The only data I have for habitat types common to more than one geographic area are 

 tabulated below, for planted trees only: 



Habitat type Area 1 Area 3 



(Percent ^stocking ) 



Pseudotsuga mensiesii/Physocarpus malvaceus 



(Douglas-f ir/ninebark) 

 Pseudotsuga menziesii/Calamagrostis rubescens 



(Douglas-f ir/pinegrass) 

 Abies lasiooarpa/Menziesia ferruginea 



(Subalpine f ir/menziesia) 



From this meager data, it appears that Douglas-fir plantation success may be 

 comparable for the same habitat type in different geographic areas. 



Seedbed. --Ovl all habitats for which I have enough data for comparison, plantation 

 stocking was higher on plots bared to mineral soil than on plots with litter on the 

 soil surface (fig. 7) . It is not clear why I found fewer planted trees where litter 

 was present. Perhaps trees generally were not planted except where mineral soil was 

 exposed by thorough site preparation, or perhaps debris was carelessly put into planting 

 holes and contributed to high mortality. Also, competition might have been less 

 rigorous on plots with bare mineral soil. 





 20 

 40 



20 

 23 

 44 



100- 



80- 



Q 



LU 



O 



o 



H 

 0) 



0) P 



— ' 



Q_ 5: 40 

 111 



60- 



20- 



DOUGLAS 

 FIR 



GRAND FIR 



WESTERN 

 REDCEDAR 



WESTERN 

 HEMLOCK 



MOUNTAIN 

 HEMLOCK 



SUBALPINE 

 FIR 



Figiire 7. — Stocking of planted Douglas- fir expressed as percent of 1-milaore plots 

 sampled. Success was better on bared soil surfaces on all habitats for which data 

 were available. 



10 



