Large scale aerial photography of native range transects by James Stuart Anderson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Range Science Montana State University © Copyright by James Stuart Anderson (1978) Abstract: The use of remote sensing in locating and describing specific plant communities on rangeland is of considerable value to the resource manager. With this technique, permanent, and precise records of site and vegetation characteristics can be obtained relatively inexpensively. This project's use of aerial photography on rangeland includes the modifications of procedures commonly used in "conventional" aerial photography. Large scale stereoscopic aerial photography (1/3800 to 1/9000) was taken with small cameras throughout the growing season, using color and color infrared film as well as black-and-white. From this, seasonal profiles of plant species and community signatures were examined. Ground truth data consisting of soil moisture, phenology, and photographic ground obliques were collected as promptly as possible following the aerial photography. Spectral signatures from color and color infrared photography were analyzed and compared to detailed vegetative mapping on black-and-white photography of the same area. A unique spectral signature or combinations of spectral signatures during one or more phenological stages differentiated three tree species, four shrub species, two grass species, and three forb species. The occurrences of these species' discriminating spectral signatures were related to their phonological stages. Their colors were described with the Munsell color notation.  STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY ' In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require­ ments for an advanced degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence, by the Director of Libraries. It is understood that any copying or publication in this thesis for.financial gain shall not be allowed without my ^^ Signature Date LARGE SCALE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF NATIVE RANGE TRANSECTS by JAMES STUART ANDERSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Range Science Approved: Head, Major Department Graduate Dean MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana June, 1978 ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr, John E, Taylor, and Mr. Wayne C. Leininger for their guidance, assistance, and encouragement throughout the entire period of this study. My sincere appreciation is also expressed to the following: Dr. Gerald A. Nielson and Dr. Gene F. Payne for their advice and assistance with the manuscript; Mr. William E. Woodcock for designing the camera mount, and his helpful suggestions in conducting the aerial photog­ raphy; Miles City Aero Service for their expertise in the art of flying and their enthusiasm while conducting the aerial photography; Mr. Wallace McRae, and the Custer National Forest, Ashland Division for their cooperation and allowing access to the study sites; Mr. David Litz for drafting many figures within this manscfipt; Mrs. Frankie Larson for her patience in typing this manuscript and many personal friends and the Lord Jesus Christ whose encouragements and inspirations made possible the completion of this study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS V I T A .......................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.................. iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................. v LIST OF FIGURES.............................................. vi LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES...................................... viii ABSTRACT............ ix INTRODUCTION . ............................................ . . . I REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................ . . . . . . 2 Phenological Effects ................................ . . 7 Film and Filters............ 7 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA. . . . . . ............. . . . . . 9 Climate. . ............................................ . 14 Vegetation . . .................................... 18 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................ 20 Ground Truth Data.................................... 26 Data Analysis............................................ 33 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................. 36 Prairie Sandreed Community .............................. 36 Chokecherry Community. . . . ................. . . . . . 47 Little Bluestem Community................................ 51 Soils........................ 56 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 57 APPENDIX . ................ 61 LITERATURE CITED ............................................ 90 . Page VLIST OF TABLES 1 THREE YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (CENTIMETERS) NEAR THE HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE. DATA WERE . COLLECTED AT SONNET 2WNW, MONTANA (APPROXIMATELY 21 km STAE MN OEFPRI ACESY ....... . . .................... is 2 THREE YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES CELSIUS) NEAR THE HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT SONNETTE 2WNW, MONTANA (APPROXIMATELY 21 km EAST OF STUDY SITE)............................ .. , 15 3 THREE YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (CENTIMETERS) NEAR THE McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITES. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT COLSTRIP, MONTANA (APPROXIMATELY 13.8 km N.W. OF STUDY SITE)........................ 16 4 TWO YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES CELSIUS) NEAR THE McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT COLSTRIP, MONTANA (APPROXIMATELY 13.8 km N.W. OF STUDY SITE).......... ............................ 17 5 FILM, FILTER, SCALE, ALTITUDE, AND LENS COMBINATIONS FOR TWO FORMAT (24x36 mm AND 55x55 mm) CAMERAS USED IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, SUMMER, 1976........................ 25 6 INDEX TO MAP C O D E S ...................................... 27 7 PHENOLOGY CODES .......................................... 31 8 A COMPARISON OF THE IfUNSELL COLQR, STANDARDS. AND PLANT COMMUNITY SPECTRAL SIGNATURES RECORDED ON COLOR AND COLOR IR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE, 1976. . . ..................... ..................... 37 9 A COMPARISON. OF. THE MUNSELL . COLOR STANDARDS AND PLANT COMMUNITY SPECTRAL SIGNATURES RECORDED ON COLOR AND COLOR IR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE, 1976 TABLE Page 40 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. , . , 3 2 Aerial photography study sites in Southeastern Montana , . 10 3 Typical aspect of Halfway Reservoir Study Site .......... 11 4 Soils map with soil sample and photo locations of Halway Reservoir Study Site. . . . . . . . . ............ ■ 12 5 Typical aspect of McRae Knolls Study Site.......... 13 6. Spectral sensitivity of Kodak aerochrome infrared film 2443 (Kodak, 1971)............ ......................... . 21 7 Absorption curve of Hasselblad 0-4 orange filter . . ; . . 22 8 Absorption curve of Kodak Wratten #15 orange filter. . . . 22 9 Assembling aerial ground marker.................... 24 10 Field procedures of random Daubenmire transects. . . . . . 29 11 Soil sample and photo locations, McRae Knolls Study Site . 32 12 A description of the Munsell hue designation . ........... 35 13 Detailed vegetational community map with transect locations (*> marks location), McRae Knolls Study Site (for numerical code refer to Table 6 on page 2 7 ) ........ 42 14 Aerial color photography exposed on July 15, 1976 with the prairie sandreed community identified by the marker (scale is I to 580) .............................. 43 15 Aerial color IR photography exposed on July 15, 1976 with the prairie sandreed community identified by the marker (scale is I to 618)................ ............ . 44 16 Prairie sandreed during the boot phonological state on July 28, 1976............ ............................ . . 45 vi Figure Page 17 Prairie sandreed during the seed shatter phenological stage on August 27, 1976, . ............................ 46 18 Aerial color IR photography exposed on May 4, 1976 with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 980). . ................. .. 48 19 Aerial color IR photography exposed on May 19, 1976 with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 980) . ..................... 49 20 Aerial color IR photography exposed on June 3, 1976 with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 618) , . .................. .. 50 21 Detailed vegetational community map with transect locations (« marks location), Halfway Reservoir Study Site (for numerical codes refer to Table 6 on page 27'). . 52 22 Aerial color photography exposed on September 27, 1976 with little bluestem community identified by the marker (scale is I to 555)............................... 53 23 Aerial color IR photography exposed on September 27, 1976 with little bleustem community identified by the marker (scale is I to 5 2 5 ) ...................... ............. 54 24 Little bluestem during the seed shatter phenological stage on September 29, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 vii viii I CANOPY COVERAGE AND PERCENT COMPOSITION (PERCENTAGE) FOR HALFWAY RESERVOIR AND McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITES, 1976 (RANDOM TRANSECT CONSISTING OF 20 FRAMES (2 by'5 dm)}. . . 62 II PHENOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE, 1976 .............................................. 77 III PHENOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE, 1976 ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 IV PERCENT COMPOSITION (PERCENTAGE) FOR HALFWAY RESERVOIR AND McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE, 1976. . . . . .............. 83 V SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION AND PERCENT MOISTURE AT HALFWAY RESERVOIR SITE, 1976 ............................ 84 VI SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION AND PERCENT MOISTURE AT McRAE KNOLLS SITE, 1976................ 85 VII SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OR RANGE PLANTS, ........... 86 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES TABLE Page Ix ABSTRACT The use of remote sensing in Iocating--Ahd describing specific plant communities on Rangeland is of considerable value to the resource manager. With this technique, permanent, and precise records of site and vegetation characteristics can be obtained relatively inexpensively. This project’s use of aerial photography on rangeland includes the modifications of procedures commonly used . in "conventional" aerial photography. Large scale stereoscopic aerial photography (1/3800 to 1/9000) was taken with small cameras through­ out the growing season, using color and color infrared film as well as black-and-white. From this, seasonal profiles of plant species and community signatures were examined. Ground truth data consisting of soil moisture, phenology, and photographic ground obliques were collected as promptly as possible following the aerial photography. Spectral signatures from color and color infrared photography were analyzed and compared to detailed vegetative mapping on black-and- white photography of the same area. A unique spectral signature or combinations of spectral signatures during one or more phenological stages differentiated three tree species, four shrub species, two grass species, and three forb species. The occurrences of these species' discriminating spectral signatures were related to their phenological stages. Their colors were described with the Munsell color notation. INTRODUCTION Aerial photography has been' used extensively for mapping broad vegetational community stands. Most of this work has been concentrated on the identification of crop, grass, shrub and timber stands from small scale aerial photography. Positive identification of individual species and plant community stands is often difficult by the use of aerial photography. The reason for this may be unsuitable photographic scale, improper film and filter combinations, lack of steroscopic coverage, photography exposed during a nondiscriminating phonological period, or the lack of quantified spectral signatures characteristic of community stands. This study is an attempt to use the above criteria advantageously to distinguish, identify, and describe a species * or community's spectral signature from photographic imagery. From this, aerial photography could be used in obtaining permanent, precise data for rangeland inventories and for monitoring changes in vegetation which might result from management decisions. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The first photographic imagery process dates' back to 1839 when Daguerre produced an image on a silvered copper plate. In 1858, . > Nadars produced' the first aerial photograph from a balloon at a height of 80 meters (H). In 1909, the first photographs from an airplane were taken over Mourmillion by the Frenchman, Maurisse. Later, reconnaisance photography from airships or airplanes played an important role during the first World War (Gerhsheim and Gernsheim, 1969). Since that time, aerial photography has been applied in biological and physical sciences' such as archaeology, agriculture, range management, forestry and others (Smith, 1968). According to Parker and Wolff (1965), the extensive varieties of film and filter combinations available today make aerial cameras one of our most powerful tools for remote’sensing. Carneggie and Reppert (1969) reported numerous potentials exist for large scale photography in range inventory, management, and research. Shrub, grass, and forb species were differentiated using color and/or color infrared (IR) aerial photography. Image Discrimination and Identification Tone, texture, pattern, shape, size and shadow are useful para­ meters for interpreting aerial photographs (Driscoll, 1971; and Olson, 1960). Colwell (1954) considers tone contrast between an image and its background as the primary image characteristic for the detection of an object from a single photograph. According to Colwell (1966), and Roger (1953), contrast of the image and its background, resolution of the -3- photographic image, and difference in parallax are factors associated with the recognition of images on aerial photographs. Factors Affecting Leaf Reflectance Knowledge of the manner in which solar energy interacts with grassland vegetation is necessary to interpret remote sensing data in this ecological zone (Tucker, 1975). According to Gates (1970), the precise spectral quality and intensity of plant reflectance and emittance depend on leaf geometry, morphology, physiology, chemistry, soil site, and climate. The composition of incident sunlight (Fig.I) coupled with the complexity of plant reflection determine the spectral complexity of reflected light (Gates, 1967). REFLECTIVE REGIONS EMISSIVE REGIONS I- INFRARED HERTZIAN WAVES 0.1 0i4 07 LO IO IOO WAVELENGTH (MICRONS) Fig. I. Portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. -4- Colwell (1956) stated that a high, percentage of green' light ( 500 to 600 nanometers (nm)} Is reflected from plants. According to Peafman (1966), the 540 nm wavelength produced the maximum reflectance from plants within the visible spectrum. Billings and Morris (1951) reported 15 percent reflectance from the upper leaf surface at. the 550 nm wavelength. This agrees with Shull (1929) who reported 6 to 25- percent reflectance from green light between 540-560 nm. Lack of strong vegetative reflectance in the visible range can be attributed to the leaf pigments which absorb light (Gausman ejt al., 1976; Woolley, 1971; Knipling, 1970; Hoffer and Johannsen, 1969; and Gates and Tantraporn, 1952). Tucker (1975) and Colwell (1956) reported that blue light (400 to 500 nm) and red light (600 to 700 nm) are largely absorbed by chlorophyll, while Tucker (1975) and Pearman (1966) reported reduced pigment absorption within the green spectrum of 500 to 600 nm. Moss and Loomis (1952) discovered that plants absorbed 82 percent and transmit 10 percent of the visible region (400 to 700 nm) with maximum absorbance at 680 nm and minimum absorbance at 550 nm wavelengths. According to Tucker (1975) and Fritz (1967), near or photographic infrared radiation exhibits high or enhanced reflectance from plant ■material.. Billings and Morris (1951) reported 50 percent feflectance from the upper leaf surface in the near infrared wavelength (775 to 1100 nm), while Colwell (1956) reported 80 percent or more vegetative -5- reflectance in the hear infrared spectrum (700 to 900 nm). Woolley (1971) found vegetation to reflect or transmit 96 percent of the near infrared (800 to 1100 hm). Tucker and Maxwell (1976) reported that near infrared feflectance is dependent on internal scattering in the absence of absorption within a leaf, and the inter-leaf scattering, which, is dependent on canopy geometry. Within the plant leaf mesophyll, near infrared radiation passes from hydrated cell walls (refraction index of 1.4) into intercellular air spaces or lacunae (refraction index of 1.0) (Gausman et al., 1970). Willstatter and Stoll (1928) found that an index of refraction of 1.33 for liquid water to 1.00 for air in the intercellular spaces provides an efficient internal reflection at each interface. According to Gausman and Allen, 1973; Sinclair et al., 1973; Gates, 1970; and Knipling, 1970, spectral reflectance of the near infrared is largely the result of the interaction of the incident radiation with the leaf mesophyll structure. Cell shape and size as well as the amount of intercellular space are probable variables determining the amount of near infrared reflectance (Gausman, 1970; Allen et al., 1969; Gausman et al., 1969; and Gates eh al., (1965). Near infrared reflectance was described by Billings and Morris (1951) as being completely independent of the presence of chlorophyll.. —6— Peairman (1966) reported Increased reflectance of visible light due to wax and pubescence covering the leaf surface. Pubescence provides an additional interface to incoming solar radiation, which has the effect of scattering light and decreasing the amount of light entering the leaf. In contrast, Gausman and Cardenas (1969) found that leaf pubescence did not increase reflectance within the visible spectrum, although total reflectance within the near infrared waveband (750 to 1000 nm) did increase (Gausman and Cardenas, 1968, 1969). Leaf dehydration results in tissue collapse which increase the number of airspaces and air-wall interfaces (Gausman et'al., 1976). Knipling (1969) established that near infrared leaf reflectance increased in many cases with initial leaf senescence. Weber and Olson (1967) also reported an increase in near infrared leaf reflectance as the leaf dries. According to Knipling (1969) and Colwell (1956), near infrared leaf reflectance eventually decreases in advanced stages of leaf senescence. Gates (1970) found that a completely dry leaf reflects small amounts of near infrared radiation. Coulson (1966) measured variation in reflectance from grass turf due to changes in the angle of reflection. He found that wavelengths shorter than 700 nm varied only slightly in reflectance while wave­ lengths of 796 and 1025 nm showed greater variation. This suggests that the orientation of grass blades is an important variable determ­ ining the near infrared reflectance. Phenological Effects -7- Plant phonological changes have been recognized as a most useful aid in identifying vegetation from aerial photography (Haefner, 1967; and Sayn-Wittengstein, 1961). A need exists for a better understanding and documentation of the phenology of range species before an optimum date(s) for aerial photography can be recommended (Carneggie and Reppert» 1969). According to Hoffner et al. (1966), different varieties of a species and variation in maturity of different varieties can affect the response reaching the sensor receiver. Driscoll (1971) found there is no one optimum time during the growing season to obtain aerial photographs for interpreting the complex range environment. Film and Filters Stephen (1976) compared panchromatic, color and color infrared films as to their usefulness in vegetational community discrimination. Color IR was found to be most suitable because of its greater range of hue, value, chroma and emulsion sensitivity. This resulted in enhanced and amplified color differences. Driscoll et al. (1970) found color IR film superior to color film for herbaceous species identification. In contrast, Haack (1962) discovered no statistical difference between panchromatic," color and infrared films for forest surveys. Panchromatic films may be used with a Wratten number 12 or 25 filter. These filters reduce the affect of atmospheric haze by cutting down the passage of ultraviolet and blue light to the film surface. —8— The Wratten filter HF-3 reduces excessive bluishness in color films caused by atmospheric haze. The Wratten HF-3 filter is primarily an ultraviolet absorber and is not recommended for use at very low altitudes (below 152 meters) or on very clear days (Kodak, 1971). According to Kodak (1971) and Fritz (1969) a Kodak Wratten number 12 filter should always be used with color IR films, although Colwell (1960) suggests Wratten 15 filter. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA This study was conducted at two sites (Halfway Reservoir and McRae Knolls) in southeastern Montana (Fig. 2). Both areas are on the Missouri Plateau, an extensively dissected, unglaciated region of Northern Great Plains {Both Bass (1932) and Sindelar et. al. (1975) contributed to the above statement}. The Halfway Reservoir study site (Fig. 3) is located on the Custer National Forest (Fort Howes District), in Powder River County, approxi­ mately 40 km southeast of Ashland, Montana. This study area has numerous outcrops of fine sandstone. Figure 4 is a soils map based on the Powder River Soil Survey (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service nt al., 1971). Upland bench and creek bottom soils are of the Farland, and Farland Havrelon series complex, respectively, and are in the fine-silty, mixed family of Typic Argiborolls. These soil series are deep, well-drained and of medium texture. The Caba series on side slopes is classified in loamy, mixed, calcareous, frigid, shallow family of Typic Ustorthents. This series is well-drained, medium-textured and less than 50 cm in depth. The McRae Knolls study site (Fig. 5) is located on the Wallace McRae Ranch in Rosebud County, approximately 13.8 km southeast of Colstrip, Montana. CANADA NORTH DAKOTA GREAT FALLS • MISSOULA HELENA# MILES CITY BUTTE COLSTRIP 'HeRAE KNOLLS BILLINGS ASHLAND ) SOUTH HjEEWAr RESERVOIR DAKOTA IDAHO WYOMING Fig. 2. Aerial photography study sites in Southeastern Montana. Fig. 3. Typical aspect of Halfway Reservoir Study Site. -12- Fig. 4. Soils map with soil sample and photo locations at Halfway Reservoir Study Site. RE - CABBA SERIES F L C T E I V E G O N SV M V - E A DHZW V-(EMS-G SCALE b py- ) VEK- NSVM V-EA a r iw ^HAVRELON SILT * ^fHOTO LOCATION WITH^AL: ^ ' n p m ; _ • .'VHKjlBBJI ieiS'- \ ... - S | " A 15 { ■ I A 14 J i• j / I J ^ # % , X V I : § y . gW» I !V. * - - y 4)^ « A 0A S mM jf-K '* I s 4 < Fig. 5. Typical aspect of McRae Knolls Study Site -14- This study area also has many outcrops of the fine sandstone. The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (1978) mapped the area as Busby-Reidel complex of the coarse loamy mixed (calcareous) Ustic Torreorthent. Soil texture varies from a sandy loam to a loam (Taylor et al., 1975). Climate Both study areas are under the influence of a continental climate, having cold winters and warm summers, with large variations in seasonal precipitation (Sindelar et al., 1975). The total annual precipitation near Halfway Reservoir (table I) is approximately 45 cm. Three-fourths of this precipitation occurs from April to September during a normal year with May and June being the wettest months (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service et al., 1971). The yearly average temperature is approximately 6.0° Celsius (C), with June, July and August being the warmest months while January and February are the coldest (table 2). The total annual precipitation recorded near the McRae Knolls study site is approximately 40 cm, with May and June the wet months (table 3). The yearly average temperature is approximately 9.0° C with July and August being the warmest months, while January.and February are the coldest (table 4). TABLE I. THREE YEAR SUMMARY .OF- MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (CENTIMETERS) NEAR THE HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT SONNETTE 2WNW, MONTANA— ' ________ (APPROXIMATELY 21 km EAST OF STUDY SITE) _______________________________ _ Year JA FE MA AP MY ■ . JU JL AG SE o.c NO DE Total annual 1974 Actual 2/ 1.42E- 1.42 2.21 ,7.54 7.04 2.64 8.20 2.06 3.86 5.79 1.60 0.81 rrestS 1975 Actual 4.90 1.50 1.45 6.15 7.77 12.67 1.91 1.14 0.13 3.35 1.62 2.44 45.03 1976 Actual 2.84 0.41 .00 7.42 7.11 8.66 0.58 2.51 — — 2.49 0.10 — I/ U.S. Dept, of Commerce Administration, National Environmental Data Service, Vol:77,78,79. 2/ Amount is partially estimated. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TABLE 2. THREE YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES CELSIUS) RESERVOIR STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT SONNETTE 2WNW, (APPROXIMATELY 21 km EAST OF STUDY SITE) NEAR THE HALFWAY MONTANA*/ Year Ja . FE . MA . AP MY JU JL AG SE OC NO DE Yearly avg. 1974 Actual -7.8 - 0 . 