THE PHYTOSCIIIOLOGY (1“ THE UPWD SECOND GROWTH HARDWOODS OF

MISSAUKEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

By

Jack Calkins Elliott
w

A.DISSERTATION
submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology

1952

THESIS

ACIQI ONLEDGEIx-QEN TS

The writer wishes to express deep appreciation and thanks to
Doctor W. B. Drew, Head of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
at Michigan State College, and major professor, at whose suggestion
this study was initiated and under whose guidance and supervision the
project was conducted.

A deep indebtedness is also owed the following: Doctor G. W. Prescott
for his kindling of the original desire to major in the field of botany;
Doctor F. L. Wynd for his continued interest and enthusiasm during the
progress of the study; Doctor George P. Steinbauer for'his helpful sug-
gestions and criticisms during the preparation of this manuscript; the
staff of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology for their help-
fulness and interest throughout the period of study; Professor Eneritus
J. 0. Veatch and Doctor Ivan F. Schneider for their helpful guidance
toward an understanding of soil characteristics; to all former teachers
whose enthusiasms and teachings are directly or indirectly reflected in
this thesis; to my friend and co-worker, Charles W. Reimer, whose
generous donations of time for discussion have aided in crystallizing

marw of the problems encountered during the preparation and writing; to

Mr. Phillip Coleman for suggestions and professional aid in the prepara-

tion of the photographic work; and Doctor Andrew D. Perejda for his sug-
gestions and criticisms during the making of the maps.
The residents of Missaukee County were very helpful and cooperative

during the field work necessary to gather the quantitative data from the

{jif‘rr's'thcg
- \d. r}!
hk‘u/ k_’~ \X' -

II.
quadrats, a fact which is deeply appreciated. Likewise, an appreciation
is felt for the peoples of the United States who, through the G. I. Bill
of Rights,made it possible for the writer to pursue his graduate studies.

Finally, an expression of thanks is due my family for their under-
standing cooperation and help during the time that the writer was en-

gaged in the graduate studies of which this thesis is an important unit.

III.
Jack Galkins Elliott
candidate for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Final examination: Ehy 7, 1952.

Dissertation: The Phytosociology of the Second Growth Upland Hardwoods
of Missaukee County, Michigan.

Outline of Studies:

major subject: Botany
Collateral subjects: Soil Science, Glacial Geology

Biographical Items:

Born: July 27, 1907. Goldwater, Michigan.

Undergraduate Studies: Albion College, Albion, Michigan, 1926-1929;

Graduate Studies: University of Michigan, l9hO-l9hl; Cont. l9h6;
Michigan State College, l9h7-l952.

Experience: Rodman on survey, Michigan State Highway Department,
1929-1930. Circulation manager and special feature editor,
Goldwater'Daily Reporter, Goldwater, Michigan, l930-l93h.

Yard foreman, S. Pollock and Son, Retail Lumber, Builders
Supplies, and Coal, l93h-l937. Bookkeeper, Latty and Sharkey,
Wholesale and Retail Gasoline, Hardware, John Deere Farm Im-
plements and Chevrolet Sales and Service, Bellevue, Michigan,
1937-1938. Classroom teacher, Goldwater Public Schools,
Seventh and Eighth grade general science and social studies,
Ninth grade social science, Supervisor of noontime recreational
program.for rural students, assistant director of intramural
sports, Junior Hi-Y leader, l939—l9hl. Classroom teacher,
Goldwater Public Schools, Tenth grade social science, Twelfth
grade American government, director of noontime recreational
program for rural students, assistant director of intramural
sports, Hi-Y advisor, Chairman of the Audio-visual Aid program
for the school system, member of the regional committee of the
Michigan Curriculum Study, 19hl-l9h2. Thirteen.years a scout-
master, instructor in camp craft, l939-l9h0 winter leadership
training courses, Battle Creek Area Council, Boy Scouts of
America. Army of the United States, basic training Fort Riley,
Kansas, 19142. (125, Amored, Fort Knox, Kentucky, l9h2-l9h3.
Instructor, small arms and tank gunnery, The Armored School,
Fort Knox Kentucky, 19h3-l9hh. Instructor of Teaching Methods,
The Instructor Training Department, The Armored School, l9hh-
l9h6. Glass Room.Teacher, Goldwater Public Schools, Tenth
grade world history, Twelfth grade American government, Hi-Y

IV.

advisor, 191:6. Instructor, Department of Botany and Plant
Pathology, Michigan State College, general botany, mus—.1952.

Member of Society of Sigma Xi, Phi Delta Kappa, Michigan Academy of
Science, Arts and Letters, Sem. Bot.

THE PHYTOSCIJIOLOGY OF THE UPLAND SEC 0ND GROWTH IIiu'flJJOODS OF

MISSAUKEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

By

lJack Galkins Elliott

AN ABSTRACT

submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
1952

 

 

VI.

The phytosociology of ninety-eight stands of second growth upland
hardwoods in Missaukee County, Michigan was determined by an analysis of
quantitative data recorded in Shé one hundred square meter quadrats. The
objectives of the study were (1) to record quantitatively the composition
of the upland second growth hardwood stands in Missaukee County, (2) to
compare this composition with the composition of other stands as re-
ported from the Lake Forest, and (3) to compare this composition with the
vegetational pattern of the primeval forest as interpreted from the
original land survey field notes of lBSh. The quantitative data were ob-
tained by the quadrat method of sampling. Stands were selected on the
basis that they be representative of relatively undisturbed natural up-
land types. The characteristics of the soils within the stands were
considered. The quantitative data were analyzed and structural and
synthetic characters for the community established. Statistical treat-
ment of the quantitative data to establish significant differences be-
tween percentages have been summarized and the ecological implications
considered. Lociations, as represented by the six soil series, were
described. Comparisons between the composition of the stands in Mis-
saukee County and the composition of selected stands as reported from the
Lake Forest were drawn. The primeval forest of the county was mapped and
the differences in the composition of the forest between the two periods
of time pointed out.

It has been established, on the basis of (l) the quantitative
structural characteristics of the concrete community (density, frequency
and basal area); (2) the qualitative characters which.became evident

from an analysis of the quantitative data (sociability, dispersion and

VII.
vitality); and (3) the synthetic characters of the abstract community
(presence, constance and coefficient of community), that the present
composition of the second growth upland hardwood stands in Missaukee
County is representative of a disclimax stage in plant succession,
'within an area which supports a.mixed conifer-northern hardwood forest

formation. The primary dominant canopy species was Acer saccharum.

 

Secondary dominants were Fagus grandifolia, Ulmus Thomasi, g. americana

 

 

and Tilia americana. Incidental dominants were Fraxinus americana,

 

 

Acer rubrum, Quercus rubra var. borealis, g. alba, Tsuga canadensis,

 

 

 

Prunus serotina, Ulmus rubra, Betula lutea, Betula papyrifera, Pinus

 

 

 

Strobus, P. resinosa, Thule occidentalis and Fraxinus nigra. The sub-

 

 

 

dominant species of the understory were Ostrya virginiana, Prunus pen-

sylvanica, Populus grandidentata, P. tremuloides and Amelanchier gp..

 

 

The disclimax status of the forest community is established on the
basis of the ecological significance of the primary, secondary and in-
cidental dominants of the ninety-eight stands of upland second growth
hardwoods. Man has been the principal disturbing agent. It is sug-

gested that the high abundance and frequency values of Ulmus Thomasi

 

‘within the county be considered as an indication of a northward extension
of its range. The considerably less acreage of forest now than at the
time of the original land survey is pointed out as well as the composition

differences.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INfI'RwIJ(3'I‘IGq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

REVIEW or THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . h

A. Ecological Concepts . . . . . h
B. The Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Forests of the
Northeastern United States . . . . . . 11

G. The Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Forest
Formation in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 16

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA STUDIED . . . . . . . . . 37
A. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B . Physiography . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . 37
G. Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hl
D . Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ul
E. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . he
F. History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

63
63

65
65

66
6?
67
68
68
69

METHODS. . . . . . . . .
A. General. . . . . . .
B. Field Methods. . . .
C. Treatment of Data .

1. Structural Characters . .
a. Quantitative Description
b. Qualitative Description
2. Synthetic Characteristics.
a. Presence . . . . .
b. ConStaIICe o o o e o
c. Fidelity . . . . . .
3. Comparisons'With Other Studies .
h. Comparisons of the Original Forest Distribution
in Missaukee County, as Interpreted from the
Original Land Survey Field Notes, with the
Present Day Composition of the Upland Second
Growth Hardwood Stands. . . . . . . . . . 69

ooooeooooo
00000000000
oeooooooooo.
ooeoooooooo
eoeoooooooo
ooooeoeoooo
.eooeooooooo
000000000000
8‘1

OBSERVATIONS AND RESUDTS . . . . . 71
A. The Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of the County . . 71
B. The Second Growth Upland Hardwood Stands in

Relation to the Six Soil Series. . . . . . at
C. The Composition of the Woody Vegetation in Ninety-

Eight Stands of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of

Missaukee County Compared with the Composition of

'Woody Vegetation in Other Areas of Michigan,

Wisconsin and Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 137

D. Forest Distribution in Missaukee County as
Interpreted from the Original Land Survey . . .

DISCUSSION . . . . . . .
A. Ecological Classification of the Plants. . . .
B. Composition Differences of the Upland Second
Growth Hardwood Stands in Relation to the Six
Soil Series . . . . . .
C. Comparison of the Missaukee County Study with
Those in Other Areas of Michigan, Wisconsin

and Minnesota . . . . . .
D. The'Woody Vegetation of Missaukee County
Yesterday and Today . . . . . .

E. Natural Land Divisions: Land Management Programs;
Recreational and Economic Implications . . . .

SUM AND c ONC LUSI OTIS O O O 0 O O O O O O O
BIBIIImRAm-Y O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O
APPmDm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

. 178
. 202
. 202

. 217

. 22h
. 226
. 229
. 232
. 23h

TEXT TABLES

I.

II.

III.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

LIST OF TABLES

Climatic Summary for the Weather Stations
In and Near Missaukee County . . . . .

Presence List for the Tree and Shrub Species
Composing the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second
Growth Upland Hardwoods . . . . . . .

Summary Data for the Tree Species Based on
5&6 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats in
the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods . . . . . . . . .

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Classes Based on 5&6 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats in the Ninety-Eight Stands
of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods. . . .

Summary Data for the Shrub Species Based on
5&6 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats in
the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth
Upland HardWOOd s o o o a o o o o 0

Summary Data.for the Tree Species Based on
23 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Roselawn Soil Series. . . . . . .

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Glasses Based on 23 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Roselawn Soil Series.

Summary Data for the Shrub Species Based on
23 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Toselawn Soil Series. . . . . . .

Summary Data for the Tree Species Based on
19 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Arenac Soil Series . . . . . . .

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Glasses Based on 19 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Arenac Soil Series .

PAGE

72

76

77

78

85

91

92

93

TEXT TABLES

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XXI.

XXII.

XI.

PAGE

Summary Data for the Tree Species Based on
322 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Emmet Soil Series. . . . . . . . . 97

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Glasses Based on 322 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Emmet Soil Series . . 98

Summary Data for the Shrub Species Based
on 322 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats
on the Emmet Soil Series . . . . . . . 99

Summary‘Data for the Tree Species Based on
29 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Kalkaska Soil Series . . . . . . . 103

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Classes Based on 29 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Kalkaska Soil Series . 10h

Summary Data for the Tree Species Based on
79 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats on
the Nester Soil Series . . . . . . . 108

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Glasses Based on 79 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Nester Soil Series. . 109

Summary Data for the Shrub Species Based
on 79 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats
on the Nester Soil Series . . . . . . . 113

Summary Data for the Tree Species Based
on 72 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats
on the Selkirk Soil Series. . . . . . . 11h

Summary Data for the Tree Species by Size
Glasses Based on 72 One Hundred Square
Meter Quadrats on the Selkirk Soil Series. . 115

Summary Data for the Shrub Species Based
on 72 One Hundred Square Meter Quadrats
on the Selkirk Soil Series. . . . . . . 116

Summary of the Significance of Differences
in Percentages of Frequency, Density and
Basal Area Between the Six Soil Series. . . 120

TEXT TABLES

XXIII -
XXXIX.

XLI-
XLI.

XLII -

XLVI.

XLVII.

XLVIII -

L.

LII.

LIII.

XII.

PAGE

Frequency Index Community Coefficient

Between the Stands Reported by Quick (1923)

in Southern Michigan and the Missaukee

County Second Growth Upland Hardwoods. . lhO - 156

Frequency Index Community Coefficient

Between Woollett and Sigler's (1928)

Douglas Lake Region and the Missaukee

County Second Growth Upland Hardwoods. . 158 - 159

Frequency Index Community Coefficient

Between Gleason's (l92h) Areas in

Michigan and the Missaukee County Second

Growth Upland Hardwoods . . . . . . 162 - 166

Frequency Index Community Coefficient

Between Cain's (1935) Warren's Woods

Study and the Missaukee County Upland

Second Growth Hardwoods . . . . . . 168

Frequency Index Community Coefficient

Between Eggler's (1938) Minnesota Study

and the Missaukee County Second Growth

Upland HaI'dWOOdSo e o o e e o o o 170 " 172

Frequency Index Community Coefficient
Between.Daubenmire's (1936) 'Big‘Woods'

of Minnesota and the Missaukee County

Second Growth Upland Hardwoods . . . . 17h

Comparisons of DFD Index Values Between

the Second Growth Upland Hardwood Stands

of Missaukee County and the Sugar Maple-
Hemlock-Yellow Birch Association in Northern
Wisconsin as Reported by Stearns (1951) . 176

Constance List for the Tree Species of

the Primeval Forest as Interpreted from

the Field Notes of the Original Land

Survey of Missaukee County (185h) . . . 183

Percent Density of the Tree Species of

the Primeval Forest of Missaukee County

as Interpreted from the Field Notes of

the Original Land Survey (185M. . . . 185

TEXT TABLES
LV.

EVI.

LVII.

LVIII.

LXI.

Percent Density of the Tree Species Composing
A Pine Community Within the Original Forest
Community of Missaukee County. . . . . .

Percent Density of the Tree Species Composing
the Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Area
One Within the Original Forest Community
of Missaukee County . . . . . . . . .

Percent Density of the Tree Species Composing
the Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Area
Two'Within the Original Forest Community of
Missaukee County . . . . . . . . . .

Percent Density of the Tree Species Composing
the Hardwood Area Within the Original
Forest Community of Missaukee County . . .

Comparative Presence List for the Tree
Species Composing the Ninety-Eight Stands
of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods and
Those of the Comparative Township
Sections of the Original Land Survey . . .

Ecological Classification of the Plants in
the Second Growth Upland Hardwood
Community of Missaukee County. . . . . .

Presence or Absence of the Canopy Tree
Species for the Six Soil Series . . . . .

APPENDIX TABLES

LXII.

LXIII .

LXIV.

LXVI.

LXVII.

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Arenac-Emmet Soil Series . . . . . . .

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Arenac-Kalkaska Soil Series . . . . . .

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Arenac-Nester Soil Series . . . . . . .

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Arenac-Roselawn Soil Series . . . . . .

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Arenac-Selkirk Soil Series. . . . . . .

Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Emmet-Kalkaska Soil Series. . . . . . .

XIII.

PAGE

189

19h

1914

196

198

201:

219

2h2

2&3

2th

21:5

2&6

21:7

XIV.
APPENDIX TABLES PAGE

LXVIII. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Emmet-Nester Soil Series. . . . . . . . 2H8

LXIX. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Emmet-Roselawn Soil Series . . . . . . . 21:9

LXX. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Emmet-Selkirk Soil Series . . . . . . . 250

LXXI. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Kalkaska-Nester Soil Series. . . . . . . 251

LXXII. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Kalkaska-Roselawn Soil Series . . . . . . 252

LXXIII. Significance of Difference Between'Percentages:
Kalkaska-Selkirk Soil Series . . . . . . 2S3

LXIV. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Nester-Roselawn Soil Series. . . . . . . 25h

LXV. Significance of'Difference Between Percentages:
Nester~Selkirk Soil Series . . . . . . . 255

IXVI. Significance of Difference Between Percentages:
Selkirk-Roselawn Soil Series . . . . . . 256

LIST OF TEXT FIGURES

TEXT FIGURES PAGE

1. Map of Lower Michigan Showing Boundary Between
the Beech-Maple and Hemlock4White Pine—
Northern Hardwoods Regions and its Relation
to Tree Ranges and Soils. (After Braun, 1950
and Veatch, 1932.). . . . . . . . . . l

2. Map of Lower Michigan Showing the Location
of Missaukee County and the Weather Stations
from which Climatological Data was Assembled . 38

3. Surface Geology of Missaukee County . . . . 39

h. Map of Lower Michigan Showing Drainage Basins
Serving Missaukee County. . . . . . . . AZ

5. Map of Missaukee County Showing Natural Land
Divisions (After Veatch and Schneider,
(19118 o) o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’47

6. Map of Missaukee County Showing the Location
of the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods and their Relation to the
Six Soil Series. . . . . . . . . . . 50

7. Map of Missaukee County Showing the Boundaries
of State Forests as of June, 1950 (After
Michigan Department of Conservation, (1951) . 61

8. Presence Diagram for the Tree and Shrub Species
in the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods . . . . . . . . . . 7h

9. Phytographs for the First Eight Dominant
(DFD Index) Canopy Tree Species in the
Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth Upland
Hardwoods of Missaukee County . . . . . . 82

10. Phytographs for the Understory Tree Species
in the Ninety-Eight Stands of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods in Missaukee County. . . . 83

XVI.
TEXT FIGURES PAGE

11. .Phytographs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Roselawn
SOil series 0 C O C C I O C O O O O 86

12. Phytographs of the Understory Tree Species on
the Roselawn Soil Series . . . . . . . 88

13. Phytographs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Arenac Soil
series 0 C O C O O O O O O O C 0 9h

1h. Phytographs of the understory Tree Species on
the Arenac Soil Series . . . . . . . . 95

15. Phytographs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Emmet Soil
Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

16. Phytographs of the Understory Tree Species on
the Emmet Soil Series . . . . . . . . 101

17. PhytOgraphs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Kalkaska
Soil Series. . . . . . . . . . . . 105

18. Phytographs of the Understory Tree Species on
the Kalkaska Soil Series . . . . . . . 107

19. Phytographs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Nester
Soil Series. . . . . . . . . . . . 110

20. Phytographs of the Understory Tree Species on
the Nester Soil Series . . . . . . . . 111

21. Phytographs of the First Eight Dominant (DFD
Index) Canopy Tree Species on the Selkirk
5011 Series. . . . . . . . . . . . ll?

22. Phytographs of the Understory Tree Species on
the Selkirk Soil Series. . . . . . . . 118

23. Photograph Showing a Stand of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods on Arenac Sandy Loam within
an OlltwaSh Apron o o e o o e e e o e 131

2h. Photograph Showing a Stand of Upland Second
Growth Hardwoods on Emmet Sandy Loam. East
Facing Morainic Slope . . . . . . . . 132

25. PhotOgraph Showing a Stand of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods on Kalkaska Loamy Sand in
a Till Plain o o o o o o o o I 0 0 133

XVII.
TEXT FIGURE PAGE

26. Photograph.Showing a Stand of Upland Second
Growth Hardwoods on Nester Loam within a Till
Plain. C O O C O O O O O O C O 0 13h

27. PhotOgraph Showing a Stand of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods on Selkirk Silt Loam on a
TillPlain............ 13S

28. Photograph Showing a Stand of Second Growth
Upland Hardwoods on Roselawn Sand. West
Facing Mbrainic Slope . . . . . . . . 136

29. Map of Lower Michigan Showing Quick's (1923)
Regions within the Beech-Maple Climax
Association and the Location of Stands from
which Quantitative Data were Compared with
the Ninety-Eight Stands of Upland Second
Growth Hardwoods of Missaukee County (MC). . 139

30. Map of Missaukee County Showing the Primeval
Forest as Interpreted from the Original Land
Survey Field Notes of l85h. . . . . . . 186

31. Map of Missaukee County Showing the Original
Forests as Interpreted by Marschner and
Redrawn by Perejda, 19b6 . . . . . . . 201

32. Bar Graph Showing the Percent Frequency of the
' Canopy Tree Species in the Ninety-Eight
Stands of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of
Missaukee County . . . . . . . . . . 206

33. Bar Graph Showing the Percent Density of the
Canopy Tree Species in the Ninety-Eight
Stands of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of
Missaukee County . . . . . . . . . . 207

INTRODUCTION

There are two expressions of climax forest vegetation within the
state of Michigan. One is the deciduous forest formation in the
southern part of the lower peninsula. The other is the mixed conifer-
northern hardwood forest formation in the upper part of the lower
peninsula and throughout the upper peninsula.

The boundary between these two climax forests is not sharply de-
fined and is represented by a zone of tension, or acetone. This
boundary is narrow due to critical changes in the controlling en-
vironmental conditions. Braun (1950, P. 338), Potzger (l9h8, l9h6),
Darlington (19h5), Veatch (1932), Gleason (192h), Quick (1923),
Livingston (1905, 1903), and Beal and Wheeler (1892), as well as
others, have pointed out.the presence of this tension zone between
these two great forest formations. Here the relics of the north-
eastern conifer forest mix with the northern elements of the deciduous
forest. The line of tension is usually described as being located near
the latitude of h3 degrees North (Fig. 1). More commonly it is de-
scribed as a line running from Saginaw on the eastern edge of the state
to Muskegon on the western margin. Southward from this line lies the
Hardwood Country or the Deciduous Forest formation; northward lies the
HemlockéWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood Forest Formation.

The portion of the HemlockJWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood forest
north of the tension zone forms a part of the mixed conifer-northern

hardwood forest of northeastern North America, and it has been dis-

la.

DOJEOL

 

 

SOIL

BROWN l:O‘QEST SOIL

- _. _ __ Spruce . .-+—+ Norway Pine
' ' ° ' " Jack Pine —— - White Pine
"‘°-°- Oak—Hickory

 

N. Boundary of Beech-Maple Region

Fig. 1. Map of Lower Michigan showing boundary between the Beech-Maple and
HemlockJWhite Pine-Northern Hardwoods regions, and its relation to
tree ranges and soils. (After Braun, 1950 and Veatch, 1932)

2.
cussed by ecologists and plant geographers more voluminously than has
any other forest formation on the North American continent. A number
of descriptive names have emerged from their studies which have been
used to typify the region. The region to be described in the present

paper lies within the Northern Hardwood region of Frothingham (1915);
as well as in the Northeastern Transition Forest region of Nichols
(1918, 1935) and The Great Lakes or South Canadian Forests of Hardy
(1920). It likewise falls within the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes region
claimed by Harshberger (1911) and is included in the Lake Forest region
of weaver and Clements (1929, P. h96). In Braun's Deciduous Forests of
Eastern North America (1950, P. 337), the area is characterized as the
HemlockJWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood region.

'While a transition zone between two large vegetation cover types
has always presented a tantalizing aspect of vegetational character-
istics, few of the many papers which have been published dealing with
these forest formations offer'quantitative studies describing the forest
composition of the region in such a way that the data can be used for
comparative purposes.

Opportunities for such studies on undisturbed stands within the
northern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan are now nearly none
existent. In an effort to piece together a part of the picture of the
present composition of the forest formation just north of the tension
zone, a quantitative study was made of the upland second growth hardwood
stands in Missaukee County, Michigan. The primary objectives of the
study were: first, to record quantitatively the composition of the up-
land second growth hardwood stands within the county; second, to compare

the present composition of the upland second growth hardwood stands

Within the county with the composition of other communities as re-
ported from within and near the Lake Forest formation; and third, to
compare the present composition of the upland second growth hardwood
stands with the vegetational pattern as revealed from an interpretation
of the field notes and maps of the original land survey of the county

which was completed in 1851;.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ,

A. Ecological Concepts

The foundations of plant ecology were first established by
Kerner (1863). Since that time these original concepts have been ex-
panded, augmented, and refined considerably by European and American
workers. The results of these years of development and building were
ably brought together and summarized during the Conference on Plant and
Animal Communities, which was held at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island,
New'York, August 29 to September 2, 1938.

At that time, Conard (1939) brought together in his paper, Plant
Associations on Land, the salient teachings of the various schools
which.have had special influence upon the description and classifica-
tions of associations. Six schools were included in his considerations:
1) The Zurich-Mentpellier School: It had for its field laboratory the
magnificent plant mosaic of central Europe and the Alps, where the con-
spicuous feature was the stability of vegetation when left undisturbed.
From this field laboratory was developed the concept of the association,
defined by its floristic composition, as a unit actually found in
nature, and upon which all phytosociological study centered. 2) The
Scandinavian School: working with the vegetation of marginal lands,
which was conspicuously different from the luxuriant vegetation of
central Europe, the school developed two "oft repeated emphases:

(a) the soil is the product of vegetation, and is independent of the

nature of the substratum; (b) the fundamental unit of vegetation is

S.

the layer or synusia" (Gonard 1939, p. h). 3) The Danish School:
Influenced by the nature of its geographical location and political
organization, and under the impetus of Raunkiaer, the group developed
the statistical method of phytosociological treatments. h) The Russian
School: Gonard (1939, p. 6) quotes Sukatchew (193h) in summary with the
statement that, "Russian phytosociologists were primarily interested in
the Steppe vegetation and its relation to forests." The Russians have
been credited with being the first to recognize the relation of soils
to climate and vegetation (Glinka l9lh). Gonard (1939) mentions
further (p. 6), ”It is most regretable that much of their work is in-
accessible to other people because of the barrier of language.” To
this inaccessibility, today we must add additional barriers. 5) The
Chicago School: The concept of succession dominated the Chicago School,
where the principal objective in the study of vegetation was an ex-
planation of the causes and processes of vegetational change. 6) The .
Nebraska School: Like the Chicago School under the leadership of Cowles,
the Nebraska School under the inspiration of Clements, developed the
concept of succession, with its extensive terminology. In conclusion,
Gonard (1939, p. 7) makes a plea for a standardization of terminology:
"— -a very great advantage would occur if we could find a best method
for the study, and especially the description of vegetation. At least
an internationally accepted terminology would help.”

Gleason (1939), during the conference, defended The Individual-
istic Concept of the Plant Association. According to him (p. 9) the
fundamental question basic to all ecological work is, "What is a plant

association?" In answer to his question he presented three basic

6.

theories, chosen from the voluminous literature, as typifying the
principal thinking, with an explanation that other viewpoints may be
regarded as variants from the three basic theories. The theories

were (p. 93):

1. The association is an organism, or quasi-organism,
not composed of cells like an individual plant or animal,
but rather made up of individual plants and animals held
together by'a close bond of interdependence; an organism or
quasi-organism, with properties different from but analogous
to, the vital properties of an individual, including phen-
omena similar to birth, life, and death, as well as constant
structural features comparable to the structures of an
individual.

2. The association is not an organism, but a series of
separate similar units, variable in size but repeated in
numerous examples. As such it is comparable to a species,
which is composed of variable individuals. Under this view
the association is considered by some to be a concrete entity,
merely divided into separate pieces, while by others the
association as a whole is regarded as a mental concept, based
upon the common character of all of the pieces, and capable
of typification by one or more of these pieces which most
nearly approach the average or ideal conditions.

3. The vegetation is a temporary and fluctuating
phenomena, dependent, in its origin, its structure, and its
disappearance, on the selective action of the environment,
and on the nature of the surrounding vegetation. Under
this view the association has no similarity to an organism
and is scarcely comparable to a species.

In defense of the third theory, the so called Individualistic
Concept, Gleason (1939) presented a series of theses the principal
points of which were: (1) every species of plant has reproductive powers
in excess of its own needs; (2) every species of plant has some method
of migration; (3) the environment in any particular station is variable;
and (h) the development of a vegetative unit depends upon one or the

other of these two conditions: the appearance of new ground, or the

disappearance of the existing association. By way of clarifying and

7.
pointing up these theses he presented the following two general
statements (p. 103):

First, an association, or better one of those detached
pieces of vegetation which we may call a community, is a
visible phenomenon. As such it has dimensions and area,
and consequently boundary. ‘While its area may be large,
the community is nevertheless a very tangible thing, which
may be mapped, surveyed, photographed, and analyzed. Over
this area it maintains a remarkable degree of structural
uniformity in its plant life. Homogeneity of structure,
ever a considerable extent, terminated by definite limits,
are the three fundamental features on which the community
is based. 'Without these three features, Grisebach would
never have published his statement of a century ago;
without them, all of our studies of synecology would
never have been developed. Also, besides its extent in
space, every community has a duration in time. Uniformity,
area, boundary, and duration are the essentials of a
plant community .

Second, every community occupies a position in two

series of environmental variation. In the space series,

as the community exists here, in this spot, it is part

of a space-variation, and its environment differs from

the adjacent communities. In the time series, as the

community exists now, at this time, it is part of a time—

variation and in its environment differs from the com-

munities which preceded it or will follow it.
An an example in proof of his statements he cited the beechemaple
c1imax.forest in Michigan. Of this he said (p. 106): "Within the
state of Michigan, the beechnmaple climax forest, always considered to
be a definite, well distinguished association-type, exhibits profound
changes from one end of the state to the other."

An analysis of Gleason's Individualistic Concept of the Plant
Association would seem to indicate that it is the most conspicuous
expression of the space relationship of plants; that it is dependent
only upon the coincidence of environmental selection and migration over

measurable areas; and that it usually exists for a considerable length

of time.

8.

The climax and its complexities have been ably discussed and
summarized by Gain (1939). In his paper, he brought together the
numerous concepts concerning a workable definition of a plant com-
munity, and listed the references for such detailed discussions of
the problem. In another section of the paper, (p. 150), he presented
in a clear cut manner, A Brief Conspectus of Clements' Concepts and
Terminology. In the fourth section of the paper (p. 152), The Gom-
plexity of the Climax, Cain (1939) has brought together statements
from most of the active French, German, English, Swedish, Russian,
and American plant ecologists which point out the varying views as well
as serving as a complete summary for the considerable literature on the
subject. He has, in his concluding statements (p. 175), pointed out
the difficulties of classification which have arisen.from the lack of
a standardized terminology with the following statement:

. . . .Glement's disposition of the variation within
the climax, (or climax regions), through the concepts of
faciations, lociations, through subcllmax, proclimax and
serclimax, through seration and through preclimax and post-
climax presents a scientifically and philosophically sound
system. A description of all the stable (climax) communities
of a region might necessitate dealing with all of the above
concepts. A very large number of investigators have chosen
not to follow Clements in this but to treat all such cover
types as associations. The plant sociologists go even further
and include successional communities (associes) under the term.
This may have some justification if the seral nature of the
communities is not proven. The result, however, is to include
many different things under the term, whereas Clements has a
different term for a different thing.

That appears to be the crux of the problem: . . .to include many
different things under a single term; or to employ a different term
for a different thing. It would seem that the latter course would

make for better understanding of descriptive accounts, and would best

serve in leading to a standardization of the terminology.

9.

Since the Cold Spring Harbor Conference, discussions of terms
inology and ways of best describing vegetation have continued to ap-
pear in the literature. A symposium held at Boston, Massachusetts,in
December 19h6,considered the problem of Origin and Development of
Natural Floristic Areas with Special Reference to North America. At
that time, considerable attention was given to distribution patterns
and the problem of ancient dispersals. According to Camp (19h6, p. 126)
the common objective for this series of papers was:

. . .the constant searching for a more complete
knowledge of the influential historical events and
causitive biological factors underlying the dynamic
phenomena operative in the everychanging vegetational
mantle of this world on which we live.

At that time, Cain (19h6) brought out the close relationship be-
tween floristic and vegetational geography, and at the same time
questioned the "objective reality" (p. 198) of the plant association.
He placed considerable emphasis upon the employment of natural areas
conceived in terms of collective data of many sorts, rather than single
factors or single points of view. At this point, it would seem that
Cain has absorbed some of the Individualistic Concept of Gleason (1939)
and the Concept of Holism of Egler (19h2, 1951).

McIntosh and Curtis (1950) have proposed the concept of a
Vegetational Continuunfor the hardwood stands of southwest Wisconsin.
The Continuum Concept would abolish the term ”association", at least in
its present accepted usage. In certain aspects, this concept tends to
support Gleason's (1926, 1939) idea of the Individualistic Concept of

the Plant Association as well as to embody some of the connotations

carried by Brauns' (1935 a-b, 1950) Association Segregate. Egler (1951)

10.
regards this concept as being one of the better ones of the first
half-century of American Ecology.

The terminology of forest ecology, as previously mentioned, has a
decided lack of uniformity in usage. Cognizance of this is taken.by
Braun (1950) when she devotes a chapter (Chap. 2, 10-27) to Forest
Ecology and Terminology so that the terms as used in her Deciduous
Forests of Eastern North America may be defined. Her terminology
which is related to the units of vegetation is largelnglementsian with
certain.modifications, such as,'hssociation-segregates"; ”associes";
"Consociesi.

The various approaches to the study of vegetation in the light of
floristic mapping, lifeqform statistics, and ecological classifications
have been reviewed by Dansereau (1951) in a paper which proposed a new
system for the description and recording of vegetation upon a structural
basis. He suggested six series of criteria for use: 1) life-form;

2) size; 3) function; h) leaf shape; 5) leaf texture; and 6) coverage.
It would seem that his system is an attempt to combine certain prin-
ciples of the Individualistic Concept theory of Gleason (1926-1939)
with some of the doctrines of Clements (1936) plus an admixture of

dynamic cytogenetics.

B. The Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Forests

of the Northeastern United States

It was noted in the introduction that the mixed conifer-northern
hardwood forests of the northeastern United States have been a much
discussed forest formation. As a consequence the literature is very
extensive.

Frothingham (1915, p. 1) described the northern hardwood forests
as occupying Ithe fresh, well drained, fertile soils of the northern
pine region." He pointed out the distinguishing differences between
the northern and southern hardwood forests, mentioning several im-
portant tree species which are common to both, as well as showing the
principal differences between them. According to him (p. 1), the
northern hardwood forest is distinguished by the presence of yellow
birch, white pine, and eastern hemlock, and the absence of yellow
poplar, red gum, sycamore, as well as several other more southern
species. The northern hardwood forest, with some twenty important
Species of hardwoods, is more simple in composition than the southern
hardwood forest,."which has fully ninetyhfive species of local or
general commercial value." The northern hardwood forest is usually
divided into two regions: 1) the eastern mountain region and 2) the
Great Lakes region, with the latter mostly within the area of Wisconsin
glaciation. Frothingham (1915, p. 21) said that the greater abundance
of basswood and elm is perhaps the most striking characteristic of

this forest formation in the Lake States.

12.

Both Nichols (1935) and Cain (1935) have reviewed the extensive
literature of the HemlockAWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood region of
eastern North America. According to Nichols (1935) the region, which
lies between the northern conifer forest to the north and the deciduous
forest region to the south, has a "climatic climax" forest comprising
a mixture of evergreen coniferous and deciduous broadleaf trees. He
placed these trees into four groups with reference to their geographical
distribution (p. hl9-h20):

1. Species whose centers of north-south distribution
lie north of the region and'which are widely distributed north-
'ward, being constituents of the northern conifer climax, namely
the balsam.fir and the white spruce.

2. Species whose centers of north-south distribution
lie within the region, whose range as a whole extends but little
beyond it, and which are members of the climatic climax in no
other region, notable the hemlock, eastern‘white pine, and
yelloW'birch.

, 3. Species whose centers of north-south distribution

lie within the region or immediately south of it, but which
range well to the south, there entering more or less into
the composition of the deciduous forest climax, notably the
sugar maple and the basswood.

h. Species whose centers of north-south distribution
lie far to the south, and which are widely distributed as
constituents of the deciduous forest climax, among others
the beech and the white ash.

Nichols (1935, p. L20) further calls attention to the fact that
the region has been commonly treated as a part of the northern conifer
region from an ecological standpoint; but that it differs from it es-
pecially in the comparatively minor importance in the climax of the
trees in his group one. It is more closely related to the deciduous
forest region, as indicated by the prominence of trees in the climax

from his groups three and four. He said (p. h20):

l3.

Much.may be said, however, in favor of treating this
region as a dietinct ecological unit, in itself. In
addition to the climax species of group 2, numerous other
trees and shrubs are prominent in the vegetation here
‘which are not only more or less 'endemic' but also dis-
tinctive in their ecological characteristics. . . .Also
various southern hardwood species are conspicuously absent
here and, when present, tend to become replaced, in the
course of succession, by hemlock and northern hardwoods.

According to Nichols (1935, p. NO?) the forest formation has the
following characteristic species: hemlock, sugar maple, beech, yellow
birch, eastern white pine, basswood, American elm, white ash, red oak,
black cherry, red spruce, balsam fir,'white spruce, red maple, and
Norway pine. He indicated that it is the climax favored by climate
and generally develops on the better soils throughout the eastern
hemlock region, "except where natural conditions have been modified
by fire and man" (p. h07).

In studies of the beech-maple climax forests of southern Michigan,
Cain (1935, p. 510) called attention to Frothingham's distinguiShing
differences between the northern and southern hardwood forests. He
also mentioned papers by Zon and Garner (1930) and Danna (1931) which
dealt with the northern.forests as a whole (p. SLO).

A brief post glacial history of the Lake Forest formation has been
presented by Potzger (19h6). He discussed the controversies as to what
constitutes a climax forest, showing the opinions to be divided into
two major groups: ". . .one considers (it) the pine-hemlock, the other
the hemlock deciduous forest" (p. 228-230). The latter group, which
includes Potzger, would consider Pinus on sandy soil to be post-climax,
or edaphic climax.

The most recent as well as the most comprehensive treatment of

this forest formation is to be found in the book, Deciduous Forests of

114.
Eastern North America by E. Lucy Braun (1950). Here the author has
presented detailed descriptions of the original forest patterns as
'well as the composition of the virgin forests. She has analyzed and
compared the climax communities, traced the expansions and contractions
of the formation and its segregation into types, and has demonstrated
the generic relation of its several parts.

According to Braun (1950 p. 337) the Hemlock4White Pine-Northern
Hardwoods Region, "extends from northern Minnesota and extreme south—
eastern Manitoba through the upper Great Lakes region and eastward
across southern Canada and New England, including, toward the southeast-
much of the Appalachian Plateau in New York and Northern Pennsylvania.
She found that the region is characterized “by..pronounced alternations
of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forest communities. For the
primary deciduous forest communities she reports that (P. 337): "sugar
maple, beech, and basswood; sugar maple and beech; or sugar maple and
basswood are the usual codominants, and yellow birch, white elm, and
red maple more or less frequent associates." Two general types of con-
iferous communities occur at intervals almost throughout the region
(p. 337): “. . .those of more or less dry sandy plains and ridges where
white pine, red or Norway pine, and jack pine prevail; those of poorly
drained areas, bogs and muskegs, where black spruce, arbor vitae
(northern white cedar), and larch prevail." The most characteristic
communities of the region, the ones from which the name Hemlock4White
PineéNorthern Hardwood is derived, are composed of hemlock, sugar
maple, beech, basswood, and yellow birch, in which there is or was an
admixture of white pine. In speaking of the boundaries of the region

Braun (1950, p. 338) said:

15.
The boundaries of the region are ill-defined, for
this is a great tension zone between encroaching more
southern species and retreating more northern species.
It is a region of interpenetrating climaxes, but a region
distinct in the grouping of its climax dominants and in
its dry soil physiographic climaxes.
For the person interested in the past, present, and probable future
of this much discussed forest formation, as well as for the entire
history and development of the deciduous forests of eastern North
America, Braun's (1950) Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America is
a revealing source book.

There are numerous papers which deal with the northern hardwood
or asSOciated types and variants in local areas of the main forest
formation. Bergman (1928) and Daubenmire (1936) have considered the
forest composition and its interrelations in Minnesota. Jennings
(1927); Illick and Frontz (1928); Morey (1936); Hough (1936, 1937,
19h3); Hough and Forbes (19h3) have all reported on extensive studies
for the state of Pennsylvania. Esten (1932) has reported on a study
of the maple4beech association in Indiana. Eggler (1936) discussed the
maple4basswood association of northern Wisconsin and Stearns (19h9,
1951) has reported on the sugar maple-hemlockeyellow'birch association
in northern Wisconsin. Stearns (1951) noted that the conclusions
reached by the workers in Pennsylvania were very similar to those
found for northern'Wisconsin. He found that the composition of the

sugar maple-hemlockfiyellow birch association, determined on the basis

of dominance was (p. 263): "Acer saccharum, 28%; Tsuga canadensis, 23.8%;

 

 

Betula.lutea, 2h.9%5 Tilia americana, 13.8%; Pinus strobus, h.8%; Ulmus

 

 

 

americana, 2%." The remaining three percent was made up of minor species

which included ironwood, blue beech, white ash, and balsam.fir.

16.

C. The Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwood Forest Formation

In Michigan

Some of the earliest and most descriptive accounts of the
original vegetation and successional patterns in Michigan were written
by Beal (1888, 1889, 1890, 1903) and Beal and'Wheeler (1892). It is
interesting to note that the work of these two botanists is seldom
mentioned in any of the general accounts which discuss the forest
formations of which Michigan is a part.

In his paper, Observations of the SuCcession of Forests in
Northern Michigan, Beal (1888, p. 75) said:

During the past summer, I have had many opportunities
of examining large tracts of land in Northern Michigan,
‘where there were many kinds of coniferae and various species
of deciduous trees. In a trip by wagon from Lake Huron to
Lake Michigan, I started with this subject strongly imp
pressed upon my mind. I have spent considerable time be-
sides visiting the forests and burned districts, and
looking at the second growth and observing what was there
growing. For example at Harrison, near the center of
Clare County, there is an admirable chance to study this
subject. The soil varies considerably, though.most of it
is sandy.

In imagination let me conduct you to a fine virgin
forest two to three miles southeast of the village. The
land is rolling and thickly timbered with.tall trees. 'We
sha11.find much thrifty white pine and Norway pine, and in
places considerable hemlock. There are scattering trees of
red maple, white and black and red oak, a little beech, and
small white ash, some hazel, witchhazel, maple leaved
Viburnum, New Jersey Tea, mountain maple, large toothed aspen,
now and then a dwarfed plant of huckleberry, blackberry, dew
berry, eagle fern, sweet fern, dogwoods, choke cherry, black
and pin cherries, June berry, and other shrubs and perennial
herbs which are deep rooting. In some places the undergrowth
is quite thick, but often the large trees are too thick to
permit many small trees to grow, at least well enough for them
to thrive and cover the ground. The leaves are usually well

17.

packed to the ground, as they were when the snow melted last
spring. 'When the land was sandy all of the leaves were dry
enough to burn, and about July 25th.fire had spread over a
considerable tract of this land.

There are evidences that the fire has run through
these woods on several occasions, killing the young timber
and all of the undergrowth to the surface of the ground
and often damaging and killing some of the larger trees.
There are very few young pines and hemlocks, though cones
are found in abundance. The thick layer of deciduous
leaves on the ground leaves little opportunity for the
delicate seeds of the coniferae to produce trees.

Let us look for some young deciduous trees.

Here are a few slender oaks of two or three species,
some that are eighteen feet high and less than an inch
and a half in diameter near the ground; yes, and there is
now and then one that has died to the ground, apparently
smothered from want of light, but a few spindling sprouts
are coming up showing that life still holds out. On digging
a few of these slender oaks we find that some of them come
from clumped roots or 'grubs' of various sizes showing that
the present growth in the first, second, third, or fourth
sprout which has apparently come in succession from the
same foundation; some of these old sprouts are now repre-
sented only by dead stumps, some of which are charred near
to the ground. By counting the rings of growth.near to the
ground in the last sprout, or if small, the bud rings, we
may tell very accurately how long since a fire killed the
last sprout .

The remainder of the paper continues to cite examples, both in
this type of forest stand and in the jack pine plains, showing the
manner of forest succession from clumped roots. These forests, de-
scribed in their successional patterns by Beal (1888), are the second-
ary beechemaple or mapleébeech sprout forests of Braun (1950, p. 3hl).
Beal's paper is exceedingly well illustrated with pictures of both
'grubs' and standing timber which show the manner in which certain
tree species became so long—lived against fire. 'With.fire losses now
reduced to practically zero in this area of the state, there can be
little doubt that many of the present stands of second growth timber

have had their origin in a.manner such as that described by Beal (1888).

