1 Introduction
In 1996, the natural resource staff at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), with the assistance of researchers from the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL), embarked on a project to classify and map the distribution and occurrence of the plant communities occurring at DPG. Classification and mapping are required as part of the Planning Level Survey mandated by Army Regulation 200-3, Natural Resources-Land, Forest and Wildlife Management. The project focused on the actual vegetation rather than potential vegetation. Recent (August 1994) color infrared aerial photography of the entire installation, at a scale of 1:8,000, was available to the investigators. Because of this availability, investigators chose to map the vegetative communities at DPG through aerial photo interpretation (API). The vegetation mapping approach chosen was based on the Vegetation Mapping Program of the National Park Service and National Biological Service (currently the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Service) and closely resembled the landscape-guided approach described by Zonneveld (1988). The essential elements of this approach are API, systematic field sampling, classification of plant communities based on field data, reinterpretation of API, and final mapping and reporting (Figure 1).
The classification of plant communities from data collected in the field is a critical component of the landscape-guided approach to vegetation mapping. Field data can be classified in two different ways: a priori or derived. A priori classification requires the investigator to place surveyed plant communities into previously described classes (Küchler 1988). An a priori classification assumes that all plant communities occurring within the region being studied have been previously identified, described, and integrated into a mutually exclusive system.
Several classification systems were reviewed for possible use in this study. Systems such as: Driscoll et al. (1984), and the Federal Geographic Data Committee's National Vegetation Classification System (1996) did not provide the detail required for this study. Whereas, Shantz (1925); Fautin (1946); Gates, Stoddard, and Cook (1956); Tueller et al. (1979); Blaisdell, Murray, and McArthur (1982); Blaisdell and Holmgren (1984); West (1982, 1988); Bourgeron and Engleking 
Figure 1. Steps in the landscape-guided approach to vegetation mapping described by Zonneveld (1988).
(1992), among others, were either regional in scope or described specific plant communities for other research purposes. Vest (1962) described the biotic communities of DPG. However, the age of this classification reduced its usefulness. Since an adequate a priori classification was not available, investigators decided to derive the plant community classification for DPG.
Classification of DPG's plant communities was part of a larger effort undertaken by CERL and DPG to map and classify the plant communities at DPG (Table 1 adapted from Zonneveld [1988]). Dugway Proving Ground staff were responsible for API, field data collection, and production of final map (steps 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9). CERL's investigators' responsibilities were to derive a plant community classification from field data and report the results of the classification (steps 5 and 6).
Table 1. Major steps in the approach to mapping DPG's vegetation and how responsibilities were divided.
Steps |
Steps in Mapping Approach |
Responsibilities |
1 |
Study of Literature and References |
CERL |
2 |
Setting of Purpose/Photo Acquisition/Site Visit |
DPG/CERL |
3 |
Landscape Guided API |
DPG |
4 |
Field Survey |
DPG |
5 |
Classification of Plant Communities |
CERL |
6 |
Report on Derived Classification |
CERL |
7 |
Final Legend Preparation |
DPG |
8 |
Reinterpretation of API |
DPG |
9 |
Final Mapping and Reporting |
CERL/DPG |
Overall CERL research objectives were to:
1. Recommend scientifically accepted field data collection methods appropriate for deriving a plant community classification.
2. Use multivariate data analysis techniques to explore the plant community data and derive a detailed hierarchical classification of the plant communities occurring at DPG.
3. Report results.
Applicable field methods for collecting plant community data were reviewed in the literature. A proper field method was selected and demonstrated to staff at DPG. Staff at DPG collected field data using the method selected. The data collected by DPG was subsequently analyzed by CERL using several multivariate classification techniques. The results of the multivariate work were interpreted and a hierarchical classification of the identified plant communities developed.
This report documents: (1) the field data collection methods demonstrated by CERL and used by DPG staff to determine plant community composition, (2) the methods used in deriving a plant community classification, and (3) the results of the classification. Information contained in this report will be used by DPG staff to complete a vegetation map of the installation. Dugway Proving Ground staff will be provided copies of this report and digital copies of the summarized field data in spreadsheet format.
This report is available on the CERL web page at http://www.cecer.army.mil.