6 ^ 0.4 6.9 9.2 17.1 21.7 16.3 12.0 8.9 1.0 -3.9% 6.8% 1975 Actual Isei Iieg Igeha 1.9 9.7% 14.4M 20.9 17.9% 12.4 6.9% -1.3 -2.6 5.1% 1976 Actual Iself Iues Igeia 6.7% 11.7 M 21.2M M — 4.8% -1.8 —4.6 — 1/U.S. Dept, of Commerce Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service, Vol: 77,78,79. 2/One or more days missing; if average value is entered, less than 10 days records are missing. TABLE 3. THREE YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (CENTIMETERS) NEAR THE McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT COLSTRIP, MONTANA^/ (APPROXIMATELY 13.8 km ' N.W. OF STUDY SITE)______ ___________ Year JA FE MA AP MY • JU JL AG SE OC NO DE Total annual 1974 Actual 0.20 2.34 1.30 7.75 9.37 2.67 5.00 2.84 2.87 9.55 2.08 0.74 46.71 Norm 1.42 1.42 1.88 4.72 6.27 8.41 3.00 3.53 3.50 2.64 1.70 1.60 40.11 Depar- ture --1.22 0.92 -0.58 3.03 3.10 -5.74 2.00 -0.69 -0.63 6.91 0.38 —0.86 6,60 1975 Actual—^4.20 1.50 2.00 6.50 7.80 9.30 4.30 0.00 2.00 3.20 3.10 2.70 46.60 1976 Actual 1.17 1.52 0.91 5.41 7.19 8.97 0.66 0.64 1.73 2.13 1.37 0.56 32.26 Norm 1.42 1.42 1.88 4.72 6.27 8.41 3.00 3.53 3.50 2.64 1.70 1.60 40.11 Depart ture -0:25 0.10 -0.97 0.69 0.92 0.56 -2.34 -2.89 -1.77 -0.51 -0.33 -1.04 7.85 I/ U.S. Dept, of Commerce Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, Vol:77,78,79. 2j Numbers represent departure from the normal (based on 30 years of records). 3/ Munshower, Frank F. and Edward J., DePuit, 1976. The effect of stack emissions on the range resource in the vicinity of Colstrip, Montana. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res, Rep. 98, p 112. TABLE 4. TWO YEAR SUMMARY OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES CELSIUS) NEAR THE McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE. DATA WERE COLLECTED AT COLSTRIP, MONTANA^/ (APPROXIMATELY 13.8 km ____ N.W. OF STUDY SITE)______ ' ______________:__'__________________________ Year . JA FE MA AP MY JU JL AG SE OC NO ■ DE Yrly avg. 1974 Actual - 6 . 7 ^ 1.6% 2.9 9.3 10.9% 19.6% 23.8% 17.2% — M M — — Norm —6.1 -3.0 0.1 7.1 12.4 17.0 21.9 21.2 15.0 9.2 — -3.5 8.3 Depar- turex/ —0.6 4.6 2.8 2.2 -1.5 2.6 1.9 —4.0 — — — — — 1976 Actual — 1.0 0.8 8.8 14.4 17.8 23.6 21.6% 16.8% 7.8 M .3% — Norm — -3.0 0.1 7.1 12.4 17.0 21.9 21.2 15.0 9.2 -— -3.5 8.3 Depar­ ture .. ■— 4.0 0.7 1.7 2.0 0.8 1.7 0.4 3.8 --1.4 — 3.8 — I/ U.S. Dept, of Commerce Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, Vol: 77,79. 2! One or more days missing; if average value is entered, less than 10 days records are missing. 3/ Numbers represent departure from the normal. —18— Vegetation The two study areas are classified within the mixed prarie (Stipa - Bouteloua) association of the Northern Great Plains grassland by Coupland (1961). These areas have similar vegetational composition. The exceptions are the presence of Idaho fescuel/ (Festuca Idahoensjsl/) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) at Halfway Reservoir. Halfway Reservoir is topographically dissected and has a pattern of pine woodland (forest) interspersed through the grassland. Principal species are predominantly midgrasses, with the short grasses being ' less abundant (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1971), Vegetation of McRae Knolls is characterized by mid and short grass species of the mixed prairie with scattered sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and other drought tolerant shrubs (Sindelar et all., 1975), The more abundant species occurring on the upland portions of both study areas are: silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), fringed sagewort (Artemisia frigida), false tarragon sagewort (Artemisia dracunculus), little bluestem (Andro'pogdn scoparius), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia), needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), bluebunch wheatgrass I/ Common names of plants are based on Beetle (1970). 2/ Scientific names of plants are based on Booth (1972 and 1959) and Booth and Wright ' (1959). ■ ' -19- (Agropyron spicatum), prairie junegrass (Koeleria cristata), silverleaf scurf-pea (Psoralea argophylla), and small soapweed (Yucca glauca). The more abundant species occurring in creek bottoms and run-in areas of both sites are: Boxelder maple (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), Prunus spp., Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), green needlegrass (Stipa viridula), western wheatgrass (Agropyron smitbii)*„ and thistle (Cirsium spp.). For a more detailed list see Appendix I. MATERIALS AND ..METHODS . The aerial photography for this project was flown with a Cessna 182. This aircraft has been modified with the addition of a 30.5 cm (diameter) camera port. This is the largest permissible opening without altering the airframe or changing the position of the control cables or wiring (Woodcock, 1976). This aircraft is capable of obtaining an air­ speed of 193 km per hour and an altitude of 3048 m. Woodcock (1976) designed the camera mount which fits this opening. It accomodates both a 35 and a 70 mm format camera for simultaneous exposure. A Hasselblad 500 EL/M and a Leica Mda camera were used for this.study. The Leica was fitted with a Summicron 50 mm lens, while a Zeiss Distagon 50 mm or a Planar 80 mm lens was used with the Hasselblad. During the study, both negative and transparency film types were used. Particular emulsions (70 mm and 120) film included H&W Control VTE Pan film (black-and-white), Kodak Vericolor II film 6010 (color negative film), Kodak Ektachrome MS Aerographic film 2448 (color reversal film), and Kodak Aerochrome infrared film 2443 (false color reversal film), . Figure 6 illustrates the sensitivity of color IR film to different wave lengths of light. A Hasselblad UV filter was used in conjunction with black-and-white and color films while a Hasseiblad 0-4 (orange) filter (Fig. 7) or a Wratten #15G (orange) filter (Fig. 8) was used to eliminate blue light -21- YELLOW-FORMING / LAYER MAGENTA - FORMING / LAYER CYAN-FORMING / LAYER GREEN INFRARED WAVELENGTH (nm) Fig. 6. Spectral sensitivity of Kodak aerochrome infrared film 2443 (Kodak, 1971). TR AN SM IS SI O N (% ) tT5 _ TR AN SM IS SI O N (% ) -22- 500 600 NANOMETERS 7. Absorption curve of Hasselblad 0-4 orange filter. NANOMETERS •Fig. 8. Absorption curve of Kodak Wratten //15 orange filter. -23- from exposing color IR film. The only 35 mm format film used was Kodak Ektachrome Infrared IE (False color reversal film). A number 15 (orange) filter was used with this film. Highly visible aerial markers consisting of two crosses, each 12.2 by 12.2 m, were assembled using white plastic sacks and large nails at the Halfway Reservoir site (Fig. 9), The crosses were con­ structed to allow the pilot to line up and fly toward Phillips Butte, thus permitting the transect to be precisely reflown. Cultivated field and fence lines provided suitable aerial markers for the much smaller McRae Knolls site. Eight aerial photographic missions were flown during the growing season. Table 5 lists the films, filters, scales, altitudes and lenses incorporated in our aerial photography at specific dates. The interval between sequential exposures was designed to give at least 60% overlap. This permits stereoscopic observations of the photographs. Nearly cloudless atmospheric conditions were a prerequisite for aerial photography. We conducted this photography between 9:00 and 12:00 am, with the exception of the September 27 flight which was flown during the afternoon. -24- Fig. 9. Assembling aerial ground marker. TABLE 5. FILM, FILTER, SCALE, ALTITUDE, AND LENS COMBINATIONS FOR FORMAT (24x36 mm and 55x55 mm) CAMERAS USED IN AERIAL _________ PHOTOGRAPHY, SUMMER, 1976 LOCATION ~ AND FILM FILTER SCALE ALTITUDE LENS -25- 2AxJ6______ 55x55______ 24x36________55x55_______ 24x36 55x55 meters 24x36 55x55 5/4 HcRee Infrared Transparency #15 G (orange) filter 1:6000 30$ 50 mm 5/19 McRee Infrared Transparency Color Transparency # 15 (orange) filter UV filter 1:6000 1:6000 305 50 ram 50 mm Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency # 15 (orange filter I 15 (orange) filter 1:6000 I:6000 I:6000 I:6000 305 305 I I 2 2 1122 6/3 Black & White UV filter I:6000 305 50 ram McRee Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency # 15 (orange) filter 0-4 (orange) filter I:6000 I:3800 305 50 mm 80 nan 6/3 Helfwey Infrared Transparency Black & White # 15 (orange filter UV filter 1:9000 1:5700 457 50 mm 80 nan Infrared Transparency Color Negative # 15 (orange filter UV filter 1:6000 I:3800 305 50 mm 80 nan Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency # 15 (orange filter 0-4 (orange) filter I:6000 I:3800 305 80 nan 6/18 McRee Infrared Transparency Color Negative « 15 (orange filter UV filter 1:6000 I:3800 305 50 mm 80 mm Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency V 15 (orange filter 0-4 (orange) filter I:6000 I:3800 305 50 ram 80 i/18 Helfwey Infrared Transparency Color Negative I 15 (orange filter UV filter I:6000 I:3800 305 50 ram 80 mm Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency # 15 (orange filter 0-4 (orange) f i I ter I:6000 I:3800 305 50 mm 80 mm 7/15 Me Ree Infrared Transparency Color Negative # 15 (orange filter UV filter I:6000 1:3800 305 50 mm 80 nan Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency # 15 (orange filter # 15 G (orange) filter 1:6000 I:3800 305 50 mm 80 mm 7/15 Helfway Infrared Transparency Color Negative # 15 (orange filter UV filter 1:6000 I:3800 305 50 rrtn 80 ram Infrared Transparency Infrared Transparency if 15 (orange filter I 15 C (orange) filter I:6000 1:3800 305 50 mm 80 nan 8/25 McRae Color Negative UV filter l:3d00 305 80 mm Infrared Transparency I 15 G (orange) filter I:3800 305 80 nan 8/25 Halfway Color Negative UV filter I:3800 305 80 mm Infrared Transparency # 15 C (orange) filter 1:3800 3b5 80 nan 9/27 McRae Color Negative UV filter I:3800 305 80 nan Infrared Transparency I 15 G (orange) filter I:3800 305 80 mm 9/27 Halfway Color Negative UV filter 1:3800 305 80 mm Infrared Transparency I 15 G (orange) filter I:3800 305 80 mm 10/6 McRae Color Negative UV filter I:3800 305 80 nan Color Transparency UV filter I:3800 305 80 nan Infrared Transparency I 15 G (orange) filter 1:3800 305 80 mm 10/6 Halfway Color Negative UV filter I:3800 305 80 mm Color Transparency UV filter I:3800 305 80 mm Infrared Transparency #15 G (orange) filter I:3800 305 80 nan -26- Ground Truth Data Black-and-white aerial photographs were enlarged to a scale of approxmately I to 1700. Using these photographs, detailed vegetational maps were produced in the field. Plant communities were named after the dominant one or more species. Refined vegetational maps were, then developed in the laboratory.by transferring the plant community data onto overlays in color prints. Since the color prints offer better discrimination of the plant commun­ ities than black-and-white prints, these maps have more precisely defined community boundaries. Sixty-seven community stands or individual species (Table 6) were classified on these overlays. Those communities that were relatively homogeneous were of partic­ ular interest to this project. These communities were quantified as to each species’ canopy coverage following the Daubenmire (1959) method. Canopy coverage was used because it was assumed to be highly related to spectral reflectance and therefore to the photographic record. Sample plots within each plant community were located by randomly placing a cord having one meter interval marks throughout the community. Then, 2 x 5 dm plot frames were placed at each mark and canopy coverage classes assigned (Fig. 10). In areas of dense tree and shrub cover (creek bottoms), canopy coverage data were estimated without plot frames. Phenology, photographic ground Obliques,.and soils data were - 27- TABLE 6. INDEX TO MAP CODES Codes Community Tree Types 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acer negundo A. negundo/Fraxinus pennsylvanica F. pennsylvanica F. pennsylvanica/Prunus virgihiana Juniperus scopulorum Pinus ponderosa P. ponderosa/Rhus trilobata/P. virginiana P. ponderosa/R. trilobata/Andropogon scoparius/ Agropyron spicatum 9 10 11 12 13 P. ponderosa/A. scoparius/A. spicatum Populus deltoides Prunes americana P. virginiana P. virginiana/P. americana/A. negundo/F. pennsyl- ■ vanica/Rosa woodsii/Symphoricarpos occidentalis 14 15 Prunus/A. negundo/F. pennsylvanica Salix amygdaloides Shrub Types 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Artemisia cana A. cana/Bromus japonicus A. cana/Bromus tectorum/B. japonicus A. cana/Carex spp. A. cana/Festuca Idahoensis A. cana/mixed grasses A. cana/Stipa viridula A. tridentata A. dracunculus Chrysothamnus nauseosus/Agropyron smith!! Cornus stolonifera Crataegus chrysocarpa C. douglasi Crataegus spp. Eurotia lanata R. trilobata R. trilobata/P. virginiana R. trilobata/Ribes spp./P. virginiana ' Ribes spp. R. woodsii Shepherdia canadensis — 2 8 "“ TABLE 6. (CONTINUED) Codes- Community Shrub Types (cont.) 37 S. occidentails 38 S. occidentalis/A. cana 39 S. occidentalis/A, cana/F. Idahoensis 40 S. occidentalis/mixed grasses 41 S. occidentalis/Poa pratensis 42 S. occidentalis/Ribes spp. 43 S. occidentalis/Ribes spp./R. woodsii 44 S. occidentalis/R. woodsii 45 S. occidentalis/R. woodsii/Ribes spp./P. virginiana Forb Types 46 Artemisia ludoviciana 47 Glycyrrbiza lepidota 48 Medicago sativa 49 Yucca glauca Grass Types 50 A. smithii 51 A. smithii (on hard pan area) 52 A. smithii/F. Idahoensis 53 A. spicatum/A. scoparius/R. trilobata 54 A. spicatum/R. trilobata/A. cana 55 A.J scoparius 56 Bouteloua curtipendula 57 Bromus inermis 58 B. iaponicus/B. tectorum 59 B. tectorum 60 Calamovilfa longifolia 61 C. longifoIia/Carex filifolia 62 C. filifolia/B. japonicis 63 Carex spp. (riparian) 64 F. Idahoensis 65 P. pratensis/A. smithii/S. viridula 66 P. pratensis/Carex spp. 67 P. pratensis/S. viridula/A. cana/A. smithii -29- Fig . 