18.

In Michigan.Flora (1892), Beal and Wheeler discussed at some
length the interrelations of climate and soil upon the vegetation of
the state. They pointed out, in their descriptions of the Traverse
Region, the.fact that in the upland hardwoods there was a falling out
of many of the southern species with the northern ones taking their
place (p. 16): ". . .or if found growing farther south, here for the
first time become frequent." They described (p. 16) deep forests of
hemlock and yellow birch mixed with a "fine tall growth of striped
maple", and note that sugar maple and basswood are also abundant in
this region, commenting on their immense size (p. 16): ". . .in fact,
it would be difficult to find finer groves of maple in any other part
of the state.”

The paper also contains a detailed description of the "pine
country proper" (p. 16). According to the authors, this country was
composed largely of sand hills and plains, either scantily furnished
with.vegetation, or densely covered with pine forests. Jack pine was
credited with being the usual timber of the sand barrens and there was
included a long list of the flora of the jack pine plains (p. 19-21)
which consisted of representatives of "thirty families, of fifty-four
genera, and of seventy species.“ In speaking of the pine lands and
hardwoods together, Beal and'Wheeler (1892, p. 16) said: "Such is the
character of the sylva down to latitude h3 degrees, but in the western
part of the state, owing perhaps to moister climate, or to favorable
soil, hemlock-spruce is more abundant and reaches farther south, nearly
or quite to the Indiana line, and the same is true of the white pine.”

Darlington (19h3) has reviewed the floristic and ecological studies

in Michigan since 1900. According to this author that part of the lower

l9.

peninsula south of the Grand River is the best known botanically.
However, he pointed out (p. 37) that "the founding of the biological
station by the University of Michigan at Douglas Lake marked the start
of intensive botanical and ecological surveys of the Traverse region."
Darlington (l9h3, p. 36-h3) called attention to the fact that ecological
wprk in the lower peninsula of Michigan has been mostly concerned with
the investigation of former types of forest cover, with the relation of
soils to vegetation, and with areas which have suffered little from
disturbance as bogs and sand dunes.

An inventory reporting upon the conditions found within the
Michigan.Forest Reserve was published by Sherrard (1902). He reported
that the original magnificent stands of white and Norway pine had been
succeeded, following lumbering, in the following ways (p. hOS): l) oak
flats, 32%; 2) oak ridges, 11%; 3) jack pine barrens, 39%; h) swamp, 11%;
5) hardwood land, 6%. This estimate of the comparative representation
of the various tree stands was further subdivided to indicate the
species in order of representation:

1. Oak Flats

a. Scarlet Oak

b. Aspen and Pine

c. Norway Pine

d. White Pine

e. Pin Cherry

f. Birch
2. Oak Ridges

a. White and red oak together.more than 60%

b. The remainder as in 1 above
3. Jack Pine Barrens

a. Jack Pine, 88%

b. Scarlet Oak

c. Norway Pine

d. Aspen

e. Red Oak

f. White Pine
g. White Oak

20.

h. Swamps

a. Tamarack, cedar, spruce, and balsam together
making up more than 80%

S. Hardwood Lands

a. Beech and Hard maple together form 80%

b. Hemlock 11%

c. On Cut-over hardwood lands Pin Cherry holds the
first place in the second growth for the time
being, while the representation of maple and
Beech together is reduced to 28%

The Michigan.Forest Reserve covered some 60,000 acres in ten
townships in the western half of Roscommon County and two townships in
Crawford County. It is nOW'a part of the Higgins Lake and Houghton
Lake State Forests. Sherrard (1902) indicated that the hardwood
timber was but poorly represented in the original forests on the
reserve.

In a paper based upon the principles of Cowle's Physiographic
Ecology, Whitford (1901) reported upon the generic development of the
forests of northern Michigan. As a result of his study of the life
history of the vegetation at four sites of different physiographic
formations, he concluded that in each series the climax plant growth
was a deciduous-hemlock combination. The manner of the intermingling
of the northern elements with those of the southern elements in generic
development is especially well done.

Livingston (1903) attempted to reconstruct (p. 39), "as accurately
as possible," the plant societies which occupied Kent County at the
time of settlement. He found that the vegetation of the area fell
naturally into two groups (p. 39): nthat growing on what is commonly

termed dry ground and that found in moist or swampy places." He was

able to separate each of the two groups into several societies, noting

21.
that (p.h5): “they often merge gradually into one another, so that
in some localities it appears that there is a mixture of several of
them.” According to Livingston (1903, p. hS) the vegetation of the up-
land fell into five societies, which he characterized on the basis of
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants as follows: 1) Beech-maple
Society; 2) maple-Elm Society; 3) Oak-Hickory Society; h) Oak-Hazel
Society; 5) Oak-Pine-Sassafrass Society." The distribution for these
societies is shown on a map of the county with their locations iden—
tified by various shadings. He placed considerable emphasis upon the
importance of the edaphic factor in accounting for the distribution of
the societies within the county. He suggested the hypothesis (p. Sh):
"The decisive factor in plant distribution over a small glaciated area
is, in most cases, the moisture retaining power of the soil."

A continuation of the problem of the relation of soil to vegeta-
tional distribution was carried out by Livingston (1905) with a study
of the relation of the soils to natural vegetation in Roscommon and
Crawford Counties. Here he found that the uplands were vegetated with
four types of societies (p. 28—30): 1) hardwoods; 2) white pine;

3) Norway pine; h) jack pine. Acer, Fagus and Tsuga made up three
quarters of the hardwood type of forest with one or another of the three
being dominant. He listed (p. 28) the following trees as character-

istic: ”Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Tsuga canadensis, Ulmus

 

 

 

 

americana, Q. racemosa, g..fulva, Abies balsamea, Betula lutea, some

Picea candensis and E. mariana, often scattered Pinus Strobus of

 

 

enormous size."
The white pine type was the typical "pinery", according to

Livingston (1905, p. 28). He noted, however, the presence of both

22.
Norway pine and frequent hardwoods in this type. At the time of his
investigations, the pines had been lumbered and consequently little
of the type remained. The aSpect of the white pine type, according
to the author (p. 28) "gives vaSt stretches where there are no trees
at all, fires having killed the young conifers as well as a scattering

of hardwoods. In some regions there are dwarfed Quercus alba, Q. rubra,

 

Acer rubrum, and a number of shrubs." Reference was made here in de-

 

scribing this part of the area to the papers of Beal (1888) and
Sherrard (1902). The Norway pine type, like the white pine type, had
given way to lumbering and fires. The most Open type and that occur-
ring on the most sterile soils was the jack pine type. According to
Livingston (1905, p. 29) the only species of trees here were Pinus

divaricata. (Pinus Banksania),guercus coccinea, Prunus virginiana, and

 

 

seedlings of Populus grandidentata: "all but the pin oak are scarcely

 

more than shrubs."

Livingston (1905, p. 28-32) divided the lowland vegetation into
three types: 1) open meadow; 2) tamarack-arborvitae; 3) mixed swamp.
He found that all three types were much nearer their original condition
than the upland types. He illustrated the patterns of distribution for
the various kinds of vegetation on a county map. An analysis of the
map reveals that the hardwood type is always found on soils containing
considerable amount of clay and covered with a fairly thick leaf
litter and humus layer. 'Where pine occurs on soils containing the same,
or nearly the same clay content as those of the hardwood type, the
physiography of the area accounts for greater altitude and better
drainage. After a lengthy discussion concerning soil characteristics
and their effect upon plant distribution Livingston (1905, p.h0)

concludes that:

23.
. . .The main factor in determining the distribution of
forests on the uplands of this region is that of the size of
the soil particles, the sorting of which dates back almost
entirely to the glacial epoch. The size of the particles
determines the amount of air and moisture in the soil, and
this in turn determines the amount of humus formation, and
the growth of the nitrifying organisms, and perhaps also to
a certain extent the amount of soluble salts in the surface
layers.
Thus the author is back to his Kent County hypothesis of the "moisture
retaining power of the soil" (Livingston 1903, p. 55).

In commenting upon the relation between the vegetation of Kent
County and this region, be indicated that he considered climate to be
a major factor of plant distribution, for he said (p. 39):

. . .the presence of hickory and the better growth of

black, red, and white oaks in the more southern area

is an indication of a more southern flora.
He noted (p. hO) that the hardwood forests of the two areas were very
nearly the same in character and suggested that perhaps a study of the
transition zone between the two areas would be useful in working out
the exact relations of the various societies.

The Missaukee County study concerns an area just west of that
studied by Livingston in 1905. It will add another piece of the nec-
essary information for a working out of these relationships for the
different communities.

The composition of the beechsmaple association has been studied in
detail by Clayberg (1920); Quick (1923); Gleason (1921»); Woollett and
Sigler (1928); MbIntire (1931); Dice (1931); Westveld (1933); Cain (1935);
Potzger (l9h6); and Braun (1950).

The region studied by Clayberg (1920) lies in Emmet and Charlevoix

Counties. He found (p. h3) that the "normal type" of forest occurring

2h.
on the uplands before clearing had the following composition:
"70-90% sugar maple; 5-30% beech. Hemlock is a constant tree also,
running as high as 25% in some localities." Other trees occurred in
varying but small proportions. Among the more prominent were:
basswood, black ash, mountain maple, silver.maple, ironwood, white
birch, yellow birch, choke cherry, red maple, American elm, and slip-
pery elm (p.143).

Clayberg (1920, p. h5-h6) distinguished two variants from his
normal type. He found on the hilly ground, which was both drier and
more open, a variation which he described as the xerach type of variant.
' Here either beech or maple was dominant. In a detailed description of
the XerarchTree Society, the author states (p.h9) that the aspen-white
birchepin cherry society varies much in general form and specific con-
tent with the result that (p. h9): "three types (consocies) are found."
While the variations are described for each consocies it is stated
(p.h9) that the dominant trees are: "Populus tremuloids§.fl£g§§.,

'§._grandidentata Michx., and Prunus pennaylvanica L." In the valleys

 

 

and on loW'ground he distinguished a hydrach variant, with linden
(basswood) and yellow birch being characteristic trees (p. h5).

It is Clayberg's (1920, p.50) contention that the forest itself in
this area is static in species, but dynamic as to individuals. In come
menting on Livingston's (1903) studies in Kent County, Clayberg (1920,
p. 51) noted that the oak and hickory played a more important role in
the forest succession in Kent County, and that while three of living-
ston's societies contained both oak and maple in the Charlevoix and

Emmet County region, the four primary types were mutually exclusive.

25.
He seems to have overlooked the important fact that the Kent County
study is to the south of the tension zone, while his study was north
of it.

Quick (1923) made an extensive study of the distribution of the
climax association in southern Michigan. As a result of a comparative
study of the percentage frequency of the trees in sixteen stands, which
were divided into six regions within the lower peninsula, (Fig. 29) he

listed the dominant trees in the association as (p. 222): Acer saccharum,

 

Betula lutea, Carya cordiformis, Fagus grandifolia, Ostrya Virginiana,

 

Quercus rubra, Tilia americana, and Ulmus americana. He noted (p. 222)

 

 

 

that maple and beech make up 60% of the association, with the others
making up 30%. The remaining 10% was composed of a number of different
species of trees which varied in kind in different parts of the state.
Region h,'which occupies all of the western and central part of the
lower peninsula north of the Grand River, includes Missaukee County.
Quick's sampling stations within this region were three in number.
Geographically (Fig. 29) they were located south of Missaukee County,
in the southern part of this region. He found that the climax forest
occupied high and well-drained soils as well as low and boggy ones and
that it was dense and had much humus in both situations (p. 231). His
results indicate the following tree species to be dominant within this

area (p. 231): Acer saccharum, Betula lutea, Carya cordiformis, Fagus

 

_grandifolia, Fraxinus americana, Ostrya virginiana, Quercus rubra, Tilia

 

 

americana, Tsuga candensis, and Ulmus americana. The addition of TSE

 

 

canadensis to the dominant trees of the association within the region,

 

in contrast to its absence from the association dominants in the south-

ern part of the lower peninsula as a whole, is indicative of a tendency

26.
toward a northern aspect for this location. Quick (1923, p. 231)

likewise mentioned the occasional occurrence of Pinus Strobus and Larix

 

laricina within the region, relegating them to relic status within the
association. He noticed (p. 231) that in the southern border of the

region some species of more southern ranges occurred: "Juglans cinerea

 

at Mosley; Plantanus occidentalis at Mill Creek; and Ulmus racemosa at

 

 

Hart."

It was Quick's conclusion (p. 239) that the beechemaple climax as-
sociation was an ecological association for the southern peninsula of
Michigan, and that the differences which were evident between the climax
forests of the northern and southern portions of the peninsula were not
sufficient to warrant a division into two areas, each having a.different
climax. He indicated (p. 239) a belief that the organic matter of the
soil was an important factor in determining the development of the
climax association, with the inorganic factor not acting as a limiting
one and that the water relations were important only in the early
stages of development. Quick (1923, p. 238) would allocate historical
factors to a place of considerable importance in explaining the present
distribution of the climax association. He said (p. 238) that the
"lagging” of certain species in the central region of the state may be
due to their having entered from one or’more corners and to their not
having yet completed their invasion of the entire region. Quick
(p. 238) indicated that many of the areas at present unoccupied by the
climax association will become so in the future after sufficient time

has elapsed to allow for the modification of the present soil.

27.

The character of the second growth hardwood stands found in the
northwestern part of the lower peninsula depends almost entirely upon
the nature of the original cutting and subsequent action of fire ac-
cording to Buttrick (1923, p.h). He has classified these second
growth hardwoods, depending upon the manner in which the original timber
was removed and what subsequently happened, as follows (p. 5):

l. Culled lands

2. Clean out lands unburned or largely unburned

3. Culled or clean cut lands heavily burned over

h. Cleared lands allowed to revert back to forests

5. Cut, cleared, or burned lands resulting in pure,

or nearly pure stands of aspen

He described the manner of succession in which the second growth hard-
'woods have once again taken over the lands, complete with comparative
tables of volume and yields of varied-aged stands in Antrim, Kalkaska,
and Ieelanau Counties. According to this study, elm, basswood, maple,
beech,hemlock were the principal trees of the second growth stands.

The structure of the maple-beech association in northern Michigan
'was made up of twenty-three species according to a study by Gleason
(192h). Their role in the structure of the association was distinguished
both by their wide distribution among the areas studied and their "high

frequency indexes" within an area. The species as listed by Gleason

(192k, p. 293)‘Were:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trees
Acer saccharum Tilia americana
Betula‘lutea Ulmus americana
Fagus grandifolia

Shrubs
Acer spicatum Ribes Qynosbati

 

 

Cornus alternifolia Sambucus racemosa

 

 

28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herbs
Adiantum pedatum Milium effusum
Aralia nudicaulis Osmorhiza Claytoni
‘Arisaema tripnyllum Polygonatum biflorum
Aspidium spinulosum Smilacina racemosa
Carex intumescens Tiarella cordifolia
Caulophyllum thalictroides Trillium_grandiflorum
Galium triflorum Viola scabriuscula

 

 

The area studied by Gleason (192h) consisted of a portion of
Antrim, Otsego, Charlevoix and Emmet Counties. This paper is one of
the very few which gives a full statement of the structure of this im-
portant association. As a result of his studies, Gleason suggested the
following general theory (p. 296):

The hemlock forest represents the mesophytic climax of

the various successional series of the northern type of

vegetation, and the veteran hemlocks of the northern type of

hardwood forest are the last generation of trees of this

earlier association. Succession by hardwood forests is a

modern process, which in some places has not yet been come

pleted in respect to the secondary species, and the present

veteran trees of sugar maple and beech represent, in some

places at least, the first generation of dominant species of

this association.
In conclusion (p. 296) he noted that the hardwood forest of this region
was dominated by sugar maple, with beech, elm, and basswood as important
codominants, with the proportion of each depending upon the available
soil.moisture.

'Wo11ett and Sigler (1928, p. 21) report that the typical trees in

the revegetation of Beech-Maple areas in the Douglas Lake region are:

Acer saccharum, Betula lutea, Fagus grandifolia, Tilia glabra, Ulmus

 

 

americana, with Ostrya virginiana and Tsuga canadensis being abundant

 

 

at times.‘Their studies considered the reforestation of beechemaple
forests in areas where there had been: 1) lumbering without fire;

2) burned over areas; 3) pastured areas; and h) abandoned cultivated

29.
areas (p. 22-23). They were also able to compare the processes of re-
forestation on these areas with the composition of two virgin forest
stands. Their findings (p. 28) revealed that the unburned lumbered
areas returned to beechemaple association by means of a "coppice" de-
velopment, that the burned areas involved several successional stages
and a considerably longer time for reforestation. Both the pastured and
abandoned lands were still more complicated with successional stages
before the process was completed. In their comparisons of the virgin
forest stands with the reforested areas (p. 2h.-25), they found that the
latter stands had 6.8% beech and 67.3% maple, while the composition of
the old-age stands showed 21.2% beech and 35.9% maple. It is inter-
esting to note that they consider the presence of Betula papyrifera,

Pinus Strobus and_guercus borealis as "prominent relics in the com-

 

 

position of the virgin forests" (p. 2h).

There have been numerous papers published in which the original
forest cover has been reconstructed on the basis of soil maps (Veatch
1928, 1931, 19hl). In his 1928 paper, Veatch has mapped the state of
Michigan to show the type of original forest as reconstructed from soil
maps. According to this map (p. 119) Missaukee County was originally
covered by three different forest types: 1) Pine: Norway, white, jack
pines. Oaks. 2) Hardwood-Conifer: Sugar maple, beech, yellow'birch,
hemlock. Norway and white pine local bodies or in.mixture with the
hardwoods. 3) Hardwood-Conifer: Elm, ash, basswood, red maple; locally
sugar maple-beech. Conifers, white pine, hemlock, balsam fir, spruce.
In a classification of agricultural land and land types of Michigan,
Veatch (l9hl) has included in the table of soil types under the sub-

division of land character, a description of the original forest cover

30.
aS'well as some notes on the state of the vegetational covering at the
time of publication. The publication is a valuable part of a field
kit as it serves as a source for checking areas for first reconnaissance
as well as offering opportunities for interesting comparisons following
the completion of the quantitative studies.

There are four principal combinations of forest types in which
species of oak occur on the sandy soils of northern Michigan according
to Kittredge and crittenden (1929). They reported that the distribution
of the four types of oak forests corresponds very closely with the dis-
tribution of certain soil types (p. 11). These forest types in relation
to the soils are: 1) jack oak type; Grayling, Ottawa, and some on Rose-
lawn sands; 2) jack oakawhite oak type; Roselawn sands chiefly, but
occasionally on Roselawn sandy loam and Grayling sand. 3) white oak—
black oak type; Plainfield and Cbloma sands,and to a lesser extent on
Rubicon sand and Ottawa fine sand. h) red oak type; Roselawn sand and
sandy loam, Rubicon and Kalkaska sand, Plainfield fine sand, Emmet sandy
loam. According to the authors (p. h5):

. . .the 1,300,000 acres of so-called 'scrub oak' lands

in the northern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan were

originally covered'with.a.mixed forest of large Norway pine

and white pine with a numerous although subordinate rep-

resentation of oaks. Logging and repeated fires have elim-

inated the pines. The oaks alone have persisted by their

ability to sprout after each fire.

According to Gates (1930), the most important secondary association
“within the lower peninsula is the Aspen Association. He indicated that
it is an association which is able to revegetate nearly every type of

site following the removal of the virgin forest. The association, Gates

reports, (1930, p. 238-2h1), is dominated by Populus grandidentata on

 

31.

the sandy upland soils, by Prunus pensylvanica on the clay upland

 

soils, and Populus tremuloides on the lowland soils.

 

The Land Economic Survey has recognized four distinct upland hard-

wood types for upper Michigan (Mo Intire 1931, p.2h0). They were:

M - hardmaple, beech, elm, basswood, yellow birch

Mb - hardmaple, beech, yellow birch

Me - hardmaple, elm, basswood, yellow birch

my - hardmaple, yellow birch
Iithin the table the species are arranged in the order of their usual
occurrence for the stand. Hard maple and yellow birch are present in
each of the four types, with hard maple first in abundance. McIntire
(1931, p. 2hl) pointed out that the indicators were beech, elm, and
basswood which gave character to the association by their presence or
absence. He recognized the virgin associations in northern Michigan as
definite in character and comparatively simple in composition, with the
second growth stands, which had been only cut over, retaining many of
the characteristics of the original forest. He found, however, that
the problem of forest typing is a more intricate one in marginal areas
where the composition of the original forest was composed of two or
more types, and where both logging and fires have been a disturbing
factor. The need for an understanding of the basic association of the
region in order to construct a type classification is emphasized as
follows (p. 2h5): ". . .a common fault in type mapping is the tendency
to place too much emphasis on the area under treatment in the construc—
tion of the type classification. A correct type map cannot be made of

any given tract without first considering the associations of the entire

physiographic unit in which it occurs."

32.

Dice (1931), in his Preliminary Classification of the Major Ter-
restrial Ecological Communities of Michigan, Exclusive of Isle Royale,
divided the state into three biotic provinces. From south to north
thay were: Ohioan Biotic Province; Alleghanian Biotic Province; and
the Canadian Biotic Province, which is confined, within the state, to
Isle Royale.

The boundary between the Ohioan and Alleghanian provinces is an
eastawest line extending from Lake Huron to Lake Michigan and marks a
possible geographical location for the boundary of the tension zone in
Michigan's lower peninsula. Dice (1931, p. 220) indicated that the
position of this boundary line was an arbitrary one somewhat indefinite
in location and that it should be interpreted to indicate more or less
the central location for a broad belt of intergradation. A complete
description of the numerous communities, with their successional stages
was drawn for both provinces. According to the author, these were
developed from the literature and his own field observations. The
principal ecological characteristic of the Alleghanian province, which
includesMissaukee County, was the extensive development of pines

(Pinus Strobus, P. resinosa and f. banksiana). According to Dice (1931,

 

p. 225) the association formed a very important successional stage which
is ”sometimes long maintained, and which perhaps in some situations may
never be followed by hardwood forests." The author indicated that the
hardwood forest was dominated by hard maple, with beech, hemlock, yellow
birch, basswood and elm found in association in varying abundance
(p. 226).

In a comprehensive study of twenty-four soil types upon which the

northern hardwood forest occurs in the upper peninsula of Michigan,

33.
‘Westveld (1933) found that the relations between soil characteristics
and forest composition and growth were (p. h9) "sufficiently conclusive
to establish general principles for forest land classification and
silvicultural practices." The extensive literature pertinent to soil
as an important factor of the forest site is reviewed here (p. h-6).
The author reported that the soils which support a natural deciduous
forest growth have a relatively wide range of texture and that the dif-
ference in the soil types were great enough to cause differences in the
composition and rate of growth of various species whidh occurred in the
stands (p. 23—39). An analysis of his comparative yield tables (p. 30-
33) indicates that the soil types are very definitely related to yields.
The record showed twenty species of trees within the area studied, with
nine of these being well represented on most all soil types. They were:
sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, American elm, basswood, hemlock,
balsam fir, ironwood, and red maple. 'Westveld (1933, p. 3h) called at-
tention to the fact that white pine was more common originally, but
that early cutting had removed all traces of it from.the stands in some
instances.

One of the more complete quantitative studies of the maple-beech
association in Michigan has been presented by Cain (1935). On the basis
of the results of his quadrat studies, he concluded (p. 512) that:
"Warren's woods fits best type 57 of the Society of American Foresters."
This study represents an area well south of the tension zone, near
Three Oaks, in Berrien County, Michigan.

The hemlock-hardwood forests of the upper peninsula of Michigan
are usually designated by the forester as "mixed hardwoods", by the

ecologists as the "northern hardwood climax" or "yelloW'birchémaple

3h.
climax”, and by the layman as "the virgin hardwoods of the Upper
Peninsula", according to Graham (l9hl, P. 355). On the basis of his
investigations in the climax forest of the upper peninsula of Michigan,
he reported that in the mixed hardwood forests growing on clay and
sandy clay soils in the western end of the upper peninsula, only four
species of trees possessed the qualities demanded of climax species.
They were hemlock, sugar'maple, basswood, and balsam fir. Yellow birch
and white pine did not exhibit a high degree of tolerance nor did they
reproduce, and consequently could not qualify as climax species
(p. 371).

Kenoyer (1929, 1933, 1939) has experienced considerable success in
mapping plant associations as interpreted from original land surveys.
He reported (1928, p. 21h) that for Kalamazoo County a careful checking
of the forest remnants now present indicated that almost without exp
ception the boundaries of the association had remained unchanged for
the past one hundred years.

As the result of a pollen study within the tension zone of lower
Michigan, Potder (l9h8, p. 163) was able to conclude:

. . .the vegetation has experienced more fluctuations
and minor changes along the tension line than to the north
and south of it, and that some climatic- factors exert a
progressively increased sharp control to bring about marked

'tapering off' changes within comparatively small latitudinal

distances.

The conclusions which have been reached by most of the authors
whose papers are cited above are brought together and summarized by

Braun (1950) in her'magnificent description of the deciduous forests of

eastern North America.

35.

According to Braun (1950, p. 31m): "the vegetational unity of
the HemlockJWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood region is emphasized by the
nature of the climax communities which vary almost as much locally as
regionally.” She divides this forest formation into four sections,
(p. 3hO—3hl): 1) the Great Lakes section, approximately the northern
half of the Great Lake section of the physiographers together with a
strip across Ontario; 2) the Superior Upland, corresponding somewhat
with the physiographic province of that name; 3) the Minnesota section,
which is the northeastern part of the Western Young Drift section of
physiographers, together with some contiguous area to the north and
east; and h) the Laurentian Upland section, defined by Braun (1950) as
a Canadian area extending from eastern Lake Superior eastward to the
valley of the St. Lawrence River. Northern lower Michigan and eastern
upper Michigan fall within The Great Lakes section as delimited by this
author. In describing the area she says (p. Bhl): "beech—maple as a
forest type or as an ecological climax community is as well illustrated
in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan or in the east-
ern end of the Upper Peninsula as it is in northern Ohio or southern
Michigan. However'maple is generally more abundant than beech in the
more northern communities and usually has a higher frequency. Hence
the name 'maple-beech' so often used is particularly applicable here.”
She found (p. 3&2) that the sandy outwash plains of glacial topography
afforded suitable habitats for the pine forests and that the morainal
ridges and swells of the rolling moraines, "if the soils are fine grained
and loamy, are occupied by deciduous forest communities, or-mixtures of

deciduous species with hemlock and perhaps white pine."

36.
Braun (1950, p. 3&3) lists the following tree species as composing

the pine forests of Michigan: "Pinus Banksiana, f; resinosa, P: Strobus."

 

She states (p. 3E3) that they may be found singly or in combination and
that each of them reaches its southern limit or "less continuous range"
in the transition soil region of Veatch.(Fig. 1). Sugar maple, beech,
basswood, and yellow birch are considered to be the most abundant de-
ciduous trees. Other species more or less frequent are listed as

(p. 351): red maple, white elm, and red oak. She states that (p. 352):

. . .all statistical data for the hardwood forests of
this section illustrate the overwhelming dominance of sugar
maple and beech, not only in the forest canopy, but in the
lower layers as well; the almost universal occurrence of
hemlock, sometimes as codominant; and the abundance of hophorn-
beam (Ostrya) among the smaller trees.

It is the belief of this author that (p. 3h7):

. . .Successional development in the several pine com-
munities will lead, ultimately, to the establishment of the
regional climax forest of hemlock and northern hardwoods, or
of hardwoods alone. This development is exceedingly slow,
taking centuries for its completion and is possible only in
the absence of fire. It may take place on any type of soil,
but is more rapid on the fine-grained soils, and slower on the
sandy soils.

It is evident from this review of the literature that this large
geographical area, known as the HemlockAWhite Pine-Northern Hardwoods
region, or Lake Forest, supports a climax forest of mixed conifers and
northern hardwoods; and that local sections or the larger areas are

faciations and lociations altered in their composition as a result of

various physiographic, edaphic and disturbance factors.

37.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA STUDIED
A. Location

Missaukee County is located in the northecentral part of the
lower peninsula near the geographical center of Michigan. The north-
west corner of the county is eighteen miles southeast of the south
shore of Grand Traverse Bay and forty-two miles west of the eastern
shore of Lake Michigan. The eastern county line is six miles west of

the western end of Houghton Lake (Fig. 2).

B. Physiography

The topography of Missaukee County is composed of a series of
morainic ridges, outwash aprons and till plains. The most prominent
topographic features in the county are the ridges comprising the two
morainic systems (Fig. 3).

The southwest corner of the county is covered by a ridged deposit
which marks the northern limits of the Lake Michigan-Saginaw Interlobate
tract (Leverett 1915). Its topography is largely of the knob-basin type
with elevations on the moraines averaging about 1,350 feet. The lake
Border moraine enters the county from the west, after bending around
the northern end of the Lake Michigan-Saginaw Interlobate Tract, and
runs northeastward across the center and northeastern part of the county,
finally joining the West Branch moraine in Oscoda County. Threading out
- from the main body of this moraine, near the center of the county, is a

ridge running southeast across the county. The ridge, known as the

38.

00
~00
NO

...0

am

 

Lag end

(MC) Missaukee County; (1) Lake City; (2) Grayling; (3) Houghton Lake;
()4) Gladwin; (5) Harrison; (6) Evart; (7) Cadillac; (8) Traverse City;
(9) Kalkaska.

Fig. 2. Map of Lower Michigan showing the location of Missaukee County
and the weather stations from which climatological data was
assembled.

 

 

 

 

'0'! R u st slaw
:VV :__:; : _ >e a. I /“— ‘3.
‘. I :v‘_, 7- f- ' -"— fl;
_ . _ 7 -—.
,— —' -' c - » _ a r ' _— , ,
-:'_:’.:‘ ° i ’ * 1:" — ' "
~ '-3 Q;_, :7;‘ ~;i_,r
i o ..o .0 .0 .0 L -, — ' ;_ " ,7 —,4 |24u
o o o o 7 _ _ . ———. — _ f; i _ ;
I. o. o o. a o -- _ -- , 1;; _ .4
O O > > ‘ a,
I I I >___’~; - —__». ,
.I . C _— '5 _ _— _.—l
D - ,. - : _ I I." ‘1-
. . . . n. . - _ - _: 2:.
o I '- '. '. - v —, ' _ _. ‘ A:
o. .0. .I .23.. n .0. . I. ‘c. .u - - _ g
C . O 0‘ U
. o. o. n. I. o ’--r‘
¥ I O O O O O . th‘
' . ‘n l a c '. ' 'o '. ' 'c c o o ;
'c o 7 a L_ '. '. 'c '. c u .o .0 .n .0 .'
I. .0. . f; . O. I. O. O. O O. C. I . -T
. 7- o u n a a o a o s 23"
.l o . l _ o a. o. o. . a. I. . c. o. I.
o c c o o o c o
,- .g A , <> 0 q a o . o c I o. 0‘ o.
:1 A o \‘o .0 I a o c. o. a,
‘b — ‘ . - .0 .0 ..\\.. . .0 '0 ‘0 .0 0 ac
_ .‘ _, I I O O I O D C U U
a u o c s
o“ I O I I I C
-_ » _ l, O O O O C U I I
- - —— 0‘ . .0 . I Q U .0 .D '
_ ‘ __ __ —/ / . Ok/Of‘o. u. o. . o. .....
_— "’ :_— r 4C . c o _, , 1
— i .v/ :v-- ; ’ '. ,1. 3.} ‘ . ' __.:L-
', f.—':*' \J) , g , : I ., 9 :1.” _.
.— _ - P o. I 4 :_._ - _ -.:>_ ‘4
::--i‘ a ° ’ . ) ' '7‘;“‘<‘
' : r': - '. ' . 5 ,.,.— ‘rzzu
- ,_‘. ’_’ ,r 1 i - ' 5': :
o c u , - — 7__
a s a —,4. - -‘\ v 0
. . _ __i c o . _ c - __
c — 0 I __
. _ - c u o A e _
a 7 _ . . a .__ . ._—-—
o. ". — If . .‘. A. 7:, 7 , a. _.—.A ;
. -: - - “339:2? .7— ;. ‘:- —;
I C O , .— - v .. _’.
o o o n __ - o _ ‘
I 0 I. I 'u . In "— —
c c o o o o u u _ ,V .1
o o o a c /
c o o c . o o a _
I O C I O _ _
O. O I. . I .. 7,, 7
..o u . ”0/. I a -. ' w 7 my .—
'u . .0 t . 7‘ —_ 7 ‘« f if.
‘ . .. '.. “ 7 i " - '2 12m
J3 - _ - ‘ * c:-_
'-'>, ' ,;—‘ 5:)
-7 h- —;+~«

Legend

m Moraines f] Till Plains

Fig. 3. Surface Geology of Missaukee County

(After Leverett, 1915 .)

 

E] Outwash aprons

1:0.
Harrison-Lake City ridge, joins the West Branch Moraine near Harrison
in Clare County. The Lake Border moraine is a recessional one, marking
the position of the Cary Ice during a halt in its retreat. The relief
on the moraine above the surrounding plains varies from fifty to more
than 500 feet. Within the morainic boundary, however, the average re-
lief is about one hundred feet. The topography of the broad summit of
the ridges varies from slightly undulating and rolling to rough and
knobby, where the elevations change quickly in short distances.

East and north of the northern terminus of the Lake Michigan-
Saginaw Interlobate Tract, as well as east and north of the Harrison-
Lake City ridge, are large areas of till plains. In the northeast
corner of the county, and near the base of the morainic systems are to
be found extensive outwash aprons. The till plains are composed of
glacial deposits which were laid down under the ice sheet. Their top-
ography is undulating to rather rolling. The soils of these areas make
up the better agricultural areas of the county. The outwash aprons are
I made up of stratified glacial drift which was deposited by the melt-
water streams during periods when the ice was shrinking. The surface
of these outwash aprons is flat to undulating. Their soil is relatively
poor, especially for agricultural purposes, as the materials are mostly
a mixture of silt, sand and gravel. There is evidence within the
county to indicate that certain phases in both the till plains and out-
wash aprons are comparable to the "composite plains" as characterized

by Stewart (l9h8, p. 221) for wexford County.

141.

C. Drainage

There are three drainage basins within Missaukee County (Fig. h).
The lake area in Lake and Caldwell townships together with Hopkins
Creek and its tributaries forms that part of the Mbnistee River drain-
age basin within the county. In the very northeastern corner of the
county, Cannon Creek and Grass Lake drain into the Au Sable River
drainage basin. The greater part of the county is served by the
Huskegon River drainage basin. In the northeastern part, Willow Run,
Haymarsh, Dead Stream, and Addis Creeks all join the muskegon River just
east in Roscommon County. west Branch and Butterfield Creeks, in the
central and eastern portion of the county, join the Muskegon River as
it flows southward through the eastern part of Missaukee County. The
Clam.River, with its numerous tributaries, drains the southern part of

the county and joins the Huskegon River to the south in Clare County.
D. Climate

Missaukee County is located within an area in which the climatic
factors have favored the development of a forest formation; Whitford
(1901), Seelye (1917), Quick (1923), Gates (1926), Darlington (19h5),
Potzger (l9h6, 19h8) and Braun (1950). The temperature is moderate,
the rainfall, which is amply distributed throughout the year, is also
moderate, and snowfall is usually abundant, remaining on the ground for
some length of time.

‘While the major variations of macroclimatic factors are sufficiently
large to bring about a change in the expression of the forest formation

from a deciduous forest climax in the southern part of the state to a

 

Leg end

 

Manistee

 

 

 

 

g In Sable Muskegon

 

Fig. h. Map of Lower Michigan showing drainage basins
Carving Missaukee County.

1:3.
mixed conifer-northern hardwood forest climax in the northern part of
the state, they are not varied enough to account for any major vegeta-
tional changeS'within Missaukee County. Livingston (1905, p. hO),
Quick (1923, p. 215), and Cain (19th, p. 12—13) have all noted that
meteorological conditions are of little value in explaining differences
in vegetation for smaller regions, although they no doubt are very sig-
nificant in explaining vegetational differences between larger areas.

Table I presents a climatic summary for the weather station at
Lake City, Missaukee County, as well as including similar data for the
nearest weather stations in all major compass directions. The location
of these stations is shown on the map at Fig. 2. Comparison of the
climatic factors expressed in the table reveals that Missaukee County
is nearly average for the stations considered, as regards temperature
and length of the growing season. The county receives slightly less
rain annually than the other stations considered. This difference,
however, is not believed to be large enough to be a critical factor as
regards the distribution of the forest formation within the total area.

The physiography of Missaukee County is of such nature that the
"microclimate of edaphic factors" (Potzger 19h8, p. 162) would undoubt-
edly affect the vegetational expression, sometimes favoring the species
characteristic of the southern deciduous forest climax and at other
times favoring species characteristic of the mixed conifer-northern
hardwood climax forest. Small fluctuations in temperature and moisture,
factors which would be influenced by such.microclimatic-edaphic differ-
ences, would find expression here while not being evident within the

boundaries of the major communities. The determination of such micro-

TABLE I - A

CLIMATIC SUMMARY FOR WEATHER STATIONS
IN AND NEAR MISSAUKEE COUNTY*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temperature Killing Frost
’ °F. . D t
Station 1 in f z 1 __Av 5‘35 2‘
a b c d
Lake City May Sept
Missaukee County 26 19.3 68.3 106 -hl 17 26 26 123
Grayling May Sept
Crawford County 86 l7.h 66.1 106 -h1 h0 27 19 115
Houghton Lake June Sept
Roscommon County 32 19.8 67.h 107 -h8 22 ll 3__ 8h
Gladwin May Sept
Gladwin County 32 20.1 68.7 105 -39 20 13 23 133
Harrison May Oct
Clare County 23 19.8 69 .1 103 --36 2h 13 3 1113
Evart May Sept
Osceola County 2h 21.2 69.1 102 -h2 18 21 23 125
Cadillac May Oct
Wexford County 39 1811 67.5 10b -36 26 27 6 1&6
Traverse City May Oct
Grand Traverse County h8 22.0 69.6 105 -33 36 4_ 15 ll lh9
Kalkaska May Sept
Kalkaska County 22 17.6 67.8 106 -35 2h 23 25 125

 

1. Length of record in years
a. January average temperature
b. July average temperature
c. Last killing frost in the spring
d. First killing frost in the fall
«x. Maximum temperature recorded
-y. Minimum temperature recorded

2. Length of growing season - days

 

‘* Adapted from Climate of Michigan in Climate and Man, USDA Yearbook l9hl
and expanded by use of Climatological Data.for Michigan; U. S. Dept. of
Commerce Weather Bureau, 19h2 - 1950

 

 

LS.

ommalmnma steam Moreno; 83580 no .pmoq .m . D mgmfiog no.“ .3me Hmoamoaopmfiao no

one as nonsense one Haas escapee» «am: .one one ceesaao as sameness «c banshee seem ocsdooa.a

 

Hammcflmn Hman< .m
match ca oncoma no newcoq .4

 

mH.mN mm.a 0:.m ~©.m om.m mH.m no.m om.m :m.m ow.m :m.a mw.H m4.H mm

hpqdoo mxmmxaom
mammxadm

~:.- mh.H m©.m mw.m ©®.m mm.m H®.m 0H.N Hw.m mm.H :~.H mmcfl m~.H on huddoo omhmbmha ozone

hnwo omnobmaa

 

mm.mm m:.H w:.w mw.m H©.m om.m Hw.m m>.m ~>.m mm.m mm.a :m.a om.H om

.3560 pancake:
ooaafinmo

 

mn.mw Hm.H m:.m HH.m :w.w om.w Hw.m :w.~ ow.m :H.m No.w mN.H ow.H mm

hucsoo maooomo
phm>m

 

ms.em ee.a am.~ em.~ ss.~ oa.m ma.~ as.m sm.m em.m ed.a os.a ma.a am

meadow onmao
domfihnmm

 

:m.wm m©.H mm.a om.m :~.m H©.m m~.m Hm.m mm.m mm.~ mw.H NM.H 4:.H on

season sarcasm
chateau

 

0:.wm m:.a wm.m um.m mm.m m~.m wm.~ w~.~ :~.m mm.m mm.a H~.H:m.H mm

hpqsoo mosaoomom
been aoeamscm

 

m~.om o~.H mw.m 0H.m m4.m om.w H:.m mm.m sm.m om.~ ow.H wm.H ©m.a N:

hpddoo bnowamho

 

 

wcflahwno
m©.:N mm.H mm.H mm.w :m.w mN.N om.~ m©.~ mm.N om.H om.H m©.H ~:.H gm hpnsoo omxdmmmfiz
keno oxen
m NH HH OH m m w w m J m N H 4
seasosm

Amonocwv nonparamaoonmchflnpcoa ommpo><

 

 

*MBZDOU maga<mmHfi mdmz 924 2H
mchedem mmmedm;.mom «Eda ZOHH¢BHmHommm mu MMdEEbm

mIHmfiHmdB

t6.
climatic factors and their expressions upon the vegetational distri-
bution within the area would require a long period of controlled field
experiments much beyond the scope of this study. All that can be done
here is to take notice of their probable existence, and attempt to cor—
relate plausible explanations where an analysis of the composition of

the vegetation seems to indicate that such factors are operative.
E. Soils

The soils of the northern part of Michigan are a part of the great
soil group known as the podzols. Those of Missaukee County were devel-
oped from the material deposited by the great ice sheet of the Tazwell
and Cary substages of the Wisconsin stage of Pleistocene glaciation.
Some evidence of preJHisconsin glacial activity may be interpreted from
the compact clay drift which is found beneath thelazewell surface in
certain parts of the county. Thus the area may be considered as com-
paratively young physiographically in view of the fact that the last
glacier is considered by geologists to have receded from this part of
the state about 25,000 years ago.

References to the northern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan
invariably brings forth the comment, "Oh, that's all sand up there.“
This popular connotation rests upon a sound foundation, as that part of
the state has been classified largely as third and fourth class agri-
cultural land because of the large proportion of sandy soils present
(lillar 19h8).

The natural land divisions for the county, as mapped by Veatch and

Schneider (19h8, p. 23), are shown in Fig. 5. Division A is composed

 

 

 

 

£18.
predominately of sandy loam and loam soils over reddish clay. Accord-
ing to Veatch and Schneider, such land types are characterized by a
topography having flat and undulating plains with low hills. The
natural vegetation for this land type is described by the mappers
(p. 25) as forests of "hard—maple, beech, elm, basswood, white pine,
hemlock; cedar and spruce in the swamps." Division B makes up the
second largest land type in the county. Its soils are predominately
sands and sandy loams while associated with them are smaller areas
which are like the soils of Division A. Topographically, Division B
is rolling and hilly with some flat plains which may be either dry or
wet. Veatch and Schneider (p. 25) have classified the natural vegeta-
tion on this type as: "forests; upland hardmaple, beech, mixed hardwood,
hemlock, and white pine. Swamps - cedar, spruce, tamarack, and fir.”
A third land type, Division C, is restricted to the northwest corner
of the county along the Manistee River. The soils of this type are
sands and sandy loans which have dry sands and gravel beneath them.
The principal topographic feature is a high dry plain which has been
deeply trenched by the Manistee River. There are some small swamps
plains containing low ridges and hillocks of sand. This land type,
according to the mappers (p.27) has a natural vegetation composed of
forests of white and red pine on the dry plains, with swamp hardwoods
and conifers on the wet lands. The eastern portion of the county is
Characterized by Veatch and Schneider (p. 25) as a natural land division
'With.predominant dry acid sands of low fertility with large and small
'bodies of peats. Its topography is level pitted plains, hilly highland,

Ilakes, and a few large swamps. The natural vegetation of such a natural

D9.
land division, according to Veatch and Schneider (p. 25), is forest
with red and jack pines dominant and white pine, oaks, and aspen in
lesser abundance. This natural land division is shown on the map
(Fig. 5) as Division D.

