plicata I Asarum caudatum habitat type-Asarum cauda- 

 tum phase (THPL/ASCA-ASCA); Tsuga heterophylla I 

 Clintonia uniflora habitat type-Clintonia uniflora phase 

 (TSHE/CLUN-CLUN); and Tsuga heterophylla I Asarum 

 caudatum habitat type-Asarum caudatum phase (TSHE/ 

 ASCA-ASCA). Association tables with site data and com- 

 plete species list with canopy coverage class per species 

 for this study's sample set can be found in Neiman (1986). 

 Site selection technique and rationale for field procedures 

 employed is detailed in Pfister and Arno (1980) and 

 Cooper and others (1987). Hitchcock and Cronquist 

 (1973) was the authority used for all plant nomenclature. 



Soil Data — One soil pit was dug per plot at an undis- 

 turbed point representative of each stand. Minimum data 

 collected were complete horizonation description (UDSA 

 SCS 1981) and assessment of local parent materials. The 

 set of samples utilized for this study contained 18 sepa- 

 rately identified parent materials (table 1). Depth of pits 

 was generally to the first or second C horizon. Time and 

 cost constraints did not allow for excavation to bedrock, or 

 for classification on site to soil family (USDA SCS 1975). 

 Approximately a 1 -liter sample of each horizon was col- 

 lected and returned for laboratory analysis. This analysis 

 consisted of: a verification of tactile textural classification 

 for each horizon; assessment of moist and dry colors un- 

 der ideal conditions; sieving of samples to determine per- 

 centage gravel content by weight; and measurement of 

 pH, using a 1:1 ratio soihwater paste. Because the focus 

 of this study was on field-identifiable characteristics of 

 both vegetation and soil, no nutrient analyses were 

 performed. 



Table 1— Parent materials associated with sub- 

 set of soil-vegetation samples selected 

 for analysis 



Rock origin 



Parent material 



Sedimentary 



Sandstone 





Siltstone 





Shale 



Metamorphic 



Argillite 





Quartzite 





Phyllite 





Schist 





Mica schist 





Gneiss 





Biotite gneiss 



Igneous 



Basalt 





Quartz monzonite 





Granite 





Biotite granite 



Miscellaneous 



Alluvium, mixed 





Glacial till, mixed 





Volcanic ash 





Sedimentary, mixed 





Loess 



Analytical Procedures 



Vegetation Data — Analysis of the vegetation data was 

 performed during the original classification study (Cooper 

 and others 1987) using accepted vegetation ordination 

 techniques. But all plots were reassessed as to their origi- 

 nal classification to habitat type and phase. 



Soil Data — The hypothesis tested was that soil taxo- 

 nomic classifications (USDA SCS 1975) have no ecological 

 meaning when applied to forest soil-forest vegetation 

 relationships. A subset of 50 soils formed from coarse- 

 textured parent materials (for example, glacial drift, gran- 

 ite, gneiss, and sandstone) was classified to family taxo- 

 nomic level by three soil scientists currently active in 

 classification and mapping of soils within the study area 

 (appendix A). These soil taxonomic units were then used 

 to analyze soil -vegetation relationships. 



The numerical pattern analysis concentrated on physi- 

 cal characteristics generally identifiable in the field (per 

 instructions in Fosberg and Falen 1983) by non-soil scien- 

 tist personnel. Individual soil characteristics were quan- 

 tified for computer analysis and the data entered in an 

 association table format. The initial data set consisted of 

 the following 27 variables for each soil horizon in the 

 vertical sequum: 



1. Sequential horizon number - numbered as 1, 2, 3. . 



2. Horizon genetic designation - USDA SCS (1981) 



3. Depth - to base of horizon in centimeters 



4. Boundary - Soil Survey Staff (1981) 



5. Dry color - Hue - Munsell (1975) 



6. Dry color - Value - Munsell (1975) 



7. Dry color - Chroma - Munsell (1975) 



8. Moist color - Hue - Munsell (1975) 



9. Moist color -Value - Munsell (1975) 



10. Moist color - Chroma - Munsell (1975) 



11. Structural Grade - USDA SCS (1981) 



12. Structural Size - USDA SCS (1981) 



13. Structural Shape - USDA SCS (1981) 



14. Texture - Gravel - presence/absence coding 



15. Texture - % Clay - percentage from textural 

 triangle 



16. Texture - % Silt - percentage from textural 

 triangle 



17. Texture - % Sand - percentage from textural 

 triangle 



18. Available Water Capacity (AWC) - calculated as a 

 function of textural water holding capacity (USDA SCS 

 1972), horizon depth, presence of volcanic ash, and per- 

 centage of coarse fragments per horizon 



19. Root abundance - Size fine (USDA SCS 1981) 



20. Root abundance - Size medium (USDA SCS 1981) 



21. Root abundance - Size coarse (USDA SCS 1981) 



22. Coarse fragments - Percent gravel by weight 



23. Coarse fragments - Percent cobble by volumetric 

 estimate 



24. Coarse fragments - Percent stone by volumetric 

 estimate 



25. pH - 1:1 soihwater paste 



26. Parent material 1 - coding for parent material 



27. Parent material 2 - coding for parent material. 



4 



