Print Report

G225 Abies concolor - Picea pungens - Pseudotsuga menziesii Mesic Southern Rocky Mountain Forest Group

Type Concept Sentence: This group includes mesic or cold-site conifer, mixed conifer, or deciduous montane forests of the Rocky Mountains west into the ranges of the Great Basin. Pseudotsuga menziesii and Abies concolor are the most common canopy dominants, but Picea engelmannii, Picea pungens, or Pinus ponderosa may be present, as well as stands of conifer mixed with Populus tremuloides or Acer grandidentatum . The relatively mesic understory is diagnostic of the type, and naturally occurring fires are mostly light, erratic, and infrequent.

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: White Fir - Blue Spruce - Douglas-fir Mesic Southern Rocky Mountain Forest Group

Colloquial Name: Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir - White Fir - Blue Spruce Mesic Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Group

Type Concept: This group includes conifer, mixed conifer, and some deciduous montane forests of the Rocky Mountains west into the ranges of the Great Basin. Stands occur predominantly in cool ravines and on north-facing slopes with elevations from 1200 to 3300 m. Occurrences of this group are found on cooler and more mesic sites than ~Southern Rocky Mountain White Fir - Douglas-fir Dry Forest Group (G226)$$. Such sites include lower and middle slopes of ravines, along stream terraces, moist, concave topographic positions, and north- and east-facing slopes. Pseudotsuga menziesii and Abies concolor are the most common canopy dominants, but Picea engelmannii, Picea pungens, or Pinus ponderosa may be present. This group includes mixed conifer/Populus tremuloides and mixed conifer/Acer grandidentatum stands as well as Acer grandidentatum-dominated forests. The relatively mesic understory is diagnostic of stands in this group. Although sites are not considered wetlands or true riparian areas, generally occurring outside the riparian floodplains, scattered riparian species may be present. Cold-deciduous shrub species include Acer glabrum, Acer grandidentatum, Jamesia americana, Physocarpus malvaceus, Robinia neomexicana, Quercus gambelii, Vaccinium membranaceum, and Vaccinium myrtillus. Herbaceous species include Bromus ciliatus, Carex geyeri, Carex rossii, Carex siccata, Muhlenbergia straminea, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Erigeron eximius, Fragaria virginiana, Luzula parviflora, Osmorhiza berteroi, Packera cardamine, Thalictrum occidentale, and Thalictrum fendleri. Naturally occurring fires are of variable return intervals and mostly light, erratic, and infrequent due to the cool, moist conditions.

Diagnostic Characteristics: The tree canopy is often dominated or codominated by conifers, especially Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies concolor, and the less extensive Picea pungens. Acer grandidentatum-dominated stands are included in this group as are mixed conifer/deciduous stands codominated by Populus tremuloides and/or Acer grandidentatum. However, a mesic understory layer is usually diagnostic of this group with indicator species such as such as Acer glabrum, Acer grandidentatum, Alnus incana, Betula occidentalis, Cornus sericea, Jamesia americana, Linnaea borealis, Lonicera involucrata, Packera cardamine, Physocarpus malvaceus, Robinia neomexicana, Symphoricarpos oreophilus, Vaccinium membranaceum, and herbaceous species Bromus ciliatus, Carex siccata, Muhlenbergia straminea, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Erigeron eximius, Fragaria virginiana, Luzula parviflora, Osmorhiza berteroi, Packera cardamine, Thalictrum occidentale, and Thalictrum fendleri.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This group is similar to and often occurs adjacent to ~Southern Rocky Mountain White Fir - Douglas-fir Dry Forest Group (G226)$$, which occurs on more upland and relatively xeric sites and exposures. The overstory species may be similar except for the absence or low cover of relatively mesic species such as Abies concolor, Picea pungens, Populus tremuloides, and Acer grandidentatum; however, it is the mesic understory species that are usually diagnostic of this group. This group is also similar to montane riparian woodlands but lacks an understory dominated by wetland species and is not closely associated with perennial streams.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: Conifer-dominated woodlands and forests with grassy or shrubby understories. Occasionally broad-leaved deciduous trees are intermixed with the conifers in mesic settings, or as seral components.