Michigan soil types developed from glacial drift usually show
considerable heterogenity over a comparatively small area. Missaukee
County is no exception. The legend of an unpublished Land Type Map of
Missaukee County* lists no less than twenty-two major soil types.
Associated with each major soil type are numerous minor types so that
the final picture for the soil becomes a very heterogenous affair.
Comparisons of the sample plots with the soil series were made after
the sampling areas in the county had been selected. It was then
found that six different soil series were represented within the ninety-
eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods selected for quantitative
study (Fig. 6). Therefore a description of the general characteristics
and profile development of the soils will be limited to these six.
These descriptions are based upon field notes taken in the stands
during the summer of 1950 and the descriptions of The Established Soil
Series by the Division of Soil Survey, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils,
and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Research Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, copies of which are on file
with The Soils Department, Michigan State College. The six soil series
represented in this study are: l) Arenac; 2) Emmet; 3) Kalkaska;

h) Nester; 5) Selkirk; and 6) Roselawn.

 

*Land Type Map, Missaukee County. Agricultural Experiment Station.
Michigan State College. Conservation Institute and Soil Science Section,
Department of Conservation, State of Michigan; USDA, Bureau of Plant
Industry, Div. of Soil Survey. l9h2.

50.

new , "a . II I I Iv

 

D VIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*1

Legend

U Stand location; A — Arenac Soil Series; E - Emmet Soil Series; K - Kalkaska
Soil Series; N - Nester Soil Series; S - Selkirk Soil Series; R - Roselawn
8011 Series.

Fig. 6. lap of Missaukee County showing the location of the ninety-
eight standl of second growth upland hardwoods and their relation
to the six soil series.

51.

According to The Division of Soil Survey (1939) the Arenac
series consists of podzols which have been developed in sands de-
posited by winds and water over heavy clay. The A00 layer of the A
horizon of the profile was the most variable in the nineteen quadrats
on Arenac sandy loam. It ranged from bare sand at the forest floor
in some plots to others having a leaf litter more than one inch thick.
Where the leaf litter was completely absent the profile showed no
humus layer, when the layer of leaf litter was present there was a
weakly developed brown raw humus. The A2 portion of the horizon was
well developed, showing strong podzol characteristics. This layer,
which was strongly leached, was a loamy sand, ligh-lavender in color
and varied from three to nine inches in thickness. The upper layer of
the B horizon was loamy sand, slightly acid in reaction and pale coffee
brown in color. Its thickness varied from eight to twelve inghes, with
the deepest layer found in sites having the thickest Ago layer. The
B2 layer was more sandy than loamy and averaged six inches in thickness.

It showed the same degree of acid reaction as did the B The deepest

1'
layer of the B horizon was extensively developed, ranging from a foot
to a foot and a half thick. It was yellow sand, neutral in reaction.
There were some sample plots which contained, in addition to the yellow
sand, a slightly mottled rusty-brown sand. The parent material is a
calcareous clay, which was probably water laid, as these tracts are
physiographically outwash aprons.

The largest number of sample plots were located on the Emmet
sandy loam of the Emmet Soil Series. This series includes podzols de-

veloped on sandy glacial drift, which is coarse for the most part. The

52.
solum varies from a medium to strongly acid and the parent material is
slightly calcareous, according to the Division of Soil Survey (l9b3).
The profile varies within the plots, especially in regard to the A00
layer. In some stands it was nearly four inches thick, while at other
places it was exceedingly thin. In nearly every plot, there was a
typical mull humus layer in the AG portion which was about two inches
thick. The zone of eluviation was a loose loamy sand mostly pale-
lavender in color, and usually eight inches deep. Three layers were
distinguishable in the B horizon. The Bl'was a sandy loam.mostly light
brown. However, in some inStances this layer tended towards a yellow-
ish color. While variable in thickness within the plots, its average
depth was ten inches. The B2 layer had the greatest variation in
color characteristics within the sampling area. In some instances,
it was a brownish-gray with a slight tendency towards mottling. At
other places, the color was reddish-brown. The loamy sand was without
structure, just slightly acid, and four to five inches thick. The B3
layer, which was almost two feet thick, possessed a greater Clay content
with the sand resulting in a coarse, somewhat'blocky, structure. Thhs
layer 'was slightly to medium acid in reaction. A.moderately compact,
slightly calcareous glacial till formed the C horizon. The Division
of Soil Survey (l9h3) indicates that the CaCo3 content of this horizon
varies from 5-15%.

Kalkaska sandy podzols make up the third soil series. The Division
of Soil Survey (1950) describes the series as being composed of sandy
podzols developed on glacial outwash plains. They are sands of mixed

composition possessing both silicate and limey materials. In the samples

53.
used in this study, there was an A06 layer which varied from less
than one-half to four inches thick. The A0 layer was composed largely
of organic debris in various stages of decomposition tending toward
humus, but less than humus. Its average depth was an inch. The lowest
layer of the A horizon was made up of a pinkish-gray, fine sand which
averaged nearly a foot in depth. Digging "soil wells" through this
area was hampered by the accumulation of many secondary roots from the
tree and shrub species. A fine loamy sand, dark brown in color and
medium acid in reaction formed the B1 layer of the B horizon. The
layer was approximately ten inches thick and tended to show a gran-
ular structure in many of the plots. The B2 portion was a dry brown
loamy sand, varying to a yellowishsbrown sand, which was more moist.
The layer was like the B1 in structure, thickness and reaction. The
C horizon was a lightAbrown to yellowish sand and varied from dry to
slightly moist with many small stones in it.

According to The Division of Soil Survey (l9h6), the Nester Series
consists of podzols developed in.moderately heavy, pinkishebrown glacial
till, which is somewhat calcareous, with a solum acid in reaction. The
A06 layer of the profile was composed of freshly fallen leaves together
with other forest debris and averaged two inches in thickness. The A0
layer, about one inch thick, was made up of undecomposed organic debris.
In the Al layer of the horizon characteristics of a mull humus were
easily identifiable. This layer, in these stands, was nearly two
inches thick. Below, in the zone of eluviation, there was a light-gray
loam about four inches thick. The upper layer of the B horizon con-
sisted of a yellowish-brown loam some three inches thick. The B layer

1
was a fairly compact gritty clay loam, reddish in color and two feet

Sh.
deep. The B2 layer, while not sharply defined, was thicker than the
preceding layer. The C horizon was composed of a gritty, pebbly clay
till, limey in character, which has a reddishepink cast.

The Selkirk Series is composed of imperfectly drained soils which
have been developed over reddish or pinkish calcareous till or lacus-
trine clay, in the podzol region, according to the records of the
Established Soil Series prepared by the Division of Soil Survey (l9h6).
The stands of second growth hardwoods occurring within this soil
series were on Selkirk silt loan. A consolidated soil profile for the
type encountered here consisted of an Age layer averaging three inches
in thickness. The A1 layer, a dark gray humus layer, slightly acid in
reaction, was typical of a mull humus. It was slightly thicker than
the A00 layer. A podzol characteristic was evident in the A2 layer,
which was silt loam, light-gray in color, and medium acid in reaction.
Two layers were distinguishable in the B horizon, both giving visible
evidence of imperfect drainage. The Bl'was a silty clay loam reddish
to yellow-brown, and very coarse structured. Its thickness was very
variable throughout the seventy-two quadrats, being from two to seven
inches. The yellowish color of this silty clay was lacking in the B2
horizon. Instead,there was a gray silt along with a reddish clay.

The layer was quite impervious and quite acid in reaction. Like the
B1 layer, it was also variable in thickness, averaging eight inches.
The parent material was a silty clay which, in some locations, was
very'pebbly.

Roselawn, the sixth soil series, is characterized by The Division

of Soil Survey (l9h6) as including podzols developed on light-textured

glacial drift composed largely of quartzone material. The A00 horizon

55.

of the soil profile for the Roselawn sand, which represents this

series within the area studied, was variable in thickness and amount.
In its greatest depth, it was hardly more than an inch, while in many
stands the forest floor had a sparse covering. The AC was mostly
little-decomposed organic debris, one and one-half to two inches thick.
In some instances, this graded into an Al layer only slightly more de-
composed; in other stands, where the A00 was heaviest, and the Ao'was
much decomposed, the Al horizon contained a humus layer character-
istic of the mor type. The illuvial portion of the A horizon was in-
coherent sand of a light-gray color, which varied from four to ten
inches in depth. A light-yellow loamy sand, eight inches thick, formed
the B1 layer. The B2 layer was not sharply defined; however, it tended
to lose the loamy characteristic and become quite loose sand. The
yellow color characteristic was weaker here also. The parent material,
which is only about one and one-half feet from the surface, is sand
for the most part. In some sample plots gravel was also found in the

C horizon, while two "soil wells" evidenced a reddish clay pocket in

the gravel material .
F. History

Missaukee County was legally established in l8h0; however, the
county government was not organized until 1871. The county was named
for an Ottawa chief, who was one of the signers of the treaties of 1831
and 1833. The name Missaukee means nlarge mouth of a river." (Quaife,
19ho). .

At the first meeting of the Board of Supervisors, June 6, 1871,

which was held at ”the Parley farm, a couple of miles northeast of

56.
Falmouth"; (Stout, 193h), the following tax assessments were made:
Pine land - $h.00 an acre
First-class farm land - $2.00 an acre
Pine stump - $1.25 an acre
In April 1877, the present county seat, Lake City, received its
name. Previous to this date it was known as Reeder. At that time,
mail was received by stage from Fife Lake. Forest fires were very fre-
quent, destroying timber, taking lives, threatening the settlements,
and nearly interrupting the mail service as indicated in the following
quotation from Stout (l93h): "April 1877. . .the stage had difficulty
in getting through because of fire, and reported driving through a
blazing strip half a mile wide". The establishment of county government
coincides with the starting of pine logging on a large scale. The value
of the pine lands at that time is reflected in the Supervisors' tax
assessment. Commercial pine logging, within the county, centered at
Jennings on the west bank of Crooked Lake. 'Watson Brothers were the
largest operators in the county. In the summer of 1877, they reported
having 75-80 million feet of pine logs in West Branch township, as well
as a big drive in Butterfield township.
The harvest from the pine lands was nearly completed by 1896.
Stout reports that The Lapham Mill finished its out and was wrecked
at that time and that Sands' Mill cut their last log. Only small scale
operations, largely for local consumption, have been in operation within
the county since then. As the end of the harvest approached, serious
forest fires were more numerous. Lake City people were aroused to the
danger in 1887. During the dry summer of 1891, there were extensive

fires throughout the general area of the "pine plains", with consider—

57.
able damage resulting in Missaukee County. The worst fire in the
history of the county is recorded as having occurred on the 20th of
May, 1893. At that time nearly all of the personnel of a logging
camp lost their lives during a fire which consumed nearly all of the
timber and slash in section 11 of Forest township. Only a year later
the town of McBain was almost destroyed as forest fires raged through
the southern part of the county. The following summer Moorstown, in
the northeastern part of the county, met a similar fate. ‘With the
passing of time since the extensive logging operations, the number and
intensity of the forest fires has decreased sharply, until now, under
the supervision of the Michigan State Department of Conservation, there
is scarcely any yearly fire loss.

Hardwood logging started as a small scale operation, furnishing the
building materials for the business and residential sections of the
numerous towns which became the trading and recreational centers of the
county during the time of commercial pine logging. Many of the larger
operators closed out their lumbering operations in the county with the
complete devastation of the virgin hardwood stands.

Titus (l9h5, p. 7) has described the vanishing forests for the
northern part of the lower peninsula as follows:

By the fifties logging of Michigan pine was an industry
just starting. In forty years only a remnant of the pine
was left. Towns started, thrived and disappeared as the harvest
of nearby stands waxed and waned. First by forties, then by
sections and finally by whole townships what had been.forests
last autumn was chopping this spring, with flash fires raging
to cap the destruction man had started. No longer was there
work for those to do who settled in the vicinity, nor need for
the towns they had built.
History has recorded that a land boom followed the logging opera-

in the northern part of the lower peninsula. Missaukee County ex-

58.
perienced the full force of the railroaders, loggers, and others who
tried in every way to increase settlement on the cutovers. As for-
feiture for non-payment of taxes became a probability, the holders of
large cutover areas could no longer hang on in hopes of realizing a
return from their acres. Then came the "speculative gentry" who pur-
chased great tracts from tax conscious owners and added their excitement
to the land boom. Below is a sample of one of the representative sales
efforts; it was taken from a statement of a railroad company with acres

for sale and no doubt having an interest in the future of the territory

(Titus 19h5, p. 9):

Lands timbered with.maple, beech, basswood and ash are
everywhere regarded as fertile and well adapted to agri-
culture. A large part of these lands are of this character.

In other parts the soil is more sandy. Plains quite free

from timber and nearly ready for the plow are also to be

found. These lands though offered at low prices ($10.00 to
$25.00 an acre) possess the same qualities of soils as some

of the best of England and the United States, and wherever
lands of this kind have been subjected to intelligent husbandry
adapted to their character, they have produced well, and with
less labor than the heavier soils. It may be said in general
that the lands are adapted to all crops grown in this latitude.

Specimens from these lighter soils have been subjected to
numerous examinations, by eminent soil chemists, for the pur-
pose of determining their productive ingredients, and in
every case an abundance of lime, feldspar, and mica as well
as silica or common sand has been.found to exist. As these
last named minerals contain a large percentage of potash, the
only thing which this variety of soil seems to lack is
vegetable matter. A good supply of this latter will make it
exceedingly fertile, and can easily be supplied by turning
under blue grass sod.

At the height of the boom, lean, droughty, insect-infested, frost-
bitten pine lands could be purchased for $10.00 an acre. For $25.00 an
acre one could buy hardwood hills with slopes so steep that their
fertile soils would go to the bottom after a year's cultivation, and

the water table so deep that the cost of a well would be exorbitant.

59.
Most of the early settlers had little money. Very seldom did they
start on their new adventure with any resources to help take up the
shock of even a temporary set-back. Thus, when crops failed time and
again, and the woods offered no more employment, the log cabins and tar
papered shacks were abandoned. Soon bracken and sweet fern invaded the
unworked fields while aspen and pin cherry crept down off the hills to
take over the clearings. These are the dark spots of the settlement
picture.

A long sequence of federal and state legislative actions has now
corrected such abuses as indicated above and with new approaches to the
problems, augmented by sound land policy developments, efforts are
being successfully carried forward to reclaim the "Land Nobody Wanted"
(Titus, l9h5). In speaking of the changes which have occurred in the
northern or "wild land" portion of the lower peninsula of Michigan,
Andrews and Bromley (l9h1, p. 30) state:

The most striking change in the forest conditions is
the reduction in area of stands from 0-3 inches in diameter
breast high and the increase in the area of those from 3-9
inches in diameter. In particular, the increase from
35,000 to 150,000 acres of stands containing 6-9 inch trees
gives promise of early merchantability of considerable areas
of timber of value for lumber, pulp, ties, fuel, and other
products. These merchantable supplies should support new
wood-using industries which'Will add much to the property
and stability of the region, especially if new uses can be
developed for the large quantity of low-grade material for
which there is little demand.

With effective fire protection the forest is growing
taller and denser. Although the area as a whole is now
only about half stocked, the question is being raised
“whether continued increase in the density of stocking,
particularly in the stands of conifers, may not have an
unfortunate influence upon the wildlife. Careful study of
the biological factors and of the economic values involved
is essential for an intelligent solution of this problan.

60.

Since the turn of the century the number of inhabitants of Missaukee
County has been decreasing. The Federal census figures for 1900 re-
ported a population of 10,606. Ten years later this figure was reported
as 9,00h. In 1930 it had dropped to 6,922. There was an increase dur-
ing the next ten years, no doubt as a result of people returning "home
to the farm" from the cities during the depression years. The population
for the ten year period was reported as 8,029. During the years of
World War II and the "return of prosperity" a decrease in population is
again reflected, with the latest census figures, 1950, being reported
as 7,h58.

According to Hill (1930), Missaukee County occupies two types of
agricultural regions. Most of the county is included in the "Potato
Region". He classified the type of farming'within this region as
(p. 37h): "potato, hay, pasture, cattle". A small portion of the north-
west corner of the county is included in the "Forestry and Forage
Region" (P. 37h). Beagle (19h8) has computed human fertility ratios for
seventeen types of farming areas as reported by Hill (1939). His
figures indicate that the human fertility ratios among the rural-farm
residents of The Northern Potato and Dairy Type of Farming (including
Missaukee County) are the highest in the state.

The boundaries of the state forests for the county, as of June,
1950, are shown in Fig. 7. A large percentage of the privately owned
land is maintained as hunting reserves, with the remainder in agri-
cultural use. Cultural practices of the county are of such a nature
that few, if any, stands of timber are long undisturbed. Almost every
woodlot is open to cattle seeking refuge from sun or rain. The woodlots

likewise serve as a source of supply for fuel to implement coal, oil,

61.

new RSV!

 

T24"

 

 

 

Lani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:A Lil Ev ran
53. g A
W) 1.. \l” r
‘ a 1‘,/>
79"“ l
‘3‘ K , all
c

v

T22”

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

 

V\“\\

 

II/r TZIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

trig
like

 

Legend

(1’23 Boundaries of State Forests

Fig. 7. Map of Missaukee County showing the boundaries of State
Parents as of June, 1950. (After Michigan Department of
Conservation, 1951.)

62.
and bottled gas supplies during the long cold winters. Such cultural
habits added much to the difficulty in the selection of the stands of

second growth upland hardwoods for this study.

63.

METHODS
A. General

The selection of the stands of upland second growth hardwoods for
this study was made on the basis of the following criteria: (1) that
they represent natural stands (i.e., not artificially planted); (2)
that they be as little disturbed as possible (i.e., fire, grazing and
extensive cutting); and (3) that they be representative of the upland
land type. AS'was noted under the discussion of the history of the
county, the selection of stands to exclude disturbances from both
grazing and extensive cutting was most difficult due to certain
cultural practices within the county. A woodlot which shows no browse
line and which is not used to supplement winter fuel supplies is an
exception to the rule here. Because of these factors, it was decided
to treat quantitatively only the tree and shrub layers composing the
stands selected.

Actual selection of stands was made during a reconnaissance
through the county. Stands meeting the criteria were sampled quan-
titatively. In this manner, ninety-eight stands were chosen and data
from 5h6. one hundred square meter quadrats recorded. The geographical
distribution within the county (Fig. 6) was believed adequate to give

an accurate picture of the upland type of second growth hardwoods.

on.

B . Field Methods

In this study, the quadrat method of sampling, as defined by
'Weaver and Clements (1938, p. lO—lB) was used. The method has been
used previously in the general area with satisfactory results by
Gates (1912, 1926, 1930); Woollett and Sigler (1928); westveld (1933);
and Cain (1935). Rectangular quadrats, 20 meters by 5 meters on a
side, were placed in each stand. Because of the different sizes of
the stands (woodlots), varying numbers of quadrats were used in each
to insure adequate sampling. The quadrats were placed far enough
within the canopy to avoid bordering effects. As the topography of the
area is morainic, with outwash aprons and till plains, the rectangular
shaped quadrat was selected in order to best sample slope effect.

All trees and shrubs, one foot or taller, were counted and re-
corded on standardized data sheets which listed the species on the
basis of the following five size classes: Size Class Two, .09 in. DBH
or less; Size Class Three, 1.0-3.5 in. DBH; Size Class Four, 3.6-9.5 in.
DBH; Size Class Five, 9.6-lS.5 in. DBH; Size Class Six, 15.6 in. DBH
and above. The size class in which each tree or shrub belonged was de-
termined by measuring the diameter of the species breast high (DBH)
with a diameter tape. Specimen nomenclature is that of Gray's Manual of
Botany, Eighth Edition, Fernald (1950). Records were kept of the con-
ditions of the forest floor and the presence of herbaceous species
noted. The presence of any unusual physical appearance in a stand was
also noted as well as any pertinent and interesting remarks contributed
by the owner. The soils were sampled by means of "soil wells" which

were dug into the C horizon. One face of the well was scraped clean and

65.
measurements and descriptions recorded. Soil reactions were measured
by using a "Soil-Tex" kit. A "soil well" was dug in each stand except
in those on moraines. Here the wells were placed on the crest, the

slope, and near the base.

C. Treatment of Data

1. Structural Characters

a. Quantitative Description. The present composition of the upland

 

second growth hardwoods in Missaukee County, as revealed by the data
from sue. one hundred square meter quadrats, is described quantitatively
in terms of frequency, density, and basal area as defined below. These
data,dbtained by quadrat studies, indicate the numbers of individuals,
their sizes, and the space that they occupy. Together they are the
sociological characters of the individual stand or concrete community.

Frequency is an expression of percentage of sample plots in'which
the species occurs (Costing l9h8, p. 58). Frequency is used here in
the usual sense as the percentage of the total number of quadrats sampled
in which the species was found.

Density, as used in this study, is a quantitative measure of the
species abundance expressed on a percentage basis. It is determined
by dividing the actual number of trees of a species by the total number
of trees of all species within the sampling area.

Basal area, one of the concepts of dominance, designates the im-
portant species from the viewpoint of size. This concept can add much

to an evaluation in terms of bulk and size that cannot be visualized

66.
through the other quantitative characters. The actual number of square
feet occupied by the various species are of interest for they serve to
indicate the bulk of the arboreal vegetation present. In order to
facilitate comparisons with other studies, the totals for basal area
are presented in terms of square feet per acre. A second concept con-
cerned with the expression of dominance is the DFD Index (Curtis, l9h7).
This index is the sum of the percentage of density (D), frequency (F),
and basal area (D). By combining size, relative number, and distribution
of individuals into a single expression, the DFD Index becomes an ef-
fective means of indicating the relative importance of each species in
the stand.

The quantitative description of the composition is presented on a
two-fold basis: (1) the upland type as an entity; and (2) the upland
type as characterized by the composition of the hardwoods for each of
the six soil series. Summary tables, bar graphs, phytographs, photo-

graphs, and maps are used in helping to convey these descriptions.

b. Qualitative Data. Qualitative characters indicate the manner in

 

which species are grouped or distributed, or describe stratification,
periodicity, vitality and similar conditions. Generally they are not
derived from quadrat studies but are rather based upon the knowledge
gained from long familiarity and observation of the community. However,
when the quantitative analysis of the quadrat data has been completed,
many of the qualitative characters are included in the picture. From
such an analysis, the qualitative characters of sociability, dispersion,
and vitality become apparent. Sociability evaluates the degree that
individuals of a species are grouped or hOW'they are distributed in a

stand. Dispersion is a statistical expression which is usually applied

67.
to sociability. Normal dispersion implies a randomized distribution
such as might be expected by chance. Irregular dispersion (hyper-
dispersion) results in crowded individuals in some areas and their com-
plete absence from others. A dispersion which is more regular in ar-
rangement than would be expected by chance is known as hypodispersion.
This arrangement is characteristic of artifically planted areas.
Quantitative density-frequency values usually yield characters of dis—
persion noticeable in the data. Vitality concerns the vigor and
prosperity attained by the different species. Dominants decreasing in
numbers and reproducing feebly usually indicate future changes in the
composition of the community. Rapidly increasing numbers of species

previously of little importance may suggest the new dominants to come.
2. Synthetic Characteristics

a. Presence. One of the more useful synthetic characters used for con-
sidering a community in the abstract is that of presence. It involves
the degree of regularity with which a species occurs in the stands ob-
served. Generally the presence of each species is expressed by the per-
centage of the stands in which it occurred on a five—degree scale of
presence classes:

1. Rare (1-20% of the stands)

N
o

Seldom Present (21—h0% of the stands)
. Often Present (kl-60% of the stands)

Mostly Present (61-80% of the stands)

\nt‘w

. Constantly Present (Bl-100% of the stands)

68.

b. Constance. Constance is an expression relative to the presence of
a species in different examples of a community and is based on the
species in a unit area in each community rather than in the entire ex-
tent. Constance values are usually expressed on a five-degree scale
similar to that showing presence classes. This value bears a relation
to the abstract community very much like that of frequency in the con-
crete community.
c. Fidelity. This character indicates the degree with which a species
is restricted to a particular community. Fidelity is frequently spoken
of as exclusiveness. Braun-Blanquet and Pavillard (1925) have recog-
nized five classes:

Fid. l. Strangers

Fid. 2. Indifferents

Fid. 3. Preferents

Fid. h. Selectives

Fid. 5. Exclusives

Characteristic species of a community are considered to be those

which attain a fidelity value between three and five. Fidelity values
Which have been accurately determined are considered to contribute
strongly to the recognition and classification of a community. However,
because these kinds of studies are so few in the United States, insuf-
ficient data have been accumulated to allow accurate statements of
fidelity for the species of most communities. Such values established
within the extent of one area might indicate the characteristic species
for it. However, there are insufficient available data to establish

Which of these species could be considered as characteristic for the

69.

more extensive community of the larger area: (i.e. Acer saccharum in

 

Missaukee County; but no data on which to evaluate its fidelity stand-

ing for the deciduous forest of eastern North America).
3. Comparisons with Other Studies

Comparisons of the composition of the second growth upland hard-
woods in Missaukee County, as established by this quantitative study,
with other studies in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota were made by
use of the Frequency Index Community Coefficient (FICC) as conceived by
Gleason (1920). In one instance (Stearns, 1951) quantitative data were
presented which gave a DFD Index (Curtis, 19h?) for the species com-
posing the forest formation under study. It was therefore possible,

in this case, to draw comparisons from these criteria of dominance.

h. The Original Forest Distribution in
Missaukee County, as Interpreted from the
Original Land Survey Field Notes
and the Present Day Composition
of the Upland Second Growth
Hardwood Stands

The distribution of forests in Missaukee County at the time of the
original land survey was determined in the manner of Kenoyer (1929,
1933, 1939). He described the method as follows (1933, p. 107):

The surveyor blazed two trees at each station corner
and at the midpoint of each section boundary line, stating
in his field notes the kind, size, and location with ref-
erence to the stake. ‘When records of the species are in—
serted in their proper locations on a county map it is easy
to outline the area occupied by each plant association.
Since the located points are in general a half-mile from
one another it is possible to draw the boundary line of the
association within a halfamile of the exact location.

70.
In Missaukee County, the surveyor also noted in his field notes the
kind and size of all the trees falling on the section lines. 'With
these plotted on the county map, in addition to the information given
above, the boundary lines of the original plant communities take on an
added sharpness. Comparisons with the boundaries of the original
forest communities, as interpreted from the original field notes, are
then made with the boundaries of the present second growth upland hard-

wood communities as established by this study.

71.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

A. The Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of the County

The data gathered from 5&6. one hundred square meter quadrats,
representing ninety-eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods in
Missaukee County, indicate that, although there is some variation of
the composition between stands, there is sufficient homogeneity to

establish a typical grouping of species: the Acer saccharum.- Fagus

 

Agrandifolia (maple-Beech) association, which may be considered as the

 

normal climax forest association for the northern portion of Michigan's
lower peninsula. .

In describing and comparing the aborescent and shrubby vegetation
in numerous stands of second growth upland hardwood, a first logical
step is to list all of species present in the individual stands. This
is a distinct aid in determining characteristic species and formulating
concepts in regard to uniformity and variation of the community. This
material has been brought together in Table II.

Among the canopy tree species, Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia

 

 

are constantly present for nearly all the stands, the former being

present in 93% of the stands, and the latter in 86%. Ulmus americana,

 

Tilia americana, and Fraxinus americana were often present, when rated

 

 

on the usual five-degree scale of presence classes. Their percentage of

presence in the stands was as follows: Ulmus americana and Tilia amerb

 

 

icana, 57%; Fraxinus americana, h3%. Other canopy tree species and their

 

presence class for the stands were: Class 2 (seldom present), Prunus

151‘“ , .

 

.' . 4 I
i - . '- 2 rq
‘ i ‘14 ‘5. x , A ‘1? “I
it ; L?!
' , '~.. ‘ : \ ‘ IC (6
.4 n.-- ,- .. . - m”
t ,
b, . ,
. f1 ;. a 7 .'.“.~ ’ 1 . _ z ‘ .(‘i r. t (v
iii
' ')," ~ minus» 7 '1 '1 my; 89.22;». ,‘ ‘; nuns-x“. "u '1. m1 1 J .- ‘r‘artszkhy
\ ' ' h .
l'jf . I ,
\ ‘D '

8U}? .'..‘L.1~.‘.'r.<,.v an? '1\ 13.1.3. ‘v ', « maid. h...

 
 
    
  
 
 
 

“lemme; swag": has 5" :r':;::__:3;_ __ :_~_{; . Wen-f“ 6:"va . rs.“ -..* Show]. "f
misc! 1911116”; and (xix-Lesa . _. ,1 x; m. u . mpg-1:, x.’ Jg-amao
2,) '

(mom smut .i 1*:‘a5l e"? 3.5 plus: ’ u: 10.79:. n1 3» '
Wm .

 

ma}! mam ,3fl6351q .13.]. "'Lv‘.‘ 4i; :1: 31:- 3...” ‘t?'"x a :2: {moments _;-

K ’0 ’9me 'xfezz‘f .mam'fu ~‘. 'se'e'v: '1; 34:32. 9‘:"1:?3’v-’:.'i1 lsuan

 

, §
5. _- «on 313.” hm 5.3.0310" ' ',‘. mall. .:'. gw 1".‘u’Je. sm‘ {:1 8. . y
' ”v M “-....-

.V. - “.0..-

 

Mink am: a; can u,_c-:u=:~ {r}: -- .3,_ .311"- ._:,..x. iguluci: (“YE , -_ y
9,, I. .
‘_<. ' ,. , ‘ . . . _ dr, ., ' ‘

,2: wart? (:merflq malaise} s :»:z‘.") :e.--r o,'.‘. A“ .6.- 9.2.4: so

.7 _ ___l ! A .‘

 

 

 

93 9h 95 96 97 98

X

Total Percent Class

3 95

 

Canopy Tree Species

Acer saccharum
o
s americana
s 5
us ra
a ame cana
us serot
I‘ S ame
ax us ra
Acer rubrum
et a utea
t era
uercus ra var bore
rcus ba
5 a can ens
s Strobus
us res osa
hu a occ en 9

C8118.

Understory Tree Species

t a ana
us en
us t 0 es

us v ca

e er s .

re a us 5 .
t

Shrub Species

er ca um
us cornu
rnus te
es c s
sa 5 .
bucus ubens
burnum ace 0 um
a s .

 

73.

serotina, h0%; Tsuga canadensis, 37%; Ulmus Thomasi, 35%; y. rubra, 32%;

 

 

Acer rubrum, 30%. Class 1 (rare), Betula lutea, 19%; Quercus rubra var.

 

 

borealis, 15%; Betula papyrifera, 9%; Pinus Strobus and Quercus alba, 5%;

 

 

 

Thula occidentalis, h%; Fraxinus nigra, 1%.

 

 

Ostrya virginiana and Prunus pensylvanica have the largest presence

 

percentage (class 3) for the understory trees in the ninety-eight stands,

 

as.follows: Ostrya virginiana, 58%; Prunus pensylvanica, h1%. The
understory tree species fitting the criteria for presence class 2 were
limited to a single one, Populus grandidentata, 28%. The species in

presence class one were: Amelanchier sp., 8% and Populus tremuloides, 3%.

 

The shrubby layer within the second growth upland hardwood stands
of Missaukee County was composed of ten different species. Each of these
was only rarely present within the stands, having a percentage of less

than twenty. Cornus alternifolia was present most often, 12%; Corylus

 

cornuta followed with 8% and Viburnum acerifolium and Rhus typhina'were

 

 

next with 6%. The presence percentage for Acer spicatum was four. Rep-
resentatives of the genera Sambucus, 3%;‘fiibgg, 2%; Crataegus, 1%;
Ease, 1%; and Spiraea, 1%, complete the list.

A presence diagram, based upon a composite of the stands within the
county, is shown in Fig. 8. It is quite a nonnal one in that it shows
no secondary maximum due to the relatively small number of constantly
present Species. Normally most communities have a very high proportion
of species present in class one (rare), and tend to have declining
amounts in succeeding classes. An inspection of the diagram shows that
such is generally the case for this study as based upon the presence

values for the tree and shrub species composing the ninety-eight stands.

7h.

50% -

4O .

l0 P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLASS I 2 3 4 5

Fig. 8. Presence diagram for the tree and shrub species in the ninety-
eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods. Class 1, Rare,
1-20%; Class 2 Seldom Present, 21—h0i; Class 3, Often Present,
hl-60%; Class , Mostly Present, 61—80fi; Constantly Present,

81-100%.

 

 

 

 

7S.
Forty-five percent of the tree and shrub species are rarely present
(class one); twenty-five percent are seldom present (class two);
sixteen percent are often present (class three); there were no species
which could be listed as mostly present (class four); fourteen percent
were constantly present (class five).

The quantitative results for the quadrat studies are shown in
Tables III, IV, V, and Figs. 9 and 10. On the basis of the DFD Index
(Curtis l9h7), the composition of the aborescent second growth upland
hardwoods for the county, arranged in decreasing order of dominance, is

as follows: Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Ulmus americana, Ulmus

 

Thomasi, Tilia americana, Ostrya virginiana, Fraxinus americana, Prunus

 

 

pensylvanica, Acer rubrum, Quercus rubra var. borealis, Populus

 

grandidentata, Tsuga canadensis, Prunus serotina, Ulmus rubra, Betula

lutea, guercus alba, Betula papyrifera, Amelanchierigp., POpulus

 

tremuloides, Pinus Strobus, Thuja occidentalis, Pinus resinosa, and

 

Fraxinus nigra.

 

The shrubby layer is composed of the following species: Cornus

alternifolia, Corylus cornuta, Viburnum acerifolium, Rhus typhina, Acer

 

 

 

spicatum, Ribes cynosbati, Sambucus pubens, Crataegus 22., Spiraea gp.,

 

 

and Eggs 32.. The dominance value for these species was established by
using a modification of the DFD Index. Only percent density and percent
frequency were considered in the quantitative study of the shrubs and
thus their potential dominance was taken as the sum of these two per-
centages.

It is customary to characterize a vegetational community by assign—

ing the names of the two dominant species to it. An analysis of tables

 

IL...

 

SUIMARY DATA FOR THE TREE SPECIES BASED ON 5116 OMB HUI‘IDRED

TABLE III

SQUARE METER QUADHATS IN THE NINETY EIGHT STANDS
0F UPIAND SECOND GROWTH HARDWOODS
IN MISSAUEQEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

76.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: TOTALS
Tree Species Frequency Density B sal Area

No. No. 5 Ft /A % DFD
Acer saccharum 51h 9h.lh 11,18h 60.59 h2.55 35.83 1
Fagus grandifolia 277 50.73 1,185 8.01 15.05 12.67 2
Ulmus americana 179 32.78 695 3.76 15.35 12.92 3
Ulmus Thomasi 123 22.53 731 3.96 12.91 10.89 1
Tilia americana lhl 25.82 522 2.83 7.h1 6.2h 5
Ostrya virginiana lh2 26.01 51h 2.78 2.00 1.68 6
Fraxinus americana 10L 19.05 368 1.99 3.53 2.97 7
Prunus pensylvanica 90 16.h8 620 3.36 .30 .25 8
Acer rubrum 72 13.19 720 3.90 2.57 2.16 9
Quercus rubra var. borealis 59 10.81 323 1.75 3.85 3.2h 10
Populus grandidentata 57 10.8h 5360 2.h9 2.55 2.15 11
Tsuga candensis 6h 11.72 lb? .80 2.39 2.01 12
Prunus serotina 58 10.62 133 .72 2.92 2.E67 13
Ulmus rubra 58 10.62 190 1.03 2.32 2.12 lb
Betula lutea 31 5.68 60 .33 .61 .5h 15
Quercus alba 15 2.75 101 .55 .77 .65 16
Betula papyrifera 16 2.93 55 .29 .h3 .36 17
Amelanchier sp. 9 1.65 6h .35 .OL .03 18
Populus tremuloides 8 1.h7 37 .20 .16 .13 19
Pinus Strobus 7 1.28 23 .12 .38 .32 2O
Thuja occidentalis 7 1.28 17 .09 .19 .16 21
Pinus resinosa 3 .55 7 .03 .1h .12 22
Fraxinus nigra 2 .37 Ch .03 .03 .02 23

 

Total

18,h60 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H mm. 1% mH. H mH. w mm. 3 OH. m mp. :. $b. m mm. m mHprchwooo wmsmw
mN. H mH. H .mm. : Nm. m NH. 4. mH. H OH. m mH. H 0H. m MN. : manonpm mSCHm
mm. m Hm. m om. mH mu. 4 0H. :H mm. m mmUHOHdEme mSHsmom
no. H mH. H mm. NH Hm. m mg. g: mm.H N .66 gmHgoanmEH
mm. :m wm.m MH m4. Hm mo.m HH meMHhhgma mHSPom
mm. 4 mm. M 0m. Hm No.~ HH an“ mm m@.H m m:. H: N:.H m mQHm muohmsd
mm. H mm. n mm. mm Hm.: mm mm. mH o~.~ NH No. 6 mm. m ampsH stpmm
o:.H N um. m mH.m mm HH.m NH Hm.H we Hmwm mm MN. NM Hm.m. mm @0. mo mc.m HH nanny m5EHD
m©.m m mo.m HH HN.: am mm.: mm m©.H cm H:.@ mm 5:. 2m @m.w :H wH. 4H mw.H m mchopmm mscdpm
mm.: m mm.H N w©.H NH wo.m HH om. Hm Hm.: mm Hm. om wm.~ mH mm. mp m:.m mH mHmcmvmqwo mwSme
6:.H N mH. H mm.m NH mm.~ 6H mm.m mHH mm.N on Na. H: HH.m NH HH.m «mm 40.6 mm mpmpameanmum msHsmom
mH.m m Nm. m mH.m mm wm.m MH Hm.m mmH m~.m w: 4N.H mm mm.: Nu Hm. 4N mw.m Hm *mhpsh msopmSG
HH.H m ww.H N mm.: omH :m.m m: :N.: cam :m.m Hm :m.m mum :m.w m: esppsu nmod
8. N NH. N NE N6 33 HH 8.... Hmm a.mH 6N 83.255286 25.0
mo.m mm wo.m 0m Hm.m mMH om.HH mo ow.H Hm m:.m o: mm.H OmH Hm.m mm wcmOHHmem mSCmehm
N6. m Hm. m mo.m mNH gm.HH Hm mm.mw mHN o:.NH mm om.H 06H mm.N mg, mcwHangH> mngmo
m4.m MH mw.H OH Hm.© N4 mN.o Nm mm.o mHm NN.NH Nm mo.w 30H mm.m mm :m.H qu m©.N m: mcmoHpmsm mHHmw
HH.NH NH m6.H N mm.:H NOH 34.6H Nm m6.N How mm.NH om HH.m NmH 6m.HH m6 No.m :mH mN.o Nm HmmeoeN mssH:
06.:H om w:.m NH mo.mH mHH Nm.mH mN mm.o NHN oo.Hm mHH om.m NHH om.HH mo NH.N mmH mo.N m: msmoHpmem m:EH:
HN.mH Nu 05.: cm No.0H oHH 0:.NH mm Nm.o Nmm ©m.:m MMH Nm.N mam Ho.©m NJH 4m.N NNN HH.NN waH «HHomHucmpm mswmm
ow.mm on mm.© am mm.mm OQH mm.mm HmH mN.m4 ome m©.mN No: :N.mw Nmmm ow.ww ON: :@.©© Nmow mm.©N Om: adhmnoomm nou<
a .62 m m .62 m .62 m .62 m .62 m .62 m .62 m .62 a .62
.mCmQ .omum hawmcon hocmswmnh ApHmcoa hocmswmum huHmCmn Acumdvmnm thmch hoqmdwmhm mmHomqm mmhe
o m a m m

 

queoe mmdqolmNHm

 

ZHonoHE .Hezzoo amus<mmHH 2H
moooaaz<m aqum: megoxo ozooum mo mQZHNm Nmon HNHZHZ
was 2H medxmdgo exam: umdsgm anem252 mzo cam
20 ommdm.mmmmdqo mmHm Mm mmHommm mama mme xomuda<m wmdafism

>H Hands

.1

TABLE‘V

SULEULRY DATA FOR THE 38888 SPECIES BASED
N 586 0er 801101181) SQUAnE METER QUADRATS
FROM THE NINETY-EIGHT STANDS 0F
SECOND GROWTH UPLAND mwoms
IN MISSAUKEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
Shrub Species : Frequency Density

No . 5 No . % DF
Cornus alternifolia 27 8.95 259 hh.3h 1
Corylus cornuta 16 2.93 1287 21.91 2
Viburnum acerifolium 9 1.65 59 10.10 3
Rhus typhina 7 1 .28 h2 7 .19 1.
Acer spicatum 6 1.10 37 6.1h 57—
Ribes cynosbati 3 .55 25 11 .28 6
Sambucus pubens 3 .55 19 3.25 7
Crataegus Sp. 3 .55 10 1.71 8
Rose sp. 1 .18 18 1.20 9
Spiraea sp. 1 .18 5 .86 10

 

591 100.00

 

78.

79.
III and IV, which are arranged in order of decreasing dominance as in-

dicated by the DFD Index, reveals that Acer saccharum is by far the most

 

dominant tree species in the second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee
County. This species has percentage of frequency of 9h.lh, being present
in five hundred fourteen of the 5h6 quadrats. The percentage of density
was 60.59, there being 11,118 stems of this species in the grand total
of 18,h60 stems for all tree species. The basal area, expressed as
square feet per acre, was 85.55 or 35.83%. The 586 one hundred square
meter quadrats studied quantitatively in the county represents a total
of 13.h9 acres.

The tree species accorded second rank in the dominance scale is

Fagus_grandifolia: percentage frequency, 50.73; percentage of density,

 

8.08; and percentage of basal area, 12.67.
On the basis of the above figures, the community may be character-

ized as an Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia (mapleébeech) association.

 

 

An inspection of Table IV indicates that these two species fulfill the
criteria for dominant trees in a climax forest community since they are
present in all size classes, indicating successful ecesis, establishment,

and maintenance. The Table reveals further that Acer saccharum is not

 

only the most dominant tree species on the basis of the final totals, but
that it also exceeds the other tree species in every size class. Fagus

grandifolia ranks second throughout all the size classes in respect to

 

both density and frequency. However, the two species of the genus Ulmus
closely approach the beech in all size classes in respect to both percent
frequency and density and in some size classes, their percentage of basal

area is greater than that of beech.

 

 

80.

The presence of Tilia americana, in all size classes, and Fraxinus

 

americana and Betula lutea in all but the largest size classes is

 

characteristic of the typical composition of the northern hardwood

deciduous forest formation. The representation of Tsuga canadensis and

 

Pinus Strobus in all five of the size classes; Thuja occidentalis in

 

 

four of the five classes; and Pinus resinosa in three of the five size

 

classes, adds the necessary elements to constitute a mixed conifer—
northern hardwood deciduous forest formation.

Phytographs for the first eight dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree
species for the second growth upland hardwoods of the county are pre-
sented in Fig. 9. This type of diagram, devised by Lutz (1930), is in-
tended to portray the relative importance of the tree species within a
community. Any differences which appear in expressing the relative
importance of a tree species on the basis of the DFD Index and a phyto-
graph are discussed is a later section. An inspection of the phytographs
clearly shows that the community may be characterized as a maple-Beech

(Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia) association on the basis of the two

 

 

dominant tree species.

The importance of the understory tree species is presented by means
of phytographs in Fig. 10.

While there was no quantitative study made of the herbaceous veg-
etation because of the intense pasturing and frequent cutting within
the woodlots, the following species were noted during the study:

Allium tricoccum, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Comptonia_peregrina, var.

asplenfolia, Galium triflorum, Geranium Robertianum, HepatiCa acutiloba,

 

 

Hieracium aurantiacum, Dycopodium complanatum, Mitchella repens,

 

Osmorhiza Claytoni, Polygonatum biflorum, Oxalis Acetosella, Pteridium

 

 

 

 

81.
aquilmum, Thalictrum dioicum, Solidagol§2., Trillium grandiflorum,

Viola pensylvanica, X. pubescens, and E. canadensis. This list

 

duplicates, for the most part, those published by Quick (1923, p. 225)

and Gleason (1928, p. 290).

 

 

"l

 

 

82.

0 C8 @

AGER SACCHARUH FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA ULMUS AMERICANA

C0 0 O

ULMUS THOMASI TILIA AMERICANA FRAXINUS AMERICANA

A
I3.. .

ominous RUBRA
ACER RUBRW VAR. BOREALIS

Fig. 9. Phytographs for the first eight dominant (DFD Index) canopy
tree species in the ninety-eight stands of second growth upland
hardwoods of Missaukee County. Radius O-A, Percentage of Density;
O-B, Percentage of Frequency; 0-0, Percentage of Size Class;

0-D, Percentage of‘Basal Area.

