Local Variation in Bryophyte and Macro-lichen Cover and Diversity in Montane Forests of Western Canada

Silvicultural disturbance severity and plant communities of the southern Canadian boreal forest

“…Fennoscandian research (Gustafsson and Hallingbäck 1988, Söderström et al 1992, Berg et al 1994, Kuusinen 1994, Uliczka and Angelstam 1999 shows that non-vascular plants are at particular long-term risk from forest management practises that do not allow for recruitment of large old trees, large snags, coarse woody debris and deciduous trees and tall shrubs. In the North American boreal forest, the effects of forest practises on bryophyte and lichen communities are comparatively little studied (but see Selva 1994, Webb 1996, Crites and Dale 1997, Newmaster et al 1999, Pharo and Vitt 2000. iii) Ecologically marginal species are plants growing beyond the expected range of soil, climate, or successional conditions for the species (Schumaker and Babble 1980).…”

Towards an understanding of the management of pine-lichen woodlands in the Omineca region of British Columbia.

“…Pharo and Vitt (2000), for instance, did not find a strong correlation between canopy density and local variations in moss and lichen eover in montane forests of Alberta and speculated that early establishment events may be more important than we have previously thought. The burial of existing lichen mats through infilling by feather moss mats on our sites strongly suggests that the balance of competitive interactions between these species changes in localized mierosites late in stand development.…”

“…The processes involved appear to he complex, involving overall stand development, particularly changes in total tree biomass. Recent findings hy Pharo and Vitt (2000) further point to the role of stochastic events in determining the development of bryophyte and macro-lichen cover in local mierosites.…”

Use, selection and winter foraging patterns among woodland caribou herds in central British Columbia.

“…Energetic costs may increase for woodland caribou in winter due to higher energetic requirements for cratering (Fancy & White, 1985) and walking (Parker et al, 1984;Fancy & White, 1987) through snow. Forested stands of different species composition, canopy closure or age may influence snow characteristics (Bunnell et al, 1990a;Schaefer, 1996) and forage species or abundance (Schaefer, 1996;Pharo & Vitt, 2000;Coxson & Marsh, 2001). Management strategies may improve habitat for woodland caribou at Kennedy Siding and elsewhere if we can identify differences in forage abundance and accessibility among pine stands of different ages, and determine whether caribou respond to these potential differences.…”

“…Snow conditions (e.g., depths and hardness) and sinking depths of ungulates differ in forest stands with different canopy closure and age (Bunnell et al, 1990a;Schaefer, 1996). Similarly, ground-lichen species and abundance (Schaefer, 1996;Pharo & Vitt, 2000;Coxson & Marsh, 2001), or abundance of arboreal lichens may differ among stands.…”