystem processes to ensure that the ecosystem

will persist in a stable state into the future (Ruiz-Jean and Aide 2005). The desired goal(s) should be

identified to provide markers by which success will be measured. Monitoring will aid in the development of

future plans, plans that contain an understanding of the ecological processes that link overstory

management to understory dynamics and diversity (Naumberg and DeWald 1999). The Nature Trust has

two such permanent monitoring installations located in active restoration units.

However, in addition to ecosystem changes imposed by restoration treatments, there are at least three

kinds of changes intrinsic to natural systems (Noon 2003): stochastic variation, successional trends and cyclic

variation (e.g., climate). One goal of EM must be to discriminate between change driven by restoration

prescriptions and change driven by the ecosystem (e.g., drought, succession). One factor that will vastly

improve the ability to detect ecosystem changes is the installation of spatial controls. Spatial controls

provide a mechanism to filter out the effects of expected intrinsic change or of cyclic change from the

effects of the restoration prescription itself (Noon 2003). Given the limited amount of resources available

for restoration implementation and monitoring, it is not logistically or financially desirable to locate control

sites at every monitoring installation. Thus, location of controls should be considered carefully and

positioned strategically to ensure that information collected from these areas serves as a useful comparison

to untreated areas.

The establishment of a control area on the Nature Trust property will serve as a regional control for similar

sites located in the Interior Douglas fir biogeoclimatic subzone. More specifically, the control will serve to

assess the impacts of ecosystem restoration on the Nature Trust property through filtering extrinsic factors

such as climate and weather. If control sites are assessed using the same protocols in the East Kootenay

Trench Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (EMP) (Machmer et al. 2002), results from monitoring installations can

be compared for differences in monitoring indicators.


January 2007 3

This project is in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) from the FWCP. Specific objectives of the

project were to (1) establish a permanent spatial control site on the Nature Trust Hofert Property, and (2)

collect baseline data on characteristics related to overstory structure and to forest and ecosystem health,

forage production, species diversity, understory species composition and structure using a standardized

EMP methodology (Machmer et al. 2002). Because of the project start date, only production data were

collected for the understory assessments. Further understory assessments of species composition, structure

and diversity are planned for a future date under a separate contract.

2. Methods 2.1 Study area

The 4037 hectare Hofert property near Fairmont Hotsprings was purchased in 2003 by the Nature Trust

of BC and several other conservation partners including the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

(FWCP). The intent of the acquisition was to protect the natural values on the property from increasing

land development and loss of regional biodiversity (Nature Trust 2004). In order to fulfill this mandate, a

management plan was developed in 2004 which identifies issues and priorities for maintenance and

enhancement of natural resource values on the property. A priority management issue is to restore and

enhance ecosystems that have been adversely affected by conifer ingrowth and encroachment due to fire

suppression and past forest management. In 2005, the FWCP developed a restoration stand prescription

for two sites on the Hofert property (e.g. Klafki 2005). Treatment objectives for the units were to reduce

conifer encroachment on open grassland areas and to reduce ingrowth in adjacent open forest stands

(Klafki 2005). The FWCP implemented slashing at one site in the winter of 2005 in order to meet stand

prescription goals. Pre-treatment monitoring was completed in 20005 on both sites slated for restoration

(Page 2005).

This report focuses on the establishment of a control site on the Hofert Property.

(1) Hofert Control Block [located in the central portion of the Nature Trust Hofert Property;

IDFxk(01)/IDFdm2(01-03) Unit 23] (Fig. 1);

The control site is located approximately 25km south of Invermere on the west side of Westside Road (Fig

1). The block is generally characterized by east-facing slopes on the eastern edge and north-south gullies

interspersed throughout the block. The control site is characterized by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var.

latifolia Dougl. ex Loud.) in the northern sections and Douglas fir in the more open, southern part of the

block. The understory is characterized by pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens Buckl.) in mesic, closed areas


January 2007 4

and needlegrasses (Achnatherum sp.) in open Douglas fir dominated areas. There is a significant amount of

bluegrass (Poa sp.) at this site, likely due to a history of sustained livestock grazing on this property.

Soils in these plant communities are particularly susceptible to disturbance due to a prominent cryptogamic

crust that forms a significant portion of ground cover at this site. A cryptogamic crust is an element of

healthy open grasslands at lower elevations. The crust is a layer of lichens, mosses, liverworts and

cyanobacteria that covers the ground between widely spaced bunchgrasses (GCC 2005). The crust forms

a protective cover for the soil, helps retain soil moisture, and prevents weedy species from becoming

established. The crust is highly susceptible to disturbance, particularly mechanical.

Open areas of this site have been used for open range cattle grazing for the past 40 years. Cattle were

excluded from this site in 2003. The control site was first harvested for railway ties in the late 1950’s and

several times after this. This area was subject to a wildfire in 1971.

2.2 Restoration objectives

Objectives are based on those described in Trench EMP (Machmer et al. 2002), with modifications based

on discussions with John Krebs (FWCP). Two restoration objectives outlined in the EMP were chosen for

monitoring purposes at this site:

Restoration Objective 1:

To reduce tree density, increase tree size, and achieve a tree species composition that falls within the

historical range of variability for treated areas (based on aspect, slope, topography, moisture).

Restoration Objective 2:

To maintain or increase forage production in treated areas.

The methods described below (Section 2.3) are described in relation to these objectives.

2.3 Monitoring methodology

Fifteen plots were systematically established, avoiding areas that were heavily disturbed or

unrepresentative of the rest of the block. Plots were established on a north-south gradient at 300m

intervals. Plots were frequently offset to avoid skid trails, roads and steep slopes in the area. Plot locations

were recorded using a GPS, plot locations (UTMs) are provided in Appendix 1.


January 2007 5

Plot centres were permanently marked using 12” (1”diameter) electrical conduit and a 12” galvanized

spike (with washer) in the centre of the conduit. Three 11.28 m transects (Fig. 2b) were established

radiating out from each plot center to form a spoke separated by 120o. The first bearing was randomly

selected, with subsequent bearings determined by adding 120° and 240°, respectively. The second and

third transects followed in a clockwise position (from plot center, facing north) to complete the spoke. All

bearings were recorded and entered into a database (Appendix 1). Four Daubenmire frame locations

were permanently marked on each transect (4 frames/transect = 12 total/plot) using an 8” galvanized

spike and washer. Daubenmire frames were located on the left hand side of the transect at meters 3, 5, 7

and 9. The left hand corner located on the transect was marked with an 8” galvanized spike. Each spike

was flagged and numbered.

Overstory plot layout conformed to methods developed by the BC Forest Service Permanent Sample Plot

procedures (BCMOF 2000) and DeLong et al. (2001), with some modifications, to ensure that large trees

and snags were adequately sampled. Overstory layers were sampled as follows: layer 1 (1.78 m radius),

layer 2, 3 and 4 (3.99 m radius), layer 1 mature (11.28 m radius), and layer 1 dominant/veteran (25 m

radius) (Fig. 1a; Table 1). Tree species, diameter (diameter at breast height in cm), decay class, and

evidence of insects or diseases were recorded for each tree in layers 1, 2 and 3. A tally was made by

species (live/dead) for layer 4. A spherical densiometer was used to measure percent crown closure at

plot center.

Table 1. Layer descriptions used for overstory data collection

Layer number Layer name Layer description 1 dominant/veteran >30 cm dbh 1 mature 12.5 – 30 cm dbh 2 pole 7.5 – 12.49 cm dbh 3 sapling 1.3 m height and < 7.5 cm dbh 4 regeneration < 1.3 m height 4 germinant seedlings < 2 years old


January 2007 6

Figure 1. Restoration monitoring plot layout at the Hofert Control Block


January 2007 7

Fifteen clip plots (1 each per plot) were established to estimate production at each plot. Total annual

forage production was measured in a 0.5 m2 (70.7 cm x 70.7 cm) quadrat, located on the right hand side

of meter one on the first transect, in each of the 15 permanently marked plots per site. Production

quadrats will be rotated among transects in subsequent years to avoid the confounding effects of

destructive sampling. Herbaceous vegetation and current annual growth of shrubs was clipped to ground

level in mid-September, after peak growth was reached. Kinninick (bearberry) [Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.)

Spreng] plants were not clipped, as they are not of direct interest for ecosystem restoration. Clip samples

were separated into bunchgrass, ‘other grass’, forb, weed, sedge (Carex spp.) and stored in paper bags.

They were air-dried and then oven-dried at 70°C for 48 hours to a constant mass, and weighed to the

nearest 0.1 mg.

2.3 Data entry

Raw data were entered into EXCEL spreadsheets (Appendix 1) in a format that permits easy import into

ACCESS or JMP (Sall et al. 2005). Species codes and life-form identifications used were provided by the

Ministry of Forests Research Branch. Raw data file names and descriptions are provided in Appendix 1 of

this document.

2.4 Data summary and analysis

Data were summarized in Excel spreadsheets (Appendix 2) and summary statistics were calculated using

JMP software (Sall et al. 2005). Data were summarized by species and by functional/descriptive group

(e.g., shrubs, forbs, grasses, etc.). Data may require transformation (arcsine or square root) prior to

undertaking inter-year comparisons using ANOVA.


January 2007 8

Figure 2. Layout of overstory (a) and understory (b) sampling plots adapted from DeLong et al. (2001).


January 2007 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

< 2.5cm < 7.5cm < 12.5cm < 17.5cm < 22.5cm < 27.5cm < 32.5cm > 32.5 cm

# of

ste

ms

3. Results and observations 3.1 Hofert Control Block overstory characteristics

Historic harvesting patterns have had a significant impact on overstory structure at this site. Overstory

structure at the control site was largely dominated by mature stems less than 18cm diameter at breast

height (dbh) (Fig. 3). There were scattered lodgepole pine and Douglas fir thickets dominated by sapling

stems. There was lack of a functional veteran layer, with only 2 trees over 30cm dbh found on-site (Fig 3;

Table 2). Stem density averaged 771 sph (stdev=1331) across the site (Table 2). High standard

deviations indicate an uneven distribution of trees on the site.

Figure 3. Stem diameter distributions for pre-treatment layers 1a, 1, 2 and 3 sampled at the Hofert Control Block in 2006.

Stem density in the Hofert control block places the site well above the threshold for open forest status (76

– 400 stems/ha). Stem density is higher than the adjacent treatment site [Hawke Road sampled in 2005

(441 stems/ha; stdev=781); Page 2005], although there is no significant difference due to high standard

deviations.

Overstory species composition is comprised of roughly half Douglas fir and half lodgepole pine (Table 3).


January 2007 10

Table 2. Mature stems/hectare at the Hofert Control Block, classified by layer1, as sampled in 2006

Veterans Mature Pole Sapling Regeneration Seedlings mean stdev mean stdev mean stdev Mean stdev mean stdev mean stdev

<1 2 102 93 213 437 464 1135 133 464 133 516 1 Layers as defined in Table1.

Table 3. Overstory characteristics at the Hofert Control Block as sampled in 2006.

Species composition

% canopycover % Fd % Pl % Juniper mean stdev mean stdev mean stdev Mean stdev

35 27 56 46 43 45 <1 <1 There was little mortality observed in the overstory layer. All dead stems were found in the veteran (100%

mortality) and 15% mortality in the mature layer. It appears that mortality can be attributed solely to

historic forest fires. There were no apparent signs of forest health issues at this site.

3.2 Hofert Control Block production

Greater bunchgrass production relative to pinegrass production indicates that the understory has

historically supported late successional, bunchgrass dominated grasslands (Table 4).

Despite high levels of bunchgrass production, there are relatively high levels of bluegrass production

(Table 4) indicating a history of overutilization by livestock. Although bluegrass (Poa) species provide

forage, they are a common species of overgrazed grasslands (Van Dyne 1964). Bluegrass species are

considered ‘increasers’ which means their abundance increases with grazing as opposed to ‘decreaser’

species that decline in abundance with overutilization (e.g. rough fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass).

Relative to the adjacent treatment site (Page 2005), bunchgrass production is higher (262 kg/ha versus

193 kg/ha) and pinegrass production is lower (149 kg/ha versus 337 kg/ha). Total production levels are

relatively similar (780 kg/ha versus 702 kg/ha). Both sites have the capability to support high forage

values relative to other sites in the Trench.


January 2007 11

Table 4. Summary of pre-treatment understory production (kg/ha) characteristics by functional/descriptive group at the Hofert Control Block as sampled in 2006.

Production (kg/ha) mean stdev Bunchgrass1 262 386 Pinegrass 149 189

Grass2 157 327 Sedge 4 11

Forbs 68 92 Shrubs 59 116 Total 702 417

1 Includes native bunchgrasses considered historically common. 2 Includes any native grass that is not classified as a bunchgrass.

4. Recommendations

Understory species composition data should be collected to complete baseline data collection. Further

assessments of both the overstory and understory should be conducted simultaneously with the Hawke

Road restoration site. Post-treatment (i.e. post-slashing) data should be collected at the Hawke Road site

within the next two years. Data should be collected at the control site in the same year

Data collected at both sites will aid in the isolation of treatment effects on the Nature Trust property. Due

to increasing communication among the different land management agencies in the Rocky Mountain Trench

and an increasing standardization of monitoring methods, the location of a control site by FWCP will

improve effectiveness monitoring data interpretation at the regional Trench scale.


January 2007 12

5. Literature Cited Bai, Y, N. Walsworth, B. Roddan, D.A. Hill and D. Thompson. 2001. Quantifying tree encroachment in

rangelands using image classification and pattern detection. Poster presentation. Society for Range Management 54th Annual Meeting, Kona-Kailua, Hawaii. February 17 – 23, 2001.

Braumandl, T.F. and M.P. Curran. 1992. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the

Nelson Forest Region. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Land Management Handbook Number 20, Victoria, B.C. 311p.

Daigle, P. 1996. Fire in the dry interior of British Columbia. Extension Note 8. B.C. Ministry of Forests

Research Program. Victoria, B.C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational Analysis. Northwest Science 33: 43–64. Delong, D. 2001. Old growth restoration monitoring in the Interior Douglas-fir zone. Terrestrial Ecosystem

Restoration Program Application for Funding, Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Gayton, D. 1997. Preliminary calculation of excess ingrowth and resulting forage impact in the Rocky

Mountain Trench. BC Ministry of Forests, Nelson Region, Mimeo. 5p. Gayton, D (ed and compiler). 2001a. Summaries and Observations from Three-Partnership sponsored

NDT4 Events. Southern Interior Forest Extension Research Partnership. Kamloops, BC. 32p. Gayton, D.V. 2001b. Ground Work: Basic Concepts of Ecological Restoration in British Columbia. Southern

Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, BC SIFERP Series 3. Grasslands Conservation Council. 2006. Introduction to Grasslands.

http://www.bcgrasslands.org/grasslands/introductiontograsslands.htm accessed: November, 2006. Klafki, R. 2005. Wildlife and Habitat Prescription for the Hoodoo-Hofert Property. Management Unit 27.

East Kootenay Region, BC. Prepared for: The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC. 16p. Machmer, M., H.N. Page and C. Steeger. 2002. East Kootenay Trench Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring

Plan. Submitted to: Habitat Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Forest Renewal British Columbia Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration Program. Pandion Ecological Research. Nelson, BC. 50p.

Naumberg, E. and L.A. DeWald. 1999. Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, light

characteristics, and understory graminoid species abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 124: 205 – 215.

Noon, B.R.. 2003. Chapter #2. Conceptual Issues in Monitoring Ecological Resources. In: Monitoring

Ecosystems. Interdisciplinary Ecoregional Initiatives. Eds: D.E. Busch and J.C. Trexler. Island Press. WA, USA. Pp.167-188 pp 27 - 51.

Page, H. 2005. Hoodoo/Hofert Restoration Treatment Monitoring – Site Establishment Report. Submitted

to: John Krebs. The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. 29p. Powell, G.W., D. White, D. Smith, B. Nyberg. 1998. Monitoring Restoration of Fire-Maintained Ecosystems

in the Invermere Forest District. Interim Working Plan. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. Province of British Columbia. 1995. Biodiversity Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of BC Act. Strategic

Planning Regulations. Operational Planning Regulation. BC Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC.


January 2007 13

Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee. 2000. Fire-Maintained Ecosystem

Restoration in the Rocky Mountain Trench. “A Blueprint For Action” 16p. Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee. 2006. Blueprint for Action 2006: Fire-

maintained Ecosystem Restoration in BC's Rocky Mountain Trench. 32p. Ruiz-Jean, M.C. and T.M. Aide. 2005. Vegetation structure, species diversity, and ecosystem processes as

measures of restoration success. Forest Ecology and Management 218:159-173. Sall, J., L. Creighton and A. Lehman. 2005. JMP Start Statistics. Third Ed. A Guide to Statistics and Data

Analysis Using JMP® and JMP IN® Software. SAS Institute Inc. Belmont, CA. USA. Strang, R.M. and J.V. Parminter. 1980. Conifer encroachment on the Chilcotin grasslands of British

Columbia. Forestry Chronicle 56: 13 – 18. The Nature Trust of BC. 2004. Hoodoo/Hofert Property Management Plan. 73 pp. Van Dyne, George M.; Payne, Gene F., compilers. 1964. Grazing responses of western range plants.

Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Department of Animal and Range Sciences. 69 p.


January 2007 14

Appendix 1. List of EXCEL raw data files and their descriptions (RW-CD format).

File/Folder Name Description

FMER_Hofert_raw Includes plot location and ID information, as well as understory species composition raw data (species richness, species canopy cover, flowering culm and weed density).

Appendix 2. Names and descriptions of EXCEL spreadsheets in the “Summary Data” file (RW-CD format).

Spreadsheet Name Description

FMER_Hofert_summary Includes summary tabulations for all overstory characteristics by plot and site.

hofert control site monitoring site establishment and ... · years, 1% of grassland and open forest...

Documents