 

 

 

 

 

83.

, C0 0 @

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA POPULUS GRANDIDENTATA
A
D“ll|||||||||||||’l3 ‘ - ’
C
AMELANCHIER SP. POPULUS TREMULOIDES

Fig. 10. Phytographs for the understory tree species in the ninety-
eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County.
Radius 0~A, Percentage of Density; 0+8, Percentage of frequency;
0-0, Percentage of Size Classes; OHD, Percentage of Basal Area.

 

A

 

8h.

B. The Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of
the County in Relation to the
Six Soil Series

If one groups the ninety-eight stands of upland second growth hard-
'woods of Missaukee County into arbitrary plots on the basis of the six
soil series upon which they occur it is possible to see certain differ-
ences in the composition of the communities as they occur on the various
soilhseries.

The quantitative data for this grouping are presented in Tables VI

to XXI. An analysis of the data shows that Acer saccharum is the

 

dominant tree species in five of the six soil series. The single ex-
ception occurs on The Roselawn Soil Series. According to Veatch (19h3,
p. h3) this soil series supported Norway, white pine and oaks in its
virgin condition. Since lumbering and fire, the coniferous element has

all but disappeared and deciduous trees such as Quercus rubra var.

 

borealis, Acer rubrum, Quercus alba, and Acer saccharum.form the second

 

 

 

growth arborescent vegetation. A complete analysis for the data of the
23 one hundred square meter quadrats representing this soil series is

presented in Tables VI and VII. In the summary totals, Quercus rubra

 

var. borealis was accorded first rank on the DFD Index scale. Acer

 

rubrum was in second position, Quercus alba, third, Acer saccharum,

 

 

fourth, and Fagus grandifolia, fifth. The total list of tree species on

 

the Roselawn sand numbered sixteen. Both Acer saccharum and Fagus

 

_grandifolia, the dominant tree species for the deciduous forest formation

 

in this area, are present in considerable abundance in the first four

size classes.

 

 

TABLE VI

SUI-.flulAfiY DATA FOR THE TREE SPECIES IN 23 OI‘IE HUNDRED
SQUARE ifiTEh QUADRATS 0F SECOND GROWTH
UPLAND HARDWOODS IN MISSAUKEE COUNTY
LOCATED ON THE ROSELAWN SOIL SERIES

85.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. TOTALS
Tree Species 'Frequency Density Basal Area

No. 9 No. % FtZ/A % DFD
Quercus rubra var. borealis 22 95.65 177 18.87 h9.lh 55.80 1
Acer rubrum 16 69.75 287 30.59 11.32 1.91 2
Quercus alba 11 h7.83 91 10.02 111.72 16.70 3
Acer saccharum 7 30.h3 182 19.h0 3.03 3.hh h
Fagus grandifolia 5 21.7u 78 8.31 .82 .93 5
Prunus pensylvanica 5 21.7h 27 2.88 .28 .32 6
Tilia americana 3 13.011 11 1.17 5.62 6.38 7
Pinus Strobus 3 13.0h 9 .96 3.90 8.88 8
Populus grandidentata 3 13 .011 39 11.00 2.19 2.1.9 9
Ostrya virginiana 3 13.08 13 1.39 .68 .77 10
Pinus resinosa 2 8.70 6 .62 .28 i32 11
Ulmus americana 1 48.35 h .h3 1.75 1.99 12
Prunus serotina 1 h.35 3 .32 .80 .91 13
Ulmus rubra l 55135 3 .32 .33 .hh 1h
Amelanchier sp. 1 h.35 h .83 15
Fraxinus americana l 7h.35 l .11 .1h .16 16

 

Totals

938

 

 

 

 

mHHmmnon

 

 

. Hob .953 398:?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. H EN NN HN..HH NNH oaNN NmN mm.mm NHm 38.8
mm. H mm.: H scMOHHoew msstdH
NN. FMMJH H
m:.H N mm.: H mm. H mm.: H .II n
NH.N m mm.: H wchonom m H
Eqm H mm.: H mzH N mm.: H mm. H mmJH H «50.225 9.55
NN. H mm.:. H mm. m ON.m N mmochmh manw
NN. H RH H Nm.H H No.3 m HmH N oN.m N 888%."? «mm
dev N 8.3 m oN.N N 3.2 m 3.: N oANN N SSEEefinm msfloo
00.00H H Mm.a H mm.: H mm.a. H am.H N no.MH m manoupm mchm
oN.w N mm.: H wam. N mo.MH\m1NKM 1N mm.H . scNOHuosm m H
HH.m m oN.m .v .m H mLmNH 3H5>Hhmnom ms
NN. H OOH H wow NIN NNHN m $23me .EHN m 83888..» name
Nm.o m no.MH m mNnHH mN ma. om a :1. NN 34H m:. o. N sshmzoomm nomH
HBJHH m oN.m N Nm.mH MN mH.mm m mN.m ....\.!N H. mm m Na. N an E. on in wan 320:0

 

 

 

 

Nm. 0 m mm. NH 4 N0. N3 wOH Nm. mo H N. Nm oNH NIN. mbLH
mm. mo OH MN. :m w Nm. 3 No 0N. mN mH No. NH 3 mm. om MH Nb. m .3 NIHMF OH
.u oz m oz K oz R oz K oz N oz .TN oz m oz .m oz a .oz
.mcon .dmnz .mcoo .mopz .mcon. .dozz .mson .wouz .mcmn .w0hz
o m H m N
34.89 Em

 

mmHmmm HHom zzaqmmom Mme 20
“.5500 EzdmmHE .3 weozg 9255 $9298 8400mm
Mme Eomh magazd mag gnaw BEBE: .56 MN
20 omm<m mmqqo MNHm Hm wMHoumm mama Ema mom dado Mudzzzm

HH> flqmda

EDS." .ng
*dhflg mdohmfid

mOHoomm owes

E7.

QUERCUS RUBRA ACER RUBRUM QUERCUS ALBA

VAR. BOREALIS

AOER SACCHARUM FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA TILIA AMERICANA

D
.A@F .

PINUS STROBUS PINUS RESINOSA

Fig. 11. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Roselawn Soil
Series. ( ) the same tree species as represented by a composite
of the six soil series within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

 

(*0
UL)

Pinus Strobus,(DFD-8), and P. resinosa, (DFD-11), indicate the

 

ranking of the coniferous element for this soil series. As is shown in

Table VII, Pinus StrobuS'was represented by seven trees in the smallest

 

size class and a single tree in size class five and six. ‘3. resinosa was
absent from both the smallest and largest size classes, with one tree
being recorded in each of size classes three and five, and two individuals
in size class four.

0n the basis of size class representation for all of the sixteen
tree species recorded on the Roselawn Soil Series, those of size Class
two, (DBH under one inch and at least one foot tall), are dominant, com-
posing 55% of the total. Those trees of size class three made up 27% of
the total; size class four, 15%; size class five, 2%; and size class six,
.11%.

The quantitative data here presented for the Roselawn Soil Series
'would seem to indicate that the forest composition may be considered to

represent a Quercus rubra var. borealis - Acer rubrum lociation* within

 

 

the Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia association, which is the climax

 

 

forest association for this part of the state.

Phytographs for the first eight dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree
species on the Roselawn Soil Series are presented in Fig. 11. They serve
as a basis for comparing dominance of these tree species on this soil
series with the composite of the county, as well as with the other
lociations found within the other soil series. Fig. 12 represents, by
means of phytographs, the composition of the understory tree species on

the Roselawn Soil Series. They likewise afford a basis for comparing

 

-*Lociation: “Lbcal variations, generally due to edaphic causes."
Braun (1950).

 

 

 

I . .
. .. 1 . I
I . 4
_
. .
.
. .
. v.
..
.
.u . .
n _
r .
.
.
.
. :1I . . .11; 4|

 

PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA POPLUS GRANDIDENTATA

-‘R

 

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA AMELANCHIER SP.

Fig. 12. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the understory
tree species on the Roselawn Soil Series. (- - -) the same tree
species as represented by a composite of the six soil series
within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

90.
dominance on the soil series with the other aspects. Only three differ-
ent shrub species appeared in the quantitative data for the quadrat
studies on this soil series. The details of these data are shown in
Table VIII.

0n the five other soil series, Acer saccharum always attained dom-

 

inance as indicated by both DFD Index values and phytographic inter-
pretations. The tree Species attaining second ranking and lower were not
always the same, however.

The data Showing the results of the quantitative analysis for the
19 one hundred square meter quadrats representing the Arenac Soil Series
are presented in Tables IX and X. Comparative phytographs sinilar to
those for the Roselawn Soil Series are presented in Figs. 13 and lb.

DFD Index values, Table IX, indicate that the Arenac Soil Series

supports an Acer saccharum - Ulmus Thomasi lociation within the area

 

 

under study. Acer saccharum is the only tree species on this soil serieS"

 

to be represented in all size classes. Both Ulmus Thomasi and Fagus

 

grandifolia are present in the first four size classes, while Ulmus

 

americana is absent from both size class two and six. The coniferous
element of a mixed conifer-northern hardwood deciduous forest formation

is represented by a lone relic spechmm10f Tsuga canadensis in size class

 

six.

Ostgya virginiana, the dominant understory tree species, is well

 

represented in this lociation, having a DFD Index value of five. Prunus

pensylvanica is the only other understory tree species present for the

 

soil series (DFD-8). The shrubby species are completely absent from

the quadrat studies here.

91.

TABLE VIII

SUML’IAHY DATA FOR THE SHHUB SPECIES BASED ON
23 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METER QUADMTS IN THE
SECOND GROWTH UPLAT‘TD EIAIENOODS
OF MISSAUKEE COUNTY ON THE

ROSELAWN SOIL SEILIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
Shrub Species Frequency Density
No. % No. % DF
Corylus cornuta N 17.39 25 67.58 1
Viburnum acerifolium l h.35 7 18.92
Cornus alternifolia 2 8.70 5 13.52

 

Totals 37

 

 

 

 

TABLE IX

SUMMARY DATA FOR THE TREE SPECIES BASED ON
19 ONE HUNDRED SQ UARE METER QUAD RATS FROM
THE UPLAND SECOND GROWTH HARDWOODS
a? MISSAUzCEE COUNTY ON THE
ARENAC SOIL SERIES

92.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
Tree Species Frequency Density Basal Area

No. '3’ No. %’ th/A %’ DFD
Acer saccharum 19 100.00 316 66.81 782.h3 33.767 1
Ulmus Thomasi 8 h2.11 55 11.63 1h.27 11.36 2
Ulmus americana 7 36.8h 29 6.13 5U.06 21.50 3
Fagus grandifolia 6 31.58 16 3.38 13.68 10.83 h
Ostrya virginiana 7 36.88 16' 3.387772.h2 1.93 57
Fraxinus americana h 21.05 h .85 3.86 3.07 6
Tilia americana 3 15.79 12 2.5h 5.12 b.07 7
Prunus pensylvanica 2 10.53 10 2.11 8
Acer rubrum 2 10.53 9 1.90 .17 .1h 9
Tsuga canadensis 1 5.26 1 .21 3.h0 2.70 10
Quercus rubra var borealis 1 5.26 h .85 1.31 1.0h 11
Prunus serotina 1 5.26 l .21 1.82 1.13 12

l

 

Totals

h73 100.00

 

93.

 

mHHmmHon .Hm> menus mnoums®*

 

N4. N

oz.N mm

OH.:N :HH Nw.om QJH HN.Nm oNH

Hence

 

oo.om H mN.m H

om.

N H mN.m H

Mb.N m 0N.m H we. H 0N.m H

mo.N m mm.OH N Hs.m m mm.OH N
No.m OH NN.NH N

mchoumm macspm
*mppsh mdopmdd
mHmcoccmo omena
asundh Hood
MOHcm>Hzmch mscdpm

 

 

 

 

 

 

HmmEo:N mssH:

Nm.w m mm.OH N N:.m m mm.OH N NN.N : mm.OH N «CMOHHmEm MHHHB

HN.m N mm.OH N mm. H 0N.m H we. H 0N.m H masoHHoEm demehz

mm.: m mo.HN : mN.: N mo.HN : NN.N a 0N.m H mechHmHH> mNHpmo

8.8 N NmHm 0 NH N mde N Nfim m NNNH m H24 N “CNN H NHHOHHBEN Emma

4H.Nm mH :m.©m N mm.0H NH mm.Hm w 4N.N a mmWOH N acNOHHmsm msst
m

NN.:H m mN.mH

Hm.4H NH HH.N:.m am.N HH mN.mH m om.NH NN mo.HN J

 

oo.om H wN.m H ma.HH7 a mo.HN m. Hm.:© 3N Nawmm NH mw.:N NOH :N.qm mH mN.NN mNH Nm.mm MH
02 IR 02 IR 02 R 02 & 02 N 02 m 02

N oz
.mch

m,

N02
.wopz

N

.mch

.mmzz .mch .msz .mcom .wozz .mde
m N

 

 

mNHNNm HHom oazmza
as. 20 H.558 Numbammds No 28.59% 933.3 HESS
ozoosm use some mNaenasg seems seesaw gauges: e20 NH
20 ammam mmaqo mNHm Hm mmHoNNm ease axe see <N<N.Hxazssm

H mqmda

N oz
.wmum

gflouwm .H®O<

mmHomdm OOHN

 

 

 

 

 

9h.

AGER SAGOHARUM ULMUS THOMASI ULMUS AMERICANA

 

FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA FRAXINUS AMERICANA TILIA AMERICANA

IE?

 

- --
-
~
-

ACER RUBRUM TSUGA CANADENSIS

Fig. 13. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (so) and basal area (BA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Arenac Soil
‘Series. (- - -) the same tree species as represented by a
composite of the six soil series within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

95.

BA F

I
I
SO

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA

 

Fig. 11;. PhytOgraphs showing comparative density (D),
frequency (F), size classes (SC) and basal area (BA).
( ) the understory tree species on the Arenac
Soil Series. (- - -) the same tree species as
represented by a composite of the six soil series
Within the ninety-eight stands.

 

96.

Thirty seven percent of all of the tree species on the Arenac Soil
Series belonged in size class two; 3l%'were classified in size class
three; 2h% in size class four; 7% in size class five; and .S% in size
class six.

The upland second growth hardwoods, as represented by the 322 one
hundred square meter quadrats on the Emmet Soil Series, are similar to
the forest formation for the county in that they constitute an $233

saccharum - Fagus_grandifolia association. There were nineteen differ-

 

ent tree species recorded in the quadrats for this soil series. Of the
11,918 trees recorded in the quadrat studies on the Emmet Soil Series,
52% fell in size class two; 29% belonged in size class three; léz'were
of size class four; 3%, size class five; and .5% in size class six.

The quantitative results of the quadrat studies are presented in

Tables XI, XII, and XIII. A graphic representation of some of the tree
species occurring on the Emmet Soil Series, as indicated by phytographs,
is presented in Figs. 15 and 16. A comparison of the phytographs in
Fig. lS'with the data of Table XI shows agreement as to the two methods
of expressing dominance in this instance.

Other canopy tree species, in addition to Acer saccharum and Fagus

 

grandifolia, manifesting high DFD Index values for the Emmet Soil Series

 

'were: Ulmus americana, (3); Tilia americana, (h); Fraxinus americana, (6);

 

 

 

and Ulmus Thomasi, (8). Three of the understory tree species ranked high

 

on the DFD Index scale are: Ostrya virginiana,(5); Prunus pensylvanica,

 

 

 

(7); and_§opulus_grandidentata, (9). AS'was the case in the Arenac Soil

Series, the only representative of the conifers was Tsuga canadensis.

 

However, unlike the situation on the Arenac Soil Series, it was repre-

sented here in all five size classes, Table XII. The shrubby layer of

TABLE XI

SUL‘JQLRY DATA FOR THE TREE SPECIES BASED ON
322 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE. METER QUADRATS FROM
THE UPLAND SECOND GROWTH HARDWOODS IN
MISSAUKEE COUNTY ON THE

EL‘aMET SOIL SERIES

 

97.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
Tree Species Frequency Density Basal Area

No. % No. z FtQZA % DFD
Acer saccharum 318 98.70 800k 67.16 ‘hO.7 39.00 1
Fagus grandifolia 175 58.30 10h9 8.80 18.8 18.00 2
Ulmus americana 12s 38.80 885 b.07 16.h 16.00 3
Tilia americana 101 31.30 392 3.29 7.6 7.00 5h
Ostrya virginiana 78 21.10 3h8 2.92 1.7 2.00 5
Fraxinus americana 65 20.10 265 2.22 2.9 3.00 6
Prunus pensylvanica 62 19.20 328 2.75 .5 .50 7
Ulmus Thomasi 39 12.10 236 1.98 7.1 7.00 8
Populus grandidentata 35 10.80 252 2.11 2.1 2.00 9
Prunus serotina 31 9.60 71 .60 3.0 3.00 10
Ulmus rubra 32 9.60 101 .8h 2.57 2.00 11
Quercus rubra var. borealis 29 9.00 112 .9h 2.1 2.00 12
Acer rubrum 26 8.00 16h 1.38 1.2 1.00 13
Tsuga candensis 21 6.50 28 .23 1.3 1.00 1h
Betula lutea 12 3.70 23 .19 .5 .50 15
Populus tremuloides 5 1.50 31 .26 .1 16
Amelanchier sp. 55 1.50 21 .17 17
Quercus alba 3 .90 h .03 .l 18
Betula papyrifera 2 .60 h .03

[—1
\O

 

Total

11,918

100

 

98.

 

 

 

mHHmvon_.Aw> smash manhood:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

mm. ON Om.N 02m NO. OH mOmH mN.mN Hmzm HN. Hm NOHO mngom.
ON. a. om. N mHoMHthmm,depom
Om.s O OO. N Om. H Om. H, mO. H, Omw H mo. N on. H mpHm meoanO+
om. OH om. m mo. m ow. N .mw noHSOcmHos<
om. m 00. N om. mH om. m HN. MH, om. N mooHoHssonp msHsmom
00. W OF H 00. NH ON.N m ON. m ON.H J mo. a on. H mmpHHH .mHHEmm
omww my 00. N oowm N OHHN N on. M 0m. m ON. :7 om. m own NH OH.NIIN mHmsoonmo onsmml
00. N 00. N 0N.N m: 0N.m NH om.H mm om.: OH No.H we om.: :H adhnsu smo<
OOHH O OO. O OO.N H: O0.0 NN OO. Hm. ON.N O NH“ ON Os.N O senses assumed
Om.N N 00. N 0%: NH O:.m HHFOm.H am mm. mH Om. mH OH.m. OH m4. Om OH.N N mung mSEHD
OH.N m ON.._.r: ON.O MN on)“ aH OH.H ON Ofl.m HH Om. OH ON.N m HH. N ON.H m dnHDmem mag
OO.H. H, ON.H, a: ON.O HO OO.O HN OO.H mm ON.H NH ON.N HOH, ON.O ON asepcmOHOastm.mOHsaoay
ON.O H OO. O OO.HH mm O0.0 HN Om.m, NN OH.N ON OO.H .mm OHHN ON OO.H NO OH.H OH, Hassoae OOEHO
ON. N OOH N OO.H Om OO«O ON mm.s, OON OO.OH Os somassHHwamN.maaasO
oo.N N OH.N. N own: .mm oo.mH am. om.N mN om.0H mm mqu Hm 0N.m. ON mQOOHnoEm manxmhm
Om. H on. H O0.0 ON ON.OH m: O0.0 OOH ON.OH mm ON.N OOH Omtm ON mcchHmpHp mamwmo
OO.O O OO.H O OO.O ON ON.O ON Ome OOH Om.OH so OO.N .OO OH.NH on oo.N ONH OO.OH HO assessmes mHHMmu
0:.HN mH.oo.mva om.om.HN om.nvam 0N.N .mmH ow.:N Om 0N.N 2m ON.:H on am.N HmH om.OH mm wsonsme mSEHD
OO.OH OH ON.O NH ON.OH Om ON.OH mm OO.O ONH OmmeimO O0.0 OON OO.ON mO OH.N OOO ON.OO OO _a:HHOOHantO mamma
. . omHmHmmm o:.om new om.mNimmm.om.ON mmaN oo.Nm mom mm.MN NH a ow.©m mNN asnwnoomm hood
oz WW 02 W .02 w .02 O .02 O. 02 m .02 ml .02
.mde .vonm .mcoa .vosm .mdoa .vonh .moma .dmum .mcoa .vonh
m m a m N II. noHoon moss

 

@5909 «0.930 MNHm

 

gum «How 9%
may 76 2.92200 Esdmmg .6
“#50393: 924m: mgmc 9200mm
"HE. 2H mega—HO mam: H338 Egm mzo NNm
20 gm mac mNHm Mm maommm as B; mom dado Méaabm

HHN mamas

.................

.................

 

 

TABLE XIII

SUIMARY DATA F OR THE SHRUB SPECIES BASED ON 322

ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METER QUADHATS FROM THE

UPLAZ‘ID SECOND GROWTH HAHDWOODS
ON THE EIICIJET SOIL SERIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shrub Species :Nirequegcy Ngen31t% DF
Cornus alternifolia 8 2.h0 66 39.76 1
Rhus typhina 6 1.80 33 19.88 2
Viburnum acerifolium 5 1.50 28 16.87 3
Ribes cynosbati 3 .90 25 15.06 h
Rosa sp. 1 .30 7 h.22 5
Corylus cornuta 1 .30 h 2.h0 6
Sambucus pubens 2 .60 2 1.20 7
Crataegus sp. 1 .30 l .60 8

Total 166

 

99.

 

 

 

i

 

100.

| I I |

ACER SACCHARUM FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA ULMUS AMERICANA

@ CD 0

TILIA AMERICANA FRAXINUS AMERICANA ULMUS THOMASI

D
BAI ii IF ‘ Li I
PRUNUS SEROTINA ULMUS RUBRA

Fig. 15. Phy'tographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Emmet Soil Series.
(- - -) the same tree species as represented by a composite of
the six soil series within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

101 .

O 0 CD

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA POPULUS GRANDIDENTATA
0
BA v F v
5 C
POPULUS TREMULOIDES AMELANCHIER SP.

Fig. 16. Pm'tographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the understory
tree species on the Emmet Soil Series. (- - -) the same tree
species as represented by a composite of the six soil series

Within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

102.
vegetation for this soil series was composed of eight different species

(Table XIII) with Cornus alternifolia having the highest ranking on

 

the DF scale.

The summary of the quantitative data for the 29 one hundred square
meter quadrats representing the Kalkaska Soil Series is presented in
Tables XIV and XV. These data indicate that the Kalkaska Soil Series

has an Acer saccharum - Ulmus Thomasi lociation within the Acer

 

 

saccharum.- Fagus grandifolia association of the forest formation.

 

Other canopy tree species and their order of dominance as indicated by

the DFD Index are: Fagus grandifolia, (3); Ulmus americana, (5); Prunus

 

serotina, (6); Tilia americana, (7); Tsuga canadensis, (9); and

 

 

Fraxinus americana, (11). Tsuga canadensis again represents the only

 

 

coniferous element for the soil series. There is but a single tree,
which is in size class four, Table XV. The percentage of trees in the
various size classes recorded on the Kalkaska Soil Series follow:

Size class two, u2z; size class three, 25%; size class four, 23%; size

class five, 7%; and size class six, 3%. Ostrya virginiana (DFD-h) is

 

the most dominant tree of the understory. Two other tree species

Prunus pensylvanica (DFD-8) and Populus grandidentata (DFD-10) complete

 

 

the understory layer. The Kalkaska Soil Series was devoid of any shrub
species for the quadrats studied.

Phytographs for the first eight dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree
species on the Kalkaska Soil Series are presented at Fig. 17. These
phytographs offer a basis for comparison for these tree species on the
soil type with the same tree species as represented by a composite of

the six soil series. Comparisons may also be made for the expression

 

 

 

TABLE XIV

SUiyfiiiMiY DATA FOR THE THEE SPECIES BASED ON
29 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METER QUADRATS FROM
THE UPLAND SECOND GROWTH HARD‘NOJDS

OF LESSAUI’CEE COUNTY ON THE

KALKASKA SOIL SERIES

103 .

 

SUEmARY TOTALS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tree Species Frequency Density Basal Area

No. % No. % FtQ/A z DFD
Acer saccharum 29 100 .00 5117 75 .1114 70 .05 1&5 .60 1
Ulmus Thomasi 16 55.17 70 9.66 h0.70 26.60 2
Fagus grandifolia 15 51 .72 1411 6 .07 18 .66 12 .20 3
Ostrya virginiana 10 3L.h8 17 2.3h 1.77 1.20 'H
Ulmus americana 5 17.25r 22 3.03 13 .77 9.00 5
Prunus serotina 7 28.18 8 1.10 2.9h 1.90 6
Tilia americana 3 10.3h 5 .69 h.69 3.00 7
Prunus pensylvanica 1 3 .M; 7 .97 8
Tsuga candensis 1 3 .1411 l .114 .18 .30 9
Populus grandidentata 1 3 .ILII l .111 .112 .20 10
Fraxinus americana 1 3 .1111 2 .28 111......“ ”11"
Ulmus rubra 1 3.711; 1 .111, .02 12

 

Total

725

 

10h .

 

omN HN ONO om NH. MN OOH OO.:N mNH HEN: Nom

OHOOOH

 

Om.O H HH.O H
OO. N HOMO H

mandh deH:
Osmloosd mdstmhaH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO. H (rmmwm H dampeovHOomnm mszmom

OO. H ::.m H mHmsoumndo ONSON

NN.N N ::.m H moHsm>Hchmd moody;

RNA H Hm: H OO. H 38 H OO. m 13m H 2822a. OHHHO
8E N OOO N RN 4 ON. mH HR NH H N OH.H H «£6.88 Omega

ON.: H 2:.m H oo.O m ::.m H NN.N m Om. O N MN.N : 2:.m H mm.N m 4:.m H moOOHHmsm msEH:

NH.H N N. NH O OO m OH NH O OSHOHOAC OEOOO

om.mH 4 ON.mH :.oo.Nme OO.oN O Om.m O OO. 0N O NH.H N Ow.O N OH.N mN ON.NH m OHHoHanmam mowmm

OO. NO OH OO. OH O OO. Om NH OH. HO OH NN. OH HN OO. NO HH OH. O HH ON.OH HO HO. N O OO. O N HOOEOOO mOsHO

om. mN m mN. MH w 00. NQINN NH. mm 0H mo. mm OHH ON. ON gNimN. mm OOH ON. omImN.mo. mm mNN NN. Hm mH Edhmcoomm Hood

 

R oz K H;O m oz N oz m .02 N oz m .oz m oz m .02 m oz
.mmoa .donm .mcmm .umnm .mmoa .donm .mcon .Uohm .mcom .woum

 

L6 O H m N
3.38 EEO HHO

OH.H. m HHOO 3933
3; 2O H.258 OOEOOOOHOH 2H
OOO.O._H%§ OEOOO H2O Omm 93%
are HOE ONOOOHOO Haas OOOOOO Hate: BOO ON
2O H2O mmfio HONHO HO OOHOOOO H.133 HE. HOO <an HOEOSO

>x.mqm<9

OOHoomm some

 

 

 

 

105.

(O) O @

ACER SACCI-IARUM ULMUS THOMASI FACUS CRANDIFOLIA

ULMUS AMERICANA PRUNUS SEROTINA TILIA AMERICANA

 

 

BA. 1 F
1.
' I
'1
I
s "0
1806A GANAOENSIS FRAXINUS AMERICANA

Fig. 17. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Kalkaska Soil
Series. (- - -) the same tree species as represented by a
composite of the six soil series within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

   

.P. LK.L III-ILL... pf’ru. .

106.
of dominance as indicated by the size of the trapezium for each tree
species in the figure and the DFD Index value as shown in Table XIV.
The composition of the understory layer of tree species and their com-
parative dominance with the composite for the county is shown by means
of phytographs in Fig. 18.

The Nester Soil Series was represented by 79 one hundred square

meter quadrats. There were nineteen different species of trees recorded

‘with Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia being accorded first and second

 

 

place dominance on the basis of the DFD Index. Thus the Nester Soil
Series presents a maple-beech association. Other canopy tree Species

attaining high values on the DFD Index were: Ulmus americana, (3);

 

Ulmus Thomasi, (5); Tilia americana, (6); and Tsuga canadensis, (7).

 

 

 

Forty-five percent of all the trees recorded in the 79 Quadrats on this
soil series fell in size class two; 2h% of them were of size class three;
25% of them belonged in size class four; 5% in size class five; and .5%
in size class six (Table XVI).

The character of the mixed conifer-northern hardwood deciduous
forest formation was attained on the Nester Soil Series by the presence

of Pinus Strobus, Tsuga canadensis, and Thuia occidentalis. As is shown

 

 

in Table XVII, Tsuga canadensis is present in all size classes; Pinus

 

 

Strobus has no representatives in either size class two or six; Thule

occidentalis was recorded in size classes three, four and five.

 

Phytographs for the first eight dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree
species on the Nester Soil Series are presented in Fig. 19. They may be
used as a basis for comparing dominance criteria as expressed in this
manner'with that of the DFD Index scale. Fig. 20 presents, by means of

phytographs, the composition of the understory tree species for the soil

 

 

 

107.

13.7

|I
V

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA POPULUS GRANDIDENTATA

Fig. 18. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the understory
tree species on the Kalkaska Soil Series. (- - -) the same
tree species as represented by a composite of the six soil
series'within the ninetyneight stands.

 

. II 1 . I :I .II ulfl .IN uni. II" on..li‘~nl-‘uli§.h.~h~ ~ . ‘11

     

‘ .

.‘l‘I’to non-l'.llu w
0;! ,{EII

I

 

TABLE XVI

SIDE'LARY DATA FOR THE TREE SPECIES BASED ON
79 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METER QUADRATS
FROM THE UPLAEID SECOND GROWTH HAPDWOODS

OF NISSAUKEE COUNTY ON THE
NESTER SOIL SERIES

 

108 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
'Freq. Dens. B sal Area

Tree Species *No % No. % th/A % DFD
Acer saccharum 7h 93.60 1159 h8.057 38.68 33.82 1
Fagus grandifolia 39 b9.30 157 6.51 9.03 7.90 2
Ulmus americana 28 32.90 95 3.987 9.h8 8.29 3
Ostrya virginiana 28 3h.10 89 3.68 3.73 3.29 h
Ulmus Thomasi 20 25.10 103 h.27 12.26 11.37 5
Tilia americana 23 29.10 57 2.36 7.88 6.80 6
Tsuga canadensis 22 27.80 hh 1.82 —5.25~74h.59 7
Populus grandidentata 15’ 18.90 1557 6:53 5£HB b.79 8
Fraxinus americana 16 20.20 62 2.57 6.02 5.26 9
Prunus pensylvanica 13 16.80 182 7.55 10
Prunus serotina 15 18.90 35 1Ih5 3.39 3.00 11
Acer rubrum 10 12.60 118 75.89 ‘3}99 ‘Ih.33 12
Ulmus rubra 12 15:00 15 .627 1.36_’ 1.19 13
Betula papyrifera 9 11.h0 38 1.58 1.8h 1.61 Ih
Betula lutea 10 12.60 15 .62 .55 ih8 1;
Thule occidentalis h h.90 12 .h9 .97 .85 16
'Finus Strobus 3 3.50 9 .37 1.hl 1.23 17
Populus tremuloides 3 3.50 22 .91 .53 .50 18
Amelanchier sp. 3 3.50 29 1.20 .05 .03 19
Quercus rubra var. borealis 3 3.50 12 .h9 .50 .hh 20
Fraxinus nigra 2 2.00 h .17 .25I .22 21

 

Total

21112

 

3218 .2 ' ”3‘ .
E‘IIQbLDaQA. y'
”mashed ...

--: 2:31:1va m3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘J. I I ‘w'u-u‘vt'.

 

109 .

 

mHmenon .hw> dandy macnmdam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cm. HH mm.z NHH oz.mm «we zH.mm mmm zo.mz HzOH oHopoz
S. m oo.N m mH. H oN.H H 2ch mscfioonm
mm. H. ow.H H \mq.H m om.m m mm. m oo.N m *mnnsp mdopmdd
mm.m zm oo.N m .66 onzoooHoad
oz. m om.m H mm. N om.H H oo. H om.H H oooHoHosonp ooHozom
ww.H m 0N.H H 53. m om.H H mu. : om.H H annoypm msmHm
om.m‘ m 0m.H H :m. : oo.N m om. m om.: : mHHmpsmvHooo Mnssa
7wme m oo.N N MH.H w om.wylm om. m om.: a mo. H ow.H H mode MHspmm
gm.m mm ow.m N um.mxlmH om.m w mAmMngme depmm
mm. .F ONIH H mm.H m OH.OH m mo.H 0H Om.© m 951.5 mSEH:
mm.m mm OJMHH m mammtfmm om.© m ww.m Ha. om.~ m ESQSSM Hmod
mm.m :, om.:7 a. mm.m om oo.mH NH om. m om.m m mm. w7 om.m m mchopmm macspm
mH. H 8H H 3.3 HmH 3.3 mH 8221266 35$
mm.m : om.ail: n~.m am om.mH HH ms. 4 om.a‘ nkyam.H ow Om.~ m mamOHmem mSCmehm
Fm.m HH om.m, mm OOAmH NH mm. N oo.m m mm.OH aHH ow.mH OH mpmpcmvHUcmpmlmSHdmom
mo.m H o.m moH N 0m.m m hmH NH om.m N. pm.H HH and m mmHlmH ow.wH 0H mHmchmcmo mwdme
NN.NN m oo.N 4E6 0H OH.OH FmIQJF Hm om.Hm NH om. m oerlP’fll. m 0%: : memoHpmzzm mHHHm...
mm.mH mH cafe x. $.m mm 23mm mH moan NH om.mH OH mm. m oo.N m Hmmege mssHb
om.m m om.m m 2mm mm 0H 0H MH mm.m om om.mm HR mH.H mH 0H OH m mzchHmuH> 9?me
oo.o H om.H H zm.m 0H oo.OH m mm.m om OH.NN mH mm.m om omHMH HH mz.m Hm cm.m m ocoonoso ooEHz
Hm.zm m om.m m mo.mH 6H oo.mH NH ow.m mm OH.zm oH mz.m mm OH.NN zH m6.z mm 0H.mm cm oHHozHocogm oomoz
E20 m owmlmomoo Hm oo.Nm om 8.8 So owe. om gamma 8.2. S 8.3 § 8.1% R .2288 88

m oz m oz z oz m oz m oz z oz w oz z oz z oz z oz
.mcmm .dmhm .mcma .vmhm .mcma .vmum .mcma .dmum .mcma .wmhm mmHowmm mmua
m :7 m

 

3.4.809 mmaqo mNHm

 

mmHmmm AHom Imamwz
are 20 VBZDOO mazdmmg .mo

$602935 9,ng me.._6mo onomm

are onm meggbd magma “#233 omfiBSm mzo mm

20 0mm; mgo mmHm Mm mmHommm mama "NEH. mom 4.35 wgdgm.

HHBH age

® 0

ACER SACCHARUM FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA ULMUS AMERICANA

0 GD

ULMUS THONASI TILIA AMERICANA TSUGA CANADENSIS

D
.‘.F

FRAXINUS AMERICANA PRU NUS SEROTINA

Fig. 19. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (EA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Nester Soil
Series. (- - -) the same tree Species as represented by a.
composite of the six soil series Within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

.1 3.“.‘1‘. }.| .

 

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA POPULUS CRANDIDENTATA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA

0 O

POPULUS TREMULOIDES AMELANCHIER SP.

Fig. 20. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the understory
tree Species on the Nester Soil Series. (- - -) the same tree
Species as represented by a composite of the six soil series

Within the ninety—eight stands.

 

. . . ff... .
IVJP' » 17"” .fi - ..cl 7 . , .illl"
, A I! : .

Ii

 

||..l
~I 1.11! IIIII‘I‘ ‘J \‘l'usul‘ ltv

112.
series. There were five different species making up the understory here.

Ostrya virginiana was the dominant attaining a DFD value of four on the

 

scale for all the trees. The remaining four were in the following

onder of DFD Index dominance: Populus_grandidentata, (8); Prunus

 

pensylvanica, (10); Populus tremuloides, (17); and Amelanchier'sp.,

 

 

 

(18). The shrubby layer of vegetation was composed of eight different
species, Table XVIII.

There were 72 one hundred square meter quadrats representing the
Selkirk Soil Series. An examination of the quantitative data presented
at Table XIX indicates that the upland second growth hardwoods growing

upon this soil series are representative of an Acer saccharum - Ulmus

 

Thomasi lociation. According to the data presented in Table XX, h2% of
all the trees were of size class two; 2h% were of size class three; 25%
belonged to size class four; 7% to size class five; and 2% were in size

class six. Tsuga canadensis, Pinus Strobus, E. resinosa, and Thu:

 

occidentalis constitute the coniferous element of the forest formation

 

for this soil series. An examination of the data presented in Table XX

indicates that Tsuga canadensis is here present in all size classes;

 

Pinus Strobus only in size class two; P. resinosa in size class six

 

only; and Thule occidentalis in size class two and four.

 

One of the concepts of dominance is indicated for the canopy and
understory tree species by phytographs in Figs. 21 and 22. The phyto-
graphs may also be used for comparing dominance, as expressed in this way,
‘with the same character as indicated by the DFD Index values in Table XIX.
The quantitative data for the shrub layer of vegetation for the Selkirk‘

Soil Series are presented in Table XXI.

  
   
   
  
    

 

‘ . 1 as: .31 . . , . -- "e’z'l'i. svt‘! no!
. ‘ 1‘ , 1' 1'. _ . z . ..r . 1‘01? 91:: m an .
'I it w > :4 :' Jam: 9113 I‘ '-
5‘: _ -. _ -1- ,- .‘9 .1 ob zonal"

.2 . T:
.. . . - _ 11-11“) eh-

   

. ' J 19.2311 '54!me

    
     
 

. 113V} 01M
'<.v-;a-:.. c ST

1 .f. 3., c .:.' .-..; 11.x; mp. .eoi'me Ltd. .1
‘I

' t".l‘ ‘ . .‘ ("L' 1‘ f I I . 1. 7.1. “1.1:. '7 JJA...’ 11315." {111.1 m

 
 
      

  

    
      
            

I I “‘37 " . x ‘1.»1' T”; ""‘1 - .( 2&1. 1 .L 12.9.3312'1 3'11 3511188 ”a

   

 

.911 l .1; ,9; g. 2‘ 7;? ;."1_.IA'!'.'€?"TL: :2 n 0.1 “manual. . .z.135£a¢£

     
     
   
 
  

M mm.
In

       
    

    

- n

m;: .;i new ".2 "; . .1 9. .2 ' 311101 8:25.17. safe 66'
' . a

' y " i... .“.’<.V c - .-~. - Vi“. . v u f": ' ' '
flux .. -291 . . . 2-81.»: «mt. .mwsnsaeo 3E3, ‘

     

 

     
  

 
 

11013911131: 21.91.51 and ‘10 Jamie aucw’Uhoa era: 00123138609
g

u- .-

   
 
 

. . 44 ‘ .
1.x «1' ~'; - :13 masses-{q 15.136 9:1: '10 131;..qu .xA .aohss M r

””335“ “5“? 45 M Smear“. 9451-; :1 s 'rssshsuco sum? “8

  
  

x1; ml; sauce :21 £2’r1‘if‘9'1 .1 wow: seal: 9:133 :11 vino .11... ‘

.‘wo'l has owl: anus axis :11 ails.?m____b_.t___m M '8
if

ed: up} beau-om a: season-ob u enemas qt: '

      
     
 

:n.
_A

-,' ”a.mmoaoxmu

      

113.

TABLE XVIII

SUMMARY DATA.FOR THE SHRUB SPECIES BASED ON
79 ONE HUNDHED SQUARE METER QUADRATS FROM
THE SECOND GROWTH UPLAND HAHDWOODS
OF EISSAUKEE COUNTY ON THE

NESTER SOIL SERIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 103135
. Freq. Dens.

Shrub Species No g No. % DF
Cornus alternifolia 9 100.00 130 55.80 1
Corylus cornuta 7 8.80 53 22.h6 2
Acer spicatum 3 3.50 30 12.71 3
Crataegus sp. 2 2.00 9 3.81 h
Rhus typhina l 1.20 9 3.81 5
Spiraea sp. 1 1.20 5 2.12 6

 

Total 236

 

 

__ u
A .
c -

 

. ".. .

. . '< ‘ ‘ ,9 Dali, ”ifpfi a“. ‘.'.'

(huh-911]! '

 

 

     

 

 

 

.gA.__.k -_ ‘1 _ _-‘.

TABLE XIX

SUMMARY DATA.FOR THE TREE SPECIES BASED ON
72 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE EETER QUADRATS FROM
THE SECOND GROWTH UPLAND HARDWOODS

IN LESSAUKEE COUNTY ON THE
SELKIRK SOIL SERIES

11h.

 

Tree Species
Acer saccharum

: Freq. Dens. Basal Area

 

No % No % FtélA %
67 93.06 976 748.53 56.63 311.56

DFD

 

Ulmus Thomasi

H0 55.56 267 13.30 27.30 16.63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
Fagus grandifolia 38 52.78 7181 7.03 21.29 12.97 ‘3
Acer rubrum 18725200 71h2 b.08—78.31 5:06 1:—
Tsuga canadensis 19 26.39 73 3.6h 6112 3.73 57
Ulmus americana 15 20.83 60 2.99 11.57 7.05 6
Fraxinus americana 7‘17 23.61 3b 1.59 5.00 3.03 7
Ostrya virginiana 16722.22 31 1.5h IihB .90 {I
‘Ulmus rubra 12 16767 70 3.h9 5.08 3.09 9
Tilia americana 8 11.12 h5' 2.2h 9.26 5.6h 10
Prunus serotina 10 13.89 15—7 .75 3.03 71.85 11
Betula lutea 9 12I50 22 1.10 1.757 1.07. 12
Prunus pensylvanica 7 9.72 66 3.29 13
Betula papyrifera 5 6.9h 13 .65 .83 .51 1D
Quercus rubra var. borealis 7D 5156’ 187 .90 1.90 1.16 15
Populus grandidentata 3 h.l7 13' .65 2.97 1.82 16
Thuja occidentalis 3 b.17 5 .257 .DO .2h 17
Amelanchier sp. 2* 2.79 10 .50 18
Pinus resinosa 1 1.39 l .05 .93 .57 19
Quercus alba 1 1.39 3 .157 .30 .18 20
Pinus Strobus 1 71.39 2 .10

 

Totals

2007

 

II ,. 7 E. iuj‘i ti- Ii- In“ mini-l 1“ {a i-

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115.