10. Field procedures of random Daubenmire transects . -30- collected in conjunction with the aerial photography. These data were not collected simultaneously with the aerial overflights, but as close as possible to the flight time, usually within one or two days. Phenology data were obtained for nearly all plant species on both study sites. Phenology was determined following the approach outlined by. Taylor et al. (1975). ■ Table 7 is the phenology code which was used for this phase of the study. Photographic ground obliques were composed from a marker approxi­ mately 7 m from each vegetational stand (Fig. 4 and 11).' Either a Rolleicord with a Xenar 75 mm lens or a Hasselblad with a Planar 80 mm lens was used with (vericolor II) print film. Kodak Ektachrome Infrared film was exposed using a Canon Ftb and a Canon 55 mm lens with a Hoya G (orange) filter. This latter photography produced 35 mm color infrared transparencies. A sign board was within the lower portion of the photo­ graphs to provide information on location, community classification, and date of photography. Surface soil samples were collected from marked locations on both study sites (Fig. 4 and 11) following each flight and placed in seamless soil cans. These samples consisted of the surface centimeter of soil after live and dead vegetation were removed. Only the surface soil was collected because it was the portion of the solum which would directly effect the photographic imagery. -31- TABLE 7 •_PHENOLOGY CODES— Code Stages I. Cotyledon (newly germinated) 2 Seedling 3 . . Basal rosette 4 Early greenup, vegetative buds swelling 5 Vegetative growth, twig elongation 6 Boot stage, flower buds appearing 7 . Shooting seed stalk, floral buds opening 8 Early flowering 9 Flowering, anthesis 10 , Late flowering 11 Fruit formed 12 Seed shatter, dehiscence 13 . Vegetative maturity. Summer dormancy, leaf drop 14 Fall greenup 15 Winter dormancy 16 Dead V Taylor et al., 1975. -32- Fig , il. Soil.sample and photo locations, McRae Knolls study site m I o q M E M p M ­ T E C M d v C E q T c c M v C d P C ­ T E C d U P C c S ­ E C M d M N o q M E M U c T o q O - SOIL LOCATION SCALE 1: 1180 A-' . : •i... • 89 * : ; : % . # 4 - H $4 * mmk 4 4 -33- The Montana State University Soil Testing Laboratory assigned a textural class to each sample using the hand method. Soil moisture was determined from the surface soil samples which were collected in the same manner and location as the soil texture samples. Montana State University Soil Testing Laboratory determined the percent soil moisture using gravimetric method. Data Analysis Photograpy consisting of 85 x 85 mm color prints and 55 x 55 mm color IR transparences was examined stereoscopically. Photography exposed at different dates and sites was analyzed for differences in spectral signatures of the plant communities and soil textures and moisture. Those photographs having unique discriminating spectral signatures were analyzed more completely. This involved enlarging ' prints to a scale of approximately I to 580. x’ Then the colors from these unique spectral signatures were compared visually to a color standard. The Munsell Book of Color (1976) was the color standard used. Methods for comparing and matching specimens with standards followed the recommendation of the American Society of Testing and Materials (1969 and 1974). A 200 watt incandescent light bulb was placed 50 cm above the specimen and the color standard. The specimen and standard were viewed from 44 to 46 degrees•from the perpendicular. —34- Two photo-interpreters independently matched specimens and standards by visual means. The two resulting Munsell designations were compared and found to be in close agreement. Slight variations in the Munsell designations occurred and may largely be due to individual differences in color perception. Specimens having low chroma (highly gray) resulted in larger discrepancies than specimens of higher chroma. The following discussion along with figure 12, described the Munsell color notations on tables 8 and 9. An example of the Munsell color notation is 5 R 6/8. The 5 R represents the hue, 6 is the value, and 8 is the chroma. The hues consist of five principal and five intermediate hues (Fig. 12). Numerical values are used in conjunction with the hue symbols. The numerical value of 5 represents the most characteristic color of the hue symbol, while other numerical values represent a gradual color shift towards the preceding or following hue. The value represents the degree of daylight reflectance of a specimen. Value range on a scale of 0 (ideal black) to 10 (ideal white). Chroma represents the degree of departure from gray. A gray specimen has chroma of 0 while a specimen having the highest degree of color saturation has a chroma of 20, -35- • U#DYWW B P L N b A p - V N y SM B G P A L I S ( E V a E V P L N ^ SH IFT TOWARD YELLOW - RED A — STRONG — YELLOW COLORATION SH IFT TOWARD GREEN - YELLOW R = RED Y = YELLOW G = GREEN B = BLUE P = PURPLE FIG. 12. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MUNSELL HUE DESIGNATION. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Various phenological stages were recorded on color and color infrared films as the growing season progressed. Initial examination of this photography showed that discrimination and identification of certain plant community stands were possible. Tables 8 and 9 show only those plant communities that exhibit distinct spectral signatures on one or both film types on the dates of observation. The color of the communities were quantified visually from the photographs and designated in accordance with the Munsell system at specific dates and phenological stages. Four of the most distinctive communities are illustrated and discussed. Prairie Sandfeed Community The prairie sandreed community (code 60B, Fig, 13) has 68.2% of its composition as prairie sandreed (Appendix Table I). A comparison of figures 14 and 15 illustrates that although both color and color IR photography differentiate this community, the more distinctive signature is produced on the color IR. The saturated red . signature recorded on color IR is more distinctive than the light green signature on color photography. Aerial photography exposed on July 15 and August 25 was superior to photography on other dates in discriminating prairie sandreedt On these two dates, prairie sandreed was in the boot and seed shatter stages, respectively, (Fig. 16 and 17). Appendix Table II describes the phenological profile of McRae Knolls study site. TABLE 8. A COMPARISON OF THE MUNSELL COLOR STANDARDS AND PLANT COMMUNITY SPECTRAL SIGNATURES RECORDED ON COLOR AND COLOR IR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT McRAE KNOLLS ._________ STUDY SITE, 1976____________________________________________________________ Datei./ Community Phenological stage Munsell color notation?/ Common color nomenclature?./ Color photography June 18 Acer negundo Artemisia cana 5i/ 8.5Y 4.3/6 5BG 5.5/1 olive* gray* A. dracunculus 4Y 3.5/3.6 dark olive Fraxinus pennsyIvanica Medicago sativa 5 3GY 2.5/6 3.5GY 4.3/5.6 dark green* green* July 15 A. cana 11 5BG 5.8/1 gray* A. dracunculus 6 2.5Y 3,7/5.4 olive brown Calomovilfa longifolia 6 1.5GY 6.4/5 light green* Aug. 25 Andropogon scoparius 11 . 4.5YR 3.4/5 dark reddish brown A. cana 6 5GY 5/1.6 gray* A. dracunculus 6 2.5Y 3.5/3,2 olive brown C. longifolia 12 7.5Y 5.2/6.4 olive yellow* Sept. 27 A. scoparius 13 6.5YR 5/4 brown A. cana 10 3GY 5.5/1.4 gray* A. dracunculus 11 1.5Y 5,4/4,6 light olive brown Nov. 6 A. scoparius 15 8.5YR 3/4 dark brown A. cana 13 5GY 5.2/1.4 gray* A. dracunculus . 13 9YR 3.8/4.6 dark yellowish brown C. longifolia 15 IY 6.7/5,6 light yellowish brown Yucca gIauca 14 IGY 4/4.4 dark green* TABLE 8. (CONTINUED) Date Community Phenological state Munsell color notation Common color nomenclature Color IR photography May. 4 A. cana IG 3.5/5 dark green* A. dracanulus - IGY 4.3/4 yellow green* May 19 A. negundo 5R 6.8/4.4 pink* ■ A. cana A. dracunculus F . pennsyIvanica Prunus Virginia Rhus trilobate 1.5G 4/4 1.5GY 4.8/4 6GY 3.7/3.6 6.5R 3.3/7 8.5YR 3.7/5 gray green* gray green* gray green* gray red* dark brown June 3 A. cana 5 5YR 5.5/5.3 reddish brown A. dracunculus 5 1.5YR 4.7/8 red R. trilobata 12 1.5YR 4.2/9 red June 18 A. cana 5X 8.3/4 pale yellow A. dracunculus 5 9R 5/9.4 red July 15 A. cana 6 IY 6/5 olive yellow A. dracunculus 6 6.5YR 3.5/4.8 dark brown C. Iongifolia 6 IYR 5.6/8 light red M. sativa 11 8.5R 4.2/1.I red* Aug. 25 A. scoparius 11 ’ 6.5YR 3.3/6 strong brown A. cana 6 , 7.5YR 9.4/4 pink A. dracunculus 6 2.5G 9.4/4 3.5YR 4.5/10 light green* red C. Iongifolia 12 2.5YR 7/6 light red Sept. 27 A. scoparius 13 2.5GY 3.4/5 . dark green* A. cana 10 5YR 8.8/1.4 white A. dracunculus . 11 to IG 4.8/6 5YR 4.5/5 green* reddish brown Y. glauca 13 . 5R 7.5/5 pink* TABLE 8. (CONTINUED) Date Community Phonological stage Munsel color notation Common color nomenclature Nov . 6 A. cana 13 7.5G 9.4/2 very light green* A. dracunculus 13 l.GY 3.6/3.6 olive* Y. glauca 14 7.5R 7/8 pink* JL/ Dates of aerial photography missions. 2/ Details on the Munsell color notation are presented by The American Society for Testing and Materials (1969)• _3/ Common color nomenclature is determined by the Munsell Color Company (1954). 47 Numbers correspond to table 7 on page 31. *’ Color nomenclature is assigned by. the author. Iw VO I TABLE 9. A COMPARISON OF THE MUNSELL COLOR STANDARDS AND PLANT COMMUNITY SPECTRAL SIGNATURES RECORDED ON COLOR AND COLOR IR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT HALFWAY __________RESERVOIR STUDY SITE, 1976_____________________ ________________________ Datel./ Community Phonological Munsell color Common color stage notation2/ nomenclatures/ Color photography June 3 Acer negundo Artemisia cana Si/ 1.5GY 5.2/6.4 . 5BG 6.4/1 green* gray* A. Iudoviciana 5 . IOG 7.5/1.4 gray* Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2.5GY 4.8/6.2 olive* Salix species 9Y 7/6 gray yellow* June 18 A. negundo 8.5Y 4.5/7 yellow brown* A. cana 5 5BG 7.5/1 gray * A. Iudoviciana 5. IOGY 7.4/1.8 gray green* F. pennsylvanica 5 1.5GY 5/6.4 olive* Salix species 8.5Y 6.5/7 gray yellow* Aug. 25 Andropogon scoparius 12 8YR 4.2/6 strong brown A. cana 6 5BG 6.3/1 gray* Sept. 27 A. scoparius 12 8.5YR 4.2/6.2 strong brown A. cana 11 5BG 6.5/1 gray* Nov. 6 A. scoparius 15 8.5YR 5/6 strong brown A. cana 13 5BG 6.7/1 gray* Yucca glauca ... 15 IGY 6/4 light green* TABLE 9. (CONTINUED) Date Community Phenological stage Munsell color notation Common color nomenclature Color IR photography June 3 A. Iudoviciana 5 7.5YR 8.5/3 pink Salix species 1.5YR 7.5/8 light red June 18 A. cana 5 9YR 8/5 very pale brown A. Iudoviciana 5 IOYR 8.5/3 very pale brown July 15 A. Iudoviciana 8.SR 7.4/6 pink* Aug. 25 A. scoparius 12 8.5YR 4.6/9 strong brown A. cana 6 6.5Y 9/4 pale yellow* Sept. 27 A. scoparius 12 2.5GY 3.2/5 dark green* Y. glauca 13 7.SR 8/4 pink* Nov. 6 A. scoparius 15 5GY 4/4.4 olive* A. cana 13 SG 6.3/2.4 gray green* Y. glauca 15 IOR 7/5 light red I/ Dates of aerial photography. 2f Details on the Munsell color notation are presented hy The American Society for Testing and Materials, (1969)_. 3/ Common color nomenclature is determined by the Munsell Color Company, (1954). 