Floristics: This mesic forest group is characterized by a moderately dense to dense tree canopy typically dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies concolor, and less frequently Picea pungens, but Picea engelmannii or Pinus ponderosa may be present. This group also includes mixed conifer/Populus tremuloides and mixed conifer/Acer grandidentatum stands as well as Acer grandidentatum-dominated forests. However, the more shade-tolerant conifers of this group form a subcanopy that will eventually overtake the Populus tremuloides in early-seral types, and Acer grandidentatum-dominated forests most likely represent the wettest portion of the environment supporting this group. A relatively mesic understory is diagnostic of stands in this group. Although sites are not considered wetlands or true riparian areas, occurring outside the riparian floodplains, scattered riparian and facultative wetland species may be present. Characteristic cold-deciduous shrub species include Acer glabrum, Acer grandidentatum, Alnus incana, Betula occidentalis, Cornus sericea, Jamesia americana, Physocarpus malvaceus, Robinia neomexicana, Quercus gambelii, Vaccinium membranaceum, and Vaccinium myrtillus. Common herbaceous species include Bromus ciliatus, Carex geyeri, Carex rossii, Carex siccata, Muhlenbergia straminea (= Muhlenbergia virescens), Pseudoroegneria spicata, Erigeron eximius, Fragaria virginiana, Luzula parviflora, Osmorhiza berteroi, Packera cardamine, Thalictrum occidentale, and Thalictrum fendleri.

Dynamics:  No Data Available
Environmental Description:  This group includes conifer, mixed conifer, and some deciduous montane forests of the southern Rocky Mountains west into the ranges of the Great Basin. Stands occur predominantly in cool ravines and on north-facing slopes with elevations from 1200 to 3300 m. Occurrences of this group are found on cooler and more mesic sites than ~Southern Rocky Mountain White Fir - Douglas-fir Dry Forest Group (G226)$$. Such sites include lower and middle slopes of ravines, along stream terraces, moist, concave topographic positions, and north- and east-facing slopes. Naturally occurring fires are of variable return intervals and mostly light, erratic, and infrequent due to the cool, moist conditions.
Geographic Range: This montane forest group is found in the southern Rocky Mountains of Arizona and New Mexico north and west into the ranges of the Great Basin, southern Wyoming and southeastern Idaho (but it is not common there), occurring predominantly in cool ravines and on north-facing slopes.

Nations: MX?,US

States/Provinces:  AZ, CO, ID, NM, NV, UT, WY


Confidence Level: High

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNR

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 1 Forest & Woodland Class C01 1
Subclass 1.B Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland Subclass S15 1.B
Formation 1.B.2 Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland Formation F008 1.B.2
Division 1.B.2.Nb Rocky Mountain Forest & Woodland Division D194 1.B.2.Nb
Macrogroup 1.B.2.Nb.1 White Fir - Douglas-fir - Blue Spruce Forest Macrogroup M022 1.B.2.Nb.1
Group 1.B.2.Nb.1.d White Fir - Blue Spruce - Douglas-fir Mesic Southern Rocky Mountain Forest Group G225 1.B.2.Nb.1.d
Alliance A0165 Blue Spruce Southern Rocky Mountain Mesic Forest Alliance A0165 1.B.2.Nb.1.d
Alliance A3369 White Fir Southern Rocky Mountain Mesic Forest & Woodland Alliance A3369 1.B.2.Nb.1.d
Alliance A3370 Douglas-fir Southern Rocky Mountain Mesic Forest Alliance A3370 1.B.2.Nb.1.d
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: >< Abies concolor Series (DeVelice et al. 1986)
>< Abies concolor Series (Moir and Ludwig 1979)
>< Picea pungens Series (Moir and Ludwig 1979)
>< Picea pungens Series (DeVelice et al. 1986)
>< Pseudotsuga menziesii Series (DeVelice et al. 1986)
>< Pseudotsuga menziesii Series (Moir and Ludwig 1979)
> Blue Spruce: 216 (Eyre 1980)
>< Interior Douglas-fir: 210 (Eyre 1980)
>< White Fir: 211 (Eyre 1980)
Concept Author(s): W.H. Moir and J.A. Ludwig (1979)