 

mHHmmhon .Am> mAnSA muohmdo*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.a Nm N:.N mza ow.:N mm: om.:N mm: mN.H4 mmm mamaoa
:N. N mm.H H menoppm mscfim
om. m mme,xHy mnHm myopmdo
MH.m Hllmm.erH{, Mmochmn mqum
G. n NN.N N 5. N NN.N N .Nm $265.05
can N NN.N N mm. m mm.H H mNHmpcmeflooo mnsmm
:w.m N mm.H H Fm. H mm.H H HN.H m NH.:, m man mi mm.H H mpmpchHUcmgw deonm
6mw H NN.N a oq.N NH mmwm ;, H:. N NN.N N mm. m NN.N, m *66666 6366669
om.H m wm.m :7 No.H m wm.m a agmmflgxmma magpmm
Nmnw .mm NN.N N oncm>HHWCmQ mdn5pm
Hw.N ma NH.HH m mm.a m mm.m 3. NH. H mm.a H mmpza magpmm
7mm.N J mm.m : om.H m NN.N 6 ON. H7 mm.H H NH. H mm.H H mCHpopwm mscdhm.
mm.m m mm.H H, Nm.m m mm.m m Ho.m mN Nm.ma NH mama N am.m, m gN. N mm.H, H demeagmem mHHNe
mm.m m mmwm m Hg”: NN NH.HHlm mN.N NH mm.m m Hm.m Nm mmwm :7 666:6 deH:
mm. H mm.H H Ho.m mH wamH NH JDHW1bu‘smmwm m mm. m 0m.m m. wcchngH> wwwpmo
Jo.© m NN.N N OJMN NH om.NH m mN.H 1% 40.0 m am. 5 NN.N N «QNOHAmsa mscflxmhm
wm.m m NN.N N No.0meH. WHHHH m oo.N MH NHwHH m Hm.q. :N mm.m : mm. .m NN.N N maOHmem mSEHD
JNHm N m~.N N Ho.N.Im, m>.N N Ho.m mH wwme NH mN.N HH :m.o 7m NN.: Na NN.N N mHmmemswo mmSMP
mo.ax m. 40.0 m NN.N m: mm.oN mH ma.oH Hm Nw.wH Nme©.a. mm NH.HH w Edhpsh pmo<
NN.NN N NN.N N mN.NH ma oo.mN ma Haww Nm mN.NN ON a».: MN oomexmflme.N om oo.mN\mH mflaomaucmgm msmmm
mm.m m NH.H. m mmme.mw NN.NN @H 4a.oH Nm Ho.m: mm mN.mH mo ©m.0m NN Hm.mm mp mm.©N NH me5029 m5E4D,
mm.:m HH mm.mH QH‘HN.NN m: wo.mq Hm wamm 46H om.Nm mm mm.mm NwN7mN.NN mm mm.Nm Hm: Hm.m~ mm Edumnoomm 6664

m 62 m 62 m oz m oz 7m 62 m 62 m 62 m 62 7w 62 rm oz
.mcmn .mopm .mcma swapm .mcmm .dmpm .mcmm .dwpm .mcma .dmam mmHommm omhe
o m a, w

 

mHmpow mmmHo mNHm

mmHmum qum mmeqmm axe zo

mmkdooq M92900 MMMb<mmHfi mo

mocoaomex mNaomc mzooum o244m:
axe zozm meezneso mmaam_mm<:om DMNQZDN mzo NN
zo ammem mmeqo mNHm Nm mmHommm mums mes mom «Ben Mmezaam

xx uqmde

 

 

v.«
,.. .H-

”1.. A.£.P.§n.¢ rw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. «awn.

 

 

. v.34

 

 

  

1L

  

ill.” [1.74 A

 

m nowwn
4V1

 

 

ill. , . €53.73-.- . f
a or N... 3.. . c . . x H. o. .. o ..

1111]. y :44 an ad 14 1 . é ziavuull 1|.l1..1._i?.isu..v1t.1.l!
.in (5.1.9 .7... L5: 9.. . Ar 1.. 3:. fl . u, fir.

. 4

 

 

' /

0.!

 

km, 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 ,.r

 

 

 

   

 

Mama.

116.

TABLE XXI

SUMMARY DATA FOR THE SHRUB SPECIES BASED ON
72 ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METER QUADRATS FROM
THE UPLMID SECOND GROWTH HAIflDWOODS OF
MISSAUKEE COUNTY LOCATED
ON THE SELKIHK SOIL SERIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS
Shrflb Species Freguenqy Density
NO 36 N 0 % DF
Cornus alternifolia 8 11.12 58 h0.00 l
Corylus cornuta h 5 .56 I16 31 .72 2
Viburnum acerifolium 3 h.l7 2h 16.55 3
Sambucus pubens 1 1.39 17 11.72 h

 

Totals lbs

 

        
     
         

~ 1 H. .~ "'.' :r71.'~*3!I:. 8312:1003
A I, ‘ ' '- 9‘” :::‘03—- ”Hm taf‘

...... —.-..- ....._.—. . . 1..- . -1 ._.. -1--... .1-

38.1511 7 2".111'11'18rsu—mu
f'i
J

 

 

 

 

     
       

.7---.._..—. ‘1-» 1.-.-_-. 4-

67.1.1- ‘1'; \fr . l' 1 22105111 tumor

 

y I

  

‘ ‘ '."~', n- HBO-1’1“; é" !‘ -"-m".' ' 1“..I'“ 133‘?!“ J

' ' o.-. ._,;,.. r»: -..--:.‘L. |, m») we.

'
i.
{1
l

‘3'

117.

| I | I

ACER SACCHARUM ULMUS THOMASI FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA

ACER RUBRUM TSUGA CANADENSIS ULMUS AMERICANA

D
.A.F .

FRAXINUS AMERICANA ULMUS RUBRA

IFig. 21. Phytographs showing comparative density (D), frequency (F),
size classes (SC) and basal area (BA). ( ) the first eight
dominant (DFD Index) canopy tree species on the Selkirk Soil
Series. (- - -) the same tree Species as represented by a
composite of the six soil series within the ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

‘IV a]. l --.-

-_3V

.—

M
Iraq
1

 

118.

 

OSTRYA VIRGINIANA PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA

BA F

POPULUS GRANDIDENTATA AMELANCHIER SP.

Fig. 22. Phytographs showing comparative density (D),
frequency (F), size classes (80) and basal area (BA).
( ) the understory tree species on the Selkirk Soil
Series. (- - -) the same tree species as represented
by a composite of the six soil series within the
ninety-eight stands.

 

 

 

  

 

. a .31
x, ..~.. .1 m.

 

119 .

One of the significant facts, which is revealed by an examination
of Tables VI to XXI, is that in many instances the percentage of fre-

quency, density and basal area for one species of tree is much greater

on one soil series than it is on another. In order to establish whether

these differences in percentages were the result of mathematical chance
or the result of some other factor, or combinations of factors, the
percentages noted above for each of the canopy tree species occurring

on each of the six soil series within the county were tested by means

of statistical treatment: Significance of Difference Between Percent-

ages. This treatment employed the equation Pl - P2 with P representing
P1 - P2

the percent frequency, density, and basal area for each of the canopy

tree species on each of the soil series. A percentage difference

greater than a plus or minus 2.5 indicates that factors other than

mathematical chance are accountable for the differences. Complete ab-

sence of a tree species from a soil series is here considered to indic-

ate the greatest significance. A summation of the significance of dif-

ference between the percentages of frequency, density and basal area

for each of the canopy tree species between the six soil series is pre-

sented in Table XXII. The details of the statistical treatments are

presented in the Appendix, Tables LXII to LXXV .
An analysis of the data presented in Table XXII reveals the follow-

ing differences:

1. Between the Arenac Soil Series and the Emmet Soil Series:

a. The percent frequency of Ulmus Thomasi is greater than

mathematical chance in favor of the Arenac Soil Series.

 

. ..... . . . .‘I- .. .Ifhufiqwhn a~n~ 2n ~‘..fl..d ..~NV RP\\4\~.ANNJ.\N~IOH

finial!!! y

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emochmh msch .NH whommmwmmm mepmm .NH dndloosm sHHHB .0
mumthm macaw .0H NQSSH «Hapom .HH mumSM mdMHD .m
mHmcqumo swamh .mH ashndh AO0H .0H massage mmmnb..a
wnHm 0.90.800 .JH any”: mncghm .0 050.3050 mafia .m

IMM woken wcdoaposm manxdnm .0 mHHOHchwnm mdmwm .N
.hm> mhnsh 0009050 .MH mchonmm msudhm .u adhmnoowm h00¢ .H

.9803 0000.3” 00.030 HHou on» no Seam nun 00990
3030502me :23 M00095 000.330th 0.0 005.33.? mo 00533.0me 03.00ch I 30.3%
0303 00.200 .38 no Age.“ 5 00:30 Hwogmnanpms 5mg seesaw 000095800 mo 00:33.30
mo ooqmoHchMHm 000.00ng I + “005:0 3030803me 5:... 93.0090 00: 0003:0300 mo 00:0
A0830 mo 00:003..”ch 00000.35 I 0 «000.4 Hmmmm no N I m «b.5980 no R I n «hoaosvohm No R I m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000 00+ +0+ 00+ 00I 000 000 000 00I I0I I]. 01.3me0 I 83.—“000m
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00+ 000 00I 000 00I 000 01.3.0900 I A3002
000 I0! 00! 00+ 000 00+ 000 00+ 00+ +++ gmHmmom l .Hmvmmz
00! 00I 000 000 000 000 000 000 0+0 01.3ng I 0x003

000 000 000 000 000 +9. +++ gmHmmom I 810003.31

00! 00I 000 00.. 000 00... 000 000 0+0 .3032 I mxmmfimm
00I 000 000 000 000 00I 000 000 00+ 000 0II 000 000 00 anxHom I SEEN
0| 0| 0!. 00+ 000 00+ 000 +0... +0+ +++ €30QO I 00E

00! 000 00! 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0+0 Ampmmz I 90mg

000 00I 000 00+ 000 IOI 00+ 000 000 Wmfimmevl I .5me
00I 000 000 000 000 000 000 +00 000 000 thxHom I 0.28.?
I0I 0II 000 000 000 +0+ 000 o++ EBHmmom I ommwumn

00I 000 000 000 000 000 000 +00 000 000 Ampmmz I 0.090.?
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 mfiwflmvrl 0.80.51

 

 

 

000 000 000 000 000 000 00+ 000 000 000 0.955 I 00cc:

mam mam mam NE mm mm mm N E: m 8300 Son
FSSDSSNHHHQH m m Nkm a m N

  

magma .HHom zeuEmm <05 043m 82
.6 00032081an 2H $55.50 .6
. r . 00535230 .8 M35
HHNN Bah. m

ANIHHWZMMHH Afioggh

2.

b.

121.
The following canopy tree species were absent from the
Arenac Soil Series but present on the Emmet Soil Series:

1.) Ulmus rubra

 

2.) Betula lutea

 

3.) Betula papyrifera

 

h.) Fraxinus americana

 

Between the Arenac Soil Series and the Kalkaska Soil Series:

a. There were no significances of difference greater than

mathematical chance between the percentages of frequency,
density and basal area between the canopy tree species on

these two soil series.

Species of canopy trees present on the Arenac Soil Series
and absent from the Kalkaska Soil Series were:

1.) Acer rubrum

 

2.) Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

Species of canopy tree species absent from the Arenac Soil
Series and present on the Kalkaska Soil Series:

1.) Ulmus rubra

 

Between the Arenac Soil Series and the Nester Soil Series:

a.

The percent frequency of Tsuga canadensis is greater than

 

mathematical chance in favor of the Nester Soil Series.

 

The percent of basal area for Ulmus americana is greater
than mathematical chance in favor of the Arenac Soil Series.
Canopy tree species which were present on the Nester Soil

Series and absent from the Arenac Soil Series:

122.

l.) Ulmus rubra

 

2.) Fraxinus americana

 

3.) Betula lutea

 

h.) Pinus Strobus

 

5.) Thuja occidentalis

h. Between the Arenac Soil Series and the Roselawn Soil Series

a.

The percent frequency and percent density of Acer saccharum

 

is greater than mathematical chance in favor of the Arenac
Soil Series.

The percent frequency and percent basal area of Ulmus

americana is greater than mathematical chance in favor of

the Arenac Soil Series.

The percent frequency and density of Acer rubrum is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Arenac Soil Series.

The percent frequency and density of Acer rubrum is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Roselawn Soil
Series.

The percent frequency and percent basal area for Quercus

rubra var. borealis is greater than mathematical chance in

favor of the Roselawn Soil Series.
Canopy tree species present on the Arenac Soil Series and
absent from the Roselawn Soil Series:

1.) Ulmus Thomasi

 

2.) Tsuga canadensis

 

Canopy tree species absent from the Arenac Soil Series and

present on the Roselawn Soil Series:

 

 

 

S.

123.

l.) Pinus resinosa

 

2.) Pinus Strobus

 

3.) Quercus alba

 

h.) Ulmus rubra

 

Between the Arenac Soil Series and the Selkirk Soil Series

a.

The percentage of basal area for Ulmus americana is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Arenac Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for Tsuga candensis is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Selkirk Soil Series.
Canopy tree species absent from the Arenac Soil Series and
present on the Selkirk Soil Series:

1.) Ulmus rubra

 

2.) Betula papyrifera

 

3.) Betula lutea

 

h.) Quercus alba

 

S.) Pinus Strobus

 

6.) Pinus resinosa

 

7.) Thula occidentalis

 

Between the Emmet. Soil Series and the Kalkaska Soil Series

a.

The percentage of frequency for Ulmus americana and Tilia

americana is greater than mathematical chance in favor of

the Emmet Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency and basal area for Ulmus Thomasi

 

is greater than mathematical chance in favor of the Kalkaska
Soil Series.
Canopy tree species present on the Emmet Soil Series and

absent from the Kalkaska Soil Series:

12h .

1.) Acer rubrum

 

2.) Betula lutea

 

3.) Betula papyrifera

 

h.) Quercus rubra, var. borealis

I

5.) Quercus alba

 

 

 

7. Between the Emmet Soil Series and the Nester Soil Series

a.

The percentage of density for Acer saccharum is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Emmet Soil Series.

The percentage frequency of Betula papyrifera and Tsuga

 

canadensis is greater than mathematical chance in favor of

 

the Nester Soil Series.
Canopy tree Species present on the Emmet Soil Series and
absent from the Nester Soil Series were:

1.) Quercus alba

 

Canopy tree species present on the Nester Soil Series and
absent from the Emmet Soil Series:

1.) Eraxinus nigra

 

2.) Pinus Strobus

 

3.) Thuja occidentalis

 

8. Between the Emmet Soil Series and the Roselawn Soil Series

a.

The percentage of frequency, density and basal area for

Acer saccharum is greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Emmet Soil Series.
The percentages of frequency and basal area for both Fagus

grandifolia and Ulmus americana are greater than mathemat—

 

 

ical chance in favor of the Emmet Soil Series.

125.

 

The percent frequency of Tilia americana and Fraxinus

americana is greater than mathematical chance in favor of

the Emmet Soil Series.

The percentages of frequency and density for Acer rubrum

 

are both greater than mathematical chance in favor of the
Roselawn Soil Series.
The percentages of frequency and basal area for both Quercus

rubra var. borealis and Quercus alba are greater than

 

 

mathematical chance in favor of the Roselawn Soil Series.
Canopy tree species present on the Emmet Soil Series and
absent from the Roselawn Soil Series were:

1.) Ulmus Thomasi

 

2.) Betula lutea

 

3.) Betula papyrifera

 

h.) Tsuga canadensis

 

Canopy tree species present on the Roselawn Soil Series and
absent from the Emmet Soil Series:

1.) Pinus Strobus

 

2.) Pinus resinosa

 

Between the Emmet Soil Series and the Selkirk Soil Series

a.

The percentage of density for Acer saccharum is greater than

 

mathematical chance in favor of the Emmet Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for Tilia americana is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Emmet Soil Series.

The percentage for density and frequency of Ulmus Thomasi

 

is greater than mathematical chance in favor of the Selkirk

Soil Series.

10.

d.

126 o

The percentage of frequency for Acer rubrum and Tsuga

 

canadensis is greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Selkirk Soil Series.
Canopy tree species absent from the Emmet Soil Series and
present on the Selkirk Soil Series were:

1.) Pinus Strobus

 

2.) Pinus resinosa

 

3.) Thuja occidentalis

 

Between the Kalkaska and the Nester Soil Series

a.

The percent density of Acer saccharum is greater than math-

 

ematical chance in favor of the Kalkaska Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for Ulmus Thomasi is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Kalkaska Soil
Series.

The percentage of frequency for Tilia americana, Fraxinus

 

americana and Tsuga canadensis is greater than mathematical

 

chance in favor of the Nester Soil Series.
Canopy tree species absent from the Kalkaska Soil Series and
present on the Nester Soil Series were:

1.) Acer rubrum

 

2.) Betula lutea

 

3.) Betula papyrifera

 

h.) Fraxinus nigra

 

5.) Pinus Strobus

 

6.) Quercus alba

 

7.) Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

8.) Thuja occidentalis

 

127.

11. Between the Kalkaska Soil Series and the Roselawn Soil Series

a.

The percentages of frequency, density, and basal area for

Acer saccharum are greater than mathematical chance in

 

favor of the Kalkaska Soil Series.
The percentages of frequency and basal area forIFaaus

grandifolia are greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Kalkaska Soil Series.

There were no canopy tree species present on both soil
series which showed any significance of difference of per-
centages in favor of the Roselawn Soil Series.

Canopy tree species present on the Kalkaska Soil Series
and absent from the Roselawn Soil Series were:

1.) Ulmus Thomasi

 

2.) Tsuga canadensis

 

Canopy tree species present on the Roselawn Soil Series and
absent from the Kalkaska Soil Series:

1.) Acer rubrum

 

2.) Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

3.) Quercus alba

 

h.) Pinus Strobus

 

S.) Pinus resinosa

 

12. Between the Kalkaska and Selkirk Soil Series

.a.

The percentage of density for Acer saccharum is greater than

 

mathematical chance in favor of the Kalkaska Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for Fraxinus americana and Tsuga

 

canadensis is greater than mathematical chance in favor of

 

the Selkirk Soil Series.

13.

C.

128.
Canopy tree species absent from the Kalkaska Soil Series
and present on the Selkirk Soil Series were:

1.) Acer rubrum

 

2.) Betula lutea

 

3.) Betula papyrifera

 

h.) Pinus resinosa

 

5.) Pinus Strobus

 

6.) Quercus alba

 

7.) Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

Between the Nester Soil Series and the Roselawn Soil Series

a.

The percentages of frequency, density, and basal area for

Acer saccharum are greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Nester Soil Series.

The percentages of frequency and basal area for Quercus rubra

 

var. borealis are greater then.mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Roselawn Soil Series.
Canopy tree species that are present on the Nester Soil
Series and absent from the Roselawn Soil Series are:

l.) Betula lutea

 

2.) Betula papyrifera

 

3.) Fraxinus nigra

 

h.) Tsuga canadensis

 

5.) Thuja occidentalis

 

6.) Ulmus Thomasi

 

Canopy tree species that are absent from the Nester Soil
Series and present on the Roselawn Soil Series:

1.) Pinus resinosa

 

2.) Quercus alba

 

1h.

15.

129.

Between the Nester and the Selkirk Soil Series

a.

The percentage of frequency for Tilia anericana is greater

 

than mathematical chance in favor of the Nester Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for Fagus grandifolia and Ulmus

 

Thomasi is greater than mathematical chance in favor of the
Selkirk Soil Series.

Canopy tree species present on the Nester Soil Series and
absent from the Selkirk Soil Series was:

1 .) Fraxinus nigra

 

Canopy tree species which were present on the Selkirk Soil
Series and absent from the Nester Soil Series:

1.) Pinus resinosa

 

2.) Pinus Strobus

 

Between the Selkirk Soil Series and the Roselawn Soil Series

a.

The percentages of frequency, density and basal area for

Acer saccharum are greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Selkirk Soil Series.

The percentages of frequency and basal area for Fagus grand-

 

ifolia are greater than mathematical chance in the favor of
Selkirk Soil Series.

The percentages of frequency and basal area for Quercus rubra

 

var. borealis are greater than mathematical chance in favor

 

of the Roselawn Soil Series.

The percentage of frequency for both Acer rubrum and Quercus

 

alba are greater than mathematical chance in favor of the

Roselawn Soil Series.

130.

e. The percentage of frequency for both Ulmus americana and

 

Fraxinus americana is greater than mathematical chance in

 

favor of the Selkirk Soil Series.
f. Canopy tree species that were present on the Selkirk Soil
Series and absent from the Roselawn Soil Series were:

1.) Betula lutea

 

2.) Betula.papyrifera

 

3.) Tsuga canadensis

 

h.) Thuja occidentalis

 

S.) Ulmus Thomasi

 

A discussion of the ecological relationships and significance of
these statistical findings is to be found in Section B of the section of
this report entitled "Discussion" (p. 217).

The following series of photographs show the appearance of the various
upland second growth hardwood stands as they appear on the six different
soil series. Fig. 23 is of a woodlot within the Arenac Soil Series on
an outwash apron. Fig. 2h shows a woodlot on the Emmet Soil Series on
an east-facing morainic slope. In Fig. 25 is shown a stand on the
Kalkaska Soil Series located on a till plain. The stand of second growth
upland hardwoods in Fig. 26 is representative of the Nester Soil Series,
also on a till plain. This particular photograph is of the stand sampled
quantitatively on the Michigan State College Experiment Station Farm.
Fig. 27 is a woodlot within the Selkirk Soil Series on a till plain.

Fig. 28 shows a stand of second growth upland hardwoods on the Roselawn
Soil Series. The picture was taken near the crest of a westward facing

morainic slope.

S\.V....’MhH-N I...“ .
Eli:

,PIIOILI Hf .
_,1.JIJ‘-.. .

I

”b A
.. ..=:s.&i ; ..an .
. . ,. 4711.
.M. .. ammflzhn\AUéa I.

 

1! tr
fluffy.)

I. ’I.l‘

 
 

ivy...

       

3., in»; Lit}?

 

a stand of second growth upland hardwoods

on Arenac sandy loam within an outwash apron.

owing

Photograph sh

Fig. 23.

Fig. 21:.

5
I
E

 

Photograph showing a. stand of upland second growth hardwoods

on Dunet sandy loam. East facing morainic slope.

@\

 

Fig. 25. Photograph showing a stand of second growth upland hardwoods
on Kalkaska loamr sand in a till plain.

g I...
rs
. a -I .
-iffl‘sv .
I II---.I..
7 I. .I . . I
._.. . .
.
\ .‘lh . s
..

..\ 0

1.. p r... rsgwiwai-.. I

.\\D." “L‘5.U‘V~ U.

 

 

Photograph showing a stand of upland second growth hardwoods
on Nester loam within a till plain.

Fig. 26.

 

 

.139 . «in.

.(I V... ‘(VI

A.

I 4 .l
Uri. was .s...‘~aonu.nm..r|=

. a... rm...»~.‘\.w

 

a stand of second growth upland hardwoods

Photograph showing
on Selkirk silt loam on a till plain.

Fig. 27.

1:... Tu“. ...“.WH...
d..4.umfl.3. .2

1.7

.‘449

oa..o.

{ :1."

u.

.4 ..

 

c slope.

West facing moraini

Photograph showing a stand of second growth upland hardwoods

on Roselawn sand

r18. 28.

137.
C. The Composition of the Woody Vegetation in the Ninety-Eight Stands
of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of Missaukee County Compared

‘with the Composition of the Woody Vegetation in other Areas
of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota

1. General

Comparisons of the composition of the woody vegetation in the
ninety-eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County
‘with the reported quantitative data for the forest formations in other
areas of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota have been worked out along
two general lines. In the article (Stearns l9Sl),'which presented the
quantitative data to include a DFD Index scale (Curtis 19h7), the com-
parisons were worked out on that basis. In the articles where the
quantitative data did not include a DFD Index scale, comparisons were
drawn by establishing a Frequency Index Community Coefficient in the
manner of Gleason (1920, p. 31—32) and Gates (l9h9, p. hl).

2. Quick (1923). A Comparative Study of the Distribution of

the Climax Association in Southern Michigan

In his report, Quick (1923) presented the percentage frequency of
the trees in the climax association in tabular form. The table listed
six regions for the southern peninsula of Michigan, with each region
being represented by two or more stations where quantitative samplings
were taken. These regions and the location of the stations are shown
in Fig. 29. Comparisons with the climax association for each of these
stations were drawn with the composition of the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County on the basis of a
Frequency Index Community Coefficient (FICC). These results are pre-

sented in Tables XXIII through XXXIX.

138.

The three stations for which quantitative data were reported in
Region h were the nearest geographically to Missaukee County. On the
basis of the Frequency Index Community Coefficient, the station at
Hart (11), when compared, received the highest FICC, 73%. Clare (6) and
Mosely (13), the other two stationS'within the region manifested an FICC
of 71% and 63% respectively. The lowest FICC established was with the
station at Douglas Lake (10), in Region 6, where the coefficient was only
hOfi. The station at Vassar (16), in Region 5, likewise gave a very low
FICC, hl%. Clifford (7), in the northern part of Region 2, yielded an
FICC of 72% and comparisons with Clayton (S), in the southern part of the
same region, resulted in an FICC of 70%. This station is the farthest
removed from Missaukee County, and consequently might be eXpected to
show a lower FICC as increased distance between compared areas tends to
increase floristic differences.

The establishment of a high frequency index community coefficient
between two compared areas is usually believed to indicate a close re-
lationship. Most frequently these coefficients, if the two areas are in
the same association within the same area, are in excess of eighty.
However, it is very possible to find areas close together, which appear
similar to the eye, that, upon comparison, yield coefficients which are
less than sixty. The various areas in Quick's (1923) study, when compared
by means of the Frequency Index Community Coefficient with the data from
Missaukee County show a wide range of coefficient values which indicate,
when low, very little relationship, and when high, a closer affinity.

The significance of these relationships, as well as their indicator

value, are considered in detail in Section C of the Discussion (p. 22h).

139 .

        
 

REGION 4

 
    

“EGHLJN 2 REGION I

REGICN 3

 

Fig. 29. Map of Lower Michigan showing Quick's (1923) region
within the Beech-Maple Climax Association and the location
of stands from which quantitative data were compared with
the ninety-eight stands of upland second growth hardwoods
of Missaukee County (MC).

TABLE XXIII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMIUNITY COEFFICIENT COHRARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tree Species : l 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 22
Betula lutea S
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis 1
Carya ovata h
Fagus grandifolia SO 20
Fraxinus americana l9 9
Juglans cinerea l
Liriodendron Tulipifera l
Ostrya virginiana 26 ll
Pinus resinosa l
Pinus Strobus l
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus alba 3 ’1
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11' 2
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 5
Tsuga candensis l2
Ulmus americana 33 12
Ulmus rubra ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 81 3hh 7
3th + 2 172 81 + 172 + 7 260 —265— x 100 66m

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 66%.

1.

growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2.

3.

Percent frequency of the trees in Quick'

Q

U

Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second

Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

region one, Richmond stand, (15).

III]. .

TABLE XXIV

FREQUENCY INDEX COQLUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

TREE SPECIES ‘ 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13

Acer saccharum 9D 9
Betula lutea S

Betula papyrifera 3
Cmyacmfifibmfis

Carya ovata

Fagusggrandifolia SO, 22
Fraxinus americana 19 6
Liriodendron Tulipifera 1
Ostrya virginiana
Pinus resinosa
Pinus Strobus
Prunus serotina l
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 2
Tsuga canadensis 12

Ulmus americana 33 6
Ulmus rubra 11

Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 107 29b 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

NM

 

 

 

 

M

F’F‘F‘O‘

 

 

 

COW

 

 

 

 

 

 

29h + 2 = In? 107 + it? + 5 = 259 _%%g_.x 100 = 56%
Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 56%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety—eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's region one,'Wayne station,(l7).

1&2.

TABLE XXV

FREQUENCY INDEX COAMUNITY COEFFICIENT COJPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES : l 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 95’ 53
Betula lutea S
Betula paoyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis l
Carya ovata 3
Fagus grandifolia SO 4418
Fraxinus americana 19 6
Ostrya virginiana 26 l
Pinus resinosa l
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina ll 2
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 l
Quercus alba 3
Thuja occidentalis OI
Tilia americana 26* 2
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33 6
Ulmus rubra ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 73 359 h

3S9+2=179 l79+73+h=256 %xloo=7o%

Frequency Index of Community Coefficient is 70%.

1. Percent frequency of trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of trees in Quick's Region Two, Clayton station, (5).

lh3.

TABLE XXVI

FREQUENCY INDEX COLLUHITI COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES : 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 8
Betula lutea S
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya ovata 1
Fagus grandifolia SO 9
Fraxinus americana 19 1h
Ostrya virginiana 26 7
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus l A
Prunus serotina ll 1
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 311 D
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26 _I7
Tsuga canadensis 412
Ulmus americana 33
Ulmus rubra ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 106 297 l

297 . 2 = lbs 106 + lb8 + 1 = 255 :2: x 100 = 58%

Frequency Index of Community Coefficient is 58%.

1. Percent frequency of trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of trees in Quick's Region Two, Ann Arbor
station, (1).

TABLE XXVII

FREQUENCY INDEX COQMUNITY COEFFICIENT CONFARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 20
Betula lutea S
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis 6
‘Fagus_grandifolia SO 52
Fraxinus americana l9 1;
Juglans cinerea 1
Ostqya virginiana 26* 3
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus l
Prunus serotina 11 3h
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 2
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 2
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33 63
Ulmus rubra 11
UImus Thomasi 23
Totals 72 363 7
, 181
303 + 2 . 181 72 + 181 + 7 a 260 260 x 100 - 69%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 69%.

1. Percent frequency of trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Bissaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of trees in Quick's Region Two, Charlotte stand (h).

th.

TABLE XXVIII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMMUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum, ‘13
Acer saccharum 9h 23
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya ovata 3
Fagus grandifolia 50 hl
Fraxinus americana l9 3
Ostrya virginiana 26 78
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 331
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 411' h
Thuja occidentalis I
Tilia americana 3263’ 8
Tsuga canadensis I2
Ulmus americana 33 5
Ulmus rubra II
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 8b 351 3

175 4
351 + 2 = 175 8b + 175 + 3 = 262 62 x 100 = 68%

Frequency Index

Community Coefficient is 68%.

1. Percent frequency of trees in the ninety-eight stands of second

growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Two, Davidson

station (9).

lh6.

TABLE XXIX

FIPQUENCY INDEX COEIUNITY COLFFICIENT CORPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h h8
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus grandifolia 5O 19
Fraxinus americana 19 3
Ostrya virginiana 26 5
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina 11 1
Quercus alba l
‘Ouercus rubra var. borealis 11
Thuja occidentalis I
Tilia americana 26 6
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33' 13
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 72 367 O
367 + 2 = 183 72 + 183 = 255 :2: x 100 = 72%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 72%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Two, Clifford
station (7).

lh7.

TABLE XXX

FREQUENCY INDEX COIMUIIITY COEFFICIEI‘JT COIIPARISOI‘I'S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h h5—
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus_grandifolia 50 39
Fraxinus americana 19
Juglans cinerea 2
Ostrya virginiana 26 7
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina 11
quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 3
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33 3
Ulmus rubra '11
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 11h 326 2

326 + 2 - 163 11h + 163 + 2 = 279 2?; x 100 - 58%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 58%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Three, Goldwater‘
station (8).

1&8.

TABLE XXXI

FREQUENCY INDEX COLEJUNITY COEFFICIENT COL'EPARISGJS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Ac er rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 60
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis 2
Fagus grandifolia 50 5
Fraxinus americana 19 5
Juglans cinerea 5
Liriodendron Tulipifera 2
Ostrya virginiana 26
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina 11 h
Quercus alba 3 2
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 h
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26 5
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana _fl> 33 6
.UImus rubra 23
Ulmus Thomasi 11
Totals 96 335 9
167
335 + 2 = 167 196 + 167 + 9 a 272 272 x 100 t 61%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 61%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Three, Bronson
station (3).

lh9.

TABLE XXXII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMEUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

A “ca—....d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 38
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera . 3
Carya cordiformis 1
Fagus grandifolia 50 29
Fraxinus americana 19 5
Liriodendron Tulipifera 2
Ostrya virginiana 26 1
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina 11 11
Quercus alba 3 1
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 2
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26' 12
Tsuga canadensis l2
Ulmus americana 33 63
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 70 368 3

, . 18h .
308 + 2 = 18h 18h + 70 + 3 = 257 257 x 100 = 692

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 69%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety—eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Kissaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Three, Berrien
Springs station (2).

150.

TABLE XXXIII

FREQUENCY INDEX COQLUNITY COEFFICIENT COMP;RISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3

'Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 2H ‘
Betula lutea 5 ‘
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya ovata 3
Fagus grandifolia ‘30 ’h3fi
Fraxinus americana 19 h
Juglans cinerea 2
Liriodendron Tulipifera 2‘
Ostrya virginiana 26 2
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus I
Prunus serotina 11 1
Quercus alba 3 2
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll 3
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26‘ 13
Tsuga canadensis 12’
Ulmus americana 33 2
Ulmus rubra ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 70 357 7

357+2=128 7o+128+7=2os %%xl©0=62%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 62%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Four, Moseley
station (13).

359 + 2 = 179

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 71%.

1.

TABLE XXXIV

FBBQUI‘INCY D-IDBX COLJLIUNITY C OBFFICIEI‘IT COMPARISON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 9
BetfiIa lutea S
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus grandifolia SO 65
Fraxinus americana 19 h
Ostrya virginiana 267 l
Pinus resinosa l
Pinus Strobus l
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. boreaIis 11 'h
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26 2
Tsuga canadensis l2 l2
Ulmus americana 33 1
UImus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 72 359 0
72 + 179 =- 251 £1.9— x 100 = 717.

growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2.
3.

station (6).

Percent frequency of trees common to both stands.

Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region.Four, Clare

151.

Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second

152.

TABLE XXXV

FREQUENCY INDEX COMHUNITY COEFFICIENT COJPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h -_Z6_
Betula lutea SI I
Betula papyrifera ‘I3
Fagus grandifolia SO 36__
Fraxinus americana l9 2
Ostnya virginiana 26fi3 1
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina 11 9
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 1
Tsuga canadensis 12 18
Hagaeuelticana 33 5
Ulmus rubra' ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 67 375 0
188 ,
375 + 2 . 188 67 + 188 = 255 255 x 100 = 73%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 73%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Four, Hart
station (11).

153 .

TABLE XXXVI

F BBC-2 JEN CY INDEX C Oi-MUN ITY C OBF F ICIBNT C Ol‘v’lPARIS ONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES - 1 32 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 95' 23
Betula lutea
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus grandifolia SO 68
Fraxinus americana 19
Juglans cinerea 2
Ostrya virginiana 26
Pinus resinosa TI
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus tha 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana 26 2
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33
UBmsrmma 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 173 263 2
263 + 2 #131 173 + 131 + 2 = 306 :3: x 100 = 1.1;:

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is hl%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Five, Vassar
station (18).

15h.

TABLE XXXVII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMIUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h ’8
Betula lutea 5 4H
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya ovata 2
Fagus grandifolia 50 I2
Fraxinus americana l9
Juglans cinerea 3
Ostrya virginiana 26
Pinus resinosa I:
Pinus Strobus I
Prunus serotina I1
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll 1
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana ‘26 I;
Tsuga canadensis l2
Ulmus americana 33 36
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasiw 23

Totals 121; 28b 5

28h+2=lh2 12h+1h2+5=271 gixioowlsz

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 51%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Five, Pigeon
station (1h).

155.

TABLE XXXVIII

F BBQUEI‘JCY INDEX CO.~.‘LLUI‘JITY COEFFICIENT CO.EA.RISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 35
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus grandifolia 50 H8
Fraxinus americana wI9
Ostrya virginiana 26
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1
Prunus serotina lI
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11
Thule occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26
Tsuga canadensis 12 Al?
Ulmus americana 33
Ulmus rubra ll
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 187 256 O
256 + 2 = 128 167 + 128 = 315 .122 x 100 =- 80%
31

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is hO%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Six, Douglas Lake
station (10).

156.

TABLE XXXIX

FREQUENCY INDEX COMMUNITY COEFFICIENT COmPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES l 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h hO
Betula lutea 12 l
Betula papyrifera 3
Fagus grandifolia 50 R9
Fraxinus anericana 19
Ostrya virginiana 26 1

 

Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus l
‘Prunus serotina II
3
ll
1

 

 

 

Quercus alba
Quercus rubra var. borealis
Thuja occidentalis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tilia americana 26' l
Tsuga canadensis l2 7
Ulmus americana 33 I
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 97 353 0
, 176 ,
353 + 2 = 176 17o + 97 = 273 753-— x 100 . 6875

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 6h%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Quick's Region Six, La Rocque
station (12).

157.

3. Neollett and Sigler (1928). Revegetation of
Beech-Maple Areas in the Douglas Lake Region
‘Woollett and Sigler (1928) were able to compare a typical virgin
beech—maple forest with the reforesting areas. In their report, they
presented percent frequency of the tree species for the two types of
areas considered. 'When compared with the Missaukee County stands of
second growth upland hardwoods on the basis of a Frequency Index Com-
munity Coefficient, the "typical" beech-maple forest yielded a coeffi-
cient of 71% and for the reforesting areas, 70%. It is of interest to
note that these percentages are considerably larger than the FICC ob-
tained between Quick's Douglas Lake station and Missaukee County. The
details of the comparisons with the studies of Woollett and Sigler are
presented in Tables XL and XLI.
An examination of Table XL, which compares the mature beechsmaple
forest of the Douglas Lake area with the Missaukee County stands of
second growth upland hardwoods, reveals that it is the presence of such

"fire species" as ngulus_grandidentata,AP. tremuloides, and Prunus

 

 

pensylvanica, as well as a greater number of representatives of Ulmus,

 

‘which are responsible for the differences in vegetation between the two
areas. While the "fire species" are present in both the reforesting
areas of the Douglas Lake area (Table XLI) and Missaukee County, such

successional species as Fraxinus americana, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra

 

var. borealis, Pinus resinosa and P. Strobus, were absent from the re-

 

foresting areas, in the Douglas Lake region. The latter four species

would be considered as relic species by'Woollett and Sigler (1928, p. 2h).

158.

TABLE XL

FREQUENCY INDEX COEMUNITY COEFFICIENT COmPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES l 2 3
Acer rubrum 13 IE
Acer saccharum 9h 36
Betula lutea 5 7H
Betula papyrifera* 3 l
Fagus grandifolia 5O 21
Fraxinus americana 19 1
Ostrya virginiana 26 1
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strdbus* l 2
Populus grandidentata lO
Populus tremuloides l
Prunus pensylvanica l6
Prunus serotina 11
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis* 11 l
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana¥ 26 2
Tsuga canadensis#fi 12 15
Ulmus americana 33 3
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Totals 77 38h 0
381; + 2 -- 192 192 + 77 a 269 1:2 x 100 =- 71%
2 9

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 71%.

1. Percent frequency of the tree species in the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Woollett and Sigler's
typical beech-maple forest of the Douglas Lake Region.

*Tree species listed by'Woollett and Sigler as prominent relics.
#Tilia anericana/Tilia_glabra
#TSuga canadensi§7Tsuga americana

 

 

159 .

TABLE XLI

F BBQ UBI‘I CY INDEX C OLE-TUB} ITY C OBF F IC IEN T C OLLPARIS ON S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3
Abies balsamea 2
Acer rubrum 13 1
Acer saccharum 9B 67
Betula lutea 5’ 1
Betula papyrifera* 3 7h
Fagus grandifolia 5O 7
Fraxinus americana 19
Ostrya virginiana 26 ’1
Pinus resinosa l
Pinus Strobusw 1
Populus_grandidentata 10 3
Populus tremuloides l l
Prunus pensylvanica 16 2
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis* ll
Thuja occidentalis l
Tilia americana# 26 1
Tsuga canadensisfl 12 3
Ulmus americana 33 2
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 81 382 2
382+2=191 191+81+2=27u _:-_%x100=70%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 70%.

1. Percent frequency of the tree species in the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Woollett and Sigler's re—
foresting areas, Douglas Lake Region.

*Tree species listed by WOollett and Sigler as prominent relics.
#Tilia americana/ Tilia. glabra
#Tsuga canadensis/'Tsuga americana

 

 

 

160.

As such, they might not be eXpected to reoccur in reforesting area
which no longer support the climax characteristic of these species.
However, in lissaukee County, the quantitative data yield sufficient
evidence to indicate that they are reproducing and maintaining them-
selves within the forest community.
h. Gleason (192h). The Structure of the Maple-Beech
Association in Northern Michigan
In his study of the Maple-Beech association in northern Michigan,
Gleason (192B) presented a frequency index for the composition of the
forest cover and species normally associated.with the association.
These figures and species lists were used to establish a Frequency Index
Community Coefficient as a basis of comparison for this area and the
ninety-eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee
County. The area studied by Gleason is north of Missaukee County. It
comprised parts of Antrim, Charlevoix, Emmet, and Otsego Counties. The
areas as defined by Gleason were (p. 286-287):
Area one: A square mile of virgin forest on section 13,
Town 30 North, Range 5 West, in the extreme eastern
end of Antrim County, bordering on Otsego County,
about six miles east of Alba.
Area two: A square mile on Section 8, Town 30 North,
Range h West, near the western edge of Otsego County,
about two miles northeast of area one.
Area three: A square mile of section 17, Town 30 North,
Range h West in Otsego County, adjoining are two on
the south.
Area four: A tract almost a square mile in extent on
section 35, Town 32 North, Range h'West, in the eastern

end of Charlevoix County, about eight miles north of
area two.

__J

161.
Area five: A small tract, not exceeding forty acres in extent,
on the land of the State Game Refuge in Emmet County,
about nine miles southwest of Mackinaw City.

The Frequency Index Community Coefficients, when established for
the different areas with the Missaukee County study, ranged from a low
of 36% to a high of 59%. Area one, as compared with Missaukee County,
was hh%; area two, 52%; area three, 57%; area four, 57%; and area five,
36%. The details for the FICC comparisons are presented in Tables XLII
through XLVI.

An inspection of the tables reveals that there are present in Mis-

saukee County a larger number of such successional tree species as

Populus grandidentata, P. tremuloides, Betula_papyrifera, Ulmus Thomasi,

 

and E. {3233 together with such relic species as Pinus Strobus and

.P. resinosa. The presence of these tree species in the one area, while
absent from the other, iii largely accountable for the low FICC values
here. A greater percent of frequency for the characteristic climax
tree species (Fagus grandifolia, Tilia americana, Fraxinus americana,

Tsuga canadensis) in Missaukee County than in the areas of Gleason (l92h)

 

must also be considered in interpreting the significance of these FICCs.
A more detailed consideration of the significances of these coefficients
and their values as indicators is presented in Section C of the
Discussion.
5. Cain (1935). Studies on Virgin Hardwood Forests. III.
warren's Woods, A Beech-maple Climax Forest in
Berrien County, Michigan
Warren's Woods is reputedly a virgin forest on the NW one—quarter

of Section 27, Range 20'West, Township 7 West. It is held as a state

reserve under the Edward K. Warren Foundation of Three Oaks, Berrien

162.

TABLEIXLII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMMUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPECIES l 2 3
Acer rubrum 313
Acer saccharum 9h 95
Acer spicatum ’ 1 3
Amelanchier sp . 2
Betula lutea SI 8h
Betula_papyrifera 3
Cornus alternifolia h l
Corylus cornuta 3
Fagus grandifolia SO
Fraxinus americana 19
Ostnya virginiana 26

 

Pinus resinosa l

Pinus Strobus 1

Populus grandidentata 10

Populus tremuloides I
Prunus pensylvanica

Prunus serotina ll

' 3

’1I

l

 

 

 

16 II

 

 

Quercus alba

Quercus rubra var. borealis

Rhus typhina

Ribes sp; 1 4h
Rubus sp. h
Sambucus pubens 1 9
Thuja occidentalis 1

Tilia americana 26 2
Tsuga canadensis 12

Ulmus americana 33 13
Ulmus rubra 11

Ulmus Thomasi 23

Viburnum acerifolium 2 1

Totals 203 329 h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

329 + 2 I 165 203 + 165 + h - 372

 

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is hh%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the species in Gleason's area one.

163.

TABLE XLIII

FREQUENCY INDEX COMNUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

SPECIES 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13

Acer saccharum 9h 8
Acer spicatum ' I
Amelanchier sp. 2

Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera

Cornus alternifolia
Corylus cornuta
Fagusggrandifolia

Fraxinus americana

Ostrya virginiana

Pinus resinosa

Pinus Strobus
Populusggrandidentata
Populus tremuloides

Prunus pensylvanica

Prunus serotina

Quercus alba

Quercus rubra var. borealis
Rhus typhina

Ribes sp. 1 8
Rubus sp. 18
Sambucus pubens 1 32
Thuja occidentalis 1

Tilia americana 26 h
Tsuga canadensis 12 l
UImus americana 33 17
Ulmus rubra ll

Ulmus Thomasi 23

Viburnum acerifoIium 2

Totals 159 390 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

Midi-‘00:

50

NH
\oww

 

F‘F‘ F4
HmHOHHm

Mix»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

390 + 2 = 195 159 + 195 + 18 = 372 :i: x 100 = 52%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 52%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety—eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the trees common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the trees in Gleason's area two.

16h.