4/ Number correspond to table 7 on page 31. * Color nomenclature is assigned by the author. -42- Fig. 13. Detailed vegetational community map with transect locations y, marks location), McRae Knolls study site (for numerical code refer to table 6 on page 27). Aerial color photography exposed on July 15, 1976 with the prairie sandreed community identified by the marker (scale is I to 580). Fig. 15. Aerial color IR photography exposed on July 15, 1976 with the prairie sandreed community identified by the marker (scale is I to 618). -47- The distinctive appearance of prairie sandreed on aerial photog­ raphy during the period from the boot stage through seed shatter may indirectly be due to the high level of physiological activity of this species during.this period. Several researchers (Krall et al., 1971; Blaisdell„ 1958 and Blaisdell and Pechariic, 1949) have shown that grass plants near the time of floral development are growing rapidly. Active growth increases cell numbers and the maintenance of turgid cell walls. This apparently increases the amount of cell wall air interfaces encountered by IR radiation thus increasing its reflectance. Chokecherry Community Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) is identified readily on color IR photography flown on May 4 and 19 (Fig. 18 and 19). On the earlier date, chokecherry was the only native species which produced a red signature. Color IR photography exposed the following aerial mission (June 3) did not discriminate between chokecherry and skunkbush sumac (Fig. 20). This, a comparison of the May and June photography is necessary to identify the location of skunkbush communities. Skunkbush sumac appears dark brown on color IR photography ' • exposed in May, while it appears reddish on photography, exposed on June 3 (Table 8). By a thorough comparison of these photographs, a { color change from dark brown to red indicates the presence of skunkbush sumac at the McRae Knolls study site. Fig. 18. Aerial color IR photography exposed on May 4, 1976, with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 980). Fig. 19. Aerial color IR photography exposed on May 19, 1976 with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 980). Fig. 20. Aerial color IR photography exposed on June 3, 1976 with chokecherry (a) and skunkbush sumac (b) identified by the markers (scale is I to 618). I U i01 -51- This example demonstrates how photography sequentially exposed throughout the growing season can be beneficial in identifying plant species. Phonological data were initially collected on June 4 at McRae Knolls study site. By this time chokecherry and skunkbush sumac were in the seed shatter growth stage (Appendix Table II). Due to the lack of phonological data prior to June 4, the occurrence of the discrim­ inating spectral signatures of chokecherry and skunkbush sumac cannot be described phenologically. Little Bluestem Community The little bluestem community in the following example is located at A55 in Figure 21. Percent composition of little bluestem in this community is 66.6% (Appendix Table I). Little bluestem is readily identified on color and color IR photography exposed from seed shatter (August 25 and September 27) to winter dormancy (November 6) (Fig. 22.and 23). Color photography produces excellent results with this species and may be superior to color IR photograph. Little bluestem's strong brown color (Fig. 24) contrasts strongly with the lighter colors of other plant communities on color photography. This contrast persists despite the darkening of other plant communities as they matured. -52- Fig. 21. Detailed vegetational community map with transect locations (©marks location), Halfway Reservoir Study Site (for numerical codes refer to Table 6 on page 27.). Fig* 22. Aerial color photography exposed on September 27, 1976 with little bluestem community identified by the marker (scale is I to 555). Fig. 23. Aerial color IR photography exposed on September 27, 1976 with little bluestem community identified by the marker (scale is I to 525). !-56— Soils Variations.in surface soil texture or percent moisture were not detected on color or color IR photography. Figures 4 and 11 mark the locations of known textures near the soil surface. The failure to detect changes in surface soil texture and percent moisture may be due to slight color shifts during the printing process and the inability of the human eye to identify minute color changes^ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Large scale color and color IR aerial photography were exposed throughout the growing season to record plant signatures from various phonological stages and differences in surface soil textures and moisture levels. Comparison of this photography was useful in dis­ tinguishing vegetational stands. Although different surface soil textures and moisture levels existed, differences could not be detected from aerial photography. ■Twelve different vegetational stands were identified from aerial photography in conjunction with ground truth data. Four of these, prairie sandreed, little bluestem, chokecherry, and skunkbush sumac, are most readily discriminated, and have been illustrated and discussed. Prairie sandreed produced light green and olive green color on color photography photographed during the boot (July 15) and seed shatter (August 25) phenological stages, respectively. Red and light red spectral signatures were recorded on color IR during the boot (July 15) and seed shatter. (August 25) phenological stages. Little bluestem is readily identified on color and color IR aerial photography from seed shatter (August 25 to September 27) to winter dormancy (November 6). Color photography produced excellent results with this species and may be superior to color IR photography.' Little bluestem’s strong brown color contrasts strongly with the lighter color of other plant communities on color photography. This contrast persists despite the darkening of other plant communities as they mature. -58- Chpkecherry was the earliest native species to produce a red signature on color IR photography. Due to the lack of early phono­ logical data, the occurrence (May 19) of chokecherry's discriminating spectral signature cannot be described phenologically. Skunkbush sumac appears dark brown on color IR photography exposed in May, while it appears red on photography exposed during the seed shatter stage (June 3). By a thorough comparison of these photographs, a color change from dark brown to red indicates the presence of skunkbush sumac at the McRae Knolls study site. Deficiencies in methodology imposed limitations on discriminating, identifying and quantifying spectral signatures on color photography. These problems are: (a) the difficulty of making exact color matches when producing color prints from duplicated transparencies; (b) the lack of standard procedures in processing negatives and transparencies; and (c) the unavailability of a microdensitometer for critical color balance and color density measurements. A system designed to eliminate the above deficiencies should be capable of discriminating additional plant species and communities, recording variations in surface soil texture and moisture levels, and describing spectral signatures on aerial photography more quantitative­ ly. More quality control standardization of techniques and the use of more sensitive instruments should increase our ability to interpret aerial photography with fewer ground truth data. -59- The capability of aerial photography to record and monitor large areas of land with.minimal man hours makes this an extremely useful tool for the land manager. In the past, aerial photography has been used to interpret biological and physical characteristics of the land­ scape in a general fashion, but much more detailed and specific information can be derived by this technique. The research reported in this thesis was mainly intended to benefit the researchers in the further study of large scale aerial photographic interpretation. Nevertheless some practical applications of managing rangeland can be derived from this work. Photography could be flown periodically (5 to 10 year intervals) over representive portions of a management unit. This photography could be interpreted with minimal amounts of ground truth data and key species could then be monitored through time in order to observe changes of relative abundance, thus indicating range trend. Prairie sandreed and little bluestem are two species which are readily identified from aerial photography, and are key management species in certain vegetational types. The ability to distinguish and identify chokecherry and skunk- - bush sumac in early spring on color IR photography may have implications in determining available forage for big game. Further research will refine and greatly increase the potential of aerial photography. Species identification and measurements of absolute and relative abundance, phonological development, impact of stress, and other information of range species could be obtained from aerial imagery. APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE I. CANOPY COVERAGE AND PERCENT COMPOSITION (PERCENTAGE) FOR HALFWAY RESERVOIR AND McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITES, 1976 {RANDOM TRANSECT ___________________CONSISTING OF 20 FRAMES (2 by 5 d m ) } _________________ 17Al/ 2OA 20B 2 LA 21B 23A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Shrubs and Trees________________ sltion_______sition_____ sition______ sition sition_____sltion Amelanchier alnifolia — — — — — — — — — — Art^sia cana 33.13 30.81 3.63 3.67 18.63 16.45 10.50 9.47 2.63 3.67 3.88 3.43 A. dracunculus — — — — • 88 .77 — — — — — A. friglda .50 .47 .13 .13 1.13 .99 3.50 3.16 — — 3.63 3.21 A. trldentata — — — — — — — — — — 19.63 17.37 Chryaothamnus nauaeosus — — — — — — — — — Eurotia lanata — — — — — — — — — Gutierrizla sarothrae — — — — — — — — -D Pinus ponderoaa — — — — — — Prunua virglnlana — — — — — — Rhus trilobata — — — — — — — — -75 1.05 Rosa arkansana — — — — — — — — — R. woodsii — — — — — Symphoricarpos occidentalis — — — — — — Forbs Achillea millefolium Ambrosia psilostachya Androsace occidentalis Antennaria species Artemisia ludovlciana Arnica sororia Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus Astragalus species Cerastium arvense Cirsium undulatum Collomia linearis Colllnsia parvifIora Conyza canadensis 6.38 5.93 — — .25 .25 .63 .58 2.00 2.03 4.63 4.17 — — 1.38 1.22 12.25 17.13 4.63 4.17 .50 .47 — — .38 .33 1.63 1.47 — .13 .17 — — V Numbers and letters correspond to those in figures 13 and 21. APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 17A 2 OA 20B 21A 21B 23A Forbs Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Echinacea pallida Erigeron divergens — — .75 .76 .13 .Ii .63 .56 — — .25 .22 Erysimum asperum Gaura coccinea — — — — — — .13 .11 .38 .52 Glycyrrhiza lepidota Grindelia squarrosa Hedeoma hispida .25 .23 .25 .25 — — 1.38 1.24 — — Lactuca serriola .13 .12 — — — — .25 .23 .13 .17 — — Lepidium densiflorum — — — — — — — Liatris punctata — — — — — — Lithospennum ruderale Lupinus argenteus Lupinus species Lygodesmia Iuncea Medicaco sativa — — — — — Monarda fistulosa — — — — Oenothera serrulata — — — — — — .13 .11 OpUntia polyacantha Orthocarpus luteus .25 .23 .83 .89 1.38 1.21 3.50 3.16 — — Petalostemon purpureum Phlox species Plantago purshii — — .88 .89 .25 .22 .25 .23 — — .25 .22 Psoralea argophylla 3.75 3.49 .13 .13 5.88 5.19 14.63 13.19 3.75 5.24 Ratibida columnifera — — — — — — Solidago missouriensis — — — -- .25 .22 — — SolidaRO species — — — — — — — — 1.75 2.45 Sphaeralcea coccinea — — .50 .51 — — .25 .23 1.50 2.10 .75 . 66 Taraxacum officinale — — — — — — — — .13 .17 .25 .22 Tragopogon dubius .38 .35 — — 1.00 .88 .25 .23 .75 1.05 .25 .22 Vicia americana — — — — — — Yucca glauca — — — — — — Unknown forbs — — — — — — . 13 .11 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 17A 2 OA 20B 2IA 21B 23A Grasses and Sedges Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo- Cover sition Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo- Cover sition Compo­ sition Agropyron dasystachyum A. smith!! 1.50 1.40 2.38 2.41 3.00 2.65 4.50 4.06 3.50 4.90 9.75 3.63 A. splcatum — 5.88 8.22 ___ Andropogon scoparius — ___ Bouteloua curtipendula — 32.63 45.63 — — B. gracilis .75 .70 2.75 2.78 .13 .11 2.88 2.59 .13 .17 3.38 2.99 Bromus Iaponicus 9.00 8.37 .50 .51 .25 .22 3.88 3.49 2.88 4.02 1.38 1.22B. marginsCus — — — — — — — — — — — — — B. tectorum .25 .23 — — — — .25 .23 — — — — — Buchloe dactyloides — — — 1.88 1.66 Calmagrostis montanensis — Calamovilfa longifolia ___ Carex fillfolia — C. pensyIvanica 40.63 37.79 15.63 15.82 21.75 19.21 18.63 16.80 — — — — 32.25 28.54 Carex species — — — — Festuca Idahoensis — — 66.88 67.72 54.75 48.34 21.25 19.17 — — 20.75 18.36 Koeleria cristata .75 .70 .13 .13 1.13 .99 — — — — — — 3.75 3.32 Muhlenbergia cuspidata — .25 .35 Poa pratensis P. secunda — — .13 .13 — — — 1.25 1.13 Stipa comata 3.13 2.91 .13 .13 2.25 1.99 2.25 2.03 2.00 2.80 6.13 5.42 S. viridula 5.63 5.23 .88 .89 — — 9.63 8.68 — — 3.50 3.10 Others Litter 57.88 — 50.63 — 44.63 — 44.00 — 41.00 — — 81.25 _ Bare ground 10.13 — 7.25 — 8.75 — 5.88 — 9.00 — 6.25 — Lichen 1.13 — 5.63 — 3.88 — 1.63 — — — — — 4.63 ___ Moss .13 — 1.38 — 9.88 — .88 Rock 3.75 — — — — Erosion pavement — APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) Shrubs and Trees 24A 25A 30A 31A 37A 40A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- _____ sitlon______ sltion_____ sitlon______ sltion______sltion______ sitlon Amelanchler alnlfolla Artemisia cana A. dracunculus A. frlglda A. trldentata Chrysothamnus nauseosus Eurotla lanata Gutlerrlzla sarothrae Plnus ponderosa Prunus ylrginiana Rhus trllobata .25 3.75 3.17 — 17.50 14.86 — 34.88 36.52 .13 .13 .25 .23 3.63 5.09 .13 .11 9.75 17.22 — — .13 .11 — — — 7.88 11.05 — —— — 1.75 3.09 — — 3.13 2.65 — 2.00 1.70 25.13 21.34 Rosa arkansana R. woods!! Symphoricarpos occldentalis 13.00 11.04 1.13 74.25 .63 41.48 3.13 39.25 2.86 35.93 Forbs Achillea millefolium 1.50 2.65 — _ _ 2.50 2.12 11.00 6.15 3.88 3.55 Ambrosia psilostachya Androsace occldentalis Antennaria species Artemisia ludoviciana Arnica sororia Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus Astragalus species Cerastium arvense Cirsium undulatum Collomia linearis Collinsia parvifIora Conyza canadensis 6.38 3.56 6.00 5.49 .63 .53 .22 2.88 2.44 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 24A 25A 30A 31A 37A 40A Forbs Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo- Cover sition Compo- Cover sition Compo­ sition Echinacea pallida — Erlgeron dIvergens — ErvsImum aspemm Gaura cocclnea Glycyrrhlza lepldota Grlndelia squarrosa — — 1.38 2.43 — — .88 .74 — — — — Hedeoma hispida — — — — — — — — — — — — Lactuca serrlola — — .13 .22 .13 .18 — — — — — — Lepldium denslflcrum Liatris punctata — — .13 .22 Lithospermum ruderale Luplnus argenteus — — — — — — — — .75 .42 — — Luplnus species — — — — — — — — — — — — Lygodesmla Iuncea — — — — — — — — — — — — Medicago sativa — — — — — — — — 2.88 1.61 — — Monarda fistulosa — — — — — — — — — -- — — Oenothera serrulata Opuntla polyacantha .75 .79 — — .75 1.05 — — — — — — Orthocarpus luteus — — — — Petalostemon purpureum — — — — — — 3.13 2.65 — — — — Phlox species — — — — — — — — — — — Plantago purshii — — — — .25 .35 .25 .76 — — — — Psoralea a rgophylla — — — — — — — — — — — — Ratlhida columnifera — .13 •ii Solldago missourlensis — — — — — — — — — — — — Solidago species — — — — — — 1.13 .96 — — — — Sphaeralcea cocclnea .38 .39 — — .63 .88 — — — — — — Taraxacum officinale — — .38 . 66 — — — — — — .13 .ii Tragopogon d ublus 4.63 4.84 — — .88 1.23 3.13 2.65 — — .50 .46 Vlcia americana — — — — — — — — .38 .21 — — Yucca glauca — — — — — — — - ■ — — — — Unknown forbs — — .13 .22 .51 .71 — — — — — — APPENDIX TABLE I (CONTINUED) Grasses and Sedges____ Agropyron dasystachyum A. smlthli A. splcatum Andropogon scoparlus Bouteloua ourtlpendula B. gracilis Bromus Iaponicus jS. marginatus B^. teetotum Bucfaloe dactyloides Calmagrostis montanensis Calamovilfa longifolia Carex filifolia C. pensylvanica Carex species Festuca idahoensis Koeleria cristata Mufalenbergia cuspidata Poa pratensis P. seeunda Stipa comata S^. viridula Other Litter Bare ground Lichen Moss Rock Erosion pavement 24A 25A 30A 31A 37A 40A Cover Compo— Cover Compo— Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- _____ sition______ sition______sit ion_____sition______sition______sition 1.25 2.21 — — 6.50 5.52 — .50 .52 29.50 52.10 3.50 4.91 .63 .53 .25 .14 2.25 2.06 .88 .92 .13 .22 .88 1.23 4.50 4.71 1.88 3.31 1.00 1.40 .38 .32 .50 .28 — — — — — — — — — 15.13 8.45 — — .50 .52 23.25 24.35 19.00 26.67 — — — — — 33.30 30 _ _ 1.88 1.59 .88 .49 7.15 6 6.13 6.41 1.75 3.09 23.50 32.98 5.25 4.46 — — — — —— 6.13 10.82 — — 18.75 15.92 62.75 35.06 12.50 11 — — — — .38 .66 — — — — — — — — 19.00 19.90 — — — 8.75 12.28 — — .13 .22 — 5.38 4.56 2.63 1.47 .75 69.88 16.25 50.00 45.38 81.25 89.50 4.00 — 43.38 — 12.63 — — 19.63 — .25 — .75 — 12.88 — — 1.13 — 3.63 — .25 — — — — .25 — — — — .13 — — .38 — 1.88 — — — — .13 — — — — — .13 — 1.75 — 1.13 .25 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 47A 50A 5IA 51B 55A 56A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Shrubs and Trees_________________ sltion______ sitlon______sition_____sition______sitlon______sltlon Amelanchier alnifolia — — — — — — — — — — — — Artemisia cana 18.00 12.34 .13 .16 2.75 8.40 1.00 2.90 .75 .80 — — A. dracunculus A. frigida — — .38 .49 .38 1.15 — — — — .13 A. tridentata Chrysothanmus nauseosus Eurotia lanata Gutierrieia sarothrae Pinus ponderosa Prunus virgin!ana Rhus trilobata Rosa arkansana 2.25 1.54 — R. wood8Ii .88 .60 Symphoricarpos occidentalis .38 .26 Forbs Achillea millefolium 4.13 2.83 6.38 8.39 .75 2.29 .25 .72 .25 .27 — — Ambrosia psilostachya 2.38 2.53 8.13 14 Androsace occidentalis Antennaria species Artemisia ludoviclana 2.00 1.37 — — — — — — 1.25 1.33 — — Arnica sororia .13 .09 — Aster species .88Astragalus crassicarpus 1.15 Astragalus species — — .13 . 13 — Cerastium arvense 1.75 1.20 4.25 5.59 — — — — .50 .53 — — Cirsium undulatum .88 .60 — — — — — — .13 .13 — — Collomia linearis APPENDIX TABLE I (CONTINUED) Forbs 47A 50A 5IA 51B 55A 56B Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- _____ sitlon______ sltion______sitlon_____ sltlon______sltion______sit ion Colllnsla parv!flora Conyza canadensis RrMnacea pallida Erlgeron divergens Erysimum asperum Gaura cocclnea Glycyrrhiza lepldota Grlndella squarrosa Hedeona~Klspida Lactuca serrlola Lepldium denslflofum Llatris punctata Llthospermum ruderale Luplnus argenteus Luplnus species Lygodesmla juncea Medicago saliva Monarda- flstnlosa Jenothera serrulata Opuntla polyacantha Orthocarpus luteus Petalostemon purpureum Phlox species Plantago purshil Psoralea argophylla Ratlbida columnIfera Solldago mlssouriensls Solldago species Sphaeralcea cocclnea Taraxacum officinale Tragopogon dubius Vicla americana Yucca glauca Unknown forbs 1.00 1.32 — .38 .26 2.00 2.63 .50 1.53 .25 .17 .38 .49 — 36.38 24.94 — — — .25 .17 1.25 1.64 — .13 .38 .13 .16 — — — .13 .38 .13 .22 25 .27 — 13 .13 .38 .67 — .25 .45 I 0 VO1 .88 .60 .63 .43 .75 .99 .38 .40 — Z .38 .49 .25 .76 .88 .60 — — — — - - .38 .40 .13 .22 — — .75 .99 .13 .09 — — — — - - 4.88 5.19 — — .88 .60 — — .13 .38 - - — — .25 .45 — — 6.88 9.05 .63 1.91 - - — — — — 2.00 1.37 .25 .33 .38 .40 .13 .09 .38 .49 1.63 4.71 ___ ___ APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 47A 50A 5 LA 51B 55A 56A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo-■ Grasses and Sedges sition st ion sition sition sition sition Agropyron dasystachyam A. smithii 3.75 2.57 15.25 20.07 18.13 55.34 29.25 84.78 .50 .53 2.38 4.24 A. spicatum — — — — — — — — 3.38 3.59 .88 1.56 Andropogon scoparius — — — — — — — — 62.63 66.62 — —— Bouteloua curtipendula — 35.88 64.06 B. gracilis — — 20.13 26.48 — — — — 1.00 1.06 — — Bromus Iaponicus 1.75 1.20 1.88 2.47 3.75 11.45 .63 1.81 1.63 1.73 1.63 2.90 B. marqinatus —— — —— —— B. tectorym .25 .17 .63 .82 .38 1.15 — — — — —— —— Buchloe dactyloides — —— Calmagrostis montanensis — — — —— Calamovilfa longifolia —— — — Carex filifolia — — C. pensyIvanica 10.63 7.28 .88 1.15 — — — — .13 .13 —— — Carex species Festuca idahoensis 45.63 31.28 5.38 7.07 — — — — —— — —— —— Festuca octoflora — — .13 .16 — — —— — Koeleria cristata 1.63 1.11 1.75 2.30 3.25 3.46 .13 .22 Muhlenbergia cuspidata 3.63 6.47 Poa pratensis — — .75 .99 — — .13 .36 5.38 5.72 1.88 3.35 P. secunda .13 .09 2.13 2.80 4.88 14.89 1.63 4.71 .88 .93 —— — — Stipa comata 1.88 1.29 1.00 1.32 3.50 3.72 .25 .45 S. viridula 7.13 4.88 Other Litter 74.88 — 34.00 — 17.13 — 13.50 — 66.75 — 42.88 —— Bare ground .88 — 8.13 — 39.13 — 65.25 — 2.38 —— 4.25 — — Lichen .25 — 3.00 — 1.88 — .63 — .25 — 1.00 —— Moss .38 — — .75 — 7.50 —— —— —— .13 —— —— —— Rock .13 — .75 — 27.50 — Erosion pavement — — — — .25 — 1.63 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) Shrubs and Trees 58A Cover Compo­ sition 58B 59A 60A 60B 62A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo­ sition______sition_____ sition______sition______sit ion Amelanchier alnifolia Artemisia cana 4.63 6.11 — — .38 .67 — — — — — — A. dracunculus — — 14.75 11.29 — — 3.50 4.51 — — — — A. friglda — — — — — — — .25.31 A. tridentata — — — — — — — — — — Chrysothamnus nauseosus — — Eurotia lanata — — Gutierrizia sarothrae — — Pinus ponderosa — — Prunus virginIana — — Rhus trilobata — — Rosa arkansana 5.75 7.59 R. woodsii — — Symphoricarpos occidentalls 7.50 9.90 Forbs Achillea millerolium Ambrosia psilostachya Androsace occidentalls Antennaria species Artemisia ludoviciana Arnica sororia Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus Astragalus species Cerastium arvense Cirsium undulatum Collomia linearis 3.13 4.13 — — 15.50 27.87 — — 4.13 5.45 — — 4.50 8.09 — — — — — — — .13 .22 .88 1.13 — APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 58A 58B 59A 60A 60B 62A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Forbs_________________ ________ s it ion______ sition______sit ion_____ sition______sition______sition Collinsia parvifIora Conyza canadensis Echlnacea pallida Erigeron divergens Erysimum asperum Gaura cocclnea Glycyrrhiza lepldota Grindelia squarrosa Hedeoma hispida Lactuca serriola Lepidium densif lor um Liatris punctata Lithospermum ruderale Lupinus argenteus Lupinus species Lygodesmia juncea Medicago sativa Monarda fistulosa Oenothera serrulata Opantia polyacantha Orthocarpus luteus Petalostemon purpureum Phlox species Plantago purshii Psoralea argophylla Ratibida columnifera Solidago missouriensis Solldago species Sphaeralcea cocclnea Taraxacum officinale Tragopogon dubius Vicia americana Yucca glauca Unknown forbs .13 .17 .25 .45 — — 5.25 9.44 — — .50 .66 — — .25 .45 — — — — — — .13 .10 — — — — .13 .12 — .13 .10 — — — 1.63 1.24 — — — — — — .25 .31 5.38 7.10 — — .38 .67 — — — — — — 3.38 4.46 — — — — — — >75 .69 — — .25 .33 .13 .10 — — .25 .32 .25 .23 — .50 .66 .50 .38 — .63 .83 — — .63 1.12 — — — — .25 .31 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) Grasses and Sedges 5 BA Cover Compo­ sition 58B Cover Compo­ sition 59A 6OA 60B 62A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo­ sition sition sition sition Agropyron dasystachyum A. smithii 1.25 1.65 3.88 2.97 .63 1.12 1.63 2.03 A. spicatum — — — — 5.25 9.44 — — — — — — Andropogon scoparius — Bouteloua curtipendula — — — — — — — B. gracilis 1.13 1.49 .88 .67 1.00 1.80 1.50 1.87 Bromus Iaponicus 12.63 16.67 20.00 15.31 9.00 16.18 3.00 3.86 — — 4.00 4.99 B. marginatus — — B. tectorym 4.13 5.45 56.63 43.35 8.15 14.61 1.38 1.77 — — .88 1.09 Buchloe dactyloides — — — — — — — — — — .88 1.09 Calmagrostis montanensis — — — — — Calamovilfa longifolia — — — — — — 36.25 46.70 73.63 68.17 — — Carex filifolia — — 18.50 14.16 — — 30.00 38.65 .13 .12 51.25 63.96 C. pensyIvanica 2.50 3.30 — — 1.13 2.02 Carex species — — — Festuca idahoensis 17.75 23.43 — — — — — — Festuca octoflora — — — — — — Koeleria cristata .13 .17 — — .25 .45 — — — — .13 .16 Muhlenbergia cuspidata — Poa pratensis — — — 33.13 30.67 — — P. secunda .25 .33 — — .25 .45 — Stipa comata — — 13.50 10.33 1.88 3.37 2.38 3.06 — — 19.13 23.87 S. viridula Other Litter 42.88 —— 90.75 — 29.13 — — 77.63 — 96.25 — 69.50 — Bare ground 17.75 — .13 — 15.63 — 5.50 — — — 11.50 — Lichen 1.38 — 2.50 — 3.25 .50 — Moss 18.38 1.63 — Rock — — — — 11.75 Erosion pavement — — APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 62B 62C 6 2D 64A 67A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Shrubs and Trees________________________ sitlon_______ sition______ sition______ sitlon______ sitlon Amelanchler alnlfolia — — — — — — — — — — Artemisia cana — — — — — — 11.88 13.21 16.50 12.21 A. dracunculus —— — .88 .98 — — — — — — A. frigida 1.00 1.02 .13 .14 — — — — .25 .19 A. trldentata — — — — — — — — — Chrysothamnus nauseosus — — — — — — — — — — Eurotla lanata — — — — — — — — — — Gutierrl zia sarothrae — — — — — — — — — — Plnus ponderosa — — — — — — Prunus vlrRlniana — — — — — — — — — — Rhus trilobata — — — — — — — — — — Rosa arkansana — — — — — — — — — R. woodsll — — — — — — — — — Symphoricarpos occidentalls — — — — — — — — — — Forbs Achillea millefolium Ambrosia psllostachya Androsace occidentalls Antennaria species Artemisia ludovlclana Arnica sororla Aster species Astragalus crassicgrpus Astragalus species Cerastlum arvense Cirsium undulatum Collomia linearis Colllnsla parylflora Conyza canadensis Echinacea pallida Erigeron dlvergens Erysimum asperum .25 .28 — — 2,38 2.64 7.88 5,83 • 13 .13 — — .13 .14 — 1.13 1.21 .25 .28 .88 .97 APPENDIX TABLE I (CONTINUED) 62B 62C 62D 64A 67A Forbs Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Cover Compo­ sition Gaura coccinea _ Glycrryhiza lepidota — Grindelia squarrosa — Hedeoma hispida — — — — — — Lactuca serriola 22.50 22.90 21.63 24.20 27.88 29.89 Lepidium densifloruo — — — — — — — — — Liatris punctata — — — — — — — — Llthospemm ruderale — — — — — Lupinus argenteus — — — — Lupinus species — — — — — — — — Lysodesmla .Iuncea 5.25 5.34 8.88 9.93 2.38 2.55 — — — — Medicago sativa — — — — — Monarda flstulosa — — — — — Oenothera serrulata — Opuntia polyacantha .88 .89 — — .88 .94 Orthocarpus luteus — — • 25 . 28 Petalostemon purpureum — — Phlox species — — — — Plantago purshil — — — — — .25 . 28 Psoralea argophylla — — — — — .13 .14 Ratibida columnifera — — — — — Solidago missourlensis Solidago species — — — — — Sphaeral coccinea — — .38 .42 — — .13 .14 — — Taraxacum officinale 1.63 1.65 — — Tragopogon dubius .88 .89 .75 .84 — — .25 .28 — — Vicia americana — — — — Yucca glauca — — — — Dnknown forbs — — — .13 .09 APPENDIX TABLE I. (CONTINUED) 62B 62C 62D 64A 67A Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Cover Compo- Grasses and Sedges sitlon sition sition sition sition Agropyron dasystachyum A. smith!I .75 .76 2.38 2.66 1.50 1.61 2.38 2.64 4.63 3.42 A. spicatum — — — — — — — — —— —— Andropogan scoparius — — — — — — — — — —— Bouteloua curtipendula — — — — — — — —— —— — — B. gracilis — — .75 .84 2.25 2.41 3.25 3.62 —— —— Bromus Japonicus 9.75 9.92 14.25 15.94 13.13 14.08 .63 .70 .25 .19 B. marginalus — — — — — — — — — —— B. tectorum — — 13.13 14.69 .75 .80 — — — —— Buchloe dactyloides — — — — — Calamagrostis montanesls — — — — — — .75 .83 — — Calamovilfa longifolia — — — — — — — — —— —— Carex filifolia 17.88 18.19 12.63 14.13 27.38 29.36 — — — — — C. pensyIvanica — — — — — — 11.38 12.66 — — — Carex species — — — — — — — — —— — — Festuca idahoensis — — — — —— — 53.38 59.39 —— _ Festuca octoflora — — — — — —— — — —— —— Koeleria cristata 4.13 4.20 4.00 4.48 —— — 1.25 1.39 — — — Muhlenbergia cuspidata — — — — —— — — — — —— Poa pratensis — — .13 .14 2.38 2.55 — — 58.13 43.02 P. secunda .13 .13 — — — — .13 .14 —— — Stipa comata 33.50 34.10 9.25 10.35 13.50 14.48 — — — — — — S. viridula — — — — — — .25 .28 47.38 35.06 Others Litter 78.13 69.00 70.25 34.50 92.50 Bare ground 3.63 4.25 4.75 7.75 — Lichen 4.38 2.38 3.13 10.63 —— Moss — — .13 ' .13 Rock — — —— —— —— Erosion pavement — — — — —— 76- -77- APPENDIX TABLE II. PHENOLOGICAL PROFILE OF McRAE KNOLLS STUDY SITE, 1976 June June July Aug Sept Nov 4 22 20 24 28 6 SHRUBS & TREES Acer negundo 11 Artemisia cana Si/ 6 6 10 13 A. dracunculus 5 5 6 6 11 13 A. frigida 5 6 6 7 10 15 A. tridentata 5 5 11 13 Atriplex nuttallii 5 6 11 11 12 Chrysothamnus nauseosus 5 6 7 10-11 12-13 Eurotia lanata 6 6 12 12 12 15 Fraxinus pennsyIvanica 5 5 Gutierrizea sarothrae . 5 6 7 H 13 Juniperus scopulorum 6 Prunus virginiana 12 12 12 13 13 15 Rhus trilobata 12 12 12 12 13 15 Ribes species 11 11 13 15 Rosa arkansana 11 12 13 R. woodsii 11 11 12 13 15 Shepherdia argentea 11 6 13 15 Symphoricarpos occidentalis 6 6 11 11 11 15 FORBS Achillea millefolium 6 9 11 12 13 15 Allium textile 11 11 13 Ambrosia psilostachya 5 . 6 6 9 12 Antennaria species 12 13 13 13 Arabis holboellii 11 11 12 16 Artemisia ludoviciana 5 6 5 12 15 Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus 10 11 13 13 Astragalus species 11 Calochortus nuttallii 9 11 13 13 13 Camelina sativa 10-11 11 12 16 Castilleia sessiliflora 11 13 Chrysopsis villosa 5 6 10 13 13 Cirsium undulatum '5 5 12&3 13&3 11&3 16 Comandra umbellata 12 13 13 Delphinium bicolor 11 Echinacea pallida 5 6 10 12 13 . 15 Erigeron divergens 9 9 9 I/ Codes correspond to phonological stages on Table 7. -78- APPENDIX TABLE II. (CONTINUED) June June July Aug Sept Nov 4 22 20 24 28 6 FORBS (cent.) Eriosonum annuum 7 8 12&3 10 Eriogonum species Erysimum asperum 10 6 16 16 Evolvulus pilosa 5 13 Gaura coccinea . 8 9 11 13 13 Glycyrrhiza lepidota 11 Grindelia squarrosa 6 10&3 10 16 Helianthus annuus 9 11 12 16 Lactuca pulchella 8 11 L. serriola 5 ■ ' 5 6 12 16 Leucocrinum montanum 13 13 Liatris punctata 5 6 10 12 16 Linum perenne 8 11 12 13 13 Lithospermum incisum 11 12 12 Lygodesmia iuncea 6 6 11 13 13 15 Medicago sativa 6 11 12 13 Melilotus alba 9 12 M. officinalis 5 8 10 16 Oenothera serrulata 9 10 0. fragilis 6 Opuntia polyacantha 6 10 11 13 15 15 Oxytropis besseyi Penstemon albidus 8 9 12 13 14 Petalostemon purpureum 6 6 11 11 Phlox species 13 13 13 13 Plantago purshii 9 ■6 Polygala alba 7-12 13 15 Potentilla species 11 13 13 Psoralea argophylla 6 6 11 13 . 13 Ratibida columnifera . 6 10 12 13 15 Senecio cams 8 ■ 10 13 Solidago missouriensis 5 6 8 10 . 11 Solidago species 6 6 10 12 Sphaeralcea coccinea 8 8 13 13 13 Taraxacum officinale 12 13 Tradescantia occidentalis .7 10 Tragopogon dubius 10 12 13&3 16 16 16 Vicia americana 9 13 Yucca glauca 5 13 13 .13 14 Zigadenus venenosus 11 11 13 APPENDIX TABLE II. (CONTINUED) June June July Aug Sept ■ Nov 4 22 20 24 28 6 GRASSES Agropyron smithii . 5 5 5 5 11 15 A. 'spicatum 7 8 12 13 .. 13 15 Andropogon scoparius 5 5 6 .11 13 15 Aristida longiseta 7 11 12 12 15 Bouteloua curtipendula 9 12 15 B. gracilis 5 :• I 5 11 12 12 15 Brotnus japonicus 9 9 16 16 ’ 16 16 B. tectorum 10 11 16 16 16 16 Calamovilfa longifolia 5 5 6 . 12 12 15 Carex filifolia 13 . 13 13 13 13 15 . Elymus canadensis 8 8 Festuca octdflora 8 Koeleria cristata . 8 11 12 14 13 14 Muhlenbergia cuspidata 6 8 11 12 15 Oryzopsis hymenoides 15 Poa secunda 13 P. pratensis 8 11 13 13 13 14 Sporobolus cryptandrus 12 . 12 Stipa comata 7 7 12 13 13 . 15 S. viridula 11 12 13 . 13 15 . I' -80- APPENDIX TABLE III. PHENOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE HALFWAY RESERVOIR STUDY SITE, 1976. June June July Aug Sept Nov 2 22 22 26 29 7 SHRUBS & TREES Acer negudo Amelanchier alnifolia 12 111/ 11-12 13 Artemisia cana 5 5 5 6 11 13 A. dracunculus 5 5 ' 5. . 6 11 A. frigIda 5 5 6 11 13 A. tridentata 13 Chrysothamnus nauseosus 6 8 9-12 11 12-13 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5 5 Gutierrezia sarothrae 5 6 8 9-10 11 15 Juniperus horizontalis 12 J. scopulorum 12 Prunus americana 11 Prunus virginiana 12 12 11 12 13 15 Rhus tfilobata 11 11 11 12-13 13 15 Ribes species 11 11 12 13 14 Rosa arkansana 5 9 11 11 11 15 Rosa woodsii 11 11 11 11 15 Symphoricarpos occidentalis 6 7 11 11 12 15 FORBS Achillea millefolium 5-6 9 10 . 12 13 15 Allium textile 10 11 13 Ambrosia psilostachya 6 6 12 12 Antennaria species 13 13 13 13 .15 Arabis holboellii 11 12 13 13 Arnica sororia 5-9 10 13 13 Artemisia ludoviciana 5 5 5 6 . 11 15 Asclepias species 6 Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus 9 5 11 9 Astragalus drummondii 6 13 Berberis repens Besseya wyomingensis 13 13 13 I/ Codes correspond to phenology stages on Table 7. - 81- T o o S d P C L bk.xj DDDe yw^GbDGHjVY June June July Aug Sept Nov 2 22 22 26 29 7 FORBS (cont.) Calochortus nuttallii 10 13 13 Camelina microcarpa 11 Cerastium arvense .10 13 13 13 13 15 Chrysopsis villosa 8 10 9-12 . 13 Cirsium arvense 7 12 C. undulatum 5-6 5 3 13 3 C. vulgare 9-12 12 15 Collomia linearis 8 10 13 Comandra umbellata 10 13 Conyza canadensis 8 Crepis acuminata 8 12 Descurainia sophia 10-11 Dodecatheon conjugens 13 13 Echinacea pallida 5 10 15 12 15 Erigeron divergens 9 9 12&3 Erysimum asperum 11 Galium species 9 Gaura coccinea 8 13 Geum triflorum 13 13 13. Glycyrrhiza lepidota 5 9-11 12 12 Grindelia squarrosa 6 6 8-10 11 Hedeoma Mspida 15 Heliahthella uniflora 6 13 15&16 Lactuca serriola 6 Lesquerella alpina 8 Leucocrinum montanum 13 13. 13 Liatris punctata 8 10-11 12 Linum perenne 13 13 Lupinus argenteus 6 7 10 13 13 Lygodesmia juncea 6 12 Monarda fistulosa 10 12 Opuntia fragilis 6 Orthocarpus luteus 6 7 10 16 16 16 Oxytropis sericea 13 Petalostemon purpureum 8 Phlox species 13 13 13 Plantago purshii 11 16 16 16 Polygala alba Potentilla arguta 5-6 10 — 82— APPENDIX TABLE III. (CONTINUED) June 2 June 22 July 22 Aug 26 Sept 29 Nov 7 FORBS (cont.) Potentilla species 9 Psoralea argophylla 6 10 12-13 13 P. esculenta 7 11 11 13 15 P. tenuifIora 5 Ratibida columnifera 6 10 11 12 15 Senecio canus 10 Solidago missouriensis 5 7 11 15 Sphaeralcea coccinea 5 13 13 Taraxacum officinale 13 13 13 Tragopogon dubius 6 15&3 16&13 16 16 Yucca glauca 5 5 5 13 13 15 Zigadenus venenosus 9 13 13 13 GRASSES Andropogon gerardi 9 12 12 15 A. scoparius 5 5 7 12 12 15 Agropyron trachycaulum 12 A. smith!! 5 5 5 12 15 A. spicatum 6 8 12 12-13 13 15 Aristida longiseta 5 9 12 12 15 Bouteloua curtipendula 5 5 9 12 12 15 B. gracilis 11 12 12 15 Bromus japonicus 10 12 16 16 16&2 B. tectorum 8 12 12 16 16 16&2 Calamagrostis montanensis 13 Calamovilfa longifolia 5 5 8 12 12 15 Carex eleocharis 12 C. filifolia 13 13 13 : 13 15 C. pensyIvanica 5-8 13 13 13 13 15 Festuca idahoensis 8 9 13 13 13 15 Hordeum jubatum 11 Koeleria cristata 12 12 13 13 14 Muhlenbergia cusp!data 7 13 Phleum pratense 11 Poa pratensis 9 12 12 13 14 P. secunda 10 11 13 13 13 14 Stipa comata 7 12 12 12 15 S. viridula 7 12. 12-13 13 15 APPENDIX TABLE IV. PERCENT COMPOSITION (PERCENTAGE) FOR HALFWAY RESERVOIR AND McRAE ____________________KNOLLS STUDY SITES, 1 9 7 6 _________________________ Shrubs and Trees 0i4LO 35A 35B 35C 35D 35E 37B 42A 43A 43B 43C 44A 44B 44C Artemisia cana __ _ __ Tl/ 5 T T 5 A. figida — — T Crataegus Columbiana — — — — — — — — T — Prunus americana — — — — — — — — — — — T 15 — P. virginiana — — 5 — — T — — T — Bibies species 90 T 20 — T — — 30 5 40 30 T T — Rosa woods!! T 90 65 80 70 70 T T 40 10 30 30 40 40 Rhus trilobata — — — — — — — — — — — T — —— Symphoricarpos occidentalis 5 5 5 10 20 20 90 60 40 40 30 50 40 40 Forbs Achillea millefolium — T — T T T T — T T T Ambrosia psilostachya — — — — T — — — Artemisian ludovlciana T — — T T T T — T — — T T — Aster species — T — — — — — — — — — — — T Berberis repens — — — — — — — — — — — T — — Cerastium arvense — 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cirsium arense — — T Cirsium vulgare — — T — — — — — — Cirsium species — — — T — — Heracleum lanatum — T T Monarda fistulosa — T T T T T 5 T —— Polygonum bistortoides — — — — — — T — — — — Potentilla species — — T Psoralea argophvlla — — — — — — T T — — — — — — Sphaeralcea coccinea — — — — — — T — Tragopogon dubius — — — — — — — T T — — T — — Grasses and Sedges Agropyron smithii T — T — T T T T — T T A. trachycaulum —— T T T T — — T T — T T T — Bromus inermis — — — -- — — — T T T B. marinatus — T — — — — T T T —— Calamovilfa longifolia — — — — — — — — T Carex species — — — T — — — — — — — T T — Elymus canadensis — T T — — T T — — E. cinerus —— — — — — T —— —— Poa pratensis T T T T T T 5 5 T T 5 T T T Stipa comata — — — T — — T Stipa viridula T T T T T T T T I/ Percent composition based on ocular estimation. 2/ Number and letter correspond to those in figures 13 and 21. 3/ Traces are less than 3 percent. -84- APPENDIX TABLE . V. SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION AND PERCENT MOISTURE , AT HALFWAY RESERVOIR SITE, -1976__________ ' , , Location symbols 1 ■ Texture June 2 June 19 July 16 Aug . 26 Sept . 29, Nov 7 A li/ Clay loam " 30 44 2 40 ■ 5 ■ 31 A 2 Clay loam 38 54 3 52 7 . 30 A 3 Loam 47 62 2 , 60 " 7 A 4 Loam 26 49 2 38 12 29 A 5 Silty clay loam 9 29 3 42 3 10 A 6 Loam 30 38 4 54 3 18 A 7 Loam 19 9 2 37 3 14 A 8 Silty loam 30 25 2 42 4 23 A 9 Clay loam 27 18 2 26 3 13. A 10 Loam 33 41 3 37 7 Hard Pan West loam. I 24 I 3 Hard Pan East loam I 28 ; I ... 4 I/ Symbols are located on figure 4. ‘ - . . ■ -85- APPENDIX TABLE VI. SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION AND PERCENT MOISTURE AT McRAE KNOLLS SITE, 1976 Location symbols Texture June 4 June 19 July 16 Aug—/ Sept 28 Nov 6 B 1—/ Sandy loam 2 12 I 5 ■ ' 7 B 2 Sandy loam I 10 I . 2 . 3 B 3 Sandy loam I . 5 I I 2 B 4 Sandy loam 6 20 2 4 9 B 5 Silty clay 2 15 . 2 2 8 B 6 Silty loam 2 12 2 I 3 B 7 Sandy loam I 11 I 9 5 B 8 Loam 3 17 2 8 B 9 Clay loam 2 6 2 5 I/ Precipitation following the August 25 aerial mission prevented the collection of soil samples. 2/ Symbols are located on figure 11. APPENDIX TABLE VII. SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF RANGE PLANTS Scientific name_______ „ _______ Authority Common name Grasses and Sedges Asropyron dasystachyumi/ (Hook.) Scribn. thickspike wheatgrassE/ A. smithii Rydb. western wheatgrass A. spicatum (Pursh) Scribn. & Smith bluebunch wheatgrass Andropogon scoparius Michx. little bluestem Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. sideoats grama B. gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. blue grama Bromus iaponicus Thumb. Japanese brome B. marginatus (Piper) Hitchc. mountain brome B. tectorum L. cheatgrass brome Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) Engelm. common buffalograss Calmagrostis montanensis (Scribn.) Scribn. plains reedgrass Calamovilfa longifolia (Hook.) Scribn. prairie sandreed Carex filifolia Nutt. threadleaf sedge C. pensylvanica Lam.. penn sedge Carex species Festuca idahoensis Elmer sedge Idaho fescue Festuca octoflora Walt. sixweeks fescue Koeleria cristata Pers. prairie junegrass Muhlenbergia cuspidata (Torr.) Rydb stonyhills muhly Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass P. secunda Presl. Sandberg bluegrass Stipa comata Trin. & Rupf. needle-and-thread S. viridula Tr in. green needlegrass APPENDIX TABLE VII. (CONTINUED) Scientific name Authority Common name Forbs Achillea millefolium L. Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Androsace occidentalis Pursh Antennaria species Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Arnica sororia Greene Aster species Astragalus crassicarpus Nutt. Astragalus species Cerastium arvense L. Cirsium undulatum (Nutt.) Sprang Collomia linearis Nutt. Collinsia parvifIora Lindl. Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq Echinacea pallida Nutt. Ergeron divergens T. & G. Erysimum asperum (Nutt.) DC. Gaura coccinea (Nutt.) Pursh Glycrrhiza lepidota Pursh Grindelia squarrosa (Pursh) Dunal Hedeoma hispida Pursh. Lactuca serriola L. Lepidium densiflorum Schrad. Liatris punctata Hook Lithospermum ruderale Dougl. Lupinus argenteus Pursh Lupinus species Lygodesmia juncea (Pursh) D.Doh Medicago sativa L. common yarrow western rockjasmine pussytoes Louisiana sagewort aster species groundplum milkvelch milkvelch field cerastium ■ wavyleaf thistle narrow leaved collomi smallflowered blueeyedmary Canada horseweed pale echinacea spreading fleabane plains wallflower scarlet gaura American licorice curlycup gumweed rough falsepennyroyal prickly lettuce prairie pepperweed dotted gayfeather wayside gromwell silvery lupine lupine rush skeletonplant alfalfa medic APPENDIX TABLE VII. (CONTINUED) Scientific name. Authority Common name Forbs Monarda fistulosa L. Oenothera serrulata Nutt. Opuntia polyacantha Haw. Orthocarpus luteus Nutt. Petalostemon purpureum Phlox species (Vent.) Rydb Plantago purshii R. & S. Psoralea argophylla Pursh Ratibida columnifera (Nutt.) Woot. Solidago missouriensis Solidago species Nutt. Sphaeralcea coccinea (Pursh) Rydb Taraxacum officinale Weber Tragopogon dubius Scop. Vicia americana Muhl. Yucca glauea Nutt. wild berggamot beebalm plains pricklepear yellow owlclover purple prairieclover phlox wooly plantain silverleaf scurfpea & Standi. upright prairie coneflower Missouri goldenrod goldenrod scarlet globemallow common dandelion go yellow salsify I American vetch small soapweed .APPENDIX TABLE VII. (CONTINUED) Scientific name • Authority Common name Shrubs and Trees Amelanchier alnifolia ■Nutt. Saskatoon serviceberry Artemisia cana. • Pursh silver sagebrush A. dracunculus . L. . - falsetarragon sagewort A. frigida Willd. fringed sagewort A. tridentata Nutt. big sagebrush Chrvsothamnus nauseosus (Pali.) Britt. rubber rabbitbrush Eurotia lanata (Pursh) Moq. common winterfat Gutierrizia sarothrae . (Pursh) Britt. & Rusby.. broom snakeweed • Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ponderosa pine Prunus virginiana L-. common Chokecherry Rhus trilobata Nutt. skunkbush sumac Rosa arkansana Porter Arkansas rose Ri woodsii .Lindl. Woods rose Svmohoricarpos occidentails Hook.• western snowberry I/ Scientific-names of plants are based on Booth (1972 and 1959) arid Booth.and Wright (1959). 2] Common names of plants are based on Beetle (1959). -89- LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Allen, W. A., Gausman, A. J. Richardson and J. W. Thomas. 1969. Interaction of isotropic light with a compact plant leaf. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 59:1376-1379. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1969. Standard method of specifying color by the Munsell System. Book of ASTM Standards. Part 30 D 1535-68. 21 p. American Society of Testing and Materials. 1974. Standard method . for visual evaluation of color differences of opaque material. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 29. 6 p. Bass, N. W. 1932. The Ashland Coal Field, Rosebud, Powder River and Custer Counties, Montana. U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 831. 108 p. Beetle, A. A. 1970. Recommended plant names. Wyoming Agr. Exp, Sta. Res. J. 31:124 p. Billings, W. D. and R. J. Morris. 1951. Reflection of visible and infrared radiation from leaves of different ecological groups, Amer. J. Bot 38:327-331. Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Season development and yield of native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climatic factors. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. 1190. 68 p Blaisdell, J. P. and J. F. Pechanic. 1949. Effect of herbage removal of various dates on vigor of blue bunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305. Booth, W. E. 1959. Flora of Montana. Part I, conifers and monocots. The Research Foundation of Montana State College, 232 p. Illus. Booth, W. E. 1972. Grasses of Montana. Dept. of Botany and Micro­ biology, Montana State University, 64 p. - Booth, W. E. and J. C. Wright. 1959. Flora of Montana. Part II, dicolyledons. (Revised 1966) 305 p. Mimeo. Carneggie, David M. and Jack N. Reppert. 1969. Large scale 70 mm aerial color photography. Photog, Eng. 34:249-257. . -92- Col well, Robert N. 1954. A systematic analysis of some factors affecting photographic interpretation. Photog. Eng. 20:433-454. Colwell, R. N. 1956. Determining the prevalence of certain cereal crop disease by means of aerial photography. Hilgardia 26: 223-286. Colwell, R. N. 1960. Some uses of infrared aerial photography in the management of wildland areas. Photog. Eng. 26:774-785. Colwell, R. N. 1966. Uses and limitations of multispectral remote sensing. Proc. 4th Symp. on Remote Sensing of Environment, Inst, of Sci. and Tech., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, p 71-100. CouIson, L. 1966. Effect of reflection properties of natural surface in aerial reconnaissance. Applied Opt. 5:905-917. Coupland, R. T. 1961. A reconsideration of grassland classification in the Northern Great Plains of North America. J. Ecology 49: 135-167. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canope-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northw. Sci. 33:43-64. Driscoll, R. S. 1971. Color aerial photography - a new view to range management. U. S. Dept. Agr. Rocky Mountain Forest.and Range Exp. Sta. Res. Paper RM 67. 11 p. Driscoll, R. S., J. N. Reppert, R. C. Heller, and D. M. Carneggie. 1970. Identification and measurement of herbland and shrubland vegetation from large scale aerial color photography. Proc. XI Inter. Grassland Congress. 95-98. Fritz, Norman L. 1967. Optimum method for using infrared sensitive color film. Photog. Eng. 33:1128-1138. Gates, D. M. 1967. Remote sensing for the biologist. Bioscience 17:303-307. Gates, David M. 1970. Physical and physiological properties of plants. , Remote sensing with special reference to agriculture and forestry. Nat. Acad. Sci. p. 242-252. Gates, D. M., H. J. Keegar, J. C. Schlites and V. R. Weidner. 1965. Special properties of plants. Appl. Opt. 4:11-20. -93- Gates, D. M. and W. Tentraporn.' 1952. The reflectivity of deciduous trees and herbaceous vegetation with infrared to 25 micron. Science 115:613-616. Gausman, H. W. and W. A. Allen. 1973. Optical parameters' of leaves . of 30 plant species. Plant Physiol. 52:57-62 Gausman, H. W,, W. A. Allen and R. Cardenas. 1969. Reflectance of cotton leaves and their structure. Remote Sensing Environ, 1:19-22. Gausman, H. W., W. A. Allen, R. Cardenas and A. J. Richardson. 1970. Relation of light reflection to. histogial and physical evaluation, of cotton leaf maturity (Gosypium hirsutum L.).Appl. Opt. 9:545-552. Gausman, H. W. and R. Cardenas. 1968. Effect of pubesence oh. reflec­ tance of light. Proc. 5th Symp. on Remote Sensing of Environment Inst, of Sci. and Tech., Univ. Michigan Ann Arbor. p. 291-297. Gausman, H. W. and R. Cardenas, 1969. Effect of leaf pubescence of Gynura aurantiaca on light reflectance. Bot. Gaz, 130:158-162, Gausman, H. W., R. R. Rodrquez, 'and A. J, Richardson.. 1976. Infinitive reflectance of dead compared to live vegetation. Agron. J. 68:295-296, Gernsheim, Helmut, and Alison Gernsheim. 1969. The History of Photo- Rtaphy from the Camera Obscura to the Beginning of the Modern Era. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, 599 p. Haack, P. M. 1962. Evaluating color, infrared, and panchromatic aerial photos for forest survey of interior Alaska. Photog. Eng. 28:592-598. . Haefner, Harold. 1967. Airphoto interpretation of rural land use in Western Europe. Photogram, 22:143-152. -94- Hoffer, R. M., R. A. Holmes, and J. R. Shay. 1966. Vegetative, soil, and photographic factors affecting tone in agricultural remote sensing. Proc. 4th Symp. on Remote Sensing of Environment, Inst, of Sci. and Tech., Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, p. 115-134. Hoffer, R. M. and C. J. Johannsen. 1969. Ecological potentials in spectral signature analyzer. Purdue Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull 3479. Knipling, E. 'B. 1969, . Leaf reflectance and image formation on color infrared film. Remote Sensing in Ecology, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, p. 17-29. Knipling, E. B. 1970. Physical and physiological basis for the reflectance of visible and near infrared radiation from vegetation. Remote Sensing Environment 1:155-159. Kodak Data for Aerial Photograph. 1971. Kodak Technical Pub. M-29. 80 p. Krall, J. L., J. R. Strob, C. S. Cooper and S. R. Chapman. 1971. Effects of time and extent of harvesting basin wildrye. J. Range Manage. 24:414-418. Moss, R. H. and W. E. Loomis. 1952. Absorption spectra of leaves. I. The visible.spectrum. Plant Physiol. 27:370-377. Munsell Book of Color. 1976. Munsell Color, Macbeth Div. of Kollmorgen Inc., Baltimore, Md. Munsell Color Company, Inc. 1954. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Baltimore MD. Olson, C. E., Jr. 1960. Element of photographic interpretation common to several sensors. Photog. Eng. 26:651-657. Parker, Dana C. and Michael F. Wolff. 1965. Remote Sensing. Inter. Sci. and Tech. 43:20-31. Pearman, G. L, 1966. The reflection of visible radiation from leaves of some Western Australian species. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 19:97-103. Roger, E. J. 1953. A plan for research in the field of aerial photo interpretation. Photo. Eng. 19:801-805. -95- Sayn-Wittgenstein, L. 1961. Phenological aids to species identifica­ tion on air photographs. Dept, of Forest, Canada, Forest Res. Branch, Tech. Note 104. 26 p. Shull, C. A. 1929. A spectrophotometric study of reflection of light from leaf surfaces. Bot. Gaz. 87:583-607. Sinclair, T. R., M. M. Schreeber, and R. M. Hoffer. 1973. Diffusion reflectance hypothesis for the pathways of solar radiation through leaves. Agron. J. 65:276-283. Sindelar, B. W., R. Atkinson, M. Majerus, K. Proctor. 1975. Surface mined land reclamation research at Colstrip, Montana. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 69. 9.8 p. Smith, John T. (Ed). 1968. Manual of Color Aerial Photography. Amer. Soc. of Photog. Falls Church, VA. 550 p. Stephens, Peter R. 1976. Comparison of color, color infrared and panchromatic aerial photography. Photo. Eng. and Remote Sensing 42:1273-1277. Taylor, J. E., W. C. Leininger, and R. J. Fuchs. 1975. Baseline vegetational study near Colstrip, Montana. Proc. Ft. Union Coal Field Symp., Mont. Acad. Sci. p. 537-551. Tucker, C. J. 1975. Spectral estimation of grass canopy vegetational status. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 106 p. Tucker, C. J. and E. L. Maxwell. 1976. Sensor design for monitoring vegetation canopies. Photpg. Eng. 42:1399-1410. U.S.D.A. Forst Service. 1971. Soils of the Ashland and Fort Howes Ranger Districts. Custer National Forest. 171 p. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management and Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. 1971. Soil survey Powder River Area, Montana. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Rosebud County, MT. Soil Survey (in press). Warren, W. C. 1959. Reconnaissance geology of the Birney-Brpadus coal field. Rosebud and Powder River counties, Montana. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1072. p. 561-585. -96- Weber, F. P. and C. E. Olson. 1967. Remote sensing implication of changes in physiological structure and function of tree seedling under moisture stress. Scientific and Tech. Aeospace Rep.» NASA. 67 p. Willstatter, R., and A. Stoll. 1928. Untersuchungen uber chlorophyll, (springe, Berlin, 1913). English translation by F„ M. Shertz and A. R. Hertz. Woodcock, W. E. 1976. Aerial reconnaissance and photograimnetry with small cameras. Photog. Eng. and Remote Sensing. 42:503-511. Woolley, J. T. 1971. Reflectance and transmittance of light by leaves. Plant Physiol. 47:656-662. CTATF UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 1762 1 887 4 N3T8 An224 Anderson. J. S. cop.2 Large scale aerial photography of native range transects