Author of Description: K.A. Schulz and M.E. Hall

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 05-30-13
  • Alexander, B. G., Jr., E. L. Fitzhugh, F. Ronco, Jr., and J. A. Ludwig. 1987. A classification of forest habitat types of the northern portion of the Cibola National Forest, NM. General Technical Report RM-143. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 35 pp.
  • Alexander, B. G., Jr., F. Ronco, Jr., A. S. White, and J. A. Ludwig. 1984b. Douglas-fir habitat types of northern Arizona. General Technical Report RM-108. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 13 pp.
  • Alexander, B. G., Jr., F. Ronco, Jr., E. L. Fitzhugh, and J. A. Ludwig. 1984a. A classification of forest habitat types of the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. General Technical Report RM-104. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 29 pp.
  • Boyce, D. A. 1977. Vegetation of the South Fork of the White River Valley, Colorado. Unpublished dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. 312 pp.
  • Bunin, J. E. 1975c. The vegetation of the west slope of the Park Range, Colorado. Unpublished dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. 235 pp.
  • DeVelice, R. L., J. A. Ludwig, W. H. Moir, and F. Ronco, Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. General Technical Report RM-131. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 59 pp.
  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Drake, S. Gawler, M. Hall, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, K. Schulz, J. Teague, M. Russo, K. Snow, and P. Comer, editors. 2010-2019a. Divisions, Macrogroups and Groups for the Revised U.S. National Vegetation Classification. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. plus appendices. [in preparation]
  • Fitzhugh, E. L., W. H. Moir, J. A. Ludwig, and F. Ronco, Jr. 1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola national forests. General Technical Report RM-145. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 116 pp.
  • Heinze, D. H., R. E. Eckert, and P. T. Tueller. 1962. The vegetation and soils of the Steptoe Watershed. Unpublished report prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land Management. 40 pp.
  • Hess, K. 1981. Phyto-edaphic study of habitat types of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado. Unpublished dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 558 pp.
  • Hess, K., and C. H. Wasser. 1982. Grassland, shrubland, and forest habitat types of the White River-Arapaho National Forest. Unpublished final report 53-82 FT-1-19. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 335 pp.
  • Hess, K., and R. R. Alexander. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests in northcentral Colorado: A habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-266. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 48 pp.
  • Hoffman, G. R., and R. R. Alexander. 1980. Forest vegetation of the Routt National Forest in northwestern Colorado: A habitat type classification. General Technical Report RM-221. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 41 pp.
  • Hoffman, G. R., and R. R. Alexander. 1983. Forest vegetation of the White River National Forest in western Colorado: A habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-249. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.
  • Komarkova, V. K., R. R. Alexander, and B. C. Johnston. 1988b. Forest vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre national forests: A preliminary habitat type classification. Research Paper RM-163. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 65 pp.
  • Mauk, R. L., and J. A. Henderson. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. General Technical Report INT-170. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 89 pp.
  • Moir, W. H., and J. A. Ludwig. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of Arizona and New Mexico. Research Paper RM-207. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 47 pp.
  • Mueggler, W. F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-250. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 135 pp.
  • Parson, D. J., and S. H. DeBenedetti. 1979. Impact of fire suppression in a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 2:21-33.
  • Pfister, R. D. 1972. Vegetation and soils in the subalpine forests of Utah. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 98 pp.
  • Ream, R. R. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah and Idaho. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 190 pp.
  • Youngblood, A. P., and R. L. Mauk. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah. General Technical Report INT-187. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 89 pp.