TABLE XLIV

F REQUBNCY INDEX COLMUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPECIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 88
Acer spicatum ‘ If 5
Amelanchier sp. III 2
Betula lutea 5_ 2
Betula papyrifera 37
Cornus alternifolia IE—
Corylus cornuta 3
Fagus grandifolia ..-“- 5O 5
Fraxinus americana 19
Ostrya virginiana 26’ 1
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus _ 1
Populus_grandidentata IO
Populus tremuloides 1
Prunus pensylvanica 16
Prunus serotina 11 2
Quercus alba TI
Quercus rubra var. borealis ll
Rhus typhina 1
Bibes sp. 1 2
Bubus sp. 21—
Sambucus pubens l 9
Thuia occidentalis I1
Tilia americana 26 1
Tsuga candensis 12 I5
Ulmus americana 33 12
Ulmus rubra 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Viburnum acerifOlium 2
Totals 126 392 21
392 + 2 - 196 126 + 196 + 21 . 3h3 ii: x 100 = 57%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 57%.

1. Percent frequency for the species in the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the species in Gleason's area three.

165.

TABLE XLV

FREQUENCY INDEX COLE-AUNITY COEFFICIENT COLCPABISOZ‘IS

 

<_»
_“_——

SPECIES 1 2 3

AmrmMm B

Acer saccharum 2h' 7h

Acer spicatum 1 I10

Amelanchier sp.

Betula lutea 5 3

kfihpmpfiga

Cwmsflmmfiflm

Corylus cornuta

FgmgmMfiflm W W

Fraxinus americana l9 3

OflQafimmMM

‘Pinus resinosa

Pinus Strobus

Populus grandidentata

PopuIfis tremuloides

Prunusgpensylvanica

Prunus serotina

[uercus aIba

uercus rubra var. borealis

RMsQQha

MMSQ, 1 l

fimmupums 123

Tfigja occidentaIis II

TIIia.americana #__ 26 I2

Tracmfimds fl 3
smwkms 33I8

flusmwe II

MEFEMMI 25

fifimmawflhfim _TI

Totals 11:3 126 o

 

 

 

 

 

 

udu d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHwEEHdHQg

 

213
3%

 

h26 4 2 - 213 1h3 * 213 - 356 .1 100 ' 59%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 59%.

1. Percent frequency of the species in the ninetyheight stands of
«wmgmflhthhuwmuafmummemmw.

2. Percent frequency of the species ccmon to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the species in Gleeson's area four.

166.

TABLE XLVI

FREQUE‘ICY INDEX COSQJNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

Acer rubrum
Icer saccharum
Acer spicatum
Eelanchier sp_.
ggtula Iutea
Betula 3%ra
Cornus Etc olia
firflius cornuta
Fagusirmdfialie
Fstinus americana
Ostrya virginfane
us resinosa

Pius Strobus
132%” grandidéntate
Pm us trenmlofies __

us pe rlvsnfcs
Prunus serotina.

rcus "ma

uercus rubra. var. borealis
Rhus typhina.
Ribes sp .
Thu ucus ens

a occ. dentalfs
Elfin americana
11%? canadensis

s americana.
We rubra

s homasi
VIburnmn acerfoliun

Totals

73

 

_ ____

13

I

T

T

I?

T
30 11:
f9:

 

 

 

 

t
I
k

MfiHHHHfiMfiWHaAH%

 

s 1qu
g;

 

267+2-13h 131.+237-371 :3: sumo-36%

Frequency Index Commmity Coefficient is 36%.

1 . Percent frequency of the species in the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the species in Gleeson's area five.

167.
County, Michigan. According to Braun (1950, p. 318): "In all proba-
bility, the forest tract which the largest number of students of forest
ecology have looked at as an example of the Beech-Maple association is
‘Warren woods.“ During the summer of 1933, Cain (1935) made a quantita-
tive study of twenty-five quadrats of 10 x 10 meters each (p. 502)
"scattered regularly in a checkerboard pattern over a little more than
ten acres of the upland south of the highway and north of the Galien
River." From his data, it was possible to compare this study with that
of Missaukee County by establishing a Frequency Index Community Coef-
ficient for the two locations. The result was an FICC of 58%. The de-
tails for the comparison are presented in Table XLVII. An inspection
of this Table shows that the Warren's Woods area contained numerous

species of more southern range: Carya cordiformis, C. ovata, Carpinus

 

 

caroliniana, and Liriodendron Tulipifera. Likewise the shrub species

 

 

were more numerous in the Warren's WOods, and those species which were
common to both areas, usually attained a higher percent frequency within
the more southern forest. The more northern aspect of the forest com-
munity in Missaukee County is revealed by the presence of such coniferous

species as Pinus Strobus, P. resinosa, and Tsuga canadensis. Yet another

 

 

difference between the composition of the southern expression of the de-
ciduous forest with that in the more northern part of the state is seen
in the relative percent frequencies of the two characteristic tree

species for the climax association. In Warren's woods, the percent fre-

quency for Acer saccharum was 6h; in Missaukee County, it was 9h%. Fagus

 

grandifolia had a recorded percent frequency within the more southern

 

stand of 100%, while in Missaukee County it was only half that, or 50%.

168.
TABLE XLVII

FREQUENCY INDEX CONMUNITY COEFFICIENT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPECIES 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13 100
Acer saccharmm 9h 6h
Amelanchier sp. II 8
Asimina triloba l6
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Benzoin aestivale 964
Carpinus caroliniana 76
Canya cordiformis 20
Carya ovata h
Celtis occidentalis _h.
Cornus alternifolia W 8
Corylus cornuta 3 140
Crataegus sp. 1
Dirca palustris 12
Fagus grandifolia 50 100
Fraxinus americana 19 2h
Liriodendron Tulipifera 2h
Lonicera sp. _28
Ostrya virginiana 26’ 6O
Pinus resinosa II
Pinus Strobus l
Populus_grandidentata lO
Populus tremuloides 1
Prunus pensylvanica 12 16
Prunus serotina ll 8
Quercus alba 3 8
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 6E
Rhus typhina ' l
Ribes sp. h 2h
Sambucus_pubens 1 32
Smilax sp. 4H8
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26* hO
Tsuga canadensis 412
Ulmus americana 33 6h
Ulmus rubra ll 16
Ulmus Thomasi 23
Viburnum acerifolium If 52

Totals 61 1051 328

1051 + 2 = 525 61 + 525 + 328 . 91h 525 x 100 . 57%

91h

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 57%.

1. Percent frequency of the species in the ninety-eight stands of second
growth upland hardwoods of hissaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the species common to both stands.
3. Percent frequency of the species in Cain's Warren Woods study.

169 .
MOre consideration of the significance of these differences are pre-
sented in Section C of the Discussion.
6. Eggler (1938). The Maple-Basswood Forest Type
in Washburn County, Wisconsin

Eggler's study was concerned with three areas of undisturbed hard-
'wood forest in northern Wisconsin. It is to be expected that a Frequency
Index Community Coefficient for these areas and the Bissaukee County
study should yield low percentages because the two areas are some dis-
tance removed from one another and a different climax association is
characteristic of each. The comparisons, the details of which are pre-
sented in Tables XLVIII, XIVIX, and L, bear out this expectation. The
Hunt Hill and Long Lake stands in Eggler's study, compared with the
stands of second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County gave an FICC
of h9%. The comparisons between the East woods stand and those in his-
saukee County yielded an even lower percentage, being h2%.

It is interesting to note that Acer saccharum has a much higher

 

percent frequency in the Nissaukee County stands than it does in the
'Wisconsin area, as reported in Eggler's study, and that the Wisconsin

codominant, Tilia americana, has a considerably greater percentage of

 

frequency in only the Long Lake stand. Fagus grandifolia, codominant

 

with Acer saccharum in the climax association in Missaukee County, is

 

absent from the Wisconsin areas, as this tree species drops out from the
.forest formation westward from the northern part of Michigan's lower
peninsula. Ulmus appears to be of no importance in the climax community
of washburn County, Wisconsin, but it is one of the important succesSional
species in the second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County. Also,

there are a larger number of "fire species" present in the Missaukee

TABLE XLVIII

170.

FREQUENCY INDEX COMJUNITY COEFFICIENT COLPABISQNS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPE ‘CIES 1 2 3
Acer rubrum 13 17
Acer saccharum 9h 13.?
Betula lutea 5II 2
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis 7
Fagus grandifolia I50
Fraxinus americana l9
Fraxinus pensylvanicaw 20
Ostrya virginiana 26 30
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus 1 2
Populus grandidentata 10 2
Populus tremuloides I1
Prunus pensylvanica 16
Prunus serotina 11
Quercus alba 3 13
Quercus rubra var. borealis* 11 59
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26* 3h
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33
Ulmus rubraw 11
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 181 396 27

396 + 2 = 198 181 + 198 + 27 =- 1m? 11;: x 100 = 19%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is b9%.

1. Percent frequency of the trees in the ninety-eight stands of second

growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.
3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Eggler's Hunt Hill stand.

*Quercus rubra var. borealis/ Quercus borealis var. maxima

 

 

*Fraxinus pensylvanica var. 1anceolata7 var. subintegerrima

 

 

 

*Ulmus rubra] Ulmus fulva

 

 

171.

TABLE XLIX

FREQUENCY INDEX CONMUNITY COEFFICIENT CONPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES 1 2 3

Acer rubrum 13 5_’
Acer saccharum 9h 57
Betula lutea 5’ h
Betula papyrifera 3
Carya cordiformis 22
Fagus grandifolia 50
Fraxinus americana 19
mehmspamgflwmfimw 17
Juglans cinerea h
Ostrya virginiana 26 51
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus l
Populus grandidentata 10
Populus tremuloides 1
Prunus pensylvanica 163
Prunus serotina ll
Quercus alba ’ 3 ll
Quercus rubra var. borealisw ’11 ’37
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26 57
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33
Ulmus rubra* 11 1
Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 170 hl2 h3

h12+2=206 170+206+h3=h19 filo: x100=h9%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is h9%.

1. Percent frequency of the tree species in the ninety-eight stands
of second growth upland hardwoods of hissaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Eggler's Long Lake
station.

*Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. lanceolata/ var. subintegerrima
-wQuercus rubra var. borealis/ Quercus borealis var. maxima
-*Ulmus rubra/’UImus fulva

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172.

TABLE L

FBBQ U225 CY INDEX COLLIUNITY C OEF F IC IEN T COMPARISONS

 

_‘—‘_
‘—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES l 2 3

Acer rubrum 13

Acer saccharum 9h 55
Betula lutea 5. ‘5
Betula papyrifera 3

Carpinus caroliniana SI
Fagus grandifolia 50

Fraxinus americana 19

Fraxinus pennsylvanica)? 1?
Ostrya virginiana 26 380

Pinus resinosa 1

Pinus Strobus CI
Populus_grandidentata 10

POpulus tremuloides 1

Prunus pensylvanica 16

Prunus serotina 11

Quercus alba “ 3 5
Quercus rubra var. borealisw ll 20

Thuja occidentalis 1

Tilia americana 26 2O
Tsuga canadensis 12

Ulmus americana 33

Ulmus rubraw 11

Ulmus Thomasi 23

Totals 19h 310 20
310 + 2 = 155 191. + 155 + 20 = 369 "32'3” x 100 -- 11275

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is h2%.

1. Percent frequency of the tree species in the ninety-eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods of hissaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Eggler‘s East Woods station.

wFraxinus pennsylvanica var. lanceolata/ var. subintegerrima
*Quercus rubra var. borealis/ Quercus boreaIis var. maxima
*Ulmus rubra/IUlmus fulva

 

 

 

 

173.
County stands than in the three areas considered by'Eggler. Populus

(grandidentata is only in the Hunt Hill area of'Nashburn County, while in

 

Nissaukee County, Populus tremuloides and Prunus pensylvanica were also

 

 

present.

7. Daubenmire (1936). The Big Woods of Minnesota:

Its Structure, and Relation to Climate, Fire and Soils

Comparisons between the ninety-eight stands of second growth upland

hardwoods in Miss aukee County and the Big Woods of Minnesota as studied
by Daubenmire (1936) were drawn on the basis of a.Frequency Index Com-
munity Coefficient. The results of such an analysis established an FICC
of 56%, the details of which are presented in Table LI. According to
Daubenmire (p. 2&7), "This comparative study of the two samples of the
Big Woods shows that even though the composition of the sugar maple-
basswood community varies, six species are usually the most important
and bear the same approximate relationship to each other." The data
presented in Table LI indicates that the same six species play an im—
portant part in the composition of the Missaukee County community.

Further, it is interesting to note that the codominant, Tilia americana,

 

in the Minnesota area had the same percentage of frequency in the his—

saukee County locations and that Fagus grandifolia, codominant with Acer

 

saccharum in that community association, was absent from the Minnesota
Big II'VOOdS e
8. Stearns (1951). The Composition of the Sugar haple-
Hemlock-Yellow Birch Association in Northern Wisconsin
In reporting the quantitative data for the composition of the sugar

maple-hemlock—yellow birch association in northern Wisconsin, Stearns (1951)

17h.

TABLE LI

FREQUENCY INDEX COMMUNITY COEFFICIEVT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES l 2 3
Acer rubrum 13
Acer saccharum 9h 72
Betula lutea 5
Betula papyrifera 3
Celtis occidentalis 2
Fagus :randifolia 50
Fraxinus americana l9
Ostrya virginiana 26 10
Pinus resinosa 1
Pinus Strobus l
Quercus alba 3
Quercus rubra var. borealis 11 h
Thuja occidentalis 1
Tilia americana 26’ 26
Tsuga canadensis 12
Ulmus americana 33 8’ _
Ulmus rubra* 11 1h
Ulmus Thomasi ’23

Totals 131 3hh 2

3th + 2 = 172 131 + 172 + 2 = 305 :3: x 100 a 56%

Frequency Index Community Coefficient is 56%.

1. Percent frequency of the tree species in the ninety—eight stands of
second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County.

2. Percent frequency of the tree species common to both stands.

3. Percent frequency of the tree species in Daubenmire's Big Woods of
Iinnesota.

*Ulmus rubra/ Ulmus fulva

 

 

 

lo 16:11.35 Jdgie-‘.‘J..JJ'U um ;... fi$it"->’.{€
.1354qu cesénsssi‘.

_.cbu£ia‘n3cd c1 scarf-r: as fine.

39' shoe? 316 E'eiLwdan '

.3 "
r .g‘_' ‘;.’I'

 

175.
used the DFD Index (Curtis, 19h7) and consequently it was possible to
compare the second growth upland stands of hardwoods in hissaukee
County with this association on that basis (Table LII).

An examination of Stearns' data reveals that the association in
'Wisconsin conforms more nearly with the accepted concept of a mixed
conifer-northern hardwood forest than does the woody vegetation now

characteristics of the Missaukee County area. Acer saccharum is the

 

leading dominant on the basis of the DFD Index, for both areas, while

 

Tsuga canadensis ranks second in Stearns' report and twelfth in the Nis-
saukee County study. The second ranking tree species on the DFD Index

scale for Bissaukee County is Fagus grandifolia. It is not a member of

 

the forest formation in Wisconsin. Ulmus americana ‘with a DFD Index
3

 

value of h9.h6%, is the third dominant in Missaukee County and drops to
seventh in Wisconsin where its reported DFD Index value,is lh.§%.

Betula lutea, as reported by Stearns, had a DFD Index of 92.2%, and con-

 

sequently was in third place within the Wisconsin association; in his-
saukee County, its DFD Index was 6.52, placing it in fifteenth position.
On the basis of naming an association after the first three dominants
as indicated by their DFD Index values, as was done in the Wisconsin
study, it would appear that the ninety-eight stands of second growth
upland hardwoods of Nissaukee County, as shown by these quantitative
data, should be characterized as Sugar Maple—Beech-Elm association.

Tilia americana is ranked in fourth position in Stearns' study, and fifth

 

in Missaukee County, with Ostrya virginiana appearing in fifth position

 

in Stearns' data, and sixth in that for Missaukee County. Only a single

tree species, Abies balsamea, reported in the Wisconsin study is absent

 

TABLE LII

COMPARISON OF DFD INDEX VALUES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2
TREE SRECIES DFD DFD
%T_I #3 2‘ #
Acer saccharum II90356II' 1 158.8 1
Fagus grandifolia 71:hh 2 ’
Ulmus americana Th9:h6r ;3 1h.5 7
Ulmus Thomasi 36238' II '
Tilia americana 3hi693 5’ 7h:1 H
Ostrya virginiana 30 :87 6 112 .7 5
Fraxinus americana 2h:Ol 7
Prunus pensylvanica 21:19 8
Acer rubrum ‘ l9;2§7 9
Quercus rubra var. borealis 15:80 10
Populus grandidentata 15:08 11
Tsuga canadensis lb;53 12 113.7 2
Prunus serotina 13:80 13
Ulmus rubra 13277 1h ’
Betula lutea 6:55 15 92.2 3
Quercus alba A 3:95» 16
Betula papyrifera 3:58 17
Amelanchier sp. 2203 4I8
Populus tremuloides 1:80 19 '
Pinus Strobus 1:72 20 10.87 8
Thuja occidentalis 1:53 21
Pinus resinosa 0:71 22
Fraxinus nigra OLh2 23 ‘
Abies balsamea 37.8 6

 

1. The DFD Index of the tree species for the ninety—eight
stands of second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

2. The DFD Index of the tree species for the Sugar Naple-

Hemlock-Yellow Birch Association in Northern Wisconsin as

' reported by Stearns (1951).

 

177.
from the data of the Missaukee County study, while there were sixteen
tree species included in the quantitative data.for Missaukee County
that were not found by Stearns.

The presence of Ahigg‘balsamea‘within the'Wisconsin association
and its absence from the Missaukee County study.may be accounted for by
the fact that the latter investigation was concerned with upland stands
of second growth hardwoods which would exclude this tree species from
the community; Many of the sixteen tree species found in this investiga—
tion in Missaukee County and not listed by Stearns in his'Wisconsin
study may be regarded as successional species. As such, it is only
natural that they would be included in the data of a study of second
growth.forest stands which are representative of a disclimax such as
are those stands in Missaukee County, and absent from the data of the
undisturbed climax stands, such as reported for Wisconsin. Considera-
tions regarding the significance of these comparisons between the stands
of second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County with those of
'these and other areas are treated in greater'detail in Section C of the

Discussion.

178.

D. Forest Distribution in Missaukee County
as Interpreted from.the Original
Land Survey (1837-185h)

The forest vegetation in Missaukee County, as interpreted from the
field notes and.maps of the original land survey, was a typical Hemlock-
Hardwoods Association (Oosting l9h8, p. 250). The forests may be divided
into four communities: 1) swamp; 2) pines 3) mixed conifer and northern
hardwoods; and h) northern hardwoods.

A large part of the original survey was completed during 1837-1838.
At that time John.Brink, Deputy Surveyor, and his crew compiled the
records for the following townships: Townships 21 North: Ranges 5, 6, 7,
and 8'West; Townships 22 North: Ranges 7 and 8 West; Townships 23 north:
Ranges 6, 7, and 8 West. The remaining townships were surveyed during
1852-185h. Township 23 North: Range 5 west was recorded by Arteman
Curtis in 1852 and Township 22 North: Ranges 5 and 6 west were surveyed
by'W. Lt Coffenbury during 1853. The northern tier of townships,

T 2h N: R5, 6, 7 and 8 west'were surveyed.by George H. Camnose during
1853-185h. The surveyors recorded in their field notes each section
corner by reference to three and sometimes four witness trees with the
species, diameter, and the direction and distance from the stake'being
noted. They also recorded the species, diameter, and distance from the
section corner of all the trees falling on the line. By plotting all
witness and "line" trees on a county map, one is able to judge'with con-
siderable accuracy the nature of the forest and the limits of distri-

bution for the various plant communities. In plotting the data from

179.
Missaukee County upon a county map, a list of thirtybthree different
common names for the tree species was compiled. There is a good possi-
bility that some of these common.names represent duplication of the
same species, especially among the pines; however, as only the common
names were used by the surveyors, it is impossible to ascertain Which
might be duplications. Beal (1888, p. 79) has given some indication
of the possible duplication of names‘within the pines:
. . .The botanist will tell you that in Michigan there
are three and only three species of pine, while the lumber-
man says that there are eight or ten. He applies the term
'buckwheat pine' to a thrifty, usually young tree of white
pine which has a large low top. It is of no value for lumber

or timber. Occasionally some call a tree of Pinus Banksiana,
'buckwheat pine' if it is the shape above described.

 

. . .'Sapling' or 'Bull sapling' is the name applied to
a tall and thrifty white pine with a good top. The branches
are rather numerous, the limbs extending downwards pretty
well. Such a tree is making a good annual growth and has a
thick sap with a relatively small amount of heart wood.

. . .A sapling pine is improving, and in time would be-
come a 'cork pine'. A 'cork pine' is a white pine which has
seen its best day.

. . .The red or Norway pine (lumbermen universally call
it by the latter name) is called 'black Norway"when the trees
are low and have large tops and a relatively large proportion
of sap wood. A tree is 'yellow Norway' when it is tall with
a small top, when it is making a slow growth.and has but little
sap‘wood.

Where trees of Pinus Banksiana are short, with large,
wide tops, and the proportIon of sap wood large, they are
called 'black jack pine'. Where they are crowded, tall, with
small tops and a large proportion of heart wood, they are
called 'yellow jack pine'.

The list of common names used by the surveyors to identify the witness

and "line" trees follows:

I Idltll ‘

180 .

l. Alder l2. Dogwood 23. S. Pine

2. Aspen 13. Elm 2h. Spruce

3. Balm of Gilead 1h. Fir 25. Sugar

h. Basswood 15. Hemlock 26. Tamarack

5. Beech 16. Ironwood 27. White Ash
6. Black Ash 1?. Jack Pine 28.‘White Birch
7. Black Cherry 18. maple 29. White Oak
8. Black Oak 19. Norway Pine 30. White Pine
9. Black Pine 20. Red Maple 31. Willow

10. Black Spruce 21. Red Oak 32. Yellow Birch
11. Cedar 22. Red Pine 33. YelloW'Pine

In drawing the comparisons between the original forests of Mis-
saukee County, as interpreted from the original field notes, and the
present day composition of the second growth upland hardwood stands,
as well as in computing the quantitative analysis for the original
forests and making canparisons with regard to these differences, it was
necessary to make some interpretations regarding the possible duplica—
tion of names of tree species between those of the surveyors and those
of this study. As already indicated, there is evidence of duplication
within the various common names applied by the surveyors to the species
of Pinus. In this study, the number of individuals recorded by the
surveyors as either red or Norway pins are considered together as being

representative of a single species, Pinus resinosa. It is noted in the

 

statement of Beal (1888, p. 79), quoted above, that the "yellow" pine

of the surveyors might be either Pinus Banks iana or E. resinosa.

 

Because of the habitat where this tree Species was most frequently
noted by the surveyor, it is presumed that "yellow" pine, as used by
the surveyors in Missaukee County, referred to P. resinosa. However,
as it was impossible to establish exact duplication in this instance,
the trees recorded as "yellow" pins are not included in the tabulations
for 2. resinosa, but are rather carried within the tables as ”yellow"

pine. The list of common names, as used by the surveyors, contains

181.
three representatives of Acer; "maple", red maple, and "sugar".
"Sugar" is a term used very frequently in identifying both witness and
"line" trees in the field notes. It is here interpreted to mean 533;
saccharum. "Maple", as used by the surveyors, is interpreted to mean
any other species of Acer, excepting A. saccharum. In the computations
made, the number of individuals recorded by the surveyors as either
"maple" or "red maple" are grouped together as a single total under £933
m because this is the only other canopy species of this genus ap-
pearing in the quantitative data for the present study. There are three
different oaks referred to by the surveyors: red, white, and I'black".
The three have been treated here as separate individuals but there is
some question as to the identity of the "black" oak of the surveyors.
In many instances, the present land owners, when speaking of their
woodlots, were frequent in the use of the term l'red-black" oak. This
practice could possibly be interpreted to indicate that the "black"
oak of the surveyor is the "red-black" oak of the present land owner,
which is Quercus _r_t_1_b_r_'_§._ Ear. borealis of this study. Both Populus

grandidentata and f. tremuloides appear in the quantitative data of the

 

 

present study for Missaukee County. The surveyor's field notes contain
only the common name "aspen". When drawing comparisons between the
differences in vegetation of the two periods of time, the surveyor's
"aspen" has been considered comparable to the 2. grandidentata of today
as the habitat in which the "aspen" was mentioned by the surveyors was

typical of E. grandidentata rather than of E. tremuloides.

 

The kinds of quantitative expressions which might be used for in-

dicating pm—tosociological aspects of the forest distribution as inter-

182.
preted from the original land survey are of necessity limited to the re-
stricted data of the field notes. Yet, as Blewett and Potder (1950,

p. 140—141) have said:
It is very likely that a few representatives of a mass

of vegetation taken at widely separated points within a large

area give the same picture as does a concentrated tabulation

of a small area. We find this to be true in other situations.
The operation of this "law" is assumed in this situation. Two phyto-
sociological criteria have been used in making an interpretation of the
forest composition from the data of the original land survey field notes.
One, constance, is a synthetic character which treats of the community
in the abstract; the other, density, is a quantitative character showing
a structural characteristic of the concrete community.

Constance is usually obtained by listing the species present within
a unit area of the association rather than in the entire extent of the
stand. In this instance, the county has been considered the entire er:-
tent of the community, and specific sections have been chosen to rep-
resent the unit areas within the whole. Sections 8, ll, 26, and 29
within each of the sixteen townships were selected. This selection gave
a wide and even distribution throughout each township, and hence the
county, and avoided duplication of species by. eliminating any joint
section boundaries. This synthetic character, as expressed in a five
degree scale of constance classes, reveals that the forest formation of
Missaukee County, at the time of the original land survey, was a Hemlock-
Hardwood Association. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table LIII. A glance at the summary totals of the Table shows that

Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) was an important and constantly present

 

member (Class Five) of the community, as were both beech (Fagus grand-

_ 18h.
M) and white pine (£12133 Strobus). Both "sugar" (Acer saccharum)
and "maple" ($933 w) attained fourth class ranking (mostly constant),
the former species being constant for 69 percent of the sections and the
latter for 73 percent. None of the twenty-eight species could be given
class three rank; however, seven different species could be considered
as seldom present on the basis of the class two ranking. The remaining
group all belong to class one (rare), being constant for less than 20
percent of the sections.

The phytosociological character of density for the concrete stand
was obtained by counting all of the recorded trees in the same sections
as used in obtaining the synthetic concept of constance. There were a
total of 2,038 trees listed by the surveyors in sections 8, 11,26, and
29 of all townships. Listing the total number on the basis of different
species and dividing their total number by the sum total for all the
trees recorded gave an expression of percent density for each of the
species. A summary of these calculations is shown in Table LIV. The
species having the highest percent density(23%) was hemlock (19.1283

canadensis); beech (Fagus grandifolia) was second highest with a per-

 

 

centage density of nineteen. "Sugar" (Acer saccharum), with a percent

 

density of twelve, was third, closely followed by white pine (@113
Strobus), with a percent density of eleven.

The limits of distribution for the four plant connnunities, as re-
constructed from the field notes of the original land survey, are shown

on the map in Fig. 30.

PERCENT DENSITY OF THE TREE SPECIES AS COMPILED

TABLE LIV

FROM THE DATA OF THE FIELD NOTES OF THE
ORIGINAL LAND SURVEY FOR SECTIONS
8, 11, 26 and 29 (F EACH TONNSHIP

“

 

 

-——.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES No. Percent
lgemlock h59 22.90
Beech 39h 819233
fiSugarfi_ 236 11355
White Pine 230 11:89
17Yéll<m"pine 120 5333w
Norwa Pine* 90 hiHO

maple" 89 h33S
Cedar B7 57?;
Tamarack 68' 3;30
Black ASh ha 42:30
Yellow Birch 33 1.60
Elm 30 ISHO
Fir 28“ 1230
"S." Pine 26 13314—
Black Spruce 23_ 1:23
White Birch I? :59
Red Oak ‘11 25h
Iipen 10 239
”Black" Oak 9 ihh
Igpnwood 9 2hh
Basswood 5* :25’
Black Cherry 5 :25
White Ash II :20
White oak h :20
fiégwood 2* :10
Spruce 2 :10
ldack Pine If :05
Tilder 1 .0?

Total 2038

 

*Norway pine includes the surveyor's red pine.

185.

186.

 

 

 

......0.0‘¢‘O‘O
. . o o .

0
.one.

4

N

N

l

o o 0'.
'o°:°:':°:°
o o 0.. o o

 

 

. Mixed
L, '1 Pine Plains Conifer— Hardwoods
*- Hardwoods A

 

Fig. 30. Map of Missaukee County showing the primeval forest as
interpreted from the original land survey field notes of 1851;.

1.87.
l. Swamp Community

The swamp communities were located along the numerous streams and
were, for the most part, on till plains and outwash aprons. According
to the field notes, many of these areas were characterized as "variety"
swamps. The woody vegetation of such areas, as noted by the surveyors,
included alder, cedar, hemlock, aspen, black spruce, tamarack, black
ash, and willow. In other swampy areas the vegetation was apparently
less varied as the surveyors distinguished them by such phrases as:
"alder thicket; tamarack, cedar, hemlock swamp; cranberry swamp; black
ash thicket; tamarack, cedar, spruce swamp; tamarack swamp." In sum?
marizing the north boundary of T21N:R5W, John Brink (1837) said:

. . .The first four miles is mostly swamp. The Muskegon
(River) has low banks and overflows. This is the worst part
of the county where the river runs through and there ought to
be one more such a one in Michigan and then sunk.

The largest continuous area of swamp community occupied a large
part of T23N:R5 and 6W and T2thRSW. This area is now known as the Dead
Stream Swamp. According to the general description for T23N:R6W, as
written by Brink (1837) in the field notes:

. . .The land marked as swamp bordering the west branch
of the Muskegon River which meanders west to east through
the whole township is made so artificially by the Beaver
whose works we found in section 21 and 22 indicating great
force and present activity. . .

. . .the only real'waste land seems to be embraced in
sections 1-2-3-19-11-12.‘ A large mass of swamp with but
little apparent drainage. This however will be an exhaust-
less reservoir of fencing timber in cedar and black ash in
which it abounds. . .

Curtis (1852) described the swamps in T23N:R5W as being of two
kinds: 1) open; and 2) dense. He described the latter as being heavily

timbered with tamarack, cedar, black ash, and black spruce and the open

swamps as having a scattering of tamarack and spruce. The swamp com-

  
  
  
     
  
  
  
     
     
  
   
  
 
     
  
  
  
      
    

climax? mi". .1

a ..; .. . - ~ 1.x . win 7.43.1 C‘a -18“ a.“

"’:'>'.L .'-.. " . '.. -. :’" 2.11111. 3 fit ‘M fl

7i. - ‘ .. 4 2-1. .2 'r "- the-”1:. :3an m was: . n

. r ,
.. _ . , . __-..-.>. .c immense? M
‘ 1“

. .. . 1.. > i. guess .:=’*~«'L‘w-':d (ashes ‘ 0' I
:3. rad-1: .15 are :i Jur‘fl' ‘ INS”) emcvs‘rms w .“ ff”
4 ".— I

'17,

.. 1W 1 ._ .1 w :‘z. min/Fe radio (:1 .

.. ; ' '~ ,1 -' )KJII.‘ {mews x .o.‘ 21' {also @3513“! t , _

U
...ch ‘. .1 J as 1:. rd 1.1-712 ‘91"1a‘; more .in“:
I. .‘KCLY'IISA 10 gunned m ,

- 'I-V" \ v r . 1
:msa mi 1, 2 "Ti H 9

3'1. '

-
m; damn. or” ....EE'W: (new; r.” halt. 'Licl m1: 061.1. ‘
3mm, demos ':~J Pi ain't .s1.ni';~d{( {v.2 .22-.191 “I I“ H:
03 3.419112» motif; is; 11(1. O 9'11 1 "Jun 51‘: View : _ '

.in-oz. ad“ in.» us ,ltin‘i '11.]: one s :1“

eggs}; 5 I». moose {alumnus dimes-'2 lo am snowman
21396 and as rmm. won a! 22m; :h"?.%fi:m'1$'r has '3 has
LV‘1’. ' .

83:25: dES‘I‘ 101 magi-mesh 1.3101183 on: 0.1 mm,“
:setoa bran and at (1181)

 

dunno 3am on: witsb'lod quwa u ham bail
. :13an ten: c.) essw 3191mm: noun: mm
1: ”ms at: vd gustomsu on an. al- - .-
51; am when»: SS has IS m a! but 0!
.vhm

“can!” Mods-whoa

188 .
munity covering the southern portion of T2hN:R5W'was described by
Camnose (l85h) as being mostly grassy and wet with tamarack, cedar,
alder, and spruce in groves. He found the swamps in T2hN:R6W con-
tained:

. . . .cool, clear, wholesome water and are well dis-
tributed to accommodate families with stock water and what

is still better bottoms contain an inexhaustible supply of
fencing timber in which the upland is deficient.

2. Pine Community

A.glance at the map in.Fig. 30 will reveal that the pine community
occupied four sites in Missaukee County at the time of the original land
survey. The southeast, northeast, northwest corners and the lake area
in the west central portion of the county were covered with "pine
plains". TOpographically, the limits of distribution for the pine com-
munities do not correlate with any one physiographic feature but rather
embrace all three forms. However, comparison of these limits of dis-
tribution.for these pine communities with an unpublished land type map
(Veatch l9h2) indicates that they were situated in areas of sandy soil.

In order to obtain some expression of the degree of dominance for
the various trees within one of the pine communities, the total number
of the listed trees was computed and the percent density calculated for
the individual species recorded. The results of these calculations for
the pine community within the lake area are shown in Table LV. On the

basis of these data, white pine (Pinus Strobus) would be considered the

 

dominant specieS'with."yellow” pine, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and

Norway pine (Pinus resinosa) the principal secondary dominants.

    
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
   
    
 
  
  
  
 
 
   
   
   

.1 :” Ij‘K'H,’:xu 311‘ I'ifffldJS'i’ 1L: r:oi..‘°xoq mm
. ”:73. purview _ .j ~- for 2 :1 12?:3'1 _.: $1.38)!!! an!" .

—.:" i?":'nfll hi u.‘-ffilau3 Ln10'2 uh .80'013 fl!)

- T , ;. . '1: : 'zsdm— Jessica! nude ‘10.“; .5.
r» 1 i: . .. ..-. .....I. 2914mm"; sumac.

r
"l
l.
h.
1 'fi

'1. disc‘u' 'J ear-330d “I“ ~
.: ‘42“ .' $.5qu mu? .tsfziw a1 ‘

23,11": 5.!" cftl‘ . S

12:31 11.. Li‘: .31”: [‘1' mm M3 ‘1}!

m .' 4-: 91.3. . ‘ firms-C summesii LL 0631‘“ 4‘
:i - fl 11‘," mar: .a-w‘nJ-iu .Haefihon ‘meogv
amid" dais" ts 15v: '3. vow-11c: an '10 nCIJ‘W-I “W2.
~mC-o :nlq w: m: micrniifslb Lo 3:1:an and .111” .1- ~'
1911.528"! .in-5 <13 'fI-D'l oinqz'rjgoiamn; m: Ens mils edsis'nos

em, '10 33ml seen-2'3 'lo nosfr'mdmc-c .uevswo}: .earto! :~
gas :3qu trial bedsildhqrw as ditw communes suit; I.

.392 wuss '10 3801.9 at betas“: mow pd: an: sous I

 

Tm lose: and solum-loo «m on: '10 can shut“,
. 10'! warm» WW :as'sseq one has beam If
:dzwm «at: to causes ed? .5001»?!

Aim at. ms ... m- ”I “i “A"!

N ’
‘7'" g.

is

‘i

  

189 .

TABLE EV

PERCENT DENSITY OF THE TREES COMPRISING A PINE COMMUNITY
IN THE IAKE AREA AS COMPIIED FROM THE FIELD NOTES
OF THE ORIGINAL LAND SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES No. Percent
White Pine 203 27:75
aYellowa Pine 9139 18:99
Hemlock 4101 13:80
‘Ngrway Pine* 80 10:95—
Beech 65 8:87
maple“ 32 11:37
Cedar 20 2:73
Jack Pine ’19 2:59
"Black" Oak II; I :91~
“Elsa?" 13 I :77
Tamarack 13 ‘1:77’
Red Oak 8 1:09
'White Birch 6 :82
Tallow Birch 6 252
FH- S :6?
fififite Oak’ 3 :h1_
Black Ash 7 :2;
Elm 2 ;27
Basswood 1 .1h

Total 732

 

*Norway Pine includes the surveyors' red pine

also.

190.

The quantitative studies for the 23 one hundred square meter
quadrats occurring on the Roselawn Soil Series of the present study of
the second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee County, were all located
within the limits of distribution of this particular pine community.

The results of these quantitative studies (Tables VI and VII) indicate
that the present composition of the area is a deciduous forest with

Quercus 3933.9; 321'. . borealis being dominant (DFD Index-1):. The present
representatives of the species which gave character to the former pine

O

community are two in mimber: Pinus resinosa and _P_. Strobus. The per-

 

centage density for E. resinosa, as computed for the pine community at
the time of the original land survey, was eleven, there being eighty
trees listed for this species in the sum total of 732 recorded trees.
The percent density for the same species in the present quadrat studies
was .62, there being six individuals of the species present in the sum
total of 938 trees within the 23 one hundred square meter quadrats.

The percent density of Linus Strobus was twenty-eight, on the basis of
203 recorded for the species in the total sum of 732 trees within the
pine community of the original land survey. The percent density for this
species on the Roselawn Soil Series was .96, there being nine white pines
in the total of 938 trees.

The recorded diameter sizes for the trees, as entered in the field
notes, indicate that the trees used as reference points were large ones,
for the most part. The range of diameters varied from a low of eight
inches to a high of fifty-two inches, the latter a white pine. The
majority of recorded diameters appearing in the field notes were between

twelve and twenty-six inches. The record for the diameters of the present

   
  
  
     
  
  
  
     
  
 
  
 
   
   
  
   
  
 
  
   

. _, ,.'-2 2.; . .s :iirsa. :mc: '33 9‘.” 1.01 050m. 6'
. -_ '; ’;' if '1-;i75.’ .L't03 Lfl‘h‘fi W M
I} 21‘. . 1: ‘ .rrai‘ 1 aboowmd hush
. . .w. - >1'3 Lt (:iéudmalb 10 j I"
.v
.. e . r. -. . .: ._) “12.91:. SVIJSJ’IJ‘MUP M "t,
. .... j 1 . . .1; L. on: it uofsleoqnoo... ‘
. - tn..- 4-,“ -.nuimcb Euler? 3&3610‘5 om
: 1.2m .- .‘nf; 11'3le ..stm‘" and ‘10
--r 5i}. -. E:-‘.‘..‘*i‘~’3;~".." 15$: ”6' is“ "1 9"

' ..' .‘ .v ' 11:28.8 ,._.__. him: 186‘! .‘i '30,. {IR
.1, ... .. r q .115aveie m . canoe ..LJ Xenia!” wt
in: '1. marina”: 3“? Us. info: n c an: :3 aslosqt’. em 1!?-

*.s :3.ch Ji'ueiip 3.258911; so. ti guinea: erase ed: 10'} VFW

. A
mine as." vi unseen; aoraoqe mid it cienbh’il’nl‘ 11:3 ”0 . ' ',‘

.sdrri‘mup 19.39;: emsups how ans {'3 ed: anJh,’
“n sins.) an: as Jaimie-13mm: saw w__g__o'x__38 3111:1139 fly
em :th1le seem: 9851:; we 15303 9d: at saloon and

‘.
'1

did: ’10:. valanob menu on 4:er heal Lunar» on: ”y .
eenrq 93m and: gated 919d: .32. m «not not warm

“an: We; as ”new 1s! can Mp1}.
”I WmeoMum-ms ed: and!
.' ' “at?”

‘I‘ .

 
   
  

191.
day coniferous representatives of this.former "pine plain" is somewhat

different (Table VII). One of the nine individuals of Pinus Strobus

 

belongs to size class six, having a diameter of 15.6 inches, which was
the lowest limit for the size class. It could be interpreted from
these data that the two white pines of the largest size classes (size
class five and six), are relics of the former pine community and that
the seven species in the smallest size class (size class two) are in-
dicative of successful reestablishment of the species following lumber-
ing and fire. Yet, occurrence of white pine in all size classes today
is insignificant when compared with only the larger individuals used as

reference points by the surveyors.

3. The Mixed Conifer—Northern Hardwood Community

The community most extensive at the time of the original land
survey was the mixed conifer-northern hardwood. Wedged in between the
less extensive pine, swamp, and hardwood communities, this expression of
the forest community accounted for more than half of the area of the
county. The data, as compiled from the field notes, indicate that at
times the conifers and northern hardwoods formed extensive tracts of
forest of a mixed character, while at other times, now one and then the
other were more abundant in their occurrence, resulting in small islands
of either hardwoods or conifers surrounded by the larger mixed forest
community. Beech, "sugar", "maple", white pine, hemlock, Norway pine,
basswood, black cherry, red oak, jack pine, white and "black" oak were
frequent species used as witness trees by the surveyor within the

limits of distribution for these communities.

192.

In describing the nature of this community in TZthR7W as it ap-

peared in 1853, Comnose said:
The township is broken in sharp ridges and narrow valleys
‘where hard timber and best soil prevail . . .where white pine
is mixed in with hard timber it is generally of a larger size
and fine body for shingle and clear stuff.
That portion of T22N:R6W, which is representative of the mixed conifer-
northern hardwood community is described by Coffenbury (1838) as
follows:
In the township this kind of land (except swamps) is
covered generally with a fine heavy growth of hemlock and some
large old white pine and very many old pine logs in all states
of decay and rotting. . . .Through the center of the township
east and west is a tract of excellent land affording fine
sugar orcharding; of the very largest trees, with large pines
enough.for all lumbering purposes.
The following are some of the various kinds of trees that the surveyor
recorded in his field notes while running north, south, east, and west
boundary lines for the township: Beech, hemlock, nsugar", aSh,"lin",
elm, ironwood, pine, cedar, balsam, tamarack and alder.

So as to have some basis for quantitative comparison between the
mixed conifer-northenn hardwood community as expressed in Missaukee
County at the time of the original survey, and the present composition
of the same region, as indicated by this quantitative quadrat study, two
areas located within the original survewaere arbitrarily selected and
the percent density for the recorded trees calculated in the same manner
as for the pine community. The arbitrary selections were made from the
map constructed from the original field notes, which showed, by symbols,
the species used as a reference point for the section corners and "line".
trees. The selections were made to give two varied expressions repre-

sentative of the community: One area gave the appearance of having an

abundance of hardwood species and the other area appeared on the map as

    
   
   
 
 
  
   
 
   
  
    
 
  
  
  
 
    
  
   
   
  
 

.- __ J :5. ..‘.' : 4'13; .' : 3:.” n. “1.." 31.1! 10 5131“ w"
:W

3;; 1;. . . 3 .-.1 giant hf umlo‘fl 81 ‘ -

r . . ’ - '
:u »L_ . . . .. ml: It lira deed bx; .
3', ,_‘ _ l - . Kr." J :1 5'! 19' 1.13 m M
. "1.1:: 14:11:) in: 9 game 161 w"
- -Z ‘ C , ‘ '. .'""IL—S-‘L t 1:. “‘9”! .'._’. '4‘"j|’$7f .Wbflxlsn
u. a ‘ 3 : -_ . _. . .. :rea' \‘ui'numoa -
g
a ’h
‘_ . .. . 1, .u! c m1... :de gnomes-1‘7 . .,..
>1 .. . , 'fl ,‘...".'. 4 f, .1: t . :11. '7“ a. .‘1 “m YJ-ml ‘7
.9. . - J w'c.‘ n 41 i. .1 rs; mv 2:15 snlq 9.1m

’ .' .1 'u. efiJI‘C. i171 :gihii'i. . . .‘g‘JJJJO‘Ib. 39
r2 . ,r" ".t 13.- :‘m. f; .ir-o'e Zr: and a at #0“
if“ .the-L: Jase-n1 \ 1;: ed: '19: n. ‘
.ee: a my; wmsdml 1h
IL‘f‘IIS ‘ .~. .' ‘1 e-«H 'ao shah. ancima 5m! '10 one: 91.
5;;50 h... fins ...:1 ‘. an minim. r; 1m sewn Mot! EM;
”11.21“.”r': . “negate" advised .r’aeé" widow u“ 10
p. . -
. ' .1:.0.L£ hm. sn- was: .mclsd (who .ontq
.— ac: nFe'hJ d ace. magmas nindlrmp 'xo‘i clad Inn and
>1. .
. ‘ {leakage}: .r; beasqus as ig'hwmnoc boom
noidiackinco :19an on: has .tsv-we Isahho odd to «W

( ow: “one Makeup ”45:13:: p cm} 1d banana: 8.! .M. "

  

has Woolen mimudu new vow-1m Mam ad: w

193.
having a more even mixture of conifers and northern hardwoods. The
first area comprised sections 31, 32, 33, 3b, and 35 of T2thR7W and
section 1, 2, 3, h, 5, and 6 of T23N:R7W. The sum total of the trees
recorded in the field notes for this area was 222. Nine different species
were used by the surveyors as witness trees and "line" trees. On the
basis of percent density as a criterion for dominance, the area could be
characterized as a beech-hemlock-maple association. Beech (108 trees)
had a percent density of forty-nine, henlock (53 trees) had a percent
density of twenty-four and “sugar“ (’49 trees), 22%. The details for
these calculations are given in Table LVI.

