Table 4. — Mean percentage relative vegetation cover after various amounts of 

 trampling for each habitat type and for all habitat types combined^ 



Number 







Habitat type^ 







All 



of 



FESC- 



ABLA/ 



ABLA/ 



ABLA/CLUN- 



PSME/ 



ABLA/ 



habitat 



passes 



FEID 



XETE 



VACA 



VACA phase 



SYAL 



CLUN 



types 







1 u^:a 



yya 



99a 



98a 



yuD 



y / a 





1 D 



1 uua 



yoa 



95a 



95a 



yoa 



y^ia 



yo 





1 uza 



OoD 



83b 



93ab 



/tDU 



7QK 



/yo 



hd 



/in 



QQq 



yya 



oyau 



81b 



85b 





71 K 



04 



1 D 



1 uua 



yoa 



53c 



79b 



□uc 



oDC 



7 -1 





1 UUd 



DUUU 



63b 



82b 



1 ou 



O/ C 



/ 1 



1 nn 





77h 



78b 



53c 



'IRr 



ooc 



oyu 



K7 





1 UUd 



7 Ah 



20c 



41c 





<iDU 



DU 



ouu 



yyd 





37c 



21cd 



OUC 



Ou 



/ 7 



400 



100a 



39bc 



44b 



31 be 



16c 



12c 



44 



600 



95a 



67b 



46c 



22cd 



35cd 



76 



51 



800 



96a 



48b 



19c 



8c 



6c 



15c 



36 



900 



97a 



41b 



37bc 



15cd 



12d 



15cd 



40 



1 ,*iUU 



yoa 



OOD 



8c 



10c 



A Ar- 

 \ 4C 



DC 



^0 



1,600 



72a 



37b 



22bc 



6c 



7c 



4c 



29 



Mean 

















of all 

















amounts 



97a 



68b 



54c 



51cd 



45d 



38d 



62 



'Any two relative vegetation cover values in the same row followed by the same letter 

 are not significantly different (Duncan's multiple range test, a = 0.05). 

 ^Habitat types are: 



FESC-FEID = Festuca scabrella-F. idahoensis 

 ABLA/XETE = Abies lasiocarpa/Xerophyllum tenax 

 ABLA/VACA = Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium caespitosum 



ABLA/CLUN-VACA = Abies lasiocarpa/Clmtonia uniflora-Vaccinium caespitosum phase 

 PSME/SYAL = Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos albus 

 ABLA/CLUN = Abies lasiocarpa/Clintonia uniflora. 



Table 5.— Relative resistance of the six types'' 



Resistance to: 



Light Heavy 

 Habitat type trampling trampling Both 



Abies lasiocarpa/Clintonia uniflora 



SS 



N 



SS 



Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos albus 



SS 



SS 



N 



Abies lasiocarpa/Clintonia uniflora- 









Vaccinium caespitosum phase 



N 



N 



N 



Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium caespitosum 



N 



SR 



SR 



Abies lasiocarpa/Xerophyllum tenax 



VR 



VR 



VR 



Festuca scabrella-F. idahoensis 



VR 



VR 



VR 



'The indices used here are the same as those in table 1, permitting the resistance of 

 these vegetation types to be compared with types studied previously. 



Table 5 summarizes the rankings of the habitat types 

 using the same indices and classes used in table 1 to 

 classify previously studied vegetation types. The FESC- 

 FEID grassland was more resistant than any vegetation 

 type previously studied. The ABLA/XETE type was 

 more resistant than any forested type previously stud- 

 ied. The moderately resistant ABLA/VACA type 

 responded in a manner similar to the Pinus albicaulisf 

 Vaccinium scoparium forest (Weaver and Dale 1978), the 

 most resistant forest type studied before this. The three 

 least resistant habitat types, ABLA/CLUN, ABLA/ 

 CLUN-VACA, and PSME/SYAL, were about as resis- 



tant as the somewhat sensitive Abies lasiocarpa/Luzula 

 hitchcockii and Picea engelmannii/ Arnica latifolia forests 

 of Waterton Lakes National Park (Nagy and Scotter 

 1974). They were considerably more resistant than some 

 of the most fragile types previously examined. 



Two other statistics provide a useful overview of the 

 difference in resistance of these six habitat types. These 

 are the mean relative cover across all of the treatment 

 lanes— the last number in each column in table 4— and 

 the slope of lines regressing transformed relative cover 

 on the logarithm of the number of passes (table 6). Both 



17 



