Factors affecting vegetation on a serpentine soil: I. Principal components analysis of vegetation data
AuthorsRobert L. Koenigs
William A. Williams
Milton B. Jones
Authors AffiliationsRobert L. Koenigs was Research Assistant and is now Environmental Consultant, 9232 Lomker Court, Santee, CA 92071; William A. Williams was Professor, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, Davis; Milton B. Jones was Agronomist, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, Hopland Field Station. Arthur Wallace is Professor, Laboratory of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Biology, Los Angeles.
Hilgardia 50(4):1-14. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v50n04p014. August 1982.
Vegetation of 40 sample stands on serpentine soils was analyzed and used to indicate conditions that might limit the establishment of annual range species. Two groups of stands, “cypress” and “non-cypress,” were defined by cluster analysis. Stands with Cupressus sargentii also contained Arctostaphylos viscida and occurred on mesic sites with lower Ca in the sub-surface soil. Stands without C. sargentii usually contained Adenostoma fasciculatum and Quercus durata and occurred on the drier sites with higher Ca.
Principal component analysis was carried out on the vegetation data in each group of stands, and simple and partial correlations were calculated between principal components and environmental variables. A moisture gradient within the cypress stands was associated mainly with the water-storage capacity of the soil. Cupressus sargentii was more abundant at lower water-storage capacities (and at lower elevations), while Arctostaphylos viscida was most abundant at the opposite end of the gradient. No correlations were found with soil chemical analyses.
The relations between principal components and environmental variables were less apparent within the non-cypress stands. Adenostoma fasciculatum and Garrya congdoni were most abundant where Ca contents in the soil were high while Ceanothus jepsonii, Quercus durata, Bromus laevipes, and Sisyrinchium bellum were most abundant at the opposite end of the gradient.
Austin M. P., Noy-Meir I. The problem of non-linearity in ordination: experiments with two-gradient models. J. Ecol. 1971. 59:763-73. DOI: 10.2307/2258138 [CrossRef]
Beals E. W. Ordination: mathematical elegance and ecological naivete. J. Ecol. 1973. 61:23-34. DOI: 10.2307/2258914 [CrossRef]
Biswell H., Kozlowski T. T., Ahlgren C. E. Effects of fire on chaparral. In Fire and Ecosystems. 1974. New York: Academic Press. p. 321-64.
Conrey Bertl. Geology of a southern portion of the Morgan Valley quadrangle, California, scale 1:62,500, University of California, Berkeley 1947. M. A. Thesis (unpublished).
Gauch H. G., Whittaker R. H. Comparisons of ordination techniques. Ecol. 1972. 53:868-75. DOI: 10.2307/1934302 [CrossRef]
Gemborys S. R. The structure of hardwood forest ecosystems of Prince Edward County, Virginia. Ecol. 1974. 55:614-21. DOI: 10.2307/1935151 [CrossRef]
Gleason H. A. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Torrey Bol. Club Bull. 1926. 53:7-26. DOI: 10.2307/2479933 [CrossRef]
Greig-Smith P. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 1964. London: Butterworth Scientific Publications.
Griffin J. R., Stone C. O. McNab Cypress in Northern California: a geographic review. Madrono. 1967. 19(1):19-27.
Hanes T. L. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern California. Ecol. Monographs. 1971. 41:27-52. DOI: 10.2307/1942434 [CrossRef]
Hardham C. B. The Santa Lucia C. Sargentii groves and their associated northern hydrophilous and endemic species. Madrono. 1962. 16:173-179.
Jones M. B., Williams W. A., Ruckman J. E. Fertilization of Trifolium subterraneum L. growing on serpentine soils. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 1977. 41:87-89.
Loucks O. L. Ordinating forest communities by means of environmental scalers and phytosociological indices. Ecol. Monographs. 1962. 32:137-66. DOI: 10.2307/1942383 [CrossRef]
Moore A. W., Russell J. S., Williams W. T. Ordination of soil data. In Pattern Analysis in Agricultural Science. 1976. Melbourne: CSIRO. p. 204-14. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.
Munz P. A., Keck D. D. A California Flora. 1959. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. DOI: 10.2307/25155209 [CrossRef]
Nie N., Hull C. H., Jenkins J. G., Steinbrenner K., Bent D. H. SPSS—Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second Edition. 1975. New York: McGraw-Hill. 675p.
Pitt M. D., Burgy R. H., Heady H. F. Influences of brush conversion and weather patterns on runoff from a northern California watershed. J. Range Manag. 1978. 31:23-27. DOI: 10.2307/3897626 [CrossRef]
Proctor J., Woodell S. R. J. The ecology of serpentine soils. Adv. Ecol. Res. 1975. 9:255-366. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60291-3 [CrossRef]
Rowe P. B., Reimann L. F. Water use by brush, grass, and grass-forb vegetation. J. Forest. 1961. 59:175-81.
Rummel R. J. Applied Factor Analysis. 1970. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
Sellers W. D. Physical Climatology. 1965. Chicago and London: Univ. Chicago Press.
Soil Survey Staff, SCS, USDA. Soil series of the United States Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Island, their taxonomic classifications. 1972. Washington: U. S. Govt. Printing Office.
Spoomer G. G. The concepts of “interaction” and “operational environment” in environmental analysis. Ecol. 1973. 54:200-204. DOI: 10.2307/1934391 [CrossRef]
Tracey J. G. Edaphic differentiation of some forest types in eastern Australia. I. Soil physical factors. J. Ecol. 1969. 57:805-816. DOI: 10.2307/2258501 [CrossRef]
Van Groenwood H. Theoretical considerations of the covariation of plant species along ecological gradients with regard to multivariate analysis. J. Ecol. 1976. 64:837-46.
Vogl R. J. Fire adaptations of some California plants 1967. 7th Ann. Proc. of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference.
Walker B. H., Wehrhahn C. F. Relationships between derived vegetation gradients and measured environmental variables in Saskatchewan Wetlands. Ecol. 1971. 52:85-95. DOI: 10.2307/1934739 [CrossRef]
Waring R. H., Major J. Some vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light, and temperature. Ecol. Monographs. 1964. 34:167-212. DOI: 10.2307/1948452 [CrossRef]
Webb L. J. Edaphic differentiation of some forest types in eastern Australia. II. Soil chemical factors. J. Ecol. 1969. 57:812-830. DOI: 10.2307/2258502 [CrossRef]
Wells P. V. Vegetation in relation to geological substratum and fire in the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, California. Ecol. Monographs. 1962. 32:79-103. DOI: 10.2307/1942361 [CrossRef]
Westman W. E. Edaphic climax pattern of the pygmy forest region of California. Ecol. Monographs. 1975. 45:109-35. DOI: 10.2307/1942403 [CrossRef]
Williams W. T. Principles of clustering. Ann. Rev. Ecol. and System. 1971. 2:303-24. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.02.110171.001511 [CrossRef]
Williams W. T., Williams W. T. Ordination: Principal component analysis. In Pattern Analysis in Agricultural Science. 1976. Melbourne: CSIRO. p. 47-58. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.