Except for a small area of swamp land in the southern part of
T2thR7W, section 32; and T23N:R7W, section 3, the area being considered
is entirely within the Emmet Soil Series of this study. Reference to
the data for the quadrat studies on this soil series (Tables I! and 1)
reveals that the present commmity is a maple-beech association. Hem-
lock is still a constituent of the forest, but it no longer plays as
prominent a role, being ranked fourteenth on the DFD Index scale which
included nineteen different species. The second area selected as a
basis for comparison with the present quantitative quadrat study was
composed of sections 32 - 36 of T23N:R7W and sections 1 - S, 8 - 12,

13 - 17 of T22NzR7W. The calculations of percent density gave a

list of fourteen different species, totaling 261: individuals, the de-
tails of which are shown in Table LVII. Four of the fourteen species
were coniferous and the remaining ones deciduous. While the three
species with the highest percent densities were identical with those of

the first area, the relationship of the remaining species was of such

  
 
   
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 

.- A . '2: "."J I. ’-.:.1: 3151 {‘03 to.“
i .... :.3 ".c as; lye .'E m .It mum '
1i- .'.: 32;} ‘.c i:.‘:: ' '. '1' .'-".'..: {ST 0 C bdl .3 '

, W. . .

v.95 1. :‘i? . J ‘ - 3: up. -u* 4 1:1! :chn‘ “03 ~.

a

a.” r .e- ‘ . - ...-. ~ 19.-54:3;1 as e-wupv‘mlfi
.32: . , -. i ' 1‘ 2w. :11'df‘195 m; Wlmb ~11 ‘

x. .31. .‘1..--~..-... J g ~‘il1m1-‘380dlu

II‘

T:
2‘

w.‘ "I." ‘1 . .J. z. .‘.-A. .-- I.“l.-.".1. '1‘: V231“. ”IL I

‘I',..") I.“

'1.‘ . if. ."..‘. . r ”'2: 1:” :21. wot—w

. diz‘i ..i ..v‘Jig; on one .. '

.'. J {.'L‘JJ tn '. "-1.. ., Lurk! .I:.£'-V‘s :‘ {91; I saw I 101’:

. o w , w i at
._‘! . . '1 “Jr-H : {I av. "23!: .‘..r‘: .. -_';' LL11! dfi MW").

.in; Jami: add 013133
e ' 1

2}. H5 71 7.9.. -T.~.-'i‘) seize lief. ai...’ r'- :2. this *s'tbwpod

1 V'W‘ wwwvv' Y -
j
‘1
I
.1
:
-
C
q
‘1
N
L
n
I
v
p
i

y — ‘0! ,H '-:.i'u.e::.s. nosed—Mgsrr: a 2i '.v;.‘rsl“:.'o;. 3:98.11; 0“ .
._ 1‘0

as 33.1} 'lujJYOl on 3.: {IL-5 .Jawxc'redi c 3191131384100 l,‘
,- ‘

- _‘ doirrw sites :29an can end no 113359er 3. Prim-x gated . . -
. ' '4 I ,_

J l s as muting new moose sdT .seiasgu inbuilt!) -

sew {brie :sxhsup oviduhmup mmq ed: d3h_- ..-
.Si- 82-Immemmmfiflto at- St
I .. e on; when!) emu; To snowmen: enT I. -
s . 8"” dwgumnm as yum” .9913qu men»
t.

7 it , a: In: “
‘II-Imxwuam 11?;qu
‘. r1\'I\,‘-' .

gF - ' lfmw' ’a“‘mzm + gym
"I I‘ . ‘ I.p.3%. ‘lrflww’m w .'fi‘ 3H.) ‘.. .. -I' U -'; 5""
" 6‘ .fi-Reth ‘ «View

“2, " ‘ to; . r II_:L%. _...u. 6;. Iggy»

: _, i4”:- {r .
r . . . Mum“. r _ y. .
f“ .'f ‘ . 4 ‘ufi‘fi.
g - - we. a . -~---.:-
7 I I ‘ ‘6 I . ‘ — —‘f“l_r
' I r- >- ‘ - - .I
I I r _ ‘0. .;‘f '29 l

TABIE LVI

19h .

PERCENT DENSITY a" THE TREE SPECIES COMPRISING AREA
(NE (1“ THE MIXED CONFER—NORTHERN HARDWOOD
COMMUNITY AS COMPIIED FROM THE FIEID NOTES
OF THE ORIGINAL LAND- SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES No. Percent
Beech T08 D8 .61;
Hemlock 53 23 .87
“Sggari' 1:9 22 .07

Yellow Pine 3 _I.35
“Mafia" 3 T357
Rite T’Tne 2 .91‘
Yellow Birch 2 .91
mite Birch T .14—5'
FER Ash T 15

Total 222
TABIE LVII

PERCENT DENSITY (1" THE TREE SPECIES COMPRISING
AREA TWO OF THE MIXED CONIFER—NORTHERN HARDWOOD
COMMUNITY AS COMPILED FROM THE FIELD NOTES

W THE ORIGINAL LAND SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES No . Percent
igfllOCk 62 23 J48
Beech SI 23 .11
finger“ 5h 20.745
Wine Pitn} 1:3 16 .29__
“Tallow" Pine 114 S .30
'Magleflr 10 3 .79
'BTack Ash 5 1 .89
Norway Pine 1; I52
Yellow Birch 5' 1 .11;
Ironwood 3 T .114
Elm :2:— .7?—
Basswood T - _ {3E
Red Q33 A - ‘ AA - 1 .38
Black Cherry 1 .38

 

Total 26h

195.
character as to indicate a greater mixture of conifers and northern
hardwoods within the area at the time of the original land survey.

Quantitative quadrat studies of the present composition within the
area include expressions on the Arenac, Emmet, and Selkirk Soil Series.

The data for these studies (Tables Ix - XII, IXX, XX) indicate that Acer

 

saccharum is the dominant species at the present time with Fagus grand-
ifolia codominant. Hemlock, white and Norway pine, while present

‘within the forest, are never rated high on the DFDIndex scale.
h. Hardwood Community

A small portion in the southeastern part of T21NzR8W of the county
supported a northern hardwood community according to the data compiled
from the field notes. Brink's (l833) description of the area stated, in
part:

There is a great majority of the timber in the south.part
of the township of the finest and largest sugar trees that I
have ever seen affording a great opportunity of making sugar.
The trees have never been tapped or worked.

TOpographically, the area is confined to the massive moraine of the
Lake Michigan-Saginaw Interlobate Tract (Leverett 1917). Calculations
from the field notes yielded a total of 267 trees for the area, numbering
twelve different species. ’On the basis of percent density as a criterion
for dominance, "sugar"'was dominant‘with 56% and beech codominant with
22%. The details of these calculations are presented in Table LVIII.
This hardwood community is represented in the quantitative quadrat study
by the Emmet Soil Series (Tables IX-I). These~data indicate that "sugar"

(Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia) are the dominant species

 

 

and that many of the other deciduous species are comparable, for example:

196 .

TABLE LVIII

PEMIENT DENSITY W Tm} TREE SPECIES COMPRISING
THE HARDWOOD COMMUNITY AS COMPIIED FROM THE
FIELD NOTES T THE ORIGINAL LAND SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE SPECIES No. - Percent
3169011 59 22 :10
Hemlock 18 6.7h
31m 1h 5.2h
Basswood 10 3 .7?
Black Ash '7 ‘2.62
glack Cherry 2 .75“
White Pine 2 075
fellow'Birch 2’ .75
Cedar 2 07?
Tamarack 1 .
@1916 T .BL

Total 267

 

Basswood (Tilia americana); elm (Ulmus americana); black cherry (Prunus

 

 

serotina). Hemlock, while still present today, is less plentiful and
white pine, present in the community at the time of the land survey,
does not appear in the present quadrat studies within the area. It was
observed, however, within the area though not included in any quadrat.
5. Comparisons Between the Composition of the Ninety-Eight Stands
of Upland Second Growth Hardwoods and That of the Same Sections
at the Time of the Original.Iand Survey
The phytosociology of the second growth hardwoods of MiSsaukee
County has been presented by establishing certain.synthetic characters
for considering the community in the abstract and several structural
characteristics.for'depicting the concrete community. As a.further

means of comparison between the present upland second growth hardwood

community and the forest representative of these locations at the time

197.
of the original land survey, the synthetic character of presence has
been chosen. The presence list (Table II) indicates the degree of
regularity in which the numerous woody species occurred in the ninety-
eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee County.
Their degree of regularity is summarized by'a five degree scale of
presence classes on page 67 .

In order to contrast a comparable list for the community at the
time of the original land survey, the sections in which the ninety-
eight stands were located were used as a basis for comparison with the
stands. Duplications of stands within the same section reduced the
number'of sections to seventy-nine. A presence list was then compiled
on the basis of the witness and "line" trees recorded by the surveyors
in their field notes. In view of the fact that the quantitative quadrat
study was concerned with the nature of the second growth upland hard-
'woods, the members of the swamp community, when encountered on the map
and in the field notes of the survey, were omitted from this latter pres-
ence list. The two presence lists were then compiled. They are pre-
sented in Table ILIX. They offer a means of comparing the degree of
regularity in which the species occurred in the stands at the time of
the quadrat studies and the original land survey, either on the basis
of the five degree scale of presence classes, or stand within section.

An analysis of these data reveals that only two species, Age:

saccharum and Fggus grandifolia, were constantly present (class five)

 

at both times. Hemlock was also constantly present at the time of the
original land survey, according to these data, but was only seldom
present (class two) at the time of this study. There were no species in

presence class four (mostly present) at either period of time. Only

.yTi—v

 

Jaw A :wi v
" an“
.. 3i ) ..
"'1! -" I'J5J.

1‘31.

(”n seals) amen; {licences 910w .aflonbfli . _, ‘

f1

1

'1. 9 fund”

' L
'31..

.1_".

":JJ'FIJ‘...‘ q?

neutrons

011.3

aldsi ) Jail amazon

. '{0 «33:; no ”0“"

33,-...? mm 0651” ’7
at Luciano ‘”

- ‘ - umu (If
a ! . in. .r .13-um}: v} cc ‘1 3110165131! 0:13 do” a}
H uncowb’; :. “Inn mum;
‘i'. “ 4415:3112 at 13115111391 3{
'I‘ .k;. legit, fi : .1
H C see:- on“ .vev’t.»'-‘
J .g . - my... 1:, as been my beds 101
’ .101 w man's. m J (13¢:er 85303-238
ask 1! L no.1! 691-, a . grin-1:116 me OJ mono“ u
go «'Y .5'.t.’ "13.1:J" tam.) .3011“?! 0d: 33 M
'35,.“9 ‘ 2" J .HH-1.1 .701}. W” '10 1.191? m
«1:. [mass :3.” Lo estt 91w (Uh! was“
" xii-mm“; u ism ‘vfiimmmu qmwe mic! '10 no“
41.": has; Ina s'xsw (dawn!!! sr‘d’ 15 8830!! MO
3'“ T .. > .. Lqima .':-; {new 333:; “..OITSBO'q 0" WA
*2. v‘ {.‘.‘Jnfi/nmr) lo casem 1:. 1251:. {9111‘

no 1m: 1., .gw‘x-.~ Lmsi lsnbhc ad: has I

.'. $13.3... brass

1C-

cofoeqs cm r'rs

.m 2.19 consent; '10 ohm snub-fl .

:sr'f aisevo'x sash alt!” h-

,n‘tm M

Lmooc to

It mount“

. 0030:: 1:10.“.

whee; am: “we
. 4

   
  
    
   
 
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
 
 

$91. 5‘

.14.

 

 

 

 

 

not M

 

 

”1..

}

a:

1

If“.
e.» I 5.:

III/IIIIIIIII I

ext: 10 out: .9116 :5 Jane-x; flJsznoo 0313 saw is“. ~‘

name We cut-M .3335 seat: 03 who”! am?“
at uniq- «*m and! .w- um to ma earn an? ..-

in .00: um am. a (3m Mu)

 

   
  

 

 

Ii Iu. . II.

 

199.

Pinus Strobus could be ranked in class three (often present) at the time

 

of the original land survey, while Tilia americana, Ulmus americana,
Fraxinus americana, Ostrya virginiana, and EEEEEE pensylvanica were all
often present (class three) according to the presence list calculated from
data in this investigation. "maple"'was found as seldom present (class
two) in both instances. Duplications of class one (rare) were frequent

in the comparisons: Black ash, white birch, cedar, red and white oak, and
Norway pine. There were twenty-three species making up the presence

list for the area at the time of the original land survey and twenty-two
in that for the present study. The species appearing on the former list
and absent from.the latter were: spruce (class one); "yellow" pine (class
two); jack pine (class one); "black" oak (class one); and fir (class one).
Those species figuring in the presence list for this study and absent
from the list of the original land survey were: quaking aSpen (class one);
rock and slippery elm, both in class two; fire cherry (class three).

This evidence, as indicated by the synthetic character of presence,
further supports the fact already revealed by the other synthetic and
structural characteristics considered, that the forest community at the
time of the original .land survey'was a hemlock-beechrmaple association
of a.mixed conifer—northernphardwood community and that the present com-
position of the second growth upland hardwoods is a.maple-beech assoc-
iation in a.mixed conifer-northern hardwood community. In the mixed
coniferhnorthern hardwood community of the earlier days, there was a
greater preponderance of the conifers than there is today. The greater
recorded diameters of the trees would indicate more maturity then than
now; The present composition of these stands is not only lacking in the

variety and abundance of the conifers, but also includes a greater

..geurr

. o I ‘ x”
r.) .; .‘. is |. tracers; £10“ emf: aenlr- «'11 hadn't ‘1' ‘
. - 1

. o 5 .
' L; ,. "in -' ‘f.’.. 1' 15:251.. 3.. c 7' ‘tfliifttt'as (OM!

hi." 31.1(2’1 L: ..c 311155.931: .‘.‘ei‘c’vigt: on? ugh“: insaMr -'
"Lllfl‘ ,1. f. "Phil?“ . I. -. W a . ~
. . , .... ., . L ,(..m _. :- 3, .9. -:~ .meb menu. as“

/ .. _ ' . ~ . N “I a h .
”em; .’.asls) .1 .one i'\ w '3 same; use "32.-".’.. ;(ez!o 3631:} AM

.eaauss-n', ’10 ”demo 0130113111: en: 2;! magnum ‘ .

 

         
  
   
   
      
    
    
   
 
  
  
  
 

 

\

, A
U-»«.- . a H .7 ‘. . .- . A

5"} f-_ “-1534: 7;»: 5‘. ‘ ‘u. 1 5,1513): xiii: 0.11.11. ‘wd 3
I! { .

o

y I, [1,. h , ' .r :- . ,- . c-. '- . .. -...
~ . , L- 23:; “m swing W
L ’9’;
.'fl'
V ' ‘ ‘ I ~
. ...r In.» ' f:;1..‘ ”1*. film” .COIM ‘-' '
..‘" "k ”,1...“.".l'.;110.v‘="
a .. :w. .’L-LL' . «as $0518 :
g . c ; .».: 3" '3‘-'_f.n“u-'J am 6‘ .'
J» j' .x‘ mm." vs, 1.1. ' ."r e' - .-..€: at” a
‘1.

q. 0‘

p o
'

dawns 33:18 \Lunia air: 101 en'M entrust; and Si - - . o

Innis; cage; shinny: :e'mw woven:- can maybe «it W '

.(ee-m': aeslo) 'cmena 9111 50m maze nt 630d .l‘l A

em: .11-amuse: daexoi and add .hnebianoo not

acidsiooou aqua-downwind s In terms hurl! '

 

«no mm and and: magnum; boom-cm ‘

..b :N. .‘

   

200.
number of successional deciduous species: Populus tremuloides; Populus
grandidentata; Prunus pensylvanica; and Quercus £1533 331:. borealis.

The original forests of Missaukee County, as indicated by Marschner
(19146), are shown by the map in Fig. 31. This map is the result of en-
larging Missaukee County from Marschner's map of the Original Forests of
Michigan. Marschner, a research assistant in the Office of Agricultural
Economics, Department of Agriculture, compiled his map from land office
field notes. Comparisons between the map in Fig. 31 with that in
Fig. 30, which was compiled for this study from the data of the field '
notes of the original land survey now on file in the Lands Division,
State Conservation Department, Lansing, Michigan, reveal one major dif-
ference. The Marschner map indicates a fairly extensive "pine plain"
running west to east in the central part of T23N:R6 and SW. The data
from the surveyor's field notes, when plotted on a county map (Fig. 30),
would indicate rather that this area is cut by swamps, leaving isolated
islands of high ground which supported, in some instances, mixed conifer-
northern hardwood communities and, at other times, nearly pure hemlock
groves. In all probability, the difference in the size of the scale of
the two maps would account for this major discrepancy. The larger scale
used in the preparation of the map for interpretation of the original
forest at the time of the land survey would reveal more clearly these
details. On the other hand, the smaller scale map, used for showing

The Original Forests of Michigan, would lack much of the finer detail.

201.

 

 

 

O. O
. c n o o

- . .
'« 0.0.0.. 0

Mixed 7 _,
E] Pine Plains garnéfigs d Hardwoods :3 Swamp communities

 

 

Legend

Fig. 31. Map of Missaukee County showing the original forests as
interpreted by Marschner and redrawn by Perejda, 191:6.

202.

DISCUSSION

A. Ecological Classification of Plants

Two possibilities as to the nature of the second growth upland
hardwood forests of Missaukee County may be postulated. The first of
these is that the forests represent an amorphous collection of plants
in which no patterns or units are distinguishable. That is, they are
only chance aggregates according to the viewpoint of Mason (19h7, p. 210)
and are dependent solely on a "coincidence of tolerance" between plants
and the environment. The presence of a pattern.definable in terms of
tree composition and the fact that trees and other plants are not found
together in chance mixture, but in a rather definite pattern, would in-
dicate that this postulation is not tenable in this situation.

Secondly, it could be maintained that these forests represent
several discrete communities, distinguishable from one another by
boundaries which are reasonably distinct in terms of measurements
available to the plant ecologists. The second postulation would appear
to be applicable here. The evidence as brought forth by the synthetic
characters used to establish the nature of the abstract community,~as
well as that of the structural characters used in ascertaining the nature
of the concrete community for Missaukee County's upland second growth
hardwoods, indicates that the present composition fits most nearly cover
type 12 of the Society of American.Foresters (1932, p. h63). Further,
the quantitative data for the composition of the various stands located

on the six different soil series indicate' that there are lociations

203.
'within the larger mapleAbeechfiyelloW'birch community. Finally, the
geographical location of Missaukee County is such that its forestS'would
be a part of the HemlockeWhite Pine -Northern Hardwoods Region of the
deciduous forests of eastern North America (Braun, 1950, p. 337).

The dominant plants of any community are considered to be those
which, by reason of their size, abundance and distribution, largely de-
termine the conditions under which other organisms shall live in assoc-
iation with them. Primary dominants are those which, because of their
wide and more or less even distribution and abundance, exert their in-
fluence over the greater part of the community. Secondary dominants are
those which, because of their less frequent occurrence, do not exercise
as great an influence over the community, but they occur rather regularly
within the community. Incidental dominants are such trees as obtain
large size and thus exert an influence over a limited area, but which do
not occur in numbers, or with.any degree of regularity within the com-
munity. All other plants are considered as subdominants. On this basis
the plants of the stands of second growth upland hardwoods of Missaukee
County may be classified as in Table LI.

On the basis of the criteria of dominance, as presented in Observa-

tions and Results, Acer saccharum far surpasses any other single species.

 

It must therefore be considered the primary dominant of the second growth
upland hardwood stands of the county. Only in the synthetic character of
presence is its position of dominance approached by another species,

Fagusgrandifolia. Acer saccharum.fulfills the requirements of every

 

criterion for a climax dominant.
The percentage of frequency and density for the primary, secondary

and incidental dominants within the five DBH size classes are shown by

2%.

TABLE II

ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATICN OF PLANTS 11: THE
secam 03mm UPLAND wow COMMUNITIES
or BESSAUECEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

1. Primary Dominants
8.. Acer saccharum

2 . Secondary Dominants
a. s randjfolia
b. 3% Thomasi
c . s americana
d. Tilia americana

 

3 . Incidental Dominants

 

a. Fraxinus americana h. Quercus alba

b. Acer rubrum i. Betula pamifera
c. Eercus ru‘r'irailL j. mStrobus

d. Te 9. canEensis k. 51.—nus r_e__sfiosa

e. flue serom l. Thya— occidentalis
f . 3 re m. raxnnus Egra

g. mam

h . Subdominants

 

a. Ostrya vir iniana h. Rims tzghina.
b. Prmms pensylvanica i. Acer 3 icatum
c. 751a Ian chier sp. 3. ms chsBati
d. '10 Hus rarfidentata k. Sam____b__ucus spgens
e. Populus tremuloides l. Crata s_p.
f. Corrms Sm m. Essa _sp_ _p_.

g. Coglus____ cornuta n. Spir iraea _p.

o. _Viburnum acerifolium

p. Vines, herbs, Tems,
mosses and lichens not
considered in the
quantitative study

iguercus rubra 1a_r_. borealis

205.
means of a bar graph in Figs. 32 and 33. These data, as shown by the
graphs, are indicative of the dominant position maintained by the sugar
maple. Not only does the species exceed considerably the other trees
when all size classes are considered, but it also has the largest per-
centage of frequency and density'within every size class. The graphs

reveal that there is a smaller differential between Acer saccharum and

 

the other species within the upper two size classes. The smaller differ-
ential results from a reduction in the total numbers of sugar maple rather
than in an increase in numbers of other individuals.

According to Braun (1950, p. 352): "All statistical.data for the
hardwood forests of this part of the section (Northern lower Michigan)
illustrate the overwhelming dominance of sugar maple and beech, not
only in the forest canopy, but in the lower layers aS'well." 'While this
study bears out the above statement regarding sugar maple, the data in-
dicate that in Missaukee County beech is less dominant. It should be

pointed out that, while the quantitative data represent Fagus_grandifolia

 

as being considerably less dominant than Acer saccharumwfor the area,

 

certain disturbance factors have been responsible for some of these dif-
ferences. Conversations'with the land owners revealed that during world
war II, there was considerable selective cutting of beech in the county
in order to fulfill the increased demands of the aircraft industry.

These conversations are supported by the evidences within the woodlots of
the many beech.stumps. However, the amount of beech taken out at that
time, as indicated by the stumps, does not begin to account for the loss
in dominance of Fagus in the community between the time of the original

land survey and the present time (Tables II, LII, LIX). The cultural

 

g

206.

 

AC” mom

nous mmm

MM!“

11 HA m1 CL“

MS THOMAS!

MIM Amman

m MR2”!

ISM WSIS

(saws me

i’m SHOT! H

mm

35‘?!“ m

m rumr-A

MALI

nuns-non

m menu-rm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rim nsxm

mmnm lllllLlllJllllllll

m. an cuss :12: cums 5m cuss sin cuss sxz: cuss

unzussn two mm mm nn 5!!
°mmmmm

Fig. 32. Bar graph showing the percent frequency of the canopy
tree species in the ninetyneight stands of second growth up-

land hardwoods of Missaukee County.

 

207.

 

“- WIC M'JI

nous MD! roan

m nous:

AC. RU'BH'DI

W m: IA!“

“LIA mun

Mill’s “I“

ch '18 RUBBA'

M15 HUB“

rsuu masts

Pm m0” IA

QUECUS am

3mm

BIT'IU 1".”me

PINS moms

WA WC! DUTALXS

PINS IBXIOSA

#-

—_t'

 

 

 

 

 

 

__——i———

 

 

 

nuuwnmu 1 1 i .1 L 1 L 1. Li I I I l J I..L L_l_l__
ALI. 81L! CLASS SIZE ems nu cuss 8113 cuss nu cm
5! 1.: CLASS” no m m nn 1 III
M

Fig. 33.

Bar graph showing the percent density of the canopy
tree species in the ninety-eight stands of second growth
upland hardwoods of Missaukee County.

 

208'.
practice of using all woodlots for open pastures has also been respons-
ible for some loss of beech. While sugar maple is the most aggressive
reproducer, beech, which is probably more tolerant, does not usually
bear as large an annual seed crop and much of that which is borne may be
destroyed by animals. Thus, while Fagus grandifolia was found to be
much more abundant at the time of the original land survey, the com-
position has changed today because of the selective cutting, pasturing
and natural biological factors.

There are smaller differences and greater variations among the
species with respect to the structural phytosociological characters of

the secondary and incidental dominants. On the basis of the DFD. Index

 

(Curtis 191:7), Ulmus americana is ranked third (Table III). Two other
criteria used for expressing dominance, the phytographs (Fig. 9) and the
presence classes (Table II), likewise indicate the same position for the

species. However, the greater reproduction of Ulmus Thomasi than of H.

 

americana in size class two, as borne out by the data (Fig. 32), suggests
the close relationship of these two species within the community. £3233
americana was more frequent than 31:513. Thomasi, but the latter was in
greater numbers (density) and the trees were larger (basal area), so
that it ranked higher in dominance within the community, as revealed by
the quantitative data (DFD Index value 3; Table III; pmrtograph, Fig. 9).
Alone or together, the three species of Ulmus are an important part
of the composition of the stands of second growth upland hardwoods in
Missaukee County. They were encountered in quadrats on outwash aprons,
till plains, as well as on the crest and slopes of the moraines. Ulmus

is a constant associate of the forest climax. The genus is considered by

209.
many as being "a subclimax flood plain dominant somewhat out of its
optimum habitat requirements in a mixed-mesophytic forest cover"
(Blewett and Potzger 1950, p. h2). However, the varied habitat sites
in which the three species of the genuS'were found.during the field
work.for this study'would seem to indicate that, in Missaukee County,
it had become successfully adapted to the mesophytic site. On the basis
of the high frequency, density and basal area for the species of the
genus, it would further appear that Ulmus plays a.more important part in
the composition here than is usually considered. ,Frothingham (1915)
credits elm with comprising eight percent for the state as a whole.
However, in speaking of the composition of the northern hardwood for
Michigan and Wisconsin, he says (p. 27): "Basswood and elm sometimes
form one third of the total stand." Potzger (l9h6, p. 2&8) has indicated
that Ulmus has an abundance percentage of three in his graphic repre-
sentation of the differences in abundance of climax forest associates
for the eastern'Wisconsin, upper and western lower Michigan section of
an eastdwest transect of the Lake Forest. Braun's (1950, Po 353) cone
sideration of the canopy and second layer of forest communities in two
hardwood stands in northern lower Michigan indicated that glmus
americana made up 3.2% of the forests at has Lake on mucky soil of
shallow ravines and only 0.3% of the canopy forest on the better drained

soils of the swells. In the second layer, Ulmus_americana had a per-

 

centage of 7.7 in the first soil situation and 1.3% in the latter. Her
figures for the hardwood stand at Carp Lake indicate a percentage of O.h
in the canopy of the forest on an old beach ridge for g. americana and

no data for the second layer. The typical‘beechemaple forest at Carp

210.
Lake (p. 352) included no species of either E, Thomasi or H. Egbrg in
the canopy or second layer of the stands reported.

McIntire (1931, p. 2&1) has pointed out that it is the presence or
absence of beech, elm or'basswood'which gives character to the associa-
tion'within the four distinct upland hardwood types recognized by the
Land Economic Survey for upper Michigan. The quantitative data for the
upland second growth hardwood stands of Missaukee County would indicate
a type.M classification (hardmaple, beech, elm, basswood, yellow birch)
when such a scale is used for identification. (See page 31.)

A.Frequency Index Community Coefficient was used in comparing the
composition of the second growth upland hardwood stands of Missaukee
County'with the reported data for other stands in Michigan, Wisconsin and
Minnesota. An examination of these data as shown in Tables XXIII - LI,
indicates that the percent frequency for Ulmus is one of the principal
differences between the stand composition of the area being considered.
Other differences were indicated in an earlier section of this study
and will not be considered again. However, these data are evidence of
the importance of this genus in the present stands in Missaukee County
and also indicate that, from a quantitative standpoint, the elms are a
less important constituent within the other areas reported.

Dansereau (l9h6), Blewett and Potzger (1950) and Braun (1950) have
indicated that Ulmus is a successional species for the climax northern
hardwood community. Dansereau's (p. 2h0) "Quasi-climax" contains one
element which.he characterizes as the "Aceretum saccharophori Ulmosum".
It just precedes the climax "Aceretum saccharophori laurentiantum”.

Preceding the "Quasi-climax", there is a segment identified as the

le.

'"Hcereto-Ulmetum laurentianumfl,'which is an earlier successional stage
called by Dansereau "The Sous-Climax" (subclimax). The status of Ulmus
in the climax, as considered by Blewett and Potder (1950, p.h2) is
mentioned above. Braun (1950, p. 356) presents a succesSional diagram
showing the various forest communities as related to one another in the
sequence of decreasing water requirements. This diagram portrays sugar
maple-beech at the top and indicates a complex of sugar maple, basswood,
elm, beech next in order. According to the diagram, the successional
pattern originated from a streamside of alder, willow, ash, and maple.

On the other hand, Frothinghmn (1915), Quick (1923), Gleason (l92h)

and Nichols (1935) consider Ulmus americana to be a codominant in the

 

climax.mixed conifer-northern hardwood forest. Quick (p. 22h) has in-

dicated that: "Ulmus americana, the white elm, is a member of the climax

 

association through the Lower Peninsula, especially in the southern part.
Its ratio of occurrence on sand and clay is 3.5. Next to the sugar maple
it is the most common.member of this association." Gleason (p. 293) has
said that there are twenty-three species characteristic of the association
'which are distinguished not only by wide distribution, but also by high
frequency indices within the area. The American elm is one of the five
species which are a part of this larger list (Gleason l92h). In.describ-
ing the HbmlockAWhite Pine-Northern Hardwood Region of Eastern North
American, Nichols (1935, p. h08) stated that basswood and elm, though
sparingly represented in the climax forest eastward, are much more ex-
tensively developed westward where, in the Lake States, Frothingham
states that the two together comprise more than 20% of the hardwoods. It

is this writer's opinion that the first view (Ulmus as a subclimax, suc-

212.
cessional species) leads naturally into the latter one. It would ap-
pear that the elms are in greater abundance and hence attain higher
dominance in the late stages of the subclimax, but that they remain a
component of the climax forest although reduced in abundance and hence
in dominance. The species are less tolerant than either sugar maple or
beech (Frothingham 1915, p. 16). Consequently, they could be presumed to
attain better status under the more open conditions of the forest canopy
during the subclimax stage than could be expected of them at the time
that the sugar*maple and beech produce a heavy shaded canopy in the
climax community. This fact may be considered as partially accounting

for the position of dominance attained by both Ulmus americana and E.

 

Thomasi in the present stands of second growth upland hardwoods in His-
saukee County. Another contributing factor is the nature of the five
soil series on which these species are so abundant. Their character is
such that good moisture relationships are provided throughout the growing
season.

If it could be presumed that the normal successional patterns would
remain in force within the hardwood stands of the county, then it could
be expected that at some future date the elms would have dropped out of
their present dominant place in the community. Normal succession should
develop a mapleébeech canopy sufficiently heavy to reduce considerably
the less tolerant elms within the stands. However, the present cultural
practices now operating as disturbance factors should retard the normal
course of succession for some time to come.

Missaukee County is just north of the reported northern limits of

distribution for Ulmus Thomasi (Harlow and Harrar 1950, p. 386; Dominion

  
  
  
  
  
  
    
  
  
       
     
  
  
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
 

- _ .-.~ _.1' .:.:(. ‘.'$-JJ£.1 and mini unis-mm.
,» . ea... _M. «new as mam at was

,i’ ' “J 5.»! ' 131'. ("4| ”.3511"; FAD: 30.50% Mi
_ in: ,i .'.! U4. 1 ; midis Jam's“. mus
'.x. ,. . ; ,. . a; :' ..'.;' ...‘e' c ' era. 1: calms “a.
. m '. ;~ u. . 4.: ...; ._ J7f".'!'p‘:hrf¢.’ ...;‘I .q .3121» i ‘

.i' 3?
,.l‘ .' ‘L‘ ‘ " 4 t .. (v5 (D -t :‘Hm 4!"; 163311! In!“ '
,r :2, . Lu. .to 150'; 93538 x“!
. : J u w; i ‘ ,r u": Ir- P'um'tq fist-ft! .'.m
'1 ' .x.» . .:... ‘1": ism "a 9:1 mgr: he: aid? .w
. -.'.. ..1" .’ ' :‘- .‘.l: .559: .'. .r'f .. ( iii an» unmrsimob 10

.. -. 9...--.“

.1. . ‘m- 21 ruooe': 1c shave smug.

Lu

- " I j ZLKHJI’ ' In
an"; er.- ”:0 :xi... . PL :rrrai ;:.i:i.:',i:wnoo madam

_, ..; '1!i..‘3n“.i"h 1.71mi .HI‘J'IL' 08 n 1.. as! was seen: (‘OMIM
~.1 21ml}. an." J'If(f17',.-,‘a,"C|'LI.J ce'rivcn. at; eufiristiciisln mum
o . I"

JUOI'. armada; Jule-tats: and learn an: tan: barium ed
Lines ‘3'} new": dimes may '10 shrine 1200de out? was, _‘_I '
10.31.10 beqqmb even was: 3131.9 9.1.: 93:22) aunt! capo 8
than: sarcasm hawk .vdmmr'é'r'edd at mph; .. '
'dds'xerimnw 00111301 0: uses wannabe memo ‘ .-
Irma“: when on" turned .ams ed) m d,
Iain-9x13. hum Mucus well comm-1b 94'
5 «In 93 net-t .OH!

 

 

 

   
 
    

.‘.-5.4.1,.“ at . I

  

213.
Forest Service, l9h2, p. 186; Hough l9h7, p. 18h). The nearness of the
county to the northern limits of the range for the species should result
in critical growth conditions for the tree (Cain l9h2, p. 19). However,
‘ these data indicate that such is not the case. Not only is the rock elm
a prominent member of the community in numbers, but it is found with con-
siderable regularity throughout the numerous sites within the county.
It would appear that this is evidence suggesting a northern extension of

the range of Ulmus Thomasi. As such, it is here considered as previously

 

overlooked as a member of the climax forest in this locality and it is
suggested that in the future revisions of the distribution.maps of the
species, notice of this northern extension be taken.

Yellow birch (Betula lutea) is a characteristic species for the

 

northern hardwood climax forest. In Missaukee County's upland hardwood
second growth stands, it is today only rarely present (Table II). Ac-

cording to the DFD Index (Table III), it ranks fifteenth in importance

among the total of twenty-three different species. The species is rep-
resented in all but the largest size class and is most frequent in size
class four (Table IV).

Tilia americana is also a characteristic species of the northern

 

hardwood climax forest. In this study within Missaukee County, the
species ranked fifth on the DFD Index scale. Like the elms, its density
is greatest in the higher size classes and the relative percent of fre-
quenqy about the same throughout all of the five size classes.

Earlier literature relative to the nature of the Maple-Beech associ-
tion and the mixed coniferbnorthern hardwood community as it occurred in
Michigan (Gleason l92h; Gates 1912, 1926; WOollett and Sigler 1928) haS‘

indicated that Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) occurring within the forest

 

211;.
community should be interpreted as a relic species. Gleason (l92h,
p. 29h) has said:

Hemlock is present . . . .but hemlock seedlings were not
observed. .Ahnost all hemlock trees in the hardwood stands of
the region are veterans. After their death, which may be ex-
pected in a comparatively short time, hemlock will practic-
ally disappear as a component of the association.

Yet, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) was found to have a presence class of

 

two (seldom present), instead of class one (rare) in this study. On the
DFD Index scale it ranked twelfth (Table III), midway between Acer

saccharum (DFD-one) and Fraxinus nigra.(DFD-23). The species was present

 

in every size class (Table IV) indicating that it was a successful
member of the community. The other coniferous representatives, which
gave character to the mixed conifer-northern hardwood community of the
primeval.forest, are now sadly depleted (Tables III, IV, and LVII).
The phytographs in Fig. 9 are arranged to portray the dominance of
the trees concerned as indicated by their DFD Index values (Table III).
Careful scrutiny of these phytographs will reveal that the degree of
dominance as expressed by (l) the DFD Index scale and (2) the phytoé
graphs is not always in agreement. For example, Quercus rubra var.
borealis is in eighth position on the basis of the DFD Index scale

(Table III) and Acer rubrum is in the seventh position. They are

 

therefore arranged in this order in Fig. 9. However, on the basis of
the degree of dominance, as indicated by the area of the trapezium
within the phytograph, the two species are reversed in position. The

trapezium of the phytograph for_Quercus rubra var. borealis includes a

 

greater area than does that for Acer rubrum and consequently, if the ar-

 

rangement of the species in regard to their dominance were in consec-

utive order on this criterion, the phytograph for the former species

should be placed ahead of that for the latter. The differences in the

215.
degree of dominance as shown by these two criteria are to be found in
the different structural characteristics used. The DFD Index (Curtis
19b?) is the sum of the percent density, frequency and dominance (basal
area) of each species. It does not take into consideration the per-
centage of size classes represented for each one. The phytograph in-
cludes the latter factor as well as the other three. There are instances
when the factor of percent of size classes, as shown within the phyto-
graph, can result in misleading interpretations. The lower radius (o-c)
is a critical indicator of the reproductive success of a species. When
the tree is represented in all size classes, the lower angle of the
trapezium extends to the edge of the circle. If a size class is lacking,
the trapezium extends 80% of the total radius. A serious criticism of
this method of showing size classes is that it does not indicate which
of the size classes is absent (Daubenmire 1936, p. 2&2).

If, as in the case of Ostrya virginiana (Fig. 10), one interprets

 

shortness of the o-c axis as indicating failure to reproduce and hence
unsuccessful participation within the community, false conclusions may

be reached. The life-form of the species may be such that it never at—
tains the diameter represented in the higher size classes, and yet it may
be an integral part of the community. Ironwood is the leading sub-
dominant in these stands. It is ranked sixth on the DFD Index scale,
which included all of the tree species for the stands. The percent fre-
quency and density was the greatest in size class three and four, and
there were no individuals recorded for size class six. Other sub-

dominant species were Populus grandidentata, 2. tremuloides, Prunus

 

 

.pensylvanica and Amelanchier £2. The phytographs.for the subdominants

 

 

216.
are shown in Fig. 10. They are arranged in the order of dominance as
indicated by the DFD Index scale.

On the basis of (l) the structural characters of the concrete com-
munity, as established by the quantitative quadrat studies, (2) the
qualitative characters which have been indicated by these analyses, and
(3) the synthetic characters of the abstract community here considered,
it would appear that the second growth upland hardwood stands of Missau-
kee County are representative of a disclimax. The disturbing agent is
man. Two cultural practices operating in the county appear to be pastur-
ing in all of the woodlots, and unselected cutting of the trees for sup-
plemental fuel supplies during the long cold winters. They have produced

a disclimax in the area under study with the dominant trees of the climax

 

mixed conifer-northern hardwood forest (Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia,

Tilia americana, Fraxinus mnericana, Betula lutea, Tsuga canadensis, Ulmus

 

 

americana, and H. Thomasi) intermingled with such subclimax species as

Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra var.'borealis, Acer rubrum and Prunus

 

(pensylvanica. Outside of the upland hardwood areas, in some locations

 

formerly occupied by the pine communities, there are today fine examples
of the Aspen Association (Gates 1930). The former pine community in the
northwestern corner of the county (Fig. 30) is now typical of that phase

of the association dominated by Prunus pensylvanica. In the southeastern

 

corner of the county, where the soils are sandy and the topography upland,

the dominant species is Populus grandidentata.

 

The present ecolOgical status of Acer saccharum in the community can-

 

not be questioned. The ecological role of Fagus grandifolia, Ulmus

 

americana, E. Thomasi, Tilia americana, Betula lutea and Tsuga canadensis

 

 

 

has been considered in detail. These species are considered as represent—

217.
atives of the mature (climax) forest for the area. That the present
composition of the second growth upland hardwood stands in Missaukee
County is not a climax expression is attested to by the presence of such
subclimax species as Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra var. borealis, the
aspens and fire cherry. Their ecological place within the community has
been discussed. The quantitative data of these quadrat studies would
indicate that the composition of these stands fits nearest Type 12
(Sugar maple-Beech-Yellow'Birch) of the forest cover types given by the

Society of American Foresters for the eastern United States (1932,

p. 1:63).
B. Composition Differences of the Second Growth Upland
Hardwood Stands in Relation to the Six Soil Series

The ninety-eight stands of second growth upland hardwoods within
Missaukee County were located on six different soil series which are a
part of the great podzol soil group. An analysis of the different pro-
files which are characteristic of each series (p. L9 ) indicates that
each one of them compares with the general description as given by
Wblfanger (1950, p. 38) in Conservation of Natural Resources:

The surface soil is especially lacking in the features
generally associated with good soils. It is so low in organic
matter that it is conspicuously whitish or gray in color.

The colloidal clay is very low in absorbed nutrients and has

only a limited absorptive capacity. The subsoil is also low

in nutrients but is typically a striking coffee-brown and

relatively heavier in texture owing to a marked transfer of

organic colloids and other fine soil particles.

The varied composition of the communities composing the second

growth upland hardwood stands growing on the six soil series is in part
a result of the differences found in the horizons of the soil profiles.

The quantitative data for the quadrat studies as they treat of the nature

218.

of the composition of these stands as they grew on the different soil
series are presented in Tables XIX, XX, LXI and the Appendix (Tables LXII
through LXXVI). Dominance values for the canopy and understory species,
as indicated by phytographs, are presented in Figs. ll-22. Observations
relative to the relations and interrelations of the species on and be-
tween each of the soil series have been noted in Observations and Results,
Po (fit through lfifit

It may be seen from an examination of these data that the Roselawn
Soil Series is the critical one when related to an expression of the
climax northern hardwood forest community. An analysis of the summary of
significance of differences in percentages of frequency, density and
basal area (Table XXII) indicates that when the significant differences
are greater than mathematical chance, they favor the Roselawn Soil Series
for the more xerophytic species and are unfavorable (negative) for that
soil series for the more mesophytic species. For example, the data show
that in four’instances, the larger percentage of frequency and basal area
for Quercus rubra‘zgr. borealis were due to some factor other than math-
ematical chance. In each instance (Arenac, Emmet, Nester and Selkirk
Series) the larger percentage resulted on the Roselawn Soil Series.
The same is true also for'white oak (Quercus alba) when it was present
on one of the other soil series (Emmet and Selkirk). On the other hand,
'when some of the more mesophytic species are considered, it is seen
that when percentage differences are greater than mathematical chance,
the significant difference is away from the Roselawn Soil Series. Be-
tween this soil series and the Emmet, Kalkaska, Nester and Selkirk series,
the three factors of percent frequency, density and basal area have a

significance of difference greater than mathematical chance for Acer

TABLE LXI

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE CF THE CANOPY AND UNDERSTORY TREE
SPECIES FROM THE SIX SOIL SERIES

CANOPY TREE SPECIE

219 .

 

Icer saccharum
rue gandifolia
5&3 anericana
[IF-Tie Thomasi
Ulmus rubra
Tina americana
us serotina

fiaxinus americana
fiaxinus nijra
gear rubrum
Eetula lutea
Betula papyrifera
Quercus rubra var. borealis
tuercus alba
T? a canadensis

us trobus

 

NHHNP

HRH

HHNHHHNHM

HHRNHN

HRHNHNHHN

KRRNNHNNNNRRHZ

NN

HHHHNHNNCD

NHNN “NH!!!

N

 

_ us resinosa
Thuja occidentalis

UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES

H

HHRHHNHflN

NN

 

Ostrya virginiana
Refine grandidentata
op us tremuloides
RFunusgensyIvanica

Arnelanchier sp.

first aegus sp.
Rhus typhina

A - Arenac Soil Series
K - Kalkaska Soil Series
S - Selkirk Soil Series
E - Brunet Soil Series

N - Nester Soil Series
R - Roselawn Soil Series

NHHNflHN

an

HNNNNRfl

“N

MN

NN

220.
saccharum, and compared with the Arenac Soil Series, differences in
percentages between the first two factors are greater than mathematical
chance. In three out of five possible combinations of comparisons be-
tween the soil series, the factors of percent frequency, density and
basal area exhibited differences greater than mathematical chance in re-

lation to Fagus grandifglia (Emmet, Kalkaska and Selkirk). Each.time,

 

the greater differences were in favor of the latter three soil series,
rather than in favor of the Roselawn Soil Series. In two instances,

Ulmus americana showed a percentage of frequency and basal area greater

 

than mathematical chance away from the Roselawn Soil Series (Arenac and
Emmet).

Dominance, as indicated by either the DFD Index scale (Table III) or
phytographs (Fig. 9), indicates that such preclimatic species (Weaver and

Clements 1938, p. 8b) as Quercus rubra var. borealis and g. alba are im-

 

portant members of the community as represented on the Roselawn Soil

 

 

 

Series. The presence of Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Tilia amer-

icana and Ulmus americana is indicative of the extent that the course of

 

succession has advanced from the subclimax xerosere toward the climax

forest community. Pinus resinosa is considered by Whitford (1901, p. 299)

 

to indicate a probable transitory stage from.more xerophytic to less

xerophytic between Pinus Banksiana and Pinus Strobus. The Roselawn Soil

 

Series is the only one of the six considered for Missaukee County which

contained the species (Pinus resinosa) within the quadrat studies.

 

 

At first sight, the high dominance attained by Ace; rubrum on the
Roselawn Soil Series might seem to invalidate the suggested subclimax
xerosere status of the community. The species is commonly associated with

the subclimax successional stages of the hydrosere and it is often a dom-

221.

inant of flood plain, where it frequently replaces Acer saccharum in

 

poorly drained stands (Secor 19h9, p. 76). However, the species (5235
IEEEEE) has a very wide tolerance range and is almost as often found as
a conspicuous member of the invading deciduous forest on former pine
plains (Sherrard 1902, p. h06; Idvingston 1905, p. 28:, Dansereau 19h6,
p. 2&7). In a very comprehensive study of The Relation of Certain Soil
Characteristics to Forest Growth and Composition in the Northern Hard-
'wood Forests of Northern Michigan, westveld (1933, p. 37) concluded
that "Red maple and white pine are possibly more characteristic of the
drier coarser textured soils than that of the finer textured soils due
to the lesser degree of competition on these sites." These factors, as
defined by westveld, are believed to account for the dominance of this
species within the community of The Roselawn Soil Series in Missaukee
County.

The general<iescription for the soil profile (Description of the
Area, Section E, Soils, p. h6) is indicative of the xeric nature of the
soil series and yet it also reveals some factors which would be favor-
able to invading mesophytic trees. The largest portion of the profile
(part of the A and most of the C horizon) is incoherent sand. There is
little or no leaf litter in the A00 horizon. The extremely shallow humus
layer is characteristically a mor type, and the illuvial portion of the i
A horizon shows much leaching. It is prdbably the eight inches of light
yellow loamy sand, forming the Bl layer of the B horizon, which favors
any expression of the deciduous tree species characteristic of a mature
(climax) northern hardwood forest. The 32 layer changed from a loamy

sand to a loose sand. The C horizon, which is only one to one and a

222.
half feet below the surface, was and excepting for occasional reddish
clay pockets within the patches of gravel.

Acer saccharum is the primary dominant within the other five soil

 

series on the basis of all criteria.

An examination of the phytographs (Figs. 13 through 21) and the DFD
Index scales (Tables IX through XX) shows that there is some variation
among the secondary dominants in regard to their relative position of
dominance for the five different soil series. The results of the quan-
titative data, as well as the phytographic interpretations, indicate that

Fagus grandifolia is the dominant secondary species on both the Emmet and

 

Nester Soil Series. Its position is taken over'by Ulmus Thomasi on the

 

Arenac, Kalkaska and Selkirk Soil Series, a fact which can be partially
accounted for on the basis of differences between the soil series involved.
The data in Table XXII indicate that when the differences in percentage
of frequency, density and basal area.for the species are significant,
they favor one of the preceding soil series rather than either Emmet or
Nester. Between Emmet and Kalkaska, differences in both percent fre-
quency and percent basal area are statistically significant in favor of
the latter soil series. Comparisons of the soil profiles for these two
soil series indicates that the Kalkaska soil is less acid in reaction and
tends to have better'drainage. The percent frequency and densitwaere
both significantly different for the species (9. Thomasi) between the
Emmet and the Selkirk Soil Series, with the significant differences fav-
oring the Selkirk Soil Series. The profile description again indicates
that the pH reaction is less acid for the Selkirk than for the Emmet

series. However, drainage conditions are imperfect within the Selkirk

223.

Soil Series. Only the percent frequency for H. Thomasi revealed a sig-
nificantly important difference as concerned the Arenac Soil Series in
relation to the Emmet Soil Series. Again the greatest difference in
favor of better growth for the species, as revealed by a comparison of
the soil profiles, was the less acid reaction of the former soil. It
would appear that the lower acidity of these three soils as well as their
coarser texture in relation to the Emmet and Nester Soil Series are
factors which'together offer better site conditions for Ulmus Thomasi.

The varied degrees of dominance which are indicated by either phyto—
graphs or the DFD Index for the other secondary dominants are not statis-
tically significant (Table XXII). It would appear, on the basis of these
quantitative structural characters here considered, that the composition
of these lociations is in a closer balance than one might expect for the
different soil series. The actual causes resulting in the variations of
dominance, as indicated above, are real even though the differences are
not statistically significant. This evidence is indicative of the con-
trolling influence of the many microclimatic factors of the soil, top-
ography and atmosphere. As already indicated, long range, controlled
field experiments will be necessary to isolate the relations and inter-
relations which operate to produce these conditions. The difference in
the dominance of one species over another within a particular soil series
may suggest the position of such a lociation within the disclimax period

of succession. When such species as Ulmus Thomasi, _g. americana, and

 

Acer rubrum attain a higher degree of dominance than such species as

 

Fagus grandifolia, Tilia americana, and Fraxinus americana, the lociation

 

 

may be considered further removed from the climax forest stage than in

224.
the instances where the latter species have attained the greater domin-
ance. Thus, the lociation expressed by the Eunnet Soil Series (A935
saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Ulmus americana, Tilia americana, Fraxinus

americana, Ulmus Thomasi, Prunus serotina and Ulmus rubra) may be con-

 

 

sidered to be farther advanced toward the climax northern hardwood forest
type than the lociation expressed by the Arenac Soil Series (Acer gag-

charum, UlrmLs Thomasi, _LI. americana, Fagus grandifolia, Fraxinus ameri-

 

cana, Tilia _a_m_ericana, Acer ruby and Tsuga canadensis). Other examples

 

 

 

may be drawn from reference to either the DFD Index scale or the pmrto-
graphs for the six soil series.
C. The Composition of the Woody Vegetation in the Ninety-Eight Stands

of Second Growth Upland Hardwoods of His saukee County Compared

with the Composition of the Woody Vegetation in other Areas
of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota

The composition of the second growth upland hardwoods in Missaukee
County as revealed by the quantitative studies was compared with numerous
other vegetational [studies in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Two
different criteria were used for establishing the comparisons, depending
upon the manner in which the data of the other studies were reported. A
Frequency Index Community Coefficient (Gleason, 1920; Gates, 191.9) was
established for comparative purposes between many of the communities,
while in the comparisons with Stearns' (1951) report from Wisconsin, a
DFD Index scale (Curtis 19h?) was employed.

According to Gates (191.9, p. 1.2): "The coefficients obtained by the
Gleason method yield relatively high figures, usually in excess of

eighty, if the two areas are in the same association in the same region.

Still One may find areas close together, appearing similar to the eye,

225.
which do not yield coefficients in excess of sixty." Reference to the
details of these comparisons (Tables XXIII through XXXIX) will show
that high coefficients were never obtained; but rather, the tendency was
to find coefficients lower than sixty. The comparisons, as drawn, can
be considered only as indicators of what may occur if and when the veg-
etation in Missaukee County attains climax status. In the first place,
the communities used in the comparisons were reported as mature (climax)
undisturbed stands while the Missaukee County study is concerned with
second growth, upland, disturbed stands. Secondly, the methods of
sampling are not always identical. For exanple, the methods of both
Cain (1935) and Stearns (1951) are comparable with those used in Mis-
saukee County, while Gleason (l92h, p. 287), determined the composition
of the dominant forest layer by counting all the trees six inches or
more in.diameter on a strip about 50 feet*wide extending across the
area. On the other hand, Quick (1923, p. 221) determined the composi-
tion of the climax forest Beech-maple association in Michigan by means
of transect counts in strips 20 feet wide. Such varied methods of samp-
ling must have provoked Cain (1935, p. 508) to state that:

One finds an attempt to synthesize the various
quantitative data largely thwarted because of the diverse
sampling methods which prevent the resulting data from
being directly comparable.
Such also is the case here. Consequently these comparisons must be cons
sidered, in this light, as only possible indications of possible future

successional direction.

‘L

 

226.

D. The Woody Vegetation of Missaukee County
Yesterday and Today

The forest communities of Missaukee County, as interpreted from
the original land survey field notes and maps, have been discussed in
detail (p. 178, Observations and Results, Section.D), and shown by maps
(Figs. 30 and 31). It is evident from this presentation that there were
four principal communities at that time: swamp, pine, mixed conifer-
northern hardwood and northern hardwood.

Four major changes were observed while doing the reconnaisance work
necessary for establishing the present day quadrat sites in the second
growth upland hardwoods. All but one of these changes manifests itself
in the quantitative and qualitative data and that one is precluded be-
cause of the nature of this study. In the first place, there has been
a great reduction in the amount of land now in forests when compared
‘with that at the time of the original land survey. This is a natural
result in a count which at the turn of the century was in the grip of
the early lumbering industry, as previously discussed (p. 55). The
second major difference is the complete absence of the former pine com-
munities. Here the ravages of lumbering and fire have taken their
greatest toll. Much of the former pine lands are now in some stage of
the Aspen Association (Gates 1930) or are still similar to the vegeta—
tion described by Livingston (1905, p. 28-29) for Roscommon and Crawford
Counties (these two counties are the eastern neighbors of Missaukee
County):

. . .over vast stretches originally covered with pine

there are no trees at all. There are regions of dwarfed
Quercus alba, Q. rubra, Acer rubrum and a number of shrubs.

 

 

227.

. . .Among the lower forms occurring here may be
mentioned: Rhus hirta, Monarda fistulosa, Pteris aquilina,
Gaylussacia resinosa, Vaccinium canadensis, Comptonia
peregrina, Solidago hispida, Hamamelis virginiana, etc.
The growth of sweet fern being so luxuriant that the
numerous prostrate logs are often hidden from view.

 

 

 

 

 

It is very evident that the toll taken by the former lumbering operations
and subsequent fires has been enormous and that the disturbance factors
have done much to retard the normal course of plant succession. The
factors which are responsible for this long delay in recovery of the
vegetation in this area are yet mostly unstudied. The phytosociology

of the former pine lands and the autecology of the plants within the

area offer a wide field for future studies.

Another noticeable change between the past vegetational communities
and their present appearance is the large reduction in the extent of the
area once occupied by the swamp community. A large share of this reduc-
tion has come about through the modern tillage practices of the farmers
and their desire to reclaim more land for agricultural uses. Efforts of
the State Conservation.Department to improve the wildlife habitat in the
county have likewise resulted in changing the aspect of this community.
In the fall of 1939, the GameDivision of the Conservation.Department con-
structed the Reedsburg Dam across the Muskegon River (T23N:R5W, Section 25),
so as to improve the wildlife habitat for Wildfowl, fish and fur bearing
animals. While the Division has no records concerning the effects of the
dam in respect to increasing or decreasing the amount of swamp land, it
may be presumed, on the basis of the general effect which such structures
produce, that the swamp area along the river below the dam would be im-
proved (decreased) and above the dam would be increased. The latter case

could also be considered an improvement in the light of the purpose for

228 .
which the dam was constructed. The records of the Game Division in-
dicate that the population of both wild fowl and fur bearing animals
has increased by several hundred percent since the project was completed.
It is now a very popular spot for early season wild fowl shooting and H
the amount of successful trapping, especially among commercial trappers,
became so great that it was necessary to limit the take by shortening
the season. According to the cover maps made before and after the dam

was built, it would appear that Thuja occidentalis is soon destroyed by

 

flooding, as it was among the first to succumb within the area flooded

by the back waters of the dam. Both Fraxinus nigra and Acer rubrum seem

 

 

to show considerable tolerance to such conditions as their abundance has
changed little within the course of time since the cover mapping.
Finally, it was observed that the coniferous element of a mixed
conifer-northem hardwood forest was much reduced in representation.
Other differences in the mixed conifer-northern hardwood and hardwood
communities were more evident after analyzing the quantitative data of
the area for both periods of time. At the time of the original land sur-
vey, this community was a Beech-Hemlock-Maple Association. Now the com-
munity is predominately sugar maple (Ages saccharum) with Fagus grani-

folia, Ulmus Thomasi, _q. americana, Tilia americana, and Fraxinus amer-

 

 

 

 

_i_c_a£1_a_ as the principal secondary dominants. Hemlock and pine, while
still present, are at best incidental dominants. There is also a shift
in dominance of the important secondary species within the hardwood com-
munity of "then and now". In the past this community was dominated by

sugar maple but the beech was much more abundant. Today, Acer saccharum

 

is even more predominant and the secondary dominants are more closely

 

229 .
grouped together in regard to their respective degree of dominance.

A careful checking of the distribution map constructed for the
county from the land survey field notes indicates that there were a
number of small isolated stands which could be considered as typical of
the Lake Forest: ". . .a single association, in which £13313 Strobus, _Ij.

resinosa, and Tsuga canadensis were climax dominants" (Weaver and

 

Clements 1938, p. 1:97). Needless to say, this aspect is found nowhere
in the county today. '
E. Natural Land Divisions; Land Management Programs;
Recreational and Economic Implications

The natural land divisions for Missaukee County, as mapped by
Veatch and Schneider (191:8), are shown in Fig. 5. The manner in which
these natural land divisions fit into the surface geology of the county
may be seen by comparing this figure with the map in Fig. 3. Similar-
ities and differences of the vegetation for these natural land divisions
as given by Veatch and Schneider (1938, p. 25 and 27) may be seen by com-
paring the quantitative data for both quadrat studies and the interpreta-
tion from the original land survey field notes. Because the natural land
divisions treat of larger areas any differences which do appear are the
result of the larger treatment on the one hand and the smaller areas con-
sidered by the quantitative studies on the other. For example, the vege—
tation pattern correlated with the natural land divisions would account
for three "pine plains" (Land Types C and D of the map in Fig. 5) while
the interpretations from the original land survey field notes indicated
four such areas (Fig. 30)

A land management program is beyond the scope of this study, yet it

must be pointed out that soil types included in a natural land division

230.

occur in close association and thus must be considered together in any
such program. Only as the present composition of the second growth up-
land hardwoods can be considered as an indicator of the interrelations
of these closely associated soil types within a natural land division is
this study related to a land management program. That these inter-
relations are close among Arenac, Emmet, Kalkaska, Nester and Selkirk
soil series has already been indicated. Greater’differences, as revealed
by the nature of the woody vegetation, have been indicated between the
Roselawn Soil Series and those mentioned above.

Wolfanger (1950, p. 39-hO) has said:

The chief future hopes of the podzol region are its forests

and recreational resources. . . .The most valuable land in the

podzol region is that which has a water frontage, since water

has an irresistible appeal to man.
The nature of the present upland second growth hardwoods in the county
has already been discussed at length. They, as scattered woodlots or
patches in an area delimited as state forest, represent the highest de-
velopment of forest resources for the county. The small area covered by
each privately owned woodlot, and the wide separation of all of them,
places some limitation upon their future value as a lumber resource. To
these factors should be added the previously cited cultural practices
which will prevent these stands from developing in their best possible
manner. The use of the considerable lake.frontage is yet another problem.
At the present time much of this land is in the control of the Missaukee
Lake Land Company. The company is a real estate development organization
mostly interested in profit, but is far from "chamber of commerce" minded.

This large area of some 500-600 acres, including several lakes, is

strictly maintained as private. Under this particular arrangement a con-

231.
siderable area of the county, rich in potential recreational resources,
is withheld from the large summer resort trade which would otherwise
avail themselves of the area.

This study may be considered to indicate some of the future forest
resources which can be made available in Missaukee County. Certain im-
plications are made regarding the potentials of its lumber resources.
Much of the area, now in the hands of private hunt clubs, and free from
unusual disturbances, will continue to improve as a game refuge. Other
parts, under the supervision of the State Conservation Department, will
also advance in value as suitable wildlife habitats. However, in order

to develop a comprehensive plan for the overall improvement of the many

natural resources of the county, as well as the proper land management of

agricultural areas, a study in the manner of Schoenmann's (1931) Land
Inventory for Rural Planning in Alger County, Michigan is needed. Some
steps in this direction are seen in the recommendations of such broader
studies as Trends in Land Use in Northern Michigan (Andrews and Bromely,
191.1) and The Land Nobody Wanted (Titus, 19115).
The phytosociology of the second growth upland hardwoods of Hissau-
kee County is another small part which contributes to the whole picture.
It also adds another vital link to the chain of evidence concerning the
nature of the vegetation in and near the transition zone of Michigan's

lower peninsula.

232 .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The phytosociology of the upland second growth hardwood stands in
Missaukee County is considered in relationship to the structural char-
acters of the concrete community and the synthetic characteristics of
the abstract community. Quantitative data from Sh6 one hundred square
meter quadrats, representing ninety-eight stands on six different soil
series, were analyzed and interpreted in order to establish the type of
forest communities nOW'representative of the area.

The interrelations between the six soil series and their effect
upon composition differences has'been discussed. The implications of
the indicator value of these various lociations in regard to the close
association of different soil types in natural land divisions and land
management prograns are pointed out.

Contrasts and comparisons are made between the present day composi-
tion of the second growth upland hardwood stands in Missaukee County and
the distribution of the forest communities as interpreted from the
original land survey field notes of 1837-185h. Comparisons were also
drawn between the composition of these upland second growth hardwood
stands and other vegetational studies from Michigan, Wisconsin and
Minnesota.

On the basis of these data it may be concluded that:

l. The present day composition of the upland second growth hard-
wood stands in Missaukee County represent a disclimax stage of succession
'within an area which has a climax forest of mixed conifer-northern hard-

'wood tree species.

233.

2. This composition is maintained in the disclimatic stage by
the continued operation of two wide spread cultural practices which
are open pasturing in all of the woodlots, and unselected cutting for
supplementing the fuel supply during the long, cold winters.

3. Acer saccharum is the primary dominant.

 

h. Fagus grandifolia, Ulmus Thomasi, H. americana, Tilia americana,

 

 

 

and Fraxinus americana are the principal secondary dominants.

 

5. The predominance of Ulmus Thomasi in most situationS‘within

 

Hissaukee County suggests a northward extension for its range and it is
suggested that such be considered in future revisions of its distri-
bution.maps.

6.‘ Various soil series interact to produce lociations of varied
degree of dominance among the secondary dominant species.

7. There is considerably less area now in forest than there was
at the time of the original land survey and that the composition now is

considerably different than it was at that time.

23h .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Horace J. and Willard S. Bromley. l9hl. Trends in Land Use in
Northern Michigan; a Study of Alpena, Antrim, Ogemaw and Roscommon
Counties. The Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation. Washington,
D. Co 1",450

Beal, W. J. 1888. Observations on the Succession of Forests in Northern

--. 1889. Flora of the sand plains of Michigan. Michigan Horticulture
Society Ann. Rep. 18: 52-55.

-—-. 1903. The future of the white pine and Norway pine in Michigan.
MiCh. Acad. SC. m1. Rep. 14: 1%‘107.

--— and C. F. Wheeler. 1892. Michigan Flora. Mich. Bd. of Agri. Ann.
Rep. 39: 114-190

Beegle, J. Allan. l9h8. Differential birth rates in Michigan. Michigan
State College Exp. Sta. Spc. Bull. lh6.

Bergman, H. F. 1923. The composition of the climax plant formation in
Minnesota. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 3: 51-60.

Blewett, Marilyn Bowman and J. E. Potzger. 1950. The forest primeval of
Merion and Johnson Counties, Indiana, in 1819. Butler University
Botanical Studies: 10 10-52.

Braun—Blanquet, J. and J. Pavillard. l92h. Vocabularie de Sociologie.
2nd Edition. Montpellier, France.

Braun, E. Lucy. 1935a. The vegetation of Pine Mountain, Kentucky: An
Analysis of the influence of soil and slope exposure as determined
by geological structure. Amer. Midland Nat. 16: 517-565.

-——. 1935b. The undifferented deciduous forest climax and the association
segregate. Ecol. 16: Elk-519.

---. 1950. Deciduous Forests’of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Co.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 337-353.

Brink, John. 1837. 0.5; Deputy Surveyor. Field notes original land survey
of Missaukee County. On file, Lands Division, Dept. of Conservation.
State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan.

Butterick, P. L. 1923. Second growth hardwood forests in Michigan. Agri.
Exp. Sta. Mich. Agri. College. Spc. Bull. 123.

--.”

235.

Camp, W. H. l9h6. Introduction: A symposium; Origin and development of
natural.floristic areas with special reference to North America.
Ecol. Monog. 17: 26.

Cain, Stanley A. 1935. Studies on virgin hardwood forests: III.
Warren's Woods, a beech maple climax forest in Berrien County,
Michigan. Ecol. 16: 500-513.

---. 1939. The climax and its complexities. Amer. Midland Nat. 21:
1187-181 0

--—. l9hh. Foundations of Plant Geography. Harper and Brothers. New
York. 1&7-383.

 

. 1936. Characteristics of natural areas and factors in their devel-
opment. Ecol. Monog. 17: 185-201.

Camnose, George H. 1853. U.S. Deputy Surveyor. Field notes original
land survey of Missaukee County. 0n file, Lands Division, Dept. of
Conservation. State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan.

Clayberg, H. D. 1920. Upland societies of Petoskey - Walloon Lake

Clements, F. E. 1936. Nature and structure of the climax. Jour. Ecol. 2h:
252-28h.

Coffenbury, W. F. 1853. U. S. Deputy Surveyor. Field notes original
land survey of Missaukee County. On file, Lands Division, Dept. of
Conservation. State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan.

Gonard, Henry S. 1939. Plant associations on land. Amer. Midland Nat. 21:
1.26 0

Curtis, Arteman. 1852. U. S. Deputy Surveyor. Field notes original land
survey of Missaukee County. 0n file, Lands Division, Dept. of Con—
servation. State of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan.

Curtis, J. T. 19h7. The Palo verde forest type near Gonivaves, Haiti,
and its relations to the surrounding vegetation. The Carribbean
Forester. 8: 1-26.

-- and R. P. McIntosh. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the
prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecol. 32: h76—h97.

Danna, C. C. 1930. Timber growing and logging practices in the northeast.
U. S. Dept. of Agri. Tech. Bull. 166: l-ll7.

Dansereau, Pierre. 19h6. L'Erabliere Laurentiene. II Les Successicns et
leurs indicateurs. Universite De Hontreal. Institut De Botanique.
Nontreal, Canada. 235-291. -

--. 1951. Description and recording vegetation upon a structural

 

. ..-—

236 .

Darlington, H. T. l9h5. Taxonomic and ecological work of the higher
plants of Michigan. Mich. State College Agr. Ex. Sta. TeCh. Bull. 201.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1936. The 'big woods' of Minnesota: Its structure and
relation to climate, fire and soil. Ecol. Monog. 6: 233-268.

Dice, Lee R. 1931. A preliminary classification of the major terrestrial
ecological communities of Michigan, exclusive of Isle Royale. Papers

Egler, Frank E. l9h2. Vegetation as an object of study. Philosophy of
Science. 9: 2h5-260.

--. 1951. A commentary of American Plant Ecology. Ecol. 32: 673-695.

Eggler, W. A. 1938. The maple-basswood forest type ianashburn County,
'Wisconsin. Ecol. 19: 2h3-263.

Esten, M. M. 1932. A statistical study of the beech-maple association at
Turkey Run State Park, Parke County, Indiana. Butler Univ. Bot.
Studies. 2: 183-201.

Fernald, Merritt Iyndon. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. American Book Co.
New York.

Frothingham, E. H. 1915. The northern hardwood forest; it composition,
growth and management. U. 8. Dept. of Agri. Bull 285.

Gates, Frank C. 1912. The vegetation.of the region in the vicinity of
Douglas Lake, Cheboygan County, Michigan. Ann. Rep. Mich. Acad. Sci.
1h: h6-103.

--. 1926. Plant succession about Douglas Lake, Cheboygan County,
Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 82: 170-182.

-—-. 1930. Aspen association in northern Lower Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 90:

--;. 19h9. Field Manual of Plant Ecology. MbGraw Hill Book Co. New York.
1.

Gleason, H. A. 1920. Some applications of the quadrat method. Torrey Bot.
Club Bull. h7: 21-33

--. l92h. The structure of the maple beech association in northern
Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. h: 285-296.

--. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull.
Torrey Club. 53: 7-26. Also Amer. Midland Nat. 21: 92-110. 1939.

Glinka, K. l9lh. Die Typen der Bodenbildung. Berlin, Germany.

237.

Graham, 8. A. l9hl. Climax forests of the upper peninsula of Michigan.
Ecol. 22: 355-372.

Harlow,'William M. and Ellwood S. Harrar. 1950. Textbook of Dendrology.
McGraw Hill Book Company. New York. 386.

Hardy, M. E. 1920. The geography of plants. Oxford.

Harshberger, J. W. 1911. Phytogeographic survey of North America.
G. E. Stechert Co. New York

Harvey, L. H. 1920. Some phytographic observations in Lake County,
Michigan. Ann. Rep. Mich. Acad. Sci. 21: 213-217.

Hough, A. F. 1936. A climax forest community on East Ticnesta Creek in
northwestern Pennsylvania. Ecol. 17: 9-28.

Hough, At F. 1937. A study of natural tree reproduction in the birch-
maple-hemlock type. Jour Forestry. 35: 376-378.

--. 19h3. Soil factors and stand history in a virgin forest valley on
the Northern Allegheny Plateau. Soil Science. 56: 19-29.

-- and R. D. Forbes. l9h3. Ecology and silvics of the forests of the
high plateaus of Pennsylvania. Ecol. Monog. 13; 299-320.

Hough, Romeyn Beck. 19h7. Hand Book of the Trees of the Northern States
and Canada East of the Rocky Mbuntains. Macmillan Company. New York.
18h.

Hill, Elton B. 1930. Agricultural regions in Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad.
Sci. 1h.

—--. 1939. Types of farming in Michigan, Mich. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull. 206.

Illick, J. S. and.Iu Fronts. 1928. The beech-maple forest type in Penn-
sylvania. Pennat Dept. For. waters Bull. R6: 1-h0.

Jennings, 0. E. 1926. Classification of the plant societies of central
western Pennsylvania. Proc. Penna. Acad. Sci. 1: 23-55.

Kenoyer, L. A. 1929. Ecological notes on Kalamazoo County, Midhigan,
based on the original land survey. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 11:
211-217.

-—-—. l93h. Forest distribution in southwestern Michigan as interpreted
from the original survey. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 19: 107-111.

--. 1939. Plant associations in Barry, Calhoun and Branch Counties, as
interpreted from original survey. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 25: 75-77.

Kerner, Anton. 1863. Das Pflanzenleben der Donaulander. Vienna.

238.

Kittridge, Joseph and A. K. Chittenden. 1929. Oak forests of northern
Michigan. Agri. Exp. Sta. Michigan State College. Spc. Bull. 190.

Leverett, Frank and Frank B. Taylor. 1915. The Pleistocene of Indiana
and Michigan and the history of the Great Lakes. U. S. Geological
Survey. Monog. LII.

Livingston, Burton Edward. 1903. The distribution of the upland plant
societies of Kent County, Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 35: 36-55.

--—-. 1905. The relation of soils to natural vegetation in Roscommon and
Crawford Counties, Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 39: 22-hl.

Lutz, H. J. 1930. The vegetation of Heart's Content, a virgin forest in
northwestern Pennsylvania. Ecol. 11: 1-29.

Liarschner, F. J. 191:6. Original Forests of Michigan. Compiled from land
office field notes. Research Asst. Office of Agri. Econ. Dept. of
Agri. Redrawn by A. D. Perejda, MA. Geographer. Wayne University
Press.

Mason, Herbert L. 19137. Evolution of certain floristic associations in
western North America. Ecol. Monog. 17: 202-210.

McIntire, George S. 1931. Theory and practice of forest typing, with
special relation to the hardwood and hemlock association of Northern
Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 25: 239-251.

McIntosh, Robert and J. T. Curtis. 1950. Concept of Vegetation Continuum.
Bull. Ecol. Society. 31: S6.

Millar, C. E. 19148. Soils of Michigan. Cooperative Extension Service.
Michigan State College. Ext. Bull. 290.

Morey, H. F. 1936. Age-size relationship of Heart's Content, a virgin
forest in northwest Pennsylvania. Ecol. 17: 251-257.

Native Trees of Canada. 19149. Bull. 61, bth Ed. Department of Mines and
Research. Dominion Forest Service. Kings Printers. Ottawa, Canada. 186.

Nichols, G. E. 1935. The Hemlock-White Pine-Northern Hardwood Region of
Eastern North America. Ecol. 16: 1403-1422.

Costing, Henry J. 191:8. The Study of Plant Communities. W. H. Freeman Co.
San Francisco, Calif. ll—SS.

Potzger, J. E. 1939. Microclimate and a notable case of its influences
on a ridge in central Indiana. Ecol. 20: 29—37.

--—. 191:6. Phytosociology of the primeval forests in central northern
Wisconsin and upper Michigan and a brief post glacial history of the
Lake Forest .Formation. Ecol. Monog. 16: 211-250.

_ 239.

--—. l9h8. A pollen study in the tension zone of lower Michigan.
Butler University Botanical Studies. 8: 161-176.

Quaife, Milo M. l9h0. Michigan County flags and their histories.
The J. L. Hudson Co. Detroit, Michigan.

Quick, B. E. 1923. A comparative study of the distribution of the climax
association in Southern Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 3: 211-2h5.

Schoenmann, Lee Roy. 1931. Land inventory for rural planning in Alger
County, Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 16: 329-361.

Secor, Jack B. l9h9. A comparative ecological study of two forest stands
in the Illinois Drift Plain area of southern Indiana. Butler Univ.
Bot. Studies. 19: 60—70.

Seelye, Dewey Alsdorf. 1917. The climate of Michigan and its relation to
agriculture. Mich. Bd. of Agri. Ann. Rep. 56: 683-713.

Sherrard, Thomas H. 1902. The Michigan Forest Reserve. Forestry and
Irrigation. 8: hOh-hll.

Society of American Foresters. 1932. Forest cover types of the Eastern
united States. Jour. of Forestry. 30: h51-b98.

Stearns, Forest. 19h9. Ninety years change in a northern hardwood forest
in Wisconsin. Ecol. 30: 350-358.

. 1951. The composition of the sugar maple-hemlockeyellOW'birch
association in northern Wisconsin. Ecol. 32: 2h5-265.

 

Stewart, David Perry. 19h8. The surface geology of Wexford County, Mich.
MS Thesis. Michigan State College. Unpublished. 2h.

Stout, Geo. S. 193h. History of Missaukee County.‘WP1'Writers' Project.
A.typed copy on file in the Missaukee County Library. Lake City, Mich.

Titus, Harold. 19h5. The land Nobody wanted. Mich. State College Agri.
Exp. Sta. Spc. Bull. 332. 3~b3.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1939, 19h3, 19h6, 19h9, 1950.
Established Soil Series: Arenac, Emmet, Kalkaska, Nester, Selkirk,
Roselawn, Div. of Soil Survey. Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and
Agri. Eng., Agri. Research.Admt

--—. 19h1. Year Book of Agri. Climate and Man. Washington, D. C.

U. S. Department of Commerce. 1938-1950. Climatological Data. Michigan.
East Lansing Weather Bureau. East lensing, Michigan.

Veatch, J. 0. 1928. Reconstruction of.forest cover based on soil maps.
Mich. Quart. Bull. 10. No. 3. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta.

2h0.

--—. 1931. Soil maps as a basis for mapping original forest cover.
Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 15: 267-273.

--. l9hl. Agricultural Land Classification and land types of Michigan.
Agri. Exp. Sta. Mich. State College. Spc. Bull. 231. (First Rev.)

,—_.—, l9h2. Land Type Map of Missaukee County. (Unpublished). Agri.
Exp. Sta. Michigan State College. Conservation Institute and Soil
Science Section, Department of Conservation, State of Michigan
USDA. Bureau of Plant Industry, Div. of Soil Survey.

--- and I. Schneider. 19h8. Soils of Michigan. Natural Land Divisions.
Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State College. Ext. Bull. 290.
22-31.

Weaver, J. E. and F. E. Clements. 1929. Plant Ecology. McGraw Hill Book
Co. New York. -

Westveld, R. H. 1933. The relation of certain soil characteristics to
forest growth and composition in the northern hardwood forest of
Northern Michigan. Agri. Exp. Sta. Michigan State College. Tech.
Bull. 135.

Whitford, Harry Nichols. 1901. The generic development of the forests of
northern Michigan: A study in physiographic Ecology. Bot. Gaz. 31.
289-321.

Wolfanger, Louis A. 1950. Conservation of Natural Resources. John'Wiley
and Sons, Inc. New York. 38—39.

Woollett, Marjorie and Dorothy Sigler. 1928. Revegetation of Beech-maple
areas in the Douglas Lake Region. Torreya 28: 21—28.

Zon, R. and R. D. Garner. 1930. Selective logging in the northern hard-
woods of the Lake States. USDA Tech. Bull. 16h.

APPEND IX

2112 .

TABLE LXII

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAG“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANOPY A E SD A E A E

TREE spasms SF a %D %D %BA %BA
Acer saccharum 100.00 98.70 «0.5h 66.81 66.20 -0.05_29.87 39.00 0.93
UImuS Thomasi 112111210 -2.60 11.63 2.00 -1.27 10.08 7.00 0113
Fagus_grandifolia 31.58 5h.30 2.07 13.688 8.70 -0.61 9.58 1h.00 0.58
Hhms americana 38 .811 38 .80 0.0.? 6.13 11.00 0.38 38 .05 15.00 13h
Tilia americana 15.79 31.30 41.78 2:5h 3:30 0.20 2:51 7.00 1:37
FFaxinus americana 21.05 20.10 0.10 .85 2.10 036 2.72 3.00 0.07
‘Prunus serotina 5.268 9.60 0.80 .21 .50 0.26 1.00 3.00 0.83
UImus rubra 9.90 .80 2.00
Quercus rubrafi 5}26 9.00 0.69 .20 .23 0.01 0.92 2.00 0:59
Acer rubrum 10.53 8.00 -0.37 1.90 1.50 ~0:l2_ 0.11 1:00 0.10
Tsuia canadensis 5.2F6.50 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.01 2.710 1.00 037
Betula’lutea V 3.70 0:20 0.50
Quercus alba 0.90 0.03
Betula papyrifera 0.60 0.03 A_‘
A.- Arenac Soil Series F - Frequency
E - Emmet Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA,- Basal Area

*Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

2113 .

TABLE LXIII

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANOPY A K A K A K __
TREE SPECIES - a“ a? SD :20 21) SD $131 %BA SD
Acer saccharum; 100.00 100.00 0.00 66.81.075.741: 05729.87 115.60 1.12
Fa s randifolia 31.58 51.32 T30 13.68 6.07 0.89 9.58 12.20 0.35

us Thomasi 112.11 55.17 0.88 11.63 9.66 025710.01: 26 .60 1.511
[Thus americana 36081; 170214 loh9 6.13 3003 00119 38 00? 9.00 —2032
Tim americana 15 .79 10.314 0.53 2 .51; 0.09 0.18 2.1.1 3.00 0.12
Erunus serotina 5.26 211.111 2.00 0.21 1.10 0.110 1.00 1.90 0.26
Tsuga canadensis 5:26 3:5h 0.29 0.21 0.15 0.0h 2.50 0.30 0.58
Fraxinus americana 21.05 Bid: 1.77 0.85 0.28 0.20 2.72 .00
AUImus rubra 3.hh 0.1h
Acer rubrum 10 .53 T30 0.11
Quercus rubra-It 5.26 0.05 0.92
A - Arenac Soil Series F - Frequency
K - Kalkaska Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA ~ Basal Area

*Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

2111:.

TABLE HIV

SIGNIFICANCE a" DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGE

 

A - Arenac Soil Series F - Frequency
N - Nester Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basel Area

«Quercus rubra var. borealis

TABLE LEV

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

2115 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANOPY _ A w. A R ‘ A R
TREE SPECIES %F SD %D %D SD %BA EBA SD

Acer saccharum 100.00 30:h3 7.17 66281 18:67 h.86 29.87 3.hh 2.35
Fagus grandifolium 31 .58 17 .39 l .06 13 .68 8 .00 0 .511 9 .58 0 .93 l .12
Ulmus americana 36}8h 26.352 2.85 6:13 0.Dl:21}00 38.05: 1.99 3.19
Ulmus Thomasi h2.1l 811.63 10.0h
lglmus rubra 8h.35 0:31 0.Dh
Tilia americana 15.79 13 .011 1 .811 2 .51: 1 .31 O .23 2 .111 6 .38 0 .611
Prunus serotina :5}26 8.35 0:13 0.21 0.31 0.07 1.00 0:91 0.03
Fraxinus amerfcana 21 .05 h .35 l .62 0 .85 0 .10 0 .33 2 .72 0 .16 0 .62
Acer rubrum 10.53 69.57 h.96 1.90 29:DE 2.75 0.11 h.9l 1.06
Quercus rubra* 5.26 95.65_13.69 0.85 18:15» 2.08 0.92 55.80 5:16
ggercus alba 9.6h 16.70
Tsuga canadensis 5:26 0.21 2.80
Pinus Strobus 13.0h 0.92: h.Hh
Pihus resinosa 8.70 0.62 0.32

 

A - Arenac Soil Series
R - Roselawn Soil Series

SD - Significance of difference

Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

F - Frequency
D - Density
BA - Basal Area

2%-

TABLE IXV I
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BE'IWFJ'N PERCENTAGE

 

CANOPY A S A S A

S
TREE SPECIE fl fl‘ 5 fi fi § EA $1 5

 

A - Arenac Soil Series F - Frequency
8 - Selkirk Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area.

«Quercus rubra 122' borealis

TABLE LXVII

2h7.

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANOPY E I_( E K E K
TREE SPECIES 7F '76}? SD %D $1) SD %BA %BA SD

Acer saccharum 93 .70 100.00 0.68 66.20 751111 1.10 79.00 115.60 0769
Faggsirandifolia 511.30 51.52 0.61. 8.70 6.07 0.81Tfl1.00 12.20 0.75
Ulmus americana 38.80 17.2h 2.83 h.00 3.02 0.29 16.00 9.00—1.22
Tilia americana 31.30 10.311 3.35 3.30 0.69 1.145 7.00 3.00 L111
Fraxinus anericana 20.10 3.hh h.15 2.10 0.287 1.51 3.00 .00
Ulmus Thomasi 12.10 55.17 h.§7 2.00 9.667 1.39 7.00 26.60 2.36
Prunus serotina 9.60 2H71h 1.78 0.50 1.10 0.26 93.00 41.90 0.H2
minus rubra 9.90 3.1114 7.014 0.80 0.111 0.09 2.00
gpercus rubra 9.00 0.90 0.20
figer rubrum 8.00 I.50 1.00
Tsuga canadensis 6.50 3.hh .85 0.20 0.1h 0.20 0.30 .01 .58
Betula lutea 3.70 0.20 0.50
Quercus alba 0.90 0.03
Betula Bamifira 0.60 0.03

 

E - Emmet Soil Series
K - Kalkaska Soil Series
SD - Significance of difference

*Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

F - Frequency
D - Density
BA - Basal Area

2’88 0

TABLE LIV III

SIGNEICANCE CF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERCENTAGE

 

CAN OPY E N E N E N
TREE SPECIES %' fi' 55 $5 % E ZEK fix §

 

E - Emmet Soil Series F - Frequency
N — Nester Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area

«Quercus rubra Er. borealis

2149 .

TABLE LXI!

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

CANOPY E R E R E R
TREE SPECIES A BA

 

E - Emmet Soil Series F - Frequency
R - Roselawn Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area

*Quercus rubra 11.5. borealis

TABLE LIX

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGE

 

CANOPY E S E S E S
TREE SPECIES SD A A

 

E - Emmet Soil Series F - Frequency
S - Selkirk Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Ares

*guercus rubra 12' borealis

251 .

TABLE LIXI

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

cmopg K N K N K N

 

K - Kalkaska Soil Series F - Frequency
N - Nester 8011 Series D - Density
3) - Significance of difference BL - Basal Area

lQuercue rubra var. borealis

252.

TABLE LXXII

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANOPY K R K R K R

TREE. swarm 21F 95? SD 20 fl) SD WA %BA so
Acer saccharum 100 .00 70 117 8 .20—75' .1474 1E6? 11 .98 145 .60 73 .ML 11 .10
Fagus grandifolia $1 .72 17 .39 I: .08 6 .07 8 .00 o .26 12 .20 0.93 11 .h8
Ulmus americana 17 .21; 71. .39 1 :57 3 .03 0 .743: O .79 9 .00 l .99 l .174 ‘
Tilia americana 10.3h 13.0h 0.h3I90.699 1.31 0.22 3.00 6.38 6:95
Eiaxinus americana 3.hH wh.3§ 0.16» 0.23 0:10_ 0.15 .00 035W
Ulmus Thomasi SS .17 9.66 “— 72am
FEmus serotina 211.114 11 .35 2709 1.10 0731 0.21 1.90 0.91 036
lemus rUbra 3.hfl 95.35 0.15 0.1h 0.3I’ 0.1h 0.00 0.Hh
Quercus rubra* 95.659 4‘18.15‘9 33.80
Acer rubrum 69.57 29.Dh h.9l
ngga canadensis 3.hh 0.Ih 0.30
fircus alba 3 .1114 1:35 0.16 0.28 0.10 0:13 0.00 0.16
Pinus Strobus 13.0h 0.92 h.&D
Pinus resinosa 8.70 ‘_0.62 0.32
K - Kalkaska Soil Series F - Frequency
R - Roselawn Soil Series D -»Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area

«Quercus rubra var. borealis

 

253

TABLE IIXIII

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES

 

CANOPY K S K S K S
TREE SPECIES fi: fi: 5 25 E 35 m fill E

 

K - Kalkaska Soil Series F - Frequency
S - Selkirk Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area

i-Quercuee rubra v35. borealis

25h .

TABLE IIXIV

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGE-S

 

CANOPY N R N R N R
TREE SPECIES fi' if 5 5 5 SD EBA 35A 5

 

N - Nester Soil Series F - Frequency
R - Roselawn Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area.

«Quercus rubra _v_§_r. borealis

255 O

TABIE 1m

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCHTTAGES

 

CAN OPY N S N S N S
TREE SPECIJB A BA

 

N - Nester Soil Series F - Frequency
S - Selkirk Soil Series D - Density
SD - Significance of difference BA - Basal Area

iguercus rubra _vg. borealis

256 .

TABIE IHVI

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGFS

 

CANOPY S R S R S R
TREE SPECIES SD SD A A

 

S - Selldxk Soil Series F - Frequency
R - Roselawn Soil Series D - Density

SD - Significance of Difference BA - Basal Area

*Quercus rubra E’.‘ borealis

 

5335:? SEE * fif‘éif

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘WNWr