In cooperation with the National Park Service 

Field Evaluations of Sampling Methods for Long-Term 

Monitoring of Upland Ecosystems on the Colorado 

Plateau 

By Mark E. Miller, Dana L. Witwicki, Rebecca K. Mann, and Nicole J. Tancreto 

2007 

Open-File Report 2007-1243 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Miller, Mark E., Witwicki, Dana L., Mann, Rebecca K., and Tancreto, Nicole J., 2007, Field evaluations of 

sampling methods for long-term monitoring of upland ecosystems on the Colorado Plateau: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2007-1243, 188 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1243/]. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii
Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................................................................2

Introduction and Background ..........................................................................................................................................2

Methods ...............................................................................................................................................................................3

Study Areas .....................................................................................................................................................................3

Field Sampling .................................................................................................................................................................4

Sampling Phases.........................................................................................................................................................4

Macroplot Characterization and Evaluation ..........................................................................................................4

Macroplot Layout........................................................................................................................................................5

Line-Point Intercept Sampling..................................................................................................................................7

Gap-Intercept Sampling ..........................................................................................................................................10

Quadrat Sampling .....................................................................................................................................................10

Documentation of Unknown Species....................................................................................................................13

Assessment of Sampling Impacts..........................................................................................................................13

Date Entry and Management......................................................................................................................................14

Database Design.......................................................................................................................................................14

Field Procedures .......................................................................................................................................................14

Office Procedures.....................................................................................................................................................18

Data Analyses ...............................................................................................................................................................18

Sampling Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................................18

Among-Method Trends in Cover Estimates .........................................................................................................19

Repeatability ..............................................................................................................................................................19

Sampling Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................20

Results ................................................................................................................................................................................20

Macroplot Characterization and Evaluation............................................................................................................20

Sampling Efficiency......................................................................................................................................................21

Sampling Times .........................................................................................................................................................21

Within-Macroplot Variability ..................................................................................................................................24

Among-Macroplot Variability .................................................................................................................................31

Species-Area Relationships and Community Composition...............................................................................34

Among-Method Trends in Cover Estimates.............................................................................................................39

Repeatability..................................................................................................................................................................41

Sampling Impacts .........................................................................................................................................................53

Discussion..........................................................................................................................................................................54

Evaluation of Sampling Methods ...............................................................................................................................54

Efficiency....................................................................................................................................................................54

Repeatability ..............................................................................................................................................................56

Sampling Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................57

Issues Associated with Electronic Data Entry and Management .......................................................................58

References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................59

Appendix A—Species List and Species Occurrence by Ecological Site...............................................................61

Appendix B—Within-Macroplot Variability of Cover Estimates by Sampling Technique and 

Ecological Site ..................................................................................................................................................................66

Appendix C—Summaries of Frequency and Cover Estimates by Macroplot and Sampling Technique..........78

iii
Appendix D—Among-Macroplot Variation in Selected Cover Measures by Ecological Site .........................127

Appendix E—Mean Species-Area and Compositional Curves by Ecological Site ............................................139

Appendix F—Between-Observer Differences in Estimates of Cover and Density ............................................151

Appendix G—Nested Frequency Data by Ecological Site......................................................................................161

Figures 

Figure 1. Standard macroplot and transect layout used during the 2005 field season...........................6

Figure 2. Transect layouts used for comparing repeatability and efficiency of square and 

rectangular quadrats during Phase 1 sampling. .............................................................................................6

Figure 3. Transect lengths and types of sampling conducted during Phases 2 (a) and 3 (b)................7

Figure 4. Dimensions of square and rectangular nested quadrats that were evaluated during Phase 

1, and of square quadrats that were used during Phases 2 and 3. ...........................................................11

Figure 5. Photographic key to soil-surface categories used for describing degrees of biological soil 

crust development on the basis of relative soil darkness (J. Belnap, unpublished)..............................13

Figure 6. Main effects of (a) ecological site, (b) cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual species, and soil-surface features), and (c) sampling method on log-transformed CV 

values describing within-plot variability in cover measures. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence 

intervals. Within each panel, values with the same letter are not significantly different by Tukey's 

HSD test. See table 1 for ecological site codes. ..........................................................................................25

Figure 7. Interactive effects of ecological site and cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual plant species, and soil-surface features) on log-transformed CV values describing withinplot variability in cover measures. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals for means. See 

table 1 for ecological site codes. .....................................................................................................................26

Figure 8. Median numbers (± 25 percentiles) of subsamples required for 20 percent precision in 

macroplot-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live cover of individual plant 

species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado 

Plateau in Utah and Arizona. In (a), there is no difference among median values obtained via 

different sampling methods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.89, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.0525). In (b), median values 

from 10-m2

 quadrats and line-point intercepts are significantly different from one another (KruskalWallis H = 15.41, df = 2, n = 94, p = 0.0004). In (c), there is no significant difference among medians 

from different methods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.08, df = 2, n = 98, p = 0.2139). ............................................29

Figure 9. Time required to estimate total live understory cover using (a) the line-point intercept 

technique, (b) 1-m2 quadrats, and (c) 10-m2 quadrats in relation to cover estimates derived from the 

same sampling techniques. Points are labeled by ecological site codes (see table 1 for key to 

codes) and symbolized to indicate the general physiognomic structure of the sampled plant 

community. Ecological sites underlined in (a) are those where line-point intercepts were used to 

estimate cover of overstory vegetation above 2-m in height, in addition to understory vegetation and 

soil-surface features..........................................................................................................................................30

Figure 10. Median numbers of hours (± 25 percentiles) required for subsampling to achieve 20 

percent precision in macroplot-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live 

cover of individual plant species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites 

sampled on the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no 

significant difference among median sampling times for different sampling methods (a. Kruskaliv
Wallis H = 0.95, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.6216; b. Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.51, df = 2, n = 94, p = 0.1045; c. 

Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.68, df = 2, n = 98, p = 0.4327).........................................................................................31

Figure 11. Main effects of cover category (total live understory canopy, individual species, and 

surface features) on log-transformed CV values describing among-macroplot variability in cover 

estimates across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. Values 

with different letters are significantly different from one another (Tukey's HSD test, between MS = 

0.6231, df = 216, p < 0.01 for all pair-wise comparisons)..............................................................................32

Figure 12. Median numbers (± 25 percentiles) of macroplots required for 20 percent precision in 

ecological-site-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) cover of individual plant 

species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado 

Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no significant difference among 

median macroplot numbers for different sampling methods (a. Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.95, df = 2, n = 33, 

p = 0.6218; b. Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.38, df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.5005; c. Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.05, df = 2, n = 

96, p = 0.2174).......................................................................................................................................................34

Figure 13. Median ratios of within-to-among macroplot variability (based on log-transformed CV 

values) for estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live cover of individual plant 

species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado 

Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no significant difference among 

median ratios for different sampling methods (a. Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.39, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.3033; b. 

Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.33, df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.1147; c. Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.05, df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.3941).

................................................................................................................................................................................35

Figure 14. Log-transformed species richness data (mean numbers of unique species detected in 15 

quadrats) in relation to ecological site and quadrat size (a) for all species detected, and (b) 

excluding infrequent species that occurred in only one 10-m2

 quadrat from the 10-m2 data. (See 

table 1 for key to ecological site codes.)........................................................................................................38

Figure 15. Estimated total live understory canopy cover (standardized means) by method averaged 

across 11 ecological sites on the Colorado Plateau. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals. 

Values with different letters are significantly different by Tukey's HSD test..........................................40

Figure 16. Estimated total live understory canopy cover (standardized means) by method and 11 

Colorado Plateau ecological sites. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals for means. See 

table 1 for ecological site codes. .....................................................................................................................40

Figure 17. Effect of sampling method on cover estimates (standardized means) for selected surface 

features (litter, biological soil crust, and bare soil) across 11 ecological sites on the Colorado 

Plateau. Means with different letters are significantly different by Tukey's HSD test.........................41

Figure 18. Effects of sampling method on cover estimates (standardized means) for (a) surface 

litter, (b) unstable bare soil, and (c) biological soil crusts (moss, lichen, and cyanobacteria 

combined) at eight Colorado Plateau ecological sites. ...............................................................................42

Figure 19. Scatterplot of average wind speed (m s-1) vs. absolute difference between two observers’ 

estimates of grass cover based on use of the line-point intercept sampling technique at eight 

Colorado Plateau ecological sites (r = 0.07, p = 0.55, n = 70). .....................................................................46

Figure 20. Photograph (left) of destabilized soil and trampled biological soil crusts on unsampled 

side of transect in Arches National Park (Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam ecological site), and 

(right) trampled plants on unsampled side of transect in Wupatki National Monument (Limy Upland 

ecological site). ...................................................................................................................................................53

v
Tables 

1. Ecological sites, associated NRCS soil surveys and soil map units, and macroplots sampled 

during Phases 2 and 3 of the 2005 field season...............................................................................................3

2. Phases of sampling conducted during the 2005 field season..................................................................5

3. Measures recorded during line-point intercept sampling. ......................................................................8

4. Definitions of plant material and plant status.............................................................................................9

5. Categories of soil-surface disturbances described during line-point sampling and quadrat 

sampling. ................................................................................................................................................................9

6. Soil crust categories used during line-point sampling and quadrat sampling.....................................9

7. Definitions used for gap-intercept sampling ............................................................................................10

8. Cover-class scale used to estimate cover in 10-m2

 quadrats................................................................11

9. Size classes used for recording shrub and tree density .......................................................................12

10. Soil-surface categories used for estimating cover and development of biological soil crusts in 

25 cm x 25 cm quadrats on the basis of relative soil darkness. .................................................................12

11. Evaluation matrix for rating sampling impacts, considering the entire macroplot visit and all 

sampling procedures combined.......................................................................................................................15

12. Explanations of sampling procedures for purposes of impact assessment.....................................17

13. Impact-assessment ratings for individual sampling procedures. ......................................................17

14. Summary of macroplots that were relocated following site characterization and prior to 

sampling. ..............................................................................................................................................................21

15. Mean times for setting up and reading frequency (freq), cover (cov), and density (dens) in 1-m2

and 10-m2

 quadrats.............................................................................................................................................22

16. Mean times for sampling line-point intercept transects, basal- and canopy-gaps transects, and 

biological soil crust (BSC) frames....................................................................................................................23

17. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site, cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual species, and soil-surface features), and sampling method on log-transformed CV values 

describing within-macroplot variability in cover measures. ......................................................................24

18. Results of multiple-regression models evaluating significance of subsample size, frequency, 

and mean cover as predictors of log-transformed CV values describing within-macroplot variability 

in cover measures. .............................................................................................................................................27

19. Summary of mean estimates for total live understory canopy cover for each of 11 Colorado 

Plateau ecological sites, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across n 

macroplots within each ecological site, subsample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent 

precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estimated amounts of sampling time required 

to achieve those degrees of precision. ........................................................................................................28

20. Analysis of variance for effects of cover category (total live understory canopy, individual 

species, and surface features) and sampling method on log-transformed CV values describing 

among-macroplot variability in cover estimates...........................................................................................32

21. Among-macroplot variation in estimates of total live understory canopy cover for 11 ecological 

sites (n macroplots per ecological site), macroplot sample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 

percent precision in estimates of site-level means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values...........33

22. Species richness data for several ecological sites on the Colorado Plateau, based on 10-m2

 and 

1-m2

 quadrats.......................................................................................................................................................36

vi
23. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and quadrat size on log-transformed values 

for the number of unique species detected in 15 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats during Phase 3 sampling.

................................................................................................................................................................................38

24. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and quadrat size on log-transformed values 

for the number of unique species detected in 15 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats during Phase 3 sampling, 

excluding infrequent species that occurred in only one 10-m2

 quadrat from the 10-m2 data...............38

25. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and sampling method on total live understory 

cover (standardized means) at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites......................................................39

26. Analysis of variance for effect of sampling method on standardized mean cover of surface 

features at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites. ........................................................................................41

27. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species POFE, QUGA, SYOR2, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Brushy 

Loam ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park.....................................................................................42

28. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species CHLE4, HENE5, PLJA, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Limy 

Upland, 25-33” ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park.................................................................43

29. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species POFE, POTR5, UNGRCA1, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Loamy 

Hills, 25-33”pz ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park. ................................................................43

30. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species JUOS, PIED, POFE, and total live understory 

canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Loamy Mesa Top PJ 

ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park................................................................................................43

31. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species ATCO, GIIN2, ORHY, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. .........44

32. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species ARTR2, BRTE, STCO4, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site in Dinosaur National Monument..........44

33. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species CORA, FEOC3, STLO4, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on arcsin-transformed means of plant canopy cover for the Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy Loam PJ ecological site at Arches and Canyonlands National Parks..........................44

34. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), observer, and cover category (species CEMO2, COWR2, JUOS, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on arcsin-transformed means of plant canopy cover for the Upland 

Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. ...........................45

35. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and linepoint intercept), ecological site (BL, LU, LH, LMT, SASL, SL, SShSL, and UShL), and observer on 

arcsin-transformed means of litter cover data.. ...........................................................................................45

vii
36. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of cover for four types of 

soil crust (undifferentiated, dark cyanobacteria, lichen, and moss) sampled with 10-m2

 quadrats, 1-

m2

 quadrats, and line-point intercept techniques at Colorado Plateau ecological sites where 

biological soil crusts were common. ..............................................................................................................47

37. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of biological soil crust 

cover based on the characterization of soil darkness (see table 10 and fig. 5) in 25 cm x 25 cm BSC 

frames at Colorado Plateau ecological sites where biological soil crusts were common...................50

38. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of shrub density by 

species and height class at Colorado Plateau ecological sites.. ..............................................................51

39. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of tree density by species 

and size class at Colorado Plateau ecological sites....................................................................................52

40. Median impact-assessment ratings for procedures at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites .....55

41. Median impact-assessment ratings for types of impacts (broken branches, trampled plants, 

destabilized soils, trampled biological soil crusts, and quadrat-frame imprint) in quadrats, on the 

sampled side of the transect tape, and on the unsampled side of the transect tape at 11 Colorado 

Plateau ecological sites ....................................................................................................................................55

42. Summary of comparisons among cover-sampling techniques in relation to repeatability 

between observers, efficiency, and sampling impacts on soils and vegetation ...................................56

viii
Field Evaluations of Sampling Methods for LongTerm Monitoring of Upland Ecosystems on the 

Colorado Plateau 

By Mark E. Miller, Dana L. Witwicki, Rebecca K. Mann, and Nicole J. Tancreto1

Abstract 

To inform planning for long-term ecological monitoring, we sampled vegetation and soilsurface attributes across a range of terrestrial ecosystems (physiognomic types) in seven National 

Park Service units on the Colorado Plateau. Primary objectives were (1) to evaluate a suite of 

sampling methods according to measures of repeatability, efficiency, and impacts on plot 

conditions; and (2) to characterize within- and among-plot variability in monitoring measures. 

This work was designed to support NPS staff in selecting the combination of methods that best 

meets their monitoring objectives and resource constraints. We found no differences among 

cover-estimation techniques in terms of repeatability between observers (measurement 

precision). Estimates for total live understory canopy cover, cover of individual species, and 

cover of soil-surface features were highly repeatable between observers for 10-m2

 quadrats, 1-m2

quadrats, and line-point intercept sampling methods. Estimates of shrub and tree density in 10-

m2

 quadrats also were repeatable between observers, although sample sizes for were small for 

many species. At 10 of 11 ecological sites, we found that sampling with 10-m2

 quadrats was the 

most efficient cover-estimation technique with respect to within-plot variability in cover 

estimates and numbers of subsamples required to estimate plot-level cover with 20 percent 

precision. According to these same measures, sampling with 1-m2 quadrats was the least 

efficient cover-estimation technique at eight of 11 ecological sites. The line-point technique was 

most efficient at eight of 11 ecological sites in terms of the amount of time required to estimate 

total plot-level cover with 20 percent precision – largely because 10-m2

 quadrats were more time 

consuming and 1-m2

 quadrats had greater within-plot variability relative to line-point sampling. 

However, there was no statistical difference among methods with respect to median subsampling 

times for 20 percent precision. There also were no differences among methods with respect to 

mean and median measures of among-plot variability in total live understory canopy cover. But 

among-plot variability was least for the line-point technique at seven of 11 ecological sites. 

Sampling activities had greatest impacts on plot conditions at macroplots where there was a high 

degree of cover by biological and physical soil crusts. Of all sampling procedures, 10-m2

 quadrat 

sampling, line-point sampling, and gap-intercept sampling had the most impacts on soil 

conditions due to trampling of soil crusts by the field team. 

 

1

 Authors are Research Ecologist, Plant Ecologist, and Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center; 

and Data Manager, National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Network. 
Acknowledgments 

Funding for this work was provided by the National Park Service (Northern Colorado 

Plateau and Southern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Networks) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (Southwest Biological Science Center and the Status and Trends Program). 

Recommendations from Steve Garman, Lisa Thomas, Chris Lauver, and Thom O’Dell improved 

the study design. Tonya Troxler assisted with the preparation of tables and figures. Charles 

Drost and Kathryn Thomas provided review comments that improved the quality of this report. 

Introduction and Background 

This project involved field evaluations of a limited suite of measures and measurement 

techniques for long-term monitoring of terrestrial ecosystems characteristic of the Colorado 

Plateau region. The project was designed to support the Northern and Southern Colorado 

Plateau Networks (NCPN and SCPN, respectively) of the National Park Service’s Inventory and 

Monitoring Program (NPS I&M Program). In conjunction with the I&M Program, ecoregional 

networks of NPS units have been charged with the task of identifying “vital signs” to be 

monitored for the purpose of tracking long-term trends in the "health" or condition of park 

ecosystems. Collectively, the NCPN and SCPN have identified an integrated suite of vital signs 

for tracking resource conditions in 35 NPS units located in the Colorado Plateau region of Utah, 

Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. To inform the selection of monitoring methods most 

suited to NPS monitoring objectives for these parks, the NCPN and SCPN required field 

evaluations of measures and measurement techniques across the range of ecosystems likely to be 

monitored. 

Following were general objectives of this project. 

1. Collect and analyze field data to evaluate a limited suite of measures and 

measurement techniques for their relative suitability in effectively and efficiently 

meeting NPS monitoring needs across the range of ecosystems likely to be monitored. 

2. Characterize within- and among-macroplot variability in monitoring measures to 

inform NPS planning for operational monitoring. 

3. On the basis of site soil, landscape, and vegetation characteristics, evaluate the 

accuracy of stratification data used to select field sites for sampling. 

This report summarizes data collected during the 2005 field season, emphasizing 

comparisons among sampling methods in terms of (1) sampling efficiency (defined with respect 

to time and within- and among-macroplot variability in cover measures), (2) relative trends or 

differences in cover estimates derived from different sampling methods, (3) between-observer 

repeatability in measures of cover and density, and (4) sampling impacts on soil and vegetation 

attributes. In addition, we briefly address issues associated with the accuracy of spatial data used 

for selecting macroplot locations and challenges associated with data-collection and datamanagement systems used during the 2005 field season. 

2
Methods 

Study Areas 

Study areas were selected to sample particular ecological sites2 delineated by soil map 

units in soil surveys produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). Target ecological sites were identified jointly by USGS and NPS 

to represent the range of physiognomic types likely to be included in NCPN and SCPN 

monitoring plans (table 1). NPS staff subsequently determined coordinates for centroids of 

macroplots to be sampled during the 2005 season. 

Table 1. Ecological sites, associated NRCS soil surveys and soil map units, and macroplots 

sampled during Phases 2 and 3 of the 2005 field season. (See table 2 for descriptions of sampling 

phases.) 

NRCS ecological site Location of macroplot 

center (NAD83) 

Name 

Code for 

this 

project 

Physiognomic 

structure 

NRCS soil 

survey area 

(citation) 

NRCS 

soil map 

unit Macroplot 

Sampling 

phase UTM mE UTM mN 

MEVE1 2 730064 4131866 

131 MEVE6 3 725179 4127097 

MEVE7 3 723803 4127722 

13 MEVE2 2 729978 4129690 

Brushy Loam BL Shrubland CO671 

(NRCS 2001a) 

79 MEVE5 3 724964 4127964 

Desert Sand (Sand CANY1 2 611824 4225106 

Sagebrush) DS Grassland UT633 (SCS 1991) 80 CANY2b 2 610505 4223529 

WUPA1 2 452750 3936806 

WUPA2 2 458382 3937598 

WUPA5 3 457109 3935314 

WUPA6 3 451957 3934304 

Limy Upland, 6-10" 

pz 

LU Grassland AZ631 

(SCS 1983) 56 

WUPA7 3 452545 3935929 

53 GRCA3 2 400825 4019411 

GRCA4 2 405721 4009147 51 GRCA6 3 404566 4009215 

GRCA5 3 403933 4010688 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz LH Forest AZ701 (NRCS 2003) 

52 GRCA7 3 404913 4007824 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 49 GRCA1 2 400496 4021102 

25-33" pz LHC Forest AZ701 (NRCS 2003) 53 GRCA2 2 404425 4011908 

111 MEVE3 2 719717 4116890 

MEVE4 2 719690 4117457 77 MEVE8 3 724589 4117373 

MEVE10 3 723590 4115712 

Loamy Mesa Top 

PJ LMT Woodland CO671 (NRCS 2001a) 

76 MEVE9 3 722950 4116950 

CARE1 2 475775 4257151 

CARE2b 2 475612 4257531 

CARE5 3 483223 4253447 

CARE6 3 482135 4253991 

Semidesert Alkali 

Sandy Loam 

(Alkali Sacaton) 

SASL Grassland UT685 

(NRCS 2004) 200 

CARE7 3 481694 4254064 

DINO1 2 654965 4487760 

DINO2b 2 647936 4476988 

DINO3 3 644018 4483816 

DINO4b 3 653726 4476991 

Semidesert Loam 

(Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush) 

SL Shrubland CO692 

(NRCS 2001b) 1 

DINO5 3 675330 4482005 

 

2 An ecological site is defined as a kind of land with specific physical characteristics which differs from other kinds of land in its 

ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its response to management (SRM Task Group 1995, 

Creque et al. 1999). Soil surveys produced by NRCS correlate ecological sites with particular soil series.

3
Table 1.—Continued 

NRCS ecological site Location of macroplot 

center (NAD83) 

Name 

Code for 

this 

project 

Physiognomic 

structure 

NRCS soil 

survey area 

(citation) 

NRCS 

soil map 

unit Macroplot 

Sampling 

phase UTM mE UTM mN 

ARCH1b 2 620922 4292242 

ARCH2 2 622000 4291604 

ARCH3 3 618798 4289007 

ARCH4b 3 623265 4285247 

UT624 

(SCS 1989) 51 

ARCH5 3 624686 4283478 

CANY3 2 604432 4259261 

Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy 

Loam PJ 

SShSL Shrubland 

UT633 

(SCS 1991) 71 

CANY4 2 602370 4255471 

Shallow Loamy, 61 WUPA3 2 455525 3937298 

10-14" pz ShL Grassland AZ631 (SCS 1983) 60 WUPA4 2 463894 3934278 

CARE3 2 483656 4224951 

CARE4b 2 483364 4223871 

CARE10 3 483584 4223149 

CARE8 3 484724 4220446 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) UShL Woodland UT685 

(NRCS 2004) 310 

CARE9 3 484314 4220771 

Field Sampling 

Sampling Phases 

Sampling during the 2005 field season was conducted in three phases (table 2). 

Following the conclusion of Phase 1, NPS made the decision to use square quadrats during Phase 

2 and Phase 3 sampling. Data from Phase 1 are not presented in this report. 

Macroplot Characterization and Evaluation 

Soil and geomorphic characteristics of all preselected and sampled macroplots were 

described during Phases 2 and 3 using standard protocols developed by NRCS (Schoeneberger et 

al. 2002). The purpose of this process was to guide the observers in determining whether soil 

and landscape characteristics at a given location matched those associated with the target soil and 

ecological site. Thorough site characterization requires description of soil characteristics through 

the uppermost 1 m of the soil profile. However, for purposes of this project, site characterization 

was based only on surface properties. No soil pits were dug or samples collected, though a small 

amount of topsoil was separated using a #10 sieve in the field to characterize the surface soil 

texture, effervescence, and size and abundance of rock fragments greater than 2 mm in diameter. 

In general, the site characterization process involved describing the soil and site 

properties of the area associated with the macroplot centroid and spanned by the three 50-m or 

70-m transects. The macroplot centroid was located by navigating with a GPS unit to a set of 

pre-determined, randomly-selected UTM coordinates within the target soil map unit. The aspect 

and azimuth were also given for the NCPN locations or determined by the field crew for the 

SCPN locations. If a significant soil or geomorphic boundary crossed the macroplot area, the 

description was focused on the area in which the centroid itself was located. Characterization 

was conducted approximately 1-2 m down-slope from the centroid to avoid trampling the area 

sampled by the middle transect. 

There were three possible outcomes of the characterization process. If characterization 

indicated that the location matched the target ecological site and that all transects occurred on the 

same soil and geomorphic surface, the area was sampled. If the location did not match the target 

ecological site or if significant portions of the transects did not all fall on the targeted ecological 

site, the sampling location was relocated to a nearby area (within 250 m) in the target soil map 

4
unit. After relocation, the same characterization procedure was repeated at the new centroid. If 

the characterized location did not match the target ecological site and no acceptable location 

could be found nearby, the sampling crew navigated to a new set of pre-selected coordinates 

within the ecological site. 

Table 2. Phases of sampling conducted during the 2005 field season. 

Phase Objectives 

Locations / 

ecosystems Timing 

Phase 1 – 

Training and 

preliminary 

testing 

1. Train team members: safety and first aid, plant and biological-soil-crust 

identification, soil and site characterization, plot layout, sampling and data-entry 

procedures. 

2. Determine whether square or rectangular quadrats are most repeatable with 

respect to frequency and density measures and least variable with respect to 

cover, frequency and density measures. Only one quadrat shape will be carried 

forth into subsequent phases. 

3. Practice line-intercept and line-point sampling. 

4. Determine optimal / efficient sequencing of sampling procedures to be used 

during Phases 2 and 3. 

- Bureau of Land 

Management and 

Forest Service 

land vicinity of 

Moab 

- Grassland, 

shrubland, 

woodland, and 

forest 

ecosystems 

June 

Phase 2 – 

 

Over 

sampling 

1. Conduct high-intensity sampling to evaluate variability of measures in relation 

to sample size: 

- Line-point sampling for cover and understory canopy height 

- Quadrat sampling for cover (1-m2

 and 10-m2 quadrats) 

- Nested-quadrat sampling for frequency 

- Quadrat sampling for density 

2. Sample to evaluate within- and among-site variability in canopy- and basalgap measures. 

3. Evaluate accuracy of spatial data used for selecting study sites. 

4. Time all procedures. 

5. Qualitatively evaluate plot impacts associated with different sampling 

techniques. 

- NPS units in 

NCPN and SCPN 

- 2 replicate sets 

of full range of 

ecosystems 

July – midSeptember 

Phase 3 – 

Repeated 

sampling 

1. Conduct repeat sampling to evaluate repeatability of cover measures 

obtained through line-point sampling and two methods of quadrat sampling. 

2. Sample to evaluate within- and among-site variability in canopy- and basalgap measures, frequency measures, and shrub density measures. 

3. Evaluate accuracy of spatial data used for selecting study sites. 

4. Time all procedures. 

5. Qualitatively evaluate plot impacts associated with different sampling 

techniques. 

- NPS units in 

NCPN and SCPN 

- 3 replicate sets 

of full range of 

ecosystems 

LateSeptember 

– midNovember 

Macroplot Layout 

Prior to the field season, NPS determined that the standard plot layout would consist of a 

1-ha macroplot and three 50-m transects separated by 25 m (fig. 1). Transects used during 

Phases 1 and 2 were 70-m long to accommodate a larger number of subsamples per macroplot 

(figs. 2 and 3). During Phase 3, 50-m transects were used (fig. 3). Transects were marked 

temporarily with a 50-m tape and pin flags, but were not permanently marked. Transects were 

used for gap intercept and line-point intercept sampling, and for guiding the placement of 

quadrats used for sampling cover, frequency, and density. Transects were oriented parallel to the 

5
hillslope contour to minimize potential effects of linear soil disturbances on hillslope hydrologic 

processes. Field observers traversed the down-slope side of the transect when sampling. 

Figure 1. Standard macroplot and transect layout used during the 2005 field season. 

Figure 2. Transect layouts used for comparing repeatability and efficiency of square and 

rectangular quadrats during Phase 1 sampling. 

The method of laying out the transect lines was standardized for all three Phases. The 

tape was generally stretched taut and anchored at both ends with a steel pin. The tape was also 

anchored in the middle if necessitated by windy conditions or uneven terrain. Where significant 

topography (e.g., hills, ditches) crossed the transect line, the tape was pinned down to maintain a 

relatively even tape height as the terrain rose and fell beneath it and to ensure that it could be 

replaced in nearly the same position. During Phases 1 and 3, pin flags also were placed precisely 

at the start, middle, and end points of the transect line to ensure repeatability when the tape was 

pulled and replaced (under the assumption that transects will be permanently marked during 

operational monitoring). After tape placement and photographic documentation, the general 

sequence of sampling events was line-point intercept sampling, gap-intercept sampling, then 

quadrat-based sampling. Gap sampling was not conducted during Phase 3. 

6
Figure 3. Transect lengths and types of sampling conducted during Phases 2 (a) and 3 (b). 

During Phase 3, the transect tape was removed and then replaced between repeat 

sampling events by different observers. An exception to this practice was made at the Mesa 

Verde Brushy Loam and Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological sites (macroplots MEVE5 – MEVE10). 

The transect tape was not removed and replaced between repeat sampling events at these sites 

because dense shrubs made the process exceptionally time-consuming. 

For visual documentation of site characteristics and vegetation, a set of digital 

photographs was taken of each transect sampled during the course of the 2005 field season. 

After a transect line was placed and prior to sampling, a photoboard was placed at the 0-m mark, 

facing away from the transect line. One or two photographs were taken looking along the 

transect (towards the endpoint), from eye-level (1.5 - 2 m from the ground) at a vantage point 

located 5 m from the photoboard. If vegetation or topography prevented a 5-m distance, the 

photograph was taken as close as possible to 5-m mark and the actual distance was recorded. All 

photographs were taken with a Nikon Coolpix 4500 camera (4.0 megapixels). The first 

photograph was taken with no zoom. If a second was taken, the view was zoomed in to include 

just enough vertical scope to see the start and endpoints of the transect with no extra landscape. 

Photographs from the following transects were lost or not taken: BLM3-3, ARCH1-3, MEVE1-

2, MEVE2-1, CANY3-2, CARE4-1, WUPA4-2, GRCA2-2, GRCA2-3, GRCA3-3. Additional 

photographs were taken at selected macroplots to document sampling impacts. 

Line-Point Intercept Sampling 

Line-point intercept sampling was used to estimate the cover of understory vegetation 

and soil-surface features. Methods generally followed those described by Herrick et al. (2005; 

hereafter referred to as the "Jornada manual"). Points were sampled over a 50-m span of each 

transect at 50-cm intervals during Phase 2 and 1-m intervals during Phase 3. At each sampling 

point, a 1-mm diameter, 90-cm long metal pin was placed by dropping it from breast height. 

Measures identified in table 3 were recorded on the basis of pin contacts at each placement. Data 

7
were read from the top of the pin down and each species or other measure was only recorded 

once no matter how many times it intercepted the pin. Each plant hit was recorded by species as 

live photosynthetic, live non-photosynthetic, or standing dead (see definitions in table 4). Where 

cover occurred above the height of the pin (but less than 2 m) the point was projected upward to 

describe those hits. Likewise, if the pin struck a woody stem above ground level, the pin was 

held in position, the woody stem hit was recorded, and the point was then projected downward to 

describe the other hits below, including the soil-surface hit. The height of the uppermost canopy 

hit was measured from ground level using a vertical measuring tape placed next to the pin. 

Table 3. Measures recorded during line-point intercept sampling. 

Line-point intercept measures 

Canopy cover %, live photosynthetic vascular plant tissue by species 

(understory shrubs and herbaceous) 

Canopy cover %, live non-photosynthetic vascular plant tissue by species 

(understory shrubs and herbaceous) 

Basal cover % by vascular plant species (all taxa) 

Cover %, standing dead vascular plants by species (all taxa) 

Overstory canopy cover % 

Cover %, biological soil crust by functional / morphological group (dark 

cyanobacteria, moss and lichen) 

Litter % (< 2.5 cm 

Woody debris % (> 2.5 cm) 

Animal scat % 

Rock % by size class (< 20 mm in diameter, or > 20 mm in diameter) 

Bare soil %, undifferentiated crust 

Bare soil %, loose sediment 

Soil-surface disturbance %, coded by type (e.g., ant mound, wildlife excavation, 

ungulate hoof print, human footprint) 

Canopy height cm, uppermost understory intercept 

Occurrences of soil-surface disturbances and soil crusts also were recorded during linepoint intercept sampling. Soil-surface disturbances were described on the basis of nine 

categories (table 5). Soil crusts were described on the basis of four categories (table 6). 

8
Table 4. Definitions of plant material and plant status. 

Term Definition 

Duff Partially decomposed plant litter. It consists of decomposing leaves and other organic 

material (from Herrick et al. 2005). 

Litter 

The top layer of the forest, shrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the duff layer, 

including freshly fallen leaves, needles, bark flakes, cone scales, fruits (including acorns and 

cones), dead matted grass and other vegetative parts that are little altered in structure by 

decomposition. Does not include larger twigs and stems > 2.5 cm in diameter. 

Woody debris Any woody material larger than 2.5 cm in diameter. 

Live, photosynthetic 

plants 

Plant material still attached to a rooted plant that is live and actively photosynthetic. This 

includes all green plant parts. 

Live, nonphotosynthetic plants 

Plant material still attached to a rooted plant that is not live and actively photosynthetic. This 

includes non-photosynthetic tissues such as woody stems and flowers, as well as plant parts 

that were live and photosynthetic in current growing season, but senesced after spring growth 

and now appear brown. 

Standing dead plants Dead plant material still attached to a rooted plant. All standing dead vegetation produced in 

previous (not the current) growing season(s) not in contact with the soil surface. 

Table 5. Categories of soil-surface disturbances described during line-point sampling and 

quadrat sampling. 

Soil disturbance Description 

Undifferentiated disturbance A disturbance with indeterminate origin 

Ant mound Holes and mounds caused by ants 

Wildlife excavation Holes and mounds caused by animals 

Wildlife track Any noticeable tracks, marks, or trails left by animals 

passing through the area 

Livestock track/trail Any noticeable tracks, marks, or trails left by livestock 

passing through the area 

Human track/trail Any noticeable tracks, marks, or trails left by humans 

passing through the area 

Bicycle Disturbances caused by bicycles 

Motor vehicle Disturbances caused by any motor vehicle 

Other anthropogenic Human-caused surface disturbance not defined by 

other categories 

Table 6. Soil crust categories used during line-point sampling and quadrat sampling. 

Category Definition 

Undifferentiated 

crust 

Physical crust and/or weak cyanobacterial crust; may be characterized by slight 

microtopographic development 

Cyanobacteria Soil obviously darkened by cyanobacteria; usually with significant microtopographic 

development 

Lichen Any species, morphological type, or color 

Moss Any species, morphological type, or color 

9
Where cover occurred greater than 2 m above the ground (e.g., Brushy Loam and Loamy 

Mesa Top PJ ecological sites in Mesa Verde, Loamy Hills and Loamy Hills, Cold, ecological 

sites in Grand Canyon, and the Upland Shallow Loam ecological site in Capitol Reef), a canopy 

densitometer (Geographic Resource Solutions, http://www.grsgis.com/densitometer/) was used 

to estimate overstory canopy cover. The densitometer was placed directly over the dropped pin 

and held level with the use of leveling bubbles embedded in the sampling device. The device 

uses mirrors and aligning rings to direct the user’s line of sight directly upward from where it 

was held. Species observed through the densitometer were recorded as overstory hits. All 

overstory layers detected through the viewer were reported. The plant status of all overstory 

layers was recorded as seen through the densitometer, rather than attempting to estimate plant 

status as it would be at the topmost portion of the hit. Height of the top-most species was not 

measured when an overstory layer was present at the point. 

During Phase 3, wind speed was measured with a hand-held anemometer at the beginning 

and end of each line-point sampling event by different observers. These data were collected to 

evaluate whether between-observer repeatability of cover estimates from line-point sampling was 

affected by wind speed. 

Gap-Intercept Sampling 

During Phase 2, a line-intercept sampling method was used to collect data describing the 

size-class distribution of gaps between plant bases (basal gap sampling) and between plant 

canopies (canopy gap sampling). Methods and definitions followed those outlined in the Jornada 

manual (table 7), with one modification. For canopy gaps, the Jornada method was modified to 

record three distinct classes along the line: shrub (woody canopies < 2 m tall), other vegetation, 

and canopy gap. Other vegetation included all suffrutescent and herbaceous species except for 

annual forbs. All attached plant material was counted as canopy regardless of live or dead status. 

Table 7. Definitions used for gap-intercept sampling (from Herrick et al. 2005). 

Term Definition 

Plant canopy 

Canopy is recorded any time 50% or more of any 3-cm segment of tape 

intercepts live or dead plant canopy (above-ground plant parts) based on 

a vertical projection from canopy to ground. 

Plant base 

Any plant stem emerging from the soil surface along the graduated edge 

of the tape that would force an ant walking along the line on the soil to 

step off the line to get around it (minimum diameter of base = 1 mm). 

Canopy gap Gap occurs any time there is at least 20 cm without plant canopy. 

Basal gap Gap occurs any time there is at least 20 cm without a plant base. 

Quadrat Sampling 

Quadrat sampling was conducted during all three phases of the project to estimate 

frequency and cover of understory vegetation and soil-surface features, and to estimate density of 

selected woody species. Quadrats consisted of nested frames measuring 0.01 m2

, 0.1 m2, 1 m2, 

and 10 m2 in area (fig. 4). The 1-m2 quadrat frame was constructed of half-inch PVC pipe and 

marked on all sides with tape to demarcate 10-cm increments. Colored-tape bands on the 1-m2

frame marked the corners of the 0.01-m2

 and 0.1-m2 quadrats. Rope and steel pins were used to 

lay out the 10-m2

 frame. During all sampling phases, rooted frequency of vascular plants and 

10
occurrence frequency of biological soil crusts (table 6), soil-disturbance features (table 5), and 

scat (wildlife vs. livestock) were recorded at every level of nested quadrats. Frequency sampling 

was followed by cover sampling in the 1-m2 quadrat (to nearest 1 percent) and then by cover 

sampling in the 10-m2

 quadrat (by seven cover classes; table 8). For quadrat sampling, estimates 

of vegetation cover were restricted to live foliar cover of understory vegetation less than 2 m tall. 

Figure 4. Dimensions of square and rectangular nested quadrats that were evaluated during 

Phase 1, and of square quadrats that were used during Phases 2 and 3. 

Table 8. Cover-class scale used to estimate cover in 10-m2

 quadrats. 

Cover class Range of cover (%) Class midpoints (%) 

1 <1 0.5 

2 1-5 3.0 

3 5-10 7.5 

4 10-25 17.5 

5 25-50 37.5 

6 50-75 62.5 

7 75-100 87.5 

After cover sampling, densities of selected woody species were estimated in the 10-m2 

quadrats. During site characterization and prior to sampling the macroplot, the dominant shrubs 

and trees to be counted for density were determined. Quercus gambelii and Juniperus 

osteosperma existed in both shrub and tree growth forms across ecological sites but were 

consistently counted as trees. During sampling, individual plants were counted only if stems 

11
were at least halfway rooted in the quadrat (as for rooted frequency). For plants with multiple 

stems, individuals were counted only if at least one stem and half of the canopy were located 

within the quadrat. Individuals were categorized by size class (table 9). Some species, 

especially the shrubs Artemisia tridentata and Coleogyne ramosissima, showed evidence of 

multiple stems (sometimes due to burial of plant bases by eolian sand), making it difficult to 

discern true individuals. In such cases, we applied the rule that if two stems were less than 25 

cm apart, they would be identified as a single counting unit, unless it was readily apparent that 

the stems originated from separate individuals, such as small seedlings sprouting near a larger 

shrub. 

Table 9. Size classes used for recording shrub and tree density (dbh = diameter at breast height; 

drc = diameter at root crown). Tree size classes follow those used by the National Park Service 

fire program (NPS 2003). 

Tree Shrub 

height classes Class Criteria 

< 10 cm 

10 - 25 cm 

Seedling < 1.37 m tall OR < 2.5 

cm dbh / drc 

25 - 50 cm 

50 cm – 1 m 

Pole >= 1.37 m tall AND 

2.5 - 15 cm dbh / drc 

1 - 2 m 

> 2 m Overstory dbh / drc > 15 cm 

After a transect was completed for 1-m2 and 10-m2 quadrat sampling, an additional 

technique was used to estimate the cover and development of biological soil crusts (BSCs) on the 

basis of relative soil darkness. A 25 cm x 25 cm frame (hereafter referred to as a BSC frame) 

was placed adjacent to the transect tape at 2-m intervals and the predominant soil-surface cover 

(excluding litter and plant bases) was assigned one of seven soil-surface categories (table 10) and 

an ordinal cover class (table 8). A photographic key (fig. 5) was used as an aid in characterizing 

the relative darkness of crusted soils. This technique was used at all ecological sites where 

biological soil crusts were common (all macroplots excluding those associated with Brushy 

Loam, Limy Upland, Shallow Loamy, Loamy Hills, and Loamy Hills, Cold, ecological sites).

Table 10. Soil-surface categories used for estimating cover and development of biological soil 

crusts in 25 cm x 25 cm quadrats on the basis of relative soil darkness. Darkness categories for 

crusted soils are illustrated in figure 5. 

Uncrusted or 

crusted soil Soil-surface category 

Uncrusted Bare soil (loose sediment) 

Darkness 1 

Darkness 2 

Darkness 3 

Darkness 4 

Darkness 5 

Crusted 

Darkness 6 

12
Figure 5. Photographic key to soil-surface categories used for describing degrees of biological 

soil crust development on the basis of relative soil darkness (J. Belnap, unpublished). 

Documentation of Unknown Species 

Field observers were challenged by the need to become familiar with the flora of a broad 

range of ecological sites. For purposes of consistency in describing the identity of unknown taxa 

over the course of the season, small specimens of unknown taxa were collected at each park and 

labeled with standardized codes (see Appendix A). These specimens were used throughout 

Phases 2 and 3 to ensure that the same taxa were not described by different identification codes. 

Assessment of Sampling Impacts 

After all sampling procedures were completed at a macroplot location, the field team 

used a standard protocol to assess types and degrees of sampling impacts on soil and vegetation. 

13
The intent of the assessment was to provide information to allow an evaluation of the relative 

significance of adverse sampling impacts among ecological sites and sampling procedures. 

To document impacts caused directly by the overall sampling process, a set of specific 

observer-caused impacts was assessed. The impacts were assigned a rating according to the 

degree to which they occurred on the unsampled side of the transect tape, on the sampled side of 

the transect (but outside of the quadrats), and within the quadrats specifically. Possible ratings 

ranged from none (no impact caused from specified factor) to high (specified factor having an 

extreme impact on the site). An evaluation matrix was constructed to aid in this process (table 

11). Observer-caused impacts included trampled biological soil crusts (referring only to crusts 

exhibiting dark cyanobacteria, soil lichens, and mosses), trampled plants, broken branches, 

destabilized soils (referring to undifferentiated soil crust and bare, loose soil), and quadrat 

imprints. 

Each particular sampling procedure (table 12) also was evaluated to determine the direct 

causes of the sampling impacts. In this evaluation, a relative degree of responsibility for the 

adverse impacts that occurred on a site (all impacts combined) was assigned for each sampling 

procedure. The degree of responsibility again ranged from none to high (table 13). For example, 

if trampling impacts were rated as extreme, the relative significance of the different sampling 

procedures as contributors to the extreme degree of trampling on the site was determined. 

The final step of the impact-assessment process was to document species affected by the 

sampling process. If individuals of certain plant species appeared to have been particularly 

impacted by trampling or breaking of branches, they were identified in the data-entry table. 

Date Entry and Management 

Database Design 

To house and manage data collected throughout the course of the project, the NPS SCPN 

data-management team developed a database using Microsoft Access software and partnered 

with USGS to develop data-management protocols and provide ongoing technical support. To 

facilitate timely incorporation of field data into the database, data were recorded electronically in 

the field with a Panasonic Toughbook 01 Pocket PC and collected into a Microsoft PocketAccess 

database, operated in conjunction with Sprint DB Pro interface software. 

Field Procedures 

Field data collection involved entering data into each of several component database 

tables, including electronic forms for location definition, site characterization, point-intercept 

data, frequency data, quadrat-based cover data, and density data. Reference tables were 

generated for each park in the form of pick lists, based on NPS Inventory and Monitoring species 

lists. Species encountered during field work were drawn from these pick lists; those species not 

appearing on the lists and unidentifiable species were given a code name based on the park in 

which they occurred, a series number, and brief descriptors. Each primary event table contained 

a start and stop time function allowing for the timing of all data-collection processes. The tables 

also displayed the collected data immediately, making it available for editing if necessary. The 

database was backed up several times throughout a day onto an external storage card using 

SunnySoft Backup Manager software. On the occasion that the database was unavailable or 

when programming errors prevented the use of the database, the field crew recorded data onto 

equivalent paper forms and later transferred the data to a corrected database. 

14
15

Table 11. Evaluation matrix for rating sampling impacts, considering the entire macroplot visit and all sampling pr(BSCs = biological soil crusts). 

Degree of impact 

Sampling impact Comments None Slight 

Slight to 

moderate Moderate 

Moderate 

to extreme 

Trampled BSCs 

Refers to trampling impacts on dark cyanobacteria, soil lichens, and/or soil mosses. Impacts to undifferentiated crusts are evaluated under “destabilized soils.” If BSCs are trampled, soils also are destabilized. The opposite is not necessarily true. 

No BSCs were trampled (or no BSCs on site) 

Some trampling impacts occurred, but impacts were very slight because BSCs were relatively uncommon on site or it was otherwise possible to avoid trampling them. OR there appeared to be no long-lasting damage. 

Intermediate 

Trampling of welldeveloped BSCs was unavoidable in some portions of the site, resulting in significant and persistent damage – but extent of this damage was limited to about half of initial footprints. Subsequent steps in same location may have had less impact because the damage already was done. 

Intermediate 

Trampled plants 

Refers to plant impacts attributable to feet, whether they are stepped upon (truly trampled) or kicked. Plant impacts attributable to frame placement are also included, if these are somehow analogous to trampling. Emphasis is on lasting impacts to plant performance (e.g., stem die-back, lost photosynthetic area, damaged reproductive structures.) 

No plants were trampled 

Plants were trampled, but probably had no lasting impacts on plant performance OR, a very small number of plants were trampled to the degree that there might have been lasting impacts on plant performance. 

Intermediate 

Many plants were trampled (impossible to avoid), and about half of trampling events probably resulted in lasting impacts on plant performance. OR trampling of plants was somewhat common (not ubiquitous) and probably resulted in lasting impacts on plant performance in most cases. 

Intermediate 
Table 11.—Continued 

Degree of impact 

Sampling impact Comments None Slight 

Slight to 

moderate Moderate 

Moderate 

to extreme 

Broken branches 

Plant impacts attributable to body movement beneath or between branches of woody plants – e.g., fighting your way through dense shrubs, sapling trees, or lowhanging branches. Emphasis is on lasting impacts to plant performance (e.g., stem die-back, lost photosynthetic area, damaged reproductive structures.) 

No branches were broken 

Branches were broken, but probably had no lasting impacts on plant performance. OR, a very small number of branches were broken to the degree that there might have been lasting impacts on plant performance. 

Intermediate 

Many branches were broken (impossible to avoid), and about half of events probably resulted in lasting impacts on plant performance. OR broken branches were somewhat common (not ubiquitous) and probably resulted in lasting impacts on plant performance in most cases. 

Intermediate 

16
Table 12. Explanations of sampling procedures for purposes of impact assessment. 

Sampling procedure Comments Travel to macroplot Refers to the overland trek to the macroplot Site characterization Refers to all activities associated with site characterization, including texturing soil etc. Plot establishment Refers to activities associated with laying out transects – e.g., locating endpoints and centers of transects, laying ou1-m2 quadrat sampling Refers to placement and sampling of 1-m2 quadrats for frequency and cover, as well as to moving the quadrat frame 

down the transect. 

10-m2 quadrat sampling Refers to placement and sampling of 10-m2 quadrats for frequency, cover and density, as well as to moving the quad

the next down the transect. 

Line-point intercept sampling Refers to point sampling along the transect – e.g., placing the pin, measuring intercept heights, and walking the tranGap-intercept sampling Refers to sampling canopy and basal gaps along line-intercept transect. Pin placement Refers to staking of tape and 10-m2 quadrat frames with chaining pins Cumulative travel on line Refers to impacts associated with repeated, cumulative travel up and down the transect line for all sampling proceduTable 13. Impact-assessment ratings for individual sampling procedures. 

Degree of responsibility foroverall impacts on a site 

None Slight 

Slight to 

moderate Moderate 

Moderate t

high 

No observable impact attributable to this procedure 

Some impacts were attributable to this procedure, but it had a slight impact overall. 

Intermediate 

This procedure was responsible for a significant degree of impact on this site. It was not the primary contributor to extreme impacts, but it may have been the primary contributor to moderate impacts. 

Intermediat

17
18

Office Procedures 

Upon return to the office following each data-collection trip, the PocketAccess database 

was synchronized or transferred from the Pocket PC to a desktop computer and converted to an 

Access database using Microsoft ActiveSync software. A cradle or a direct line connected the 

Pocket PC to the computer. During Phase 3, a separate database was created for each park visit 

to minimize file sizes and data-transfer times. These visit-specific databases were then 

integrated into the single master Access database after every trip. After each data collection 

Phase, the data were reviewed using standardized quality control and quality assurance methods. 

A thorough quality check was conducted at the end of the field season and queries were 

developed to generate data tables for use in statistical analyses and summarization. 

Data Analyses 

Data were summarized and analyzed to evaluate how sampling efficiency (sampling 

times, within- and among-plot variability in cover estimates, and measures of community 

composition), selected cover estimates, and repeatability (measurement precision) differed 

among sampling techniques and ecological sites. Unless specified otherwise, all statistical 

analyses were performed with Statistica v.6.1 (Statsoft, Inc. 2004) for Windows, and p-values ≤

0.05 were considered statistically significant. 

Sampling Efficiency 

As a standardized measure of variability, the coefficient of variation (CV) was used as a 

primary metric for describing and comparing within- and among-plot variability in cover 

estimates provided by different sampling techniques: 

CV = 100 * (sample standard deviation / sample mean) 

Analysis of variance (ANOVA; Zar 1999) was used to evaluate effects of ecological site, 

cover category (total live understory canopy, individual species, and soil-surface features), and 

sampling method on log-transformed CV values (using the natural log, ln) describing withinmacroplot variability and among-plot variability. Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) 

post-hoc test was used to evaluate differences among treatments with significant main effects 

(Zar 1999). In addition, multiple regression techniques (Zar 1999) were used to evaluate the 

significance of subsample size, frequency, and mean within-plot cover values as predictors of 

log-transformed CV values provided by different sampling techniques. 

The relative efficiency of different sampling techniques also was evaluated by comparing 

numbers of subsamples and samples required for estimating within- and among-plot mean cover 

values with 10 and 20 percent precision. For these analyses, we define estimation precision as 

one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval for the mean, expressed as a percentage 

of the mean. Sample-size estimates were calculated using the software package PASS (Power 

and Sample Size; NCSS, Kaysville, Utah, http://www.ncss.com/). Data for mean sampling times 

(minutes per quadrat for 1-m2

 and 10-m2 quadrats; minutes per 10-pt group for line-point 

intercept sampling) by ecological site were used to estimate amounts of time required for 

different sampling techniques to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in within-plot cover 

estimates. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analyses (Zar 1999) were used to test null hypotheses 

of no differences among median numbers of subsamples and among median numbers of hours 
required for different sampling methods to estimate mean within-plot cover values and amongplot cover values with 20 percent precision. Kruskal-Wallis analyses also were used to test null 

hypotheses of no difference among median ratios of within-to-among macroplot variability 

(based on log-transformed CV values) for cover estimates provided by different sampling 

techniques. 

Finally, 10-m2 and 1-m2 quadrat sampling techniques were compared on the basis of 

species-area curves, compositional curves, and numbers of vascular plant species (richness) 

detected per macroplot. Mean species-area and compositional curves were developed on an 

ecological-site basis using the software package PCORD v.4.34 (McCune and Mefford 1999). 

Species-area curves describe how mean numbers of unique species detected increase with 

increasing numbers of subsample quadrats. Compositional curves describe how increasing 

numbers of subsamples cause mean estimates of community composition to change in relation to 

community composition quantified on the basis of the full set of subsamples. For this particular 

analysis, community dissimilarity was described on the basis of Sørensen's distance index 

(McCune and Grace 2002). ANOVA was used to evaluate effects of ecological site and quadrat 

size on log-transformed species-richness values (natural log transformation) for macroplots 

sampled during Phase 3. This analysis was repeated after excluding from the 10-m2 data those 

species that occurred in only one 10-m2 quadrat at a given macroplot. The intent of this approach 

was to determine whether effects of quadrat size on species-richness estimates could be 

accounted for solely by low-frequency species detected in 10-m2 quadrats. 

Among-Method Trends in Cover Estimates 

Data collected during this study could not be used to evaluate the accuracy of cover 

estimates provided by different sampling methods because true cover values were not 

determined. Nevertheless, we analyzed cover data to evaluate whether there were any relative 

trends in cover estimates provided by the different methods. ANOVA techniques were used to 

evaluate effects of ecological site and sampling method on estimates of total live understory 

canopy cover and cover of selected soil-surface features. For these analyses, means were 

standardized by calculating the ratio of the observed mean value for a particular sampling 

method and cover measure to the among-method mean value for the same measure. 

Repeatability 

The main focus of the repeatability analysis was to evaluate between-observer 

repeatability (measurement precision) of different sampling methods, and to assess whether 

repeatability of methods varied among ecological sites or types of measures (e.g., total plant 

cover, individual species cover, surface-feature cover, and density). Data were separated into 

four types: canopy cover, soil crust cover, other surface cover, and shrub and tree density. Cover 

and density were summarized for each transect sampled during Phase 3 (n = 9 transects for each 

ecological site). All data were analyzed separately for each ecological site unless otherwise 

noted. 

For each ecological site, a factorial ANOVA was used to evaluate effects of observer and 

sampling method on litter cover, total live understory canopy cover, and cover of three dominant 

plant species. Data were arcsine-square-root (arcsin) transformed to improve normality and 

variance, assumptions of parametric statistics. The lack of normality in the distribution of soil 

crust data could not be corrected with the arcsin transformation. Therefore, non-parametric 

Wilcoxon paired-sample tests (Zar 1999) were performed for each soil crust type 

(undifferentiated crust, cyanobacteria, lichen, and moss) to evaluate effects of observer on cover 

19
estimates derived from 1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and line-point intercept transects. 

Wilcoxon tests also were used to evaluate effects of observer on estimates of biological soil crust 

cover using the BSC frame (table 10 and fig. 5). For shrub and tree density, Wilcoxon tests 

evaluated effects of observer on mean counts per quadrat for each size class of each species 

across all ecological sites combined. 

To evaluate effects of wind on repeatability of line-point intercept canopy cover, absolute 

differences between observers' cover estimates were regressed on average wind speeds for both 

observers combined. Separate regression analyses were performed for woody plants and for 

herbaceous plants. 

Sampling Impacts 

Sampling impacts on plot conditions were evaluated on the basis of numeric scores 

assigned to qualitative impact ratings (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = slight to moderate, 3 = moderate, 

4 = moderate to extreme, 5 = extreme). Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine differences 

in impact ratings (1) among sampling procedures, (2) among ecological sites, and (3) among 

unsampled and sampled sides of the transect and within quadrats. 

Results 

Macroplot Characterization and Evaluation 

Based on the macroplot characterization process, 15 of the total 48 sampled macroplots 

were relocated away from the predetermined centroids provided by NPS (table 14). Ten 

macroplots were relocated due to being located on or near the wrong soil and ecological site. Of 

the ten, only one macroplot (DINO2b) had to be moved to an entirely new set of coordinates 

because the target soil and ecological site were nowhere in the area. All other macroplots were 

close enough to the target soil and ecological site that they were shifted to a nearby location. 

Seven macroplots were shifted due to a physical barrier (two predetermined centroids were both 

on the wrong soil and too close to a physical barrier). Physical barriers primarily included roads 

and steep cliff bands. In one case, the centroid was located within a paved campground. 

The field team found that it was relatively straightforward to evaluate soil and ecological 

site characteristics on the basis of observable field attributes in most cases. The most difficult 

locations to assess were at Wupatki National Monument, where soil depth was a key attribute for 

distinguishing ecological sites. This attribute could not be evaluated on the basis of surface 

features alone. Although the field team was able to successfully evaluate site characteristics in 

most cases, they would have benefited from additional training and experience in soilgeomorphic concepts underlying the notion of ecological sites. In some cases, decisions to 

relocate macroplots may have been based on excessive reliance on vegetation characteristics 

rather than on soil-geomorphic characteristics. 

20
Table 14. Summary of macroplots that were relocated following site characterization and prior 

to sampling. 

Ecological site Macroplot Reason for relocation Details 

Desert Sand (Sand 

Sagebrush) CANY2b 

Close to wrong soil type, which 

was influenced by alluvial 

groundwater 

Plot moved farther away from Salt Creek to avoid 

influence of ground water on vegetation composition. 

WUPA1 Wrong soil type Plot shifted about 100 m further down the valley 

because the original point crossed a cliff band. Limy Upland, 6-10" 

pz 

WUPA2 Wrong soil type Plot moved to a location about 100 m into the valley to 

avoid including shallow soils in the macroplot. 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" 

pz 

GRCA7 Physical barrier: on the road 

The predetermined centroid was located at a campsite 

so the plot was shifted about 100 m away to be just 

outside the campground. 

Semidesert Alkali CARE1 Close to wrong soil type Plot moved to avoid proximity to rocky hillslope. 

Sandy Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) CARE2b Close to wrong soil type 

(drainage) 

Plot moved about 100 m south to avoid crossing a 

large wash. 

DINO1 Physical barrier: on the road This plot was shifted about 50 m to avoid sampling on 

top of the road. 

DINO2b Wrong soil type and on the road 

Original plot location appeared to be in the wrong soil 

type. A new location was selected to avoid sampling 

on a road. 

DINO4b Wrong soil type 

Plot location moved downslope away from edge of soil 

map unit. Outside of the map unit, the soil appeared to 

be too gravelly and the vegetation exhibited no 

remnant sagebrush (the target vegetation). 

Semidesert Loam 

(Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush) 

DINO5 Wrong soil type 

Centroid was located in a gully, right at the edge of a 

different soil map unit, so the macroplot was relocated 

on a sagebrush- dominated bench, about 50 m to the 

east. 

ARCH1b Wrong soil type Soil at predetermined location was much too deep. 

ARCH4b Wrong soil type and on the road Original location was on road and in wrong soil type. 

Centroid shifted nearby to correct soil type off of road. 

Semidesert Shallow 

Sandy Loam PJ 

CANY4 Physical barrier: too close to cliff Plot was moved further from the cliff edge. 

CARE4b Physical barrier: too close to cliff Plot location was moved up and out of the canyon to 

avoid 2 cliffbands. Upland Shallow 

Loam (Pinyon-Utah 

Juniper) CARE9 Physical barrier: too close to cliff Shifted the plot location about 15 m upslope to avoid 

sampling on the cliff. 

Prior to the field season, NCPN staff provided predetermined transect orientations based 

on analyses of digital elevation models (DEMs). As intended, these generally aligned with 

hillslope contours observed in the field. However, some differences occurred between the 

predetermined orientations and those based on field observations of aspect and contour – 

probably because the scale of topographic variation in the field was finer than that depicted in 

DEMs. An extreme example of this difference could be seen at macroplot CARE7, where the 

predetermined aspect was oriented down a large valley slope whereas the ground-level aspect 

appeared to follow the slope along the side of the valley wall. 

Sampling Efficiency 

Sampling Times 

Across all ecological sites, the mean amount of time required for setting up and reading 

frequency and cover in 10-m2

 quadrats (8.2 min per quadrat) was approximately twice that 

21
22

Table 15. Mean times for setting up and reading frequency (freq), cover (cov), and density (dens) in 1-m2 and 10-mtimes for 1-m2 quadrats were not measured but are estimated here for comparative purposes. Data do not includ

transect layout. 

Mean times by ecological site (min per quadrat) 

1-m2 quadrats 10-m2 quadrats 

Ecological site 

No. of 

macroplots Set-up (s) Freq (f)* Cov (c) Total (s+f+c) Set-up (s) Freq (f)* Cov (c) Total (s+f+c) 

Brushy Loam 5 1.0 2.2 2.3 5.5 3.9 5.6 2.8 12.3 Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) 2 0.5 1.9 2.2 4.6 2.3 3.9 2.6 8.8 Limy Upland, 6-10" pz 5 0.5 1.2 2.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 2.3 7.3 Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz 5 0.5 0.8 1.5 4.1 2.4 2.5 2.0 8.9 Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz 2 0.5 1.4 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.9 2.6 7.3 Loamy Mesa Top PJ 5 0.5 1.1 1.9 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.2 8.6 Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 5 0.5 1.9 2.0 4.4 1.8 4.6 2.4 8.8 Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 5 0.5 1.9 2.4 4.8 2.1 3.9 2.5 8.4 Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 7 0.5 1.4 1.9 3.8 2.5 3.3 2.0 7.9 Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz 2 0.5 1.1 1.7 3.4 2.2 2.4 2.0 6.5 Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 5 0.5 0.5 1.7 2.8 2.3 1.5 1.5 5.3 

Mean 0.55 1.40 1.98 3.93 2.51 3.43 2.26 8.20 

sd 0.15 0.53 0.26 0.84 0.62 1.14 0.36 1.77 

CV 27.64 38.09 13.06 21.31 24.87 33.17 16.10 21.62 

* includes time to read frequency in nested smaller quadrats 
Table 16. Mean times for sampling line-point intercept transects, basal- and canopy-gaps transects, and biologic

frames. Data do not include time required for transect layout. Sites identified in bold italics are those where line-were used to estimate cover of overstory vegetation above 2-m in height, in addition to understory vegetation and features. 

Line-point intercept Basal and canopy gaps 

Ecological site No. of transects 

Min per 10-pt 

group 

No. of 

transects 

Min per 50-m 

transect 

Brushy Loam 13 5.0 3 31.8 Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) 6 3.6 6 23.6 Limy Upland, 6-10" pz 12 3.3 5 34.6 Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz 14 4.0 - - Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz 6 5.7 - - Loamy Mesa Top PJ 14 4.2 6 27.4 Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 14 2.4 4 24.4 Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 13 3.9 6 41.2 Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 20 2.5 12 19.9 Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz 5 3.0 5 31.5 Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 14 2.3 6 5.2 

Mean 3.62 26.63 

sd 1.09 10.27 

CV 30.13 38.57 

23
required for 1-m2

 quadrats (3.9 min per quadrat; table 15). For both quadrat sizes, mean 

sampling times were greatest at the Brushy Loam ecological site in Mesa Verde National Park 

due to dense shrubland vegetation. Mean amounts of time required to sample densities of shrubs 

and trees in 10-m2

 quadrats varied in relation to the abundance of woody plants and ranged from 

2.7 min per quadrat in Brushy Loam shrublands of Mesa Verde to 0.2 min per quadrat in 

Shallow Loamy desert grasslands of Wupatki National Monument. Across all sites, mean 

sampling times for line-point intercept transects (3.6 min per 10-pt group) were similar to those 

for 1-m2

 quadrats (table 16). Combined sampling of basal and canopy gaps along 50-m transects 

required an average of 26.6 min per transect across all ecological sites. Sampling biological soil 

crust cover with the BSC frame (table 10, fig. 5) required approximately 23.4 sec per frame, on 

average. 

Within-Macroplot Variability 

Ecological site, cover category (total live understory canopy, individual species, and soilsurface features), and sampling method all had significant effects on log-transformed CV values 

describing within-macroplot variability in cover measures (table 17). In addition, there was a 

statistically significant interaction between ecological site and cover category (table 17). The 

Upland Shallow Loam ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park was characterized by the 

greatest degree of within-macroplot variability in cover measures (fig. 6a), but otherwise there 

were no clear among-site trends in within-plot variability. Total live understory canopy cover 

was least variable within macroplots and individual species' cover was most variable, when 

averaged across all ecological sites (fig. 6b). This general pattern was strongly reflected at some 

ecological sites (e.g., Brushy Loam at Mesa Verde and Limy Upland at Wupatki), but was 

weakly represented or not apparent at other ecological sites (e.g., Semidesert Shallow Sandy 

Loam at Arches and Canyonlands, and the Upland Shallow Loam at Capitol Reef) (fig. 7). Of 

the sampling methods, 10-m2

 quadrats exhibited the least within-macroplot variability in cover 

measures, and there was no statistical difference between 1-m2 quadrats and line-point intercepts 

with respect to this measure (fig. 6c). 

Table 17. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site, cover category (total live understory 

canopy, individual species, and soil-surface features), and sampling method on log-transformed 

CV values describing within-macroplot variability in cover measures. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Ecological site 36.722 10 3.672 7.919 <0.0001

Cover category 75.154 2 37.577 81.034 <0.0001

Method 15.795 2 7.898 17.031 <0.0001

Ecological site*Category 30.102 20 1.505 3.246 <0.0001

Ecological site*Method 10.828 20 0.541 1.168 0.275

Category*Method 1.919 4 0.480 1.035 0.388

Ecological site*Category*Method 4.103 40 0.103 0.221 1.000

Error 385.814 832 0.464

24
Figure 6. Main effects of (a) ecological site, (b) cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual species, and soil-surface features), and (c) sampling method on log-transformed CV 

values describing within-plot variability in cover measures. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence 

intervals. Within each panel, values with the same letter are not significantly different by Tukey's 

HSD test. See table 1 for ecological site codes. 

25
Figure 7. Interactive effects of ecological site and cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual plant species, and soil-surface features) on log-transformed CV values describing 

within-plot variability in cover measures. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals for 

means. See table 1 for ecological site codes. 

In multiple regression models for all sampling methods combined and for each method 

separately, frequency, mean cover, and subsample size all were significant predictors of logtransformed CV values for within-macroplot cover measures (table 18). Of these, frequency 

tended to have the greatest effect (with the exception of 10-m2

 quadrats), whereas subsample size 

consistently had the least (albeit significant) effect as indicated by standardized regression 

coefficients (Beta values). In models for individual sampling methods, the importance of 

frequency as a predictor of within-plot CV values increased with decreasing quadrat area. The 

fit of the overall regression model also increased with decreasing quadrat area, as reflected by 

adjusted R2 values. 

Table 19 summarizes means and measures of within-macroplot variability for total live 

understory canopy cover estimated by three different sampling methods at each of 11 ecological 

sites. (Appendix B presents 11 ecological-site-level tables with measures of average withinmacroplot variability and associated sample size estimates for a broader range of cover 

measures.) Except for the Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site at Mesa Verde, mean within-plot 

CV values for total live understory canopy cover were lowest for 10-m2

 quadrats at all ecological 

sites. Mean CV values were highest for 1-m2 quadrats at eight of the 11 ecological sites and 

highest for line-point intercepts at three of the 11 ecological sites. Among-method patterns in 

numbers of subsamples required to estimate mean cover values with 10 and 20 percent precision 

were similar to those for mean CV values. Subsample numbers were lowest for 10-m2

 quadrats 

26
at all ecological sites except the Upland Shallow Loam site at Capitol Reef. Subsample numbers 

for 1-m2 quadrats were highest for eight of the 11 ecological sites. Across all ecological sites 

combined, there was no difference among methods in median numbers of subsamples required to 

estimate mean plot-level cover of total understory vegetation (fig. 8a) or surface features (fig. 8c) 

with 20 percent precision. The median number of subsamples required to estimate individual 

species' cover with 20 percent precision was lower for 10-m2 quadrats than for line-point 

intercept transects (fig. 8b). 

Table 18. Results of multiple-regression models evaluating significance of subsample size, 

frequency, and mean cover as predictors of log-transformed CV values describing withinmacroplot variability in cover measures. 

Model 1: Model results Standardized regression coefficients

All methods combined Value Indep. var. Beta SE t(927) p-level

n=931 Multiple R 0.85 Subsample n 0.081 0.017 4.63 <0.0001

Multiple R2 0.73 Freq -0.536 0.020 -26.98 <0.0001

Adjusted R2 0.73 Mean -0.447 0.020 -22.58 <0.0001

F(3,927) 827.74

p <0.0001

Model 2: Model results Standardized regression coefficients

10-m2

 quadrats Value Indep. var. Beta SE t(317) p-level

n=321 Multiple R 0.77 Subsample n 0.098 0.036 2.73 0.0068

Multiple R2 0.60 Freq -0.447 0.038 -11.64 <0.0001

Adjusted R2 0.59 Mean -0.488 0.038 -12.67 <0.0001

F(3,317) 156.77

p <0.0001

Model 3: Model results Standardized regression coefficients

1-m2

 quadrats Value Indep. var. Beta SE t(314) p-level

n=318 Multiple R 0.83 Subsample n 0.094 0.032 2.96 0.0033

Multiple R2 0.69 Freq -0.538 0.036 -15.12 <0.0001

Adjusted R2 0.68 Mean -0.430 0.036 -12.03 <0.0001

F(3,314) 230.00

p <0.0001

Model 4: Model results Standardized regression coefficients

Line-point intercept Value Indep. var. Beta SE t(288) p-level

n=292 Multiple R 0.97 Subsample n 0.032 0.016 2.07 0.0396

Multiple R2 0.93 Freq -0.685 0.026 -26.74 <0.0001

Adjusted R2 0.93 Mean -0.326 0.026 -12.74 <0.0001

F(3,288) 1342.26

p <0.0001

27
28

Table 19. Summary of mean estimates for total live understory canopy cover for each of 11 Colorado Plateau ecomacroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across n macroplots within each ecological site, subsample sachieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estimated amounts of sampling t

achieve those degrees of precision. Subsample sizes for line-point sampling refer to numbers of 10-point groups. bold italics are those where line-point intercepts were used to estimate cover of overstory vegetation above 2 m 

understory vegetation and soil-surface features. 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates 

(summarized across macroplots) 

Subsample size 

(by precision) 

Ecological site 

Physiognamic 

structure n Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

10-m2 49.7 18.1 7.4 24.0 100.0 36.5 54 16 

1-m2 Brushy Loam Shrubland 5 43.4 26.2 10.8 37.3 100.0 60.1 143 38 

Line-point 52.8 23.7 16.4 33.2 98.7 45.5 80 22 

10-m2 13.4 3.7 3.4 4.0 100.0 27.7 32 10 

1-m2 12.3 7.7 6.5 8.8 100.0 61.9 151 40 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) Grassland 2 Line-point 11.7 11.1 10.2 12.1 68.3 95.4 350 90 

10-m2 23.6 6.0 3.9 8.0 100.0 26.5 28 9 

1-m2 Limy Upland, 6-10" pz Grassland 5 16.0 5.3 3.1 8.8 100.0 33.1 45 15 

Line-point 26.7 15.8 13.0 18.7 93.3 59.9 138 37 

10-m2 19.7 15.8 3.0 32.2 100.0 74.8 248 65 

1-m2 23.8 27.1 5.2 52.8 94.7 120.4 502 128 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz Forest 5 Line-point 16.9 13.8 9.6 23.3 72.0 90.6 257 67 

10-m2 48.8 31.6 29.3 33.9 100.0 64.9 164 43 

1-m2 57.3 42.5 33.7 51.2 100.0 78.3 211 56 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz Forest 2 Line-point 25.7 18.9 17.9 19.9 85.0 74.5 209 55 

10-m2 32.7 20.2 11.7 31.3 91.2 157.9 149 39 

1-m2 Loamy Mesa Top PJ Woodland 5 29.6 31.1 15.2 49.8 58.7 198.8 425 109 

Line-point 20.7 15.5 11.6 18.3 46.7 133.4 215 57 

10-m2 20.3 8.8 4.5 16.9 100.0 45.5 75 21 

1-m2 18.1 12.7 6.1 20.1 98.7 72.8 193 50 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 

Grassland 5 

Line-point 25.4 16.4 11.9 19.4 85.3 71.7 163 43 

10-m2 32.2 11.1 7.9 16.9 100.0 36.6 49 14 

1-m2 20.2 13.0 9.1 19.4 100.0 67.9 163 43 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 

Shrubland 5 

Line-point 53.8 22.8 20.3 25.5 98.7 48.4 72 20 

10-m2 18.8 11.7 6.0 18.4 98.6 65.1 152 40 

1-m2 16.4 14.7 10.2 25.1 96.7 96.0 311 81 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ Shrubland 7 Line-point 13.3 13.2 7.0 23.6 66.7 102.3 380 98 

10-m2 18.3 7.4 5.8 9.0 100.0 43.0 66 19 

1-m2 17.2 13.8 10.7 17.0 100.0 87.4 250 65 

Shallow Loamy, 10- 14" pz Grassland 2 Line-point 27.3 12.8 9.6 16.0 90.0 54.9 88 24 

10-m2 16.5 19.7 11.3 29.3 96.0 117.4 546 139 

1-m2 15.4 24.5 18.9 30.8 88.7 176.4 976 244 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 

Woodland 5 

Line-point 11.7 13.3 9.2 15.4 56.0 126.3 491 126 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups
Per-unit sampling times from tables 15 and 16 and subsample sizes from table 19 were 

used to estimate total amounts of subsampling time required for the three methods to estimate 

mean total live understory canopy cover with 10 and 20 percent precision (table 19, fig. 9). 

(Amounts of time required for transect layout and density sampling were not included in this 

analysis.) Total subsample times were lowest for line-point intercept transects at eight of the 11 

ecological sites – including all sites with shrubland and woodland physiognomic structure, two 

of four sites with grassland structure, and one of two sites with forest structure. Subsample times 

also were lowest for line-point intercepts at four of five sites where points were used to estimate 

cover of overstory vegetation taller than 2 m in addition to cover of understory vegetation and 

surface features. Total subsample times were highest for 10-m2

 quadrats at four ecological sites, 

for 1-m2

 quadrats at five ecological sites, and for line-point intercept transects at three ecological 

sites. Across all ecological sites, the mean subsample time for 20 percent precision was lowest 

and individual times were least variable for line-point intercept transects (mean = 3.3 hrs, CV = 

50.9) relative to 10-m2

 quadrats (mean = 4.6 hrs, CV = 76.1) and 1-m2 quadrats (mean = 4.8 hrs, 

CV = 63.0). This result was strongly influenced by high subsample times for 10-m2

 and 1-m2

quadrats at the Loamy Hills and Upland Shallow Loam ecological sites at Grand Canyon and

Figure 8. Median numbers (± 25 percentiles) of subsamples required for 20 percent precision in 

macroplot-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live cover of individual 

plant species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the 

Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. In (a), there is no difference among median values 

obtained via different sampling methods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.89, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.0525). In (b), 

median values from 10-m2

 quadrats and line-point intercepts are significantly different from one 

another (Kruskal-Wallis H = 15.41, df = 2, n = 94, p = 0.0004). In (c), there is no significant 

difference among medians from different methods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.08, df = 2, n = 98, p = 

0.2139). 

29
Figure 9. Time required to estimate total live understory cover using (a) the line-point intercept technique, (b) 1-m

m2 quadrats in relation to cover estimates derived from the same sampling techniques. Points are labeled by eco

table 1 for key to codes) and symbolized to indicate the general physiognomic structure of the sampled plant comsites underlined in (a) are those where line-point intercepts were used to estimate cover of overstory vegetation aaddition to understory vegetation and soil-surface features. 

30
Capitol Reef, respectively. Statistical analyses on the basis of median values indicate no 

significant differences among methods for median amounts of time required to estimate total live 

understory canopy cover (fig. 10a), cover of individual species (fig. 10b), or cover of surface 

features (fig. 10c) with 20 percent precision. For total live understory canopy cover, median 

sampling times for 20 percent precision were 3.3, 3.7, and 4.0 hours for 10-m2

 quadrats, 1-m2

quadrats, and line-intercept transects, respectively. (Appendix C presents 48 tables summarizing 

actual within-macroplot variability by macroplot, but without sample size estimates.) 

Numbers of macroplots sampled per ecological site during the 2005 field season were 

small, ranging from two to five. Despite these small sample sizes, here we present preliminary 

summaries and analyses of among-macroplot variability in cover measures. Across all 

ecological sites, mean among-plot variation (measured on basis of log-transformed CV values) 

was least for total live understory canopy cover and greatest for cover of individual species (table 

20, fig. 11). Although sampling method did not have a statistically significant effect on amongplot variability in cover measures (table 20), among-plot CV values for total live understory 

canopy cover were lowest for line-point intercept transects at seven of 11 ecological sites and 

highest for 10-m2

 quadrats at six of 11 sites (table 21). This same pattern was evident for 

Among-Macroplot Variability 

Figure 10. Median numbers of hours (± 25 percentiles) required for subsampling to achieve 20 

percent precision in macroplot-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live 

cover of individual plant species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites 

sampled on the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no 

significant difference among median sampling times for different sampling methods (a. KruskalWallis H = 0.95, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.6216; b. Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.51, df = 2, n = 94, p = 0.1045; c. 

Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.68, df = 2, n = 98, p = 0.4327). 

31
numbers of macroplot samples required for different sampling methods to estimate site-level 

total live understory canopy cover with 10 and 20 percent precision (table 21). Across all 

ecological sites, the mean number of macroplots for 20 percent precision was lowest for linepoint intercept transects (mean = 15.6, CV = 91.4) relative to 10-m2

 quadrats (mean = 17.5, CV = 

63.5) and 1-m2 quadrats (mean = 20.9, CV = 95.1). This result was highly influenced by high 

numbers of macroplots for 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats at the Loamy Hills ecological site at Grand 

Canyon. Statistical analyses on the basis of median values indicate no significant differences 

among methods for the median number of macroplot samples required to estimate total live 

understory canopy cover with 20 percent precision (fig. 12). Median numbers of macroplots for 

20 percent precision in ecological-site-level estimates of total live understory canopy cover were 

13, 16, and 17 for 10-m2 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and line-intercept transects, respectively. (See 

Appendix D for tables summarizing among-plot variability for a broader range of cover 

measures on an ecological site basis, but without sample-size estimates.) 

Table 20. Analysis of variance for effects of cover category (total live understory canopy, 

individual species, and surface features) and sampling method on log-transformed CV values 

describing among-macroplot variability in cover estimates. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Cover category 27.618 2 13.809 22.163 <0.0001

Method 0.009 2 0.005 0.007 0.993

Category*Method 2.743 4 0.686 1.101 0.357

Error 134.581 216 0.623

Figure 11. Main effects of cover category (total live understory canopy, individual species, and 

surface features) on log-transformed CV values describing among-macroplot variability in cover 

estimates across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. 

Values with different letters are significantly different from one another (Tukey's HSD test, 

between MS = 0.6231, df = 216, p < 0.01 for all pair-wise comparisons).

32
33

Table 21. Among-macroplot variation in estimates of total live understory canopy cover for 11 ecological sites (n 

ecological site), macroplot sample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of site-level 

within-to-among CV values. 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates 

Samp

(by pr

Ecological site 

Physiognamic 

structure n Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 

10-m2 49.7 16.0 28.4 71.2 42.8 32.2 42 

1-m2 Brushy Loam Shrubland 5 43.4 13.7 25.8 62.6 36.8 31.6 42 

Line-point 52.8 3.3 48.7 56.0 7.3 6.2 4 

10-m2 13.4 0.4 13.1 13.7 0.6 3.3 3 

1-m2 12.3 0.3 12.1 12.5 0.4 2.3 3 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) Grassland 2 Line-point 11.7 0.0 11.7 11.7 0.0 0.0 2 

10-m2 23.6 6.7 18.0 34.4 16.4 28.3 34 

1-m2 Limy Upland, 6-10" pz Grassland 5 16.0 3.5 11.7 20.1 8.4 21.6 21 

Line-point 26.7 4.4 21.3 31.3 10.0 16.5 13 

10-m2 19.7 11.6 5.6 35.2 29.5 58.9 136 

1-m2 Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz Forest 5 23.8 20.9 5.1 57.5 52.4 87.8 297 

Line-point 16.9 7.1 8.0 24.3 16.3 42.2 71 

10-m2 48.8 7.4 43.6 54.0 10.5 15.2 12 

1-m2 57.3 28.2 37.4 77.3 39.9 49.2 96 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz Forest 2 Line-point 25.7 2.8 23.7 27.7 4.0 11.0 8 

10-m2 32.7 15.2 20.9 55.7 34.8 46.5 86 

1-m2 Loamy Mesa Top PJ Woodland 5 29.6 12.7 13.2 43.7 30.5 42.7 73 

Line-point 20.7 3.5 17.3 26.7 9.3 17.0 14 

10-m2 20.3 10.3 7.3 35.5 28.2 50.9 102 

1-m2 18.1 6.6 7.1 24.6 17.5 36.5 54 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) Grassland 5 Line-point 25.4 10.1 11.3 37.3 26.0 40.0 64 

10-m2 32.2 15.5 20.7 59.4 38.7 48.0 92 

1-m2 20.2 9.4 14.0 36.6 22.6 46.6 86 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 

Shrubland 5 

Line-point 53.8 24.9 34.0 96.3 62.3 46.3 85 

10-m2 18.8 4.8 13.7 28.2 14.5 25.5 28 

1-m2 16.4 5.4 10.5 24.0 13.5 33.1 45 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ Shrubland 7 Line-point 13.3 5.7 6.7 21.7 15.0 42.7 73 

10-m2 18.3 9.5 11.5 25.0 13.5 52.1 107 

1-m2 17.2 4.7 13.9 20.5 6.6 27.3 32 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz Grassland 2 Line-point 27.3 19.3 13.7 41.0 27.3 70.7 195 

10-m2 16.5 4.4 10.2 21.2 11.0 26.4 30 

1-m2 15.4 6.3 7.2 21.1 13.9 40.9 67 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) Woodland 5 Line-point 11.7 4.5 4.7 16.0 11.3 38.7 60 
This section summarizes differences between 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats in terms of species-area 

relationships and community composition. Point-based data are not included in these 

comparisons because of the superiority of quadrat-based sampling for objectives related to 

detection of infrequent species. As expected on the basis of sampling area, more unique species 

were detected in 10-m2

 quadrats than in 1-m2 quadrats at all macroplots (table 22). Ecological 

Species-Area Relationships and Community Composition 

Table 21 also summarizes ratios of within-plot CV values to among-plot CV values for 

total live understory canopy cover by sampling method and ecological site. Across all sites and 

methods, the average within:among ratio was 3.7:1, indicating greater within-plot variability than 

among plot variability. The within:among ratio was lowest for 10-m2

 quadrats at seven of 11 

ecological sites and highest for line-point intercept transects at six of 11 ecological sites. Mean 

within:among CV ratios were 2.6, 4.7, and 3.7 for 10-m2

 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and lineintercept transects, respectively. There were no significant differences among methods in 

median within:among CV ratios for total live understory canopy cover (fig. 13a),cover of 

individual species (fig. 13b), and cover of surface features (fig. 13c). Median within:among CV 

ratios for total live understory cover were 1.2, 2.0, and 3.3 for 10-m2

 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept transects, respectively. 

Figure 12. Median numbers (± 25 percentiles) of macroplots required for 20 percent precision in 

ecological-site-level estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) cover of individual 

plant species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the 

Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no significant difference 

among median macroplot numbers for different sampling methods (a. Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.95, df = 

2, n = 33, p = 0.6218; b. Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.38, df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.5005; c. Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.05, 

df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.2174). 

34
site and quadrat size both had significant effects on log-transformed species richness in 

macroplots where subsample sizes were 15 for both sizes of quadrat (table 23, fig. 14a). At these 

macroplots, ratios of numbers of species detected in 10-m2 quadrats to numbers detected in 1-m2

quadrats ranged from a low of 1.3 at Brushy Loam, Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam, and 

Semidesert Loam ecological sites, to a high of 1.8 at Loamy Hills and Semidesert Shallow Sandy 

Loam ecological sites (table 22). When infrequent species occurring in only one 10-m2 quadrat 

were excluded from the 10-m2

 quadrat data, quadrat size no longer had a statistically significant 

effect on log-transformed species richness (table 24, fig. 14b). This indicates that the advantage 

of 10-m2

 quadrats relative to 1-m2 quadrats was largely attributable to the ability of the larger 

quadrats to detect species with a 10-m2

 frequency of 6.7 percent. However, excluding infrequent 

species occurring in only one 10-m2

 quadrat, ratios of species detected in 10-m2 quadrats to those 

detected in 1-m2

 quadrats were still greater than one at most ecological sites. See Appendix E for 

a set of figures showing mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) 

by ecological site, including separate figures for curves including all species and for curves 

excluding infrequent species with only one quadrat occurrence. 

Figure 13. Median ratios of within-to-among macroplot variability (based on log-transformed CV 

values) for estimates of (a) total live understory canopy cover, (b) live cover of individual plant 

species, and (c) cover of surface features across 11 ecological sites sampled on the Colorado 

Plateau in Utah and Arizona. For each cover category, there is no significant difference among 

median ratios for different sampling methods (a. Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.39, df = 2, n = 33, p = 0.3033; 

b. Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.33, df = 2, n = 96, p = 0.1147; c. Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.05, df = 2, n = 96, p = 

0.3941). 

35
36

Table 22. Species richness data for several ecological sites on the Colorado Plateau, based on 10-m2 and 1-m2 qu

quadrat, columns show observed numbers of unique vascular plant species, jacknife estimates of total species peof infrequent species found in only one quadrat, and remaining numbers of species after excluding those infrequequadrat occurrence. Last three columns show ratios of 10-m2 values to 1-m2 values, using all observed species (O

infrequent species (Excl.). Means, coefficients of variation (CV), and ratios are based on macroplots with 15 10-m

10-m2 quadrats 1-m2 quadrats 

Ecological site Macroplot 

No. 

quads 

Obs. 

no. 

spp. 

(a) 

Jacknife 

estimate 

of total 

spp. 

Infreq. 

spp. 

in 

only 1 

quad 

No. spp. 

excluding 

infrequent 

(b) 

No. 

quads 

Obs. 

no. 

spp. 

(c) 

Jacknife 

estimate 

of total 

spp. 

Infreq. 

spp. 

in 

only 1 

quad 

No. spp. 

excluding 

infrequent 

(d) 

Obs.:Obs

(a:c) 

MEVE 1 21 28 33.7 6 22 30 21 28.7 8 13 - 

MEVE2 21 41 49.6 9 32 30 29 32.9 4 25 - MEVE5 15 42 51.3 10 32 15 29 37.4 9 20 1.4 MEVE6 15 38 42.7 5 33 15 32 41.3 10 22 1.2 

MEVE7b 15 31 35.7 5 26 15 24 28.7 5 19 1.3 

Mean 15 37.0 43.2 6.7 30.3 15 28.3 35.8 8.0 20.3 1.3 

Brushy Loam 

CV - 15.0 18.1 43.3 12.5 - 14.3 18.0 33.1 7.5 10.0 

Desert CANY1 21 23 24.9 2 21 30 22 26.8 5 17 - Sand CANY2b 21 25 30.7 4 21 30 22 23.9 2 20 - 

WUPA1 21 22 25.8 4 18 30 19 22.9 4 15 - WUPA2 21 23 30.6 8 15 30 15 18.9 4 11 - WUPA5 15 16 19.7 4 12 15 9 10.9 2 7 1.8 WUPA6 15 21 26.6 6 15 15 17 20.7 4 13 1.2 WUPA7 15 18 24.5 7 11 15 11 15.7 5 6 1.6 

Mean 15 18.3 23.6 5.7 12.7 15 12.3 15.8 3.7 8.7 1.5 

Limy Upland 

CV - 13.7 15.0 27.0 16.4 - 33.8 31.1 41.7 43.7 18.2 

GRCA3 21 14 15.9 2 12 30 12 14.9 3 9 - GRCA4 21 37 49.4 13 24 30 27 36.7 10 17 - GRCA5 15 26 37.2 12 14 15 14 18.7 5 9 1.9 GRCA6 15 28 35.5 8 20 15 15 19.7 5 10 1.9 GRCA7 15 16 17.9 2 14 15 10 13.7 4 6 1.6 

Mean 15 23.3 30.2 7.3 16.0 15 13.0 17.4 4.7 8.3 1.8 

Loamy Hills 

CV - 27.6 35.4 68.6 21.7 - 20.4 18.5 12.4 25.0 8.5 

Loamy GRCA1 21 21 24.8 4 17 30 18 19.9 2 16 - Hills Cold GRCA2 21 30 36.7 7 23 30 22 28.8 7 15 - 

MEVE3 21 21 27.7 7 14 30 18 26.7 9 9 - MEVE4 21 29 34.7 6 23 30 21 28.7 8 13 - MEVE8 15 16 17.9 2 14 15 11 16.6 6 5 1.5 MEVE9 15 26 33.5 8 18 15 14 18.7 5 9 1.9 

MEVE10 15 33 41.4 9 24 15 25 34.3 10 15 1.3 

Mean 15 25.0 30.9 6.3 18.7 15 16.7 23.2 7.0 9.7 1.5 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 

CV - 34.2 38.7 59.8 27.0 - 44.2 41.7 37.8 52.1 18.1 
Table 22.—Continued 

10-m2 quadrats 1-m2 quadrats 

Ecological site Macroplot 

No. 

quads 

Obs. 

no. 

spp. 

(a) 

Jacknife 

estimate 

of total 

spp. 

Infreq. 

spp. 

in 

only 1 

quad 

No. spp. 

excluding 

infrequent 

(b) 

No. 

quads 

Obs. 

no. 

spp. 

(c) 

Jacknife 

estimate 

of total 

spp. 

Infreq. 

spp. 

in 

only 1 

quad 

No. spp. 

excluding 

infrequent 

(d) 

Obs.:Obs

(a:c) 

CARE1 21 42 46.8 5 37 30 36 37.9 2 34 - CARE2 21 38 43.7 6 32 30 27 29.9 3 24 - CARE5 15 43 49.5 7 36 15 33 41.4 9 24 1.3 CARE6 15 28 35.5 8 20 15 23 35.1 13 10 1.2 CARE7 15 38 45.5 8 30 15 28 34.5 7 21 1.4 

Mean 15 36.3 43.5 7.7 28.7 15 28.0 37.0 9.7 18.3 1.3 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam 

CV - 21.0 16.6 7.5 28.2 - 17.9 10.3 31.6 40.2 5.5 

DINO1 21 29 37.6 9 20 30 25 32.7 8 17 - 

DINO2b 21 14 15 1 13 30 15 19.8 5 10 - 

DINO3 15 28 33.6 6 22 15 22 29.5 8 14 1.3 

DINO4b 15 21 23.8 3 18 15 18 24.5 7 11 1.2 

DINO5 15 20 23.7 4 16 15 14 14.9 1 13 1.4 

Mean 15 23.0 27.0 4.3 18.7 15 18.0 23.0 5.3 12.7 1.3 

Semidesert Loam 

CV - 19.0 21.0 35.3 16.4 - 22.2 32.3 71.0 12.1 10.2 

ARCH1b 21 24 28.8 5 19 30 19 25.8 7 12 - 

ARCH2 21 17 24.6 8 9 30 12 15.9 4 8 - 

CANY3 21 36 46.5 11 25 30 28 35.7 8 20 - CANY4 21 29 31.9 3 26 30 27 35.7 9 18 - 

ARCH3 15 22 31.3 10 12 15 8 9.9 2 6 2.8 

ARCH4b 15 21 25.7 5 16 15 14 19.6 6 8 1.5 

ARCH5 15 15 16.9 2 13 15 13 14.9 2 11 1.2 

Mean 15 19.3 24.6 5.7 13.7 15 11.7 14.8 3.3 8.3 1.8 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam 

CV - 19.6 29.5 71.3 15.2 - 27.6 32.8 69.3 30.2 46.6 

Shallow WUPA3 21 24 31.6 8 16 30 15 16.9 2 13 - Loamy WUPA4 21 21 25.8 5 16 30 16 21.8 6 10 - 

CARE3 21 34 49.2 16 18 30 23 32.7 10 13 - 

CARE4b 21 15 17.9 3 12 30 14 21.7 8 6 - 

CARE8 15 20 23.7 4 16 15 17 23.5 7 10 1.2 CARE9 15 18 23.6 6 12 15 8 10.8 3 5 2.3 

CARE10 15 13 15.8 3 10 15 11 15.7 5 6 1.2 

Mean 15 17.0 21.0 4.3 12.7 15 12.0 16.7 5.0 7.0 1.5 

Upland Shallow Loam 

CV - 21.2 21.5 35.3 24.1 - 38.2 38.4 40.0 37.8 40.2 

37
Table 23. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and quadrat size on log-transformed 

values for the number of unique species detected in 15 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats during Phase 3 

sampling. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Ecological site 4.203 7 0.600 9.690 <0.0001

Quad size 1.597 1 1.597 25.770 <0.0002

Ecological site*Quad size 0.133 7 0.019 0.306 0.9459

Error 1.983 32 0.062

Table 24. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and quadrat size on log-transformed 

values for the number of unique species detected in 15 10-m2

 and 1-m2 quadrats during Phase 3 

sampling, excluding infrequent species that occurred in only one 10-m2

 quadrat from the 10-m2

data. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Ecological site 4.837 7 0.691 12.300 <0.0001

Quad size 0.102 1 0.102 1.809 0.1881

Ecological site*Quad size 0.046 7 0.007 0.117 0.9966

Error 1.798 32 0.056

Figure 14. Log-transformed species richness data (mean numbers of unique species detected in 

15 quadrats) in relation to ecological site and quadrat size (a) for all species detected, and (b) 

excluding infrequent species that occurred in only one 10-m2 quadrat from the 10-m2 data. (See 

table 1 for key to ecological site codes.)

38
Among-Method Trends in Cover Estimates 

This section summarizes relative trends in cover estimates provided by different sampling 

methods. To facilitate comparisons of trends across ecological sites with different amounts of 

vegetative cover, means were standardized by calculating the ratio of the observed mean value 

for a particular method and measure to the among-method mean cover value for the same 

measure (see tables in Appendix C for these data). Across all ecological sites, sampling method 

had a significant effect on standardized mean values for total live understory canopy cover (table 

25). Post-hoc analyses indicated that mean cover values from 1-m2

 quadrats were lower than 

those provided by 10-m2 quadrats and line-intercept transects, and that there was no difference 

between mean cover values provided by the latter two methods (fig. 15). Although ecological 

site did not have a significant effect on standardized mean cover values (an expected artifact of 

the standardization process), ecological site and sampling method did have a significant 

interaction effect (table 25, fig. 15). Line-point intercept transects tended to yield higher cover 

estimates than quadrats at ecological sites with significant amounts of grass cover (Limy Upland, 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam, Semidesert Loam, and Shallow Loamy). Particularly 

noteworthy are high point-based cover estimates for cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum, or BRTE) at 

the Semidesert Loam ecological site in Dinosaur National Monument (SL in Figure 15; also see 

table B8 in Appendix B). At this site, cover estimates for cheatgrass were 30.1 percent for 

points, 11.9 percent for 10-m2

 quadrats, and 7.3 percent for 1-m2 quadrats (table B8). After 

excluding Semidesert Loam data from the ANOVA, 10-m2 quadrats were found to provide 

higher mean values for total live understory canopy cover than 1-m2 quadrats and points across 

remaining ecological sites, and there was no statistical difference between mean cover values for 

the latter two methods. 

Table 25. Analysis of variance for effects of ecological site and sampling method on total live 

understory cover (standardized means) at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Ecological site 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 1.000

Method 0.248 2 0.124 3.475 0.034

Ecological site*Method 4.906 20 0.245 6.865 <0.0001

Error 3.966 111 0.036

Across all ecological sites, sampling method also had a significant effect on standardized 

mean cover of surface features (table 26) – with line-point intercepts yielding higher mean values 

than quadrats (fig. 17). This finding was driven by higher point-based values for bare soil (fig. 

18b) that resulted from different methodological approaches between point- and quadrat-based 

sampling. If a pin were to hit an unembedded piece of litter sitting on the surface of bare 

(uncrusted) soil, bare soil would show up in the data as the surface feature and litter would 

appear as a canopy layer above the bare soil. In contrast, quadrat-based sampling would simply 

report a value for litter cover. Thus the main point to draw from figures 17 and 18 is that 10-m2

and 1-m2

 quadrats do not differ significantly with respect to cover estimates for surface features. 

39
Figure 15. Estimated total live understory canopy cover (standardized means) by method 

averaged across 11 ecological sites on the Colorado Plateau. Bars indicate 95 percent 

confidence intervals. Values with different letters are significantly different by Tukey's HSD test. 

Figure 16. Estimated total live understory canopy cover (standardized means) by method and 11 

Colorado Plateau ecological sites. Bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals for means. See 

table 1 for ecological site codes. 

40
Table 26. Analysis of variance for effect of sampling method on standardized mean cover of 

surface features at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites. 

Effect SS df MS F p

Method 14.230 2 7.115 23.004 <0.0001

Error 132.682 429 0.309

Figure 17. Effect of sampling method on cover estimates (standardized means) for selected 

surface features (litter, biological soil crust, and bare soil) across 11 ecological sites on the 

Colorado Plateau. Means with different letters are significantly different by Tukey's HSD test. 

Repeatability 

This section describes effects of sampling methods and ecological site on differences 

between two observers’ estimates of cover and density. Tables 27-34 summarize analyses of 

variance (ANOVA) evaluating effects of sampling method, observer, and cover category 

(individual species and total live understory canopy) on arcsin-transformed means of plant 

canopy cover for eight ecological sites sampled during Phase 3. In these analyses, the observerby-method interaction indicates whether there was a significant difference among methods in 

terms of repeatability between observers. (Tables summarizing actual differences between 

observers’ cover estimates can be found in Appendix F.) Effects of observer and observer-bymethod interactions were statistically significant for the Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam 

ecological site at Arches National Park (tables 33 and F1) where line-point estimates for 

blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima, CORA) cover differed between observers. Inspection of 

the data suggests that this difference was attributable to a difference between observers in their 

interpretation of "standing dead" blackbrush versus "live non-photosynthetic" blackbrush, rather 

than an actual difference in cover estimates. Effects of observer and observer-by-method 

interaction on mean arcsin-transformed litter cover were not statistically significant (table 35). 

41
We found no statistical relationships between wind-speed measures and differences between two 

observers’ cover estimates for woody plants, herbaceous plants, or grasses using the line-point 

intercept technique (fig. 19). 

Figure 18. Effects of sampling method on cover estimates (standardized means) for (a) surface 

litter, (b) unstable bare soil, and (c) biological soil crusts (moss, lichen, and cyanobacteria 

combined) at eight Colorado Plateau ecological sites. 

Table 27. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species POFE, QUGA, SYOR2, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Brushy 

Loam ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 1.034 2 0.517 16.008 <0.0001 

Observer <0.0001 1 <0.0001 0.001 0.982 

Cover category 14.395 3 4.798 148.537 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.033 2 0.016 0.504 0.605 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.773 6 0.129 3.989 0.001 

Observer*Cover category 0.020 3 0.007 0.210 0.889 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.067 6 0.011 0.347 0.911 

Error 6.202 192 0.032 

42
Table 28. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species CHLE4, HENE5, PLJA, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Limy 

Upland, 25-33” ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park. See Appendix A for key to species 

codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.333 2 0.167 14.845 <0.0001 

Observer 0.001 1 0.001 0.061 0.805 

Cover category 3.071 3 1.024 91.204 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.022 2 0.011 0.982 0.376 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.230 6 0.038 3.416 0.003 

Observer*Cover category 0.010 3 0.003 0.308 0.820 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.009 6 0.002 0.140 0.991 

Error 2.155 192 0.011 

Table 29. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species POFE, POTR5, UNGRCA1, and total 

live understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the 

Loamy Hills, 25-33”pz ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park. See Appendix A for key to 

species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.355 2 0.177 20.300 <0.0001 

Observer 0.001 1 0.001 0.125 0.724 

Cover category 2.808 3 0.936 107.130 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.001 2 0.0004 0.041 0.960 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.242 6 0.040 4.608 <0.0001 

Observer*Cover category 0.010 3 0.003 0.376 0.770 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.024 6 0.004 0.464 0.834 

Error 1.677 192 0.009 

Table 30. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species JUOS, PIED, POFE, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the Loamy 

Mesa Top PJ ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park. See Appendix A for key to species 

codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.195 2 0.097 6.149 0.003 

Observer 0.015 1 0.015 0.925 0.337 

Cover category 3.280 3 1.093 69.098 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.012 2 0.006 0.394 0.675 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.140 6 0.023 1.472 0.190 

Observer*Cover category 0.000 3 <0.0001 0.001 1.000 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.018 6 0.003 0.188 0.980 

Error 3.038 192 0.016 

43
Table 31. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species ATCO, GIIN2, ORHY, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. See 

Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.002 2 0.001 0.157 0.855 

Observer 0.0005 1 0.0005 0.082 0.775 

Cover category 4.838 3 1.613 279.354 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.004 2 0.002 0.369 0.692 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.133 6 0.022 3.839 0.001 

Observer*Cover category 0.001 3 0.0004 0.065 0.978 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.007 6 0.001 0.188 0.980 

Error 1.108 192 0.006 

Table 32. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species ARTR2, BRTE, STCO4, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on mean arcsin-transformed plant canopy cover values for the 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site in Dinosaur National Monument. See 

Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 1.254 2 0.627 50.279 <0.0001 

Observer <0.0001 1 <0.0001 0.004 0.951 

Cover category 5.887 3 1.962 157.322 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.024 2 0.012 0.967 0.382 

Sampling Method*Cover category 1.107 6 0.185 14.793 <0.0001 

Observer*Cover category 0.004 3 0.001 0.113 0.952 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.013 6 0.002 0.178 0.982 

Error 2.395 192 0.012 

Table 33. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species CORA, FEOC3, STLO4, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on arcsin-transformed means of plant canopy cover for the Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy Loam PJ ecological site at Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. See 

Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.102 2 0.051 12.163 <0.0001 

Observer 0.017 1 0.017 4.094 0.044 

Cover category 4.829 3 1.610 382.362 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.027 2 0.013 3.151 0.045 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.063 6 0.010 2.483 0.025 

Observer*Cover category 0.011 3 0.004 0.893 0.446 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.017 6 0.003 0.687 0.661 

Error 0.808 192 0.004 

44
Table 34. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2

 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), observer, and cover category (species CEMO2, COWR2, JUOS, and total live 

understory canopy cover) on arcsin-transformed means of plant canopy cover for the Upland 

Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. See Appendix 

A for key to species codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 0.285 2 0.142 9.516 <0.0001 

Observer 0.034 1 0.034 2.245 0.136 

Cover category 2.819 3 0.940 62.848 <0.0001 

Sampling Method*Observer 0.007 2 0.004 0.240 0.787 

Sampling Method*Cover category 0.166 6 0.028 1.846 0.092 

Observer*Cover category 0.018 3 0.006 0.394 0.757 

Sampling Method*Observer*Cover cat. 0.006 6 0.001 0.067 0.999 

Error 2.871 192 0.015 

Table 35. Analysis of variance for effects of sampling method (1-m2 quadrats, 10-m2 quadrats, and 

line-point intercept), ecological site (BL, LU, LH, LMT, SASL, SL, SShSL, and UShL), and observer 

on arcsin-transformed means of litter cover data. See table 1 for key to ecological site codes. 

Effect SS df MS F p 

Sampling Method 2.251 2 1.126 66.758 <0.0001 

Ecological Site 47.334 7 6.762 401.071 <0.0001 

Observer 0.001 1 0.001 0.086 0.770 

Sampling Method* Ecological Site 1.482 14 0.106 6.277 <0.0001 

Sampling Method* Observer 0.056 2 0.028 1.661 0.191 

Ecological Site *Observer 0.031 7 0.004 0.260 0.969 

Sampling Method* Ecological Site *Observer 0.049 14 0.003 0.207 0.999 

Error 6.474 384 0.017 

45
Figure 19. Scatterplot of average wind speed (m s-1) vs. absolute difference between two 

observers’ estimates of grass cover based on use of the line-point intercept sampling technique 

at eight Colorado Plateau ecological sites (r = 0.07, p = 0.55, n = 70). 

Table 36 summarizes results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on cover 

estimates for four types of soil crust (undifferentiated crust, dark cyanobacteria, lichen, and 

moss) for 10-m2, 1-m2, and line-point intercept sampling methods at ecological sites where 

biological soil crusts were common. At the Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 

ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park (tables 36 and F2), estimates of undifferentiated 

crust cover based on 1-m2 quadrats and line-point intercepts both differed between observers. 

Observer 1 estimated lower undifferentiated crust cover than observer 2 for both 1-m2 quadrats 

and line-point intercepts. At this same site, estimates of moss cover in 10-m2

 quadrats also were 

significantly different between observers (tables 36 and F2). The soil at this ecological site was 

extremely rocky with very low levels of biological soil crust cover. 

Table 37 summarizes results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on 

estimates of biological soil crust cover based on use of the 25 cm x 25 cm BSC frame at 

ecological sites where biological soil crusts were common. No significant differences were 

found between observers’ cover estimates for five soil-surface categories related to soil darkness 

and biological soil crust development. Appendix table F3 summarizes additional data collected 

with the BSC frame. 

Tables 38 and 39 summarize results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on 

estimates of shrub and tree density by species and size class. No significant differences were 

found between observers’ estimates of shrub and tree density. Appendix table F7 reports shrub 

and tree density for transects sampled during Phase 3. 

46
47

Table 36. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of cover for four types of soil crusdark cyanobacteria, lichen, and moss) sampled with 10-m2 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and line-point intercept technPlateau ecological sites where biological soil crusts were common. Bold values indicate statistically significant 

observers’ cover estimates. 

Type of soil crust Rank sum 

Ecological site Sampling method Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-le

Undifferentiated crust 

10-m2 89 82 37 0.31 0

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 1-m2 83 88 38 -0.22 0

Line-point 97 75 30 0.97 0

10-m2 83 88 38 -0.22 0

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 1-m2 75 96 30 -0.93 0

Line-point 105 66 21 1.72 0

10-m2 79 92 34 -0.57 0

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 1-m2 82 89 37 -0.31 0

Line-point 93 78 33 0.66 0

10-m2 96 76 31 0.88 0

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 1-m2 98 74 29 1.06 0

Line-point 97 75 30 0.97 0

10-m2 93 79 34 0.62 0

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 1-m2 60 112 15 -2.30 0

Line-point 61 110 16 -2.16 0

Dark cyanobacteria 

10-m2 77 94 32 -0.75 0

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 1-m2 71 101 26 -1.32 0

Line-point 78 93 33 -0.66 0
Table 36.—Continued 

Type of soil crust Rank sum 

Ecological site Sampling method Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-le

10-m2 84 87 39 -0.13 0

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 1-m2 80 92 35 -0.53 0

Line-point 40 39 18 0.08 0

10-m2 73 98 28 -1.10 0

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 1-m2 74 97 29 -1.02 0

Line-point 34 44 13 -0.80 0

10-m2 65 107 20 -1.85 0

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 1-m2 74 97 29 -1.02 0

Line-point 58 79 22 -1.10 0

Lichen 

10-m2 85 87 39.5 -0.09 0

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 1-m2 79 92 34 -0.57 0

Line-point 17 20 7 -0.43 0

10-m2 82 89 37 -0.31 0

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 1-m2 76 96 31 -0.88 0

Line-point 3 7 0 -1.55 0

10-m2 3 7 0 -1.55 0

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 1-m2 82 89 37 -0.31 0

Line-point 33 46 12 -1.04 0

10-m2 90 81 36 0.40 0

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 1-m2 82 89 37 -0.31 0

Line-point 3 7 0 -1.55 0

48
Table 36.—Continued 

Type of soil crust Rank sum 

Ecological site Sampling method Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-le

Moss 

10-m2 81 91 36 -0.44 0

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 1-m2 87 85 40 0.09 0

Line-point 69 68 32 0.05 0

10-m2 71 100 26 -1.28 0

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 1-m2 7 14 1 -1.53 0

Line-point --- --- --- --- 

10-m2 83 89 38 -0.26 0

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 1-m2 75 96 30 -0.93 0

Line-point 82 89 37 -0.31 0

10-m2 74 98 29 -1.06 0

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 1-m2 67 104 22 -1.63 0

Line-point 83 89 38 -0.26 0

10-m2 60 112 15 -2.30 0

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 1-m2 66 106 21 -1.77 0

Line-point 3 7 0 -1.55 0

49
Table 37. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of biological soil crust cover base

characterization of soil darkness (see table 10 and fig. 5) in 25 cm x 25 cm BSC frames at Colorado Plateau ecologbiological soil crusts were common. 

Rank sum Soil-surface 

category Ecological site Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-level 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 5 5 2 0 1.00 Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 75 61 25 0.74 0.46 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 73 64 28 0.47 0.64 

Darkness 1 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 89 83 38 0.26 0.79 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 85 87 40 -0.09 0.93 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 80 91 35 -0.49 0.63 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 102 70 25 1.41 0.16 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 85 86 40 -0.04 0.96 

Darkness 2 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) 3 7 0 -1.55 0.12 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 83 88 38 -0.22 0.83 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 58 78 22 -1.05 0.29 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 72 99 27 -1.19 0.23 

Darkness 3 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 61 76 25 -0.79 0.43 

Darkness 4 Loamy Mesa Top PJ 50 56 22 -0.38 0.70 

Darkness 5 Loamy Mesa Top PJ 5 5 2 0 1.00 

50
51

Table 38. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of shrub density 

by species and height class at Colorado Plateau ecological sites. See Appendix A for key to 

species codes. 

Rank Sum 

Species Height class (cm) Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-level n 2*1sided exact p 

0-10 21 15 5 0.87 0.39 4 0.49 

10-25 48 30 9 1.44 0.15 6 0.18 

25-50 116 94 39 0.83 0.41 10 0.44 

50-100 150 151 72 -0.03 0.98 12 0.98 

100-200 156 144 66 0.35 0.73 12 0.76 

>200 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

AMUT 

All combined 2281 1998 917 1.10 0.27 46 0.27 

0-10 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

10-25 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

25-50 7 4 1 1.16 0.25 2 0.33 

50-100 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

ARBI3 

All combined 45 34 13 0.88 0.38 6 0.39 

0-10 57 48 20 0.57 0.57 7 0.62 

10-25 109 101 46 0.30 0.76 10 0.80 

25-50 158 143 65 0.43 0.67 12 0.67 

50-100 157 143 65 0.40 0.69 12 0.71 

ARTR2 

All combined 2499 2352 1127 0.52 0.60 49 0.61 

25-50 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

ATCA2 50-100 10 11 4 -0.22 0.83 3 1.00 

All combined 27 29 12 -0.21 0.83 5 0.84 

0-10 142 111 45 1.02 0.31 11 0.33 

10-25 68 68 32 0.00 1.00 8 1.00 

25-50 96 76 31 0.88 0.38 9 0.39 

50-100 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

ATCO 

All combined 921 790 355 1.02 0.31 29 0.31 

10-25 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

BEFR 50-100 12 9 3 0.65 0.51 3 0.70 

All combined 18 18 8 0.00 1.00 4 1.00 

10-25 11 11 5 0.00 1.00 3 1.00 

25-50 73 64 28 0.47 0.64 8 0.65 

50-100 17 19 7 -0.29 0.77 4 0.89 

100-200 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

CHNA2 

All combined 262 267 126 -0.09 0.92 16 0.93 

0-10 20 17 7 0.43 0.67 4 0.69 

10-25 60 45 17 0.96 0.34 7 0.38 

25-50 91 81 36 0.44 0.66 9 0.67 

50-100 90 81 36 0.40 0.69 9 0.73 

CORA 

All combined 893 818 383 0.58 0.56 29 0.57 

25-50 1 

50-100 12 9 3 0.65 0.51 3 0.70 

100-200 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

PUME 

All combined 42 37 16 0.40 0.69 6 0.70 
Table 38.—Continued 

Rank Sum 

Species Height class (cm) Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-level n 2*1sided exact p

0-10 18 18 8 0.00 1.00 4 1.00 

25-50 25 12 2 1.88 0.06 4 0.06 

50-100 13 23 3 -1.44 0.15 4 0.20 

PUTR2 

All combined 156 144 66 0.35 0.73 12 0.76 

0-10 18 18 8 0.00 1.00 4 1.00 

10-25 17 20 7 -0.43 0.67 4 0.69 

25-50 74 63 27 0.58 0.56 8 0.57 

50-100 107 104 49 0.11 0.91 10 0.91 

100-200 16 20 6 -0.58 0.56 4 0.69 

>200 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

SAVE4 

All combined 983 970 474 0.09 0.93 31 0.93 

25-50 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

50-100 --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

100-200 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

SHRO 

All combined 18 18 8 0.00 1.00 4 1.00 

0-10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

10-25 11 11 5 0.00 1.00 3 1.00 

25-50 8 13 2 -1.09 0.28 3 0.40 

50-100 11 10 4 0.22 0.83 3 1.00 

100-200 10 12 4 -0.44 0.66 3 0.70 

SYOR2 

All combined 145 155 67 -0.29 0.77 12 0.80 

Table 39. Results of Wilcoxon tests evaluating effects of observer on estimates of tree density by 

species and size class at Colorado Plateau ecological sites. See Appendix A for key to species 

codes. 

Rank Sum 

Species Size class Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-level n 2*1sided exact p 

ABCO Seedling 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 --- 

Seedling 275 253 117 0.41 0.68 16 0.70 

Pole 152 149 71 0.09 0.93 12 0.93 

Overstory 120 90 35 1.13 0.26 10 0.28 

JUOS 

All combined 1555 1372 631 0.95 0.34 38 0.34 

Seedling 170 182 79 -0.31 0.76 13 0.76 

Pole 89 82 37 0.31 0.76 9 0.80 

Overstory 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 --- 

PIED 

Total 582 595 282 -0.13 0.89 24 0.89 

Seedling --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

PIEN Pole 5 5 2 0.00 1.00 2 1.00 

All combined 11 11 5 0.00 1.00 3 1.00 

Pole --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

PIPO Overstory 25 30 10 -0.52 0.60 5 0.69 

All combined 36 42 15 -0.48 0.63 6 0.70 

52
Table 39.—Continued 

Rank Sum 

Species Size class Observer 1 Observer 2 U Z p-level n 2*1sided exact p 

Seedling 52 53 24 -0.06 0.95 7 1.00 

Pole 19 18 8 0.14 0.89 4 0.89 

Overstory --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

POTR5 

All combined 150 150 72 0.00 1.00 12 1.00 

Seedling 20 16 6 0.58 0.56 4 0.69 

QUGA Pole --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- 

All combined 29 26 11 0.31 0.75 5 0.84 

Sampling Impacts 

Sampling impacts on soil and vegetation conditions depended on the structure of plant 

communities at ecological sites and the types and amounts of soil crusts that were present. 

Ecological sites most impacted by our sampling procedures (Desert Sand at Canyonlands, 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ at Mesa Verde, Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam at Capitol Reef, Semidesert 

Loam at Dinosaur, and Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam at Arches and Canyonlands) were those 

with biological soil crusts and undifferentiated soil crusts (table 40). At these ecological sites, 

destabilized soils and trampled biological soil crusts were the most common types of impact. 

Figure 20 illustrates trampling impacts on soils at Arches National Park and on vegetation at 

Wupatki National Monument. 

Sampling resulted in few broken branches, except at sites where dense shrubs or trees had 

to be penetrated in order to sample. A slight degree of plant trampling occurred at most 

ecological sites. Some sites had little sampling impact (Limy Upland at Wupatki, Loamy Hills at 

Grand Canyon, Shallow Loamy at Wupatki, and Upland Shallow Loam at Capitol Reef) due to 

low cover of plants and biological soil crusts, and/or due to armoring of soils by cinders or rock. 

 

Figure 20. Photograph (left) of destabilized soil and trampled biological soil crusts on unsampled 

side of transect in Arches National Park (Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam ecological site), and 

(right) trampled plants on unsampled side of transect in Wupatki National Monument (Limy 

Upland ecological site). 

53
Sampling methods and procedures varied in terms of their impacts on site conditions 

(table 40). Line-point intercept sampling, 10-m2 quadrat sampling, and gap-intercept sampling 

nearly always created the most impact, although travel to macroplots caused a large degree of 

impact where undifferentiated soil crusts and biological soil crusts were trampled while enroute 

to macroplots located relatively far from roads. Impacts also varied by location (table 41), with 

greatest impacts along the unsampled side of the transect and least impacts within quadrats. This 

was most noticeable at sites with extensive undifferentiated soil crusts and biological soil crusts, 

where trampled foot paths formed along the unsampled side of the transect and around the 

perimeter of 10-m2 quadrats (fig. 20). 

Discussion 

Evaluation of Sampling Methods 

A primary objective of this project was to evaluate a suite of sampling methods according 

to measures of repeatability, efficiency, and impacts on plot conditions across a range of upland 

ecosystems likely to be monitored in Colorado Plateau NPS units. In this section and in table 42 

we summarize results of these evaluations. 

Efficiency 

We evaluated the efficiency of cover-estimation techniques on the basis of several 

measures including per-unit subsampling times, within-plot CV values for total live understory 

canopy cover, numbers of subsamples and amounts of time required to estimate plot-level cover 

with 20 percent precision, among-plot CV values for total live understory cover, numbers of 

macroplot samples required to estimate site-level cover with 20 percent precision, and numbers 

of species detected per macroplot and ecological site. 

Across all ecological sites combined, we found few unambiguous trends in the efficiency 

of cover-estimation techniques. The amount of time required to sample cover in one 10-m2

quadrat was about twice that required for one 1-m2 quadrat and one 10-pt group of line-point 

intercepts. On the basis of within-plot CV values and numbers of subsamples required to 

estimate total plot-level cover with 20 percent precision, 10-m2 quadrats were most efficient and 

1-m2 quadrats least efficient at 10 and eight of 11 ecological sites, respectively. The line-point 

technique was most efficient at eight of 11 ecological sites in terms of the amount of time 

required to estimate total plot-level cover with 20 percent precision – largely because 10-m2

quadrats were more time consuming and 1-m2 quadrats had greater within-plot variability 

relative to line-point sampling. Mean quadrat subsampling times were highly influenced by 

results at two ecological sites, and across all sites there was no statistical difference among 

methods with respect to median subsampling times for 20 percent precision. We also found no 

difference among methods with respect to mean and median CV values describing among-plot 

variability in total live understory cover. Nevertheless, the line-point technique had the lowest 

among-plot CV values for 7 of 11 ecological sites. 

For monitoring objectives requiring the detection of infrequent species, quadrat-based 

techniques are superior to point-based techniques because of greater areal coverage. For species 

detection, we found that the relative advantage of 10-m2

 quadrats over 1-m2 quadrats varied 

among ecological sites. Across all ecological sites, we also found that this detection advantage 

 

54
55

Table 40. Median impact-assessment ratings for procedures at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites (0 = none, 1 moderate, 3 = moderate, 4 = moderate to extreme, 5 = extreme). See table 1 for key to ecological site codes. 

Ecological site 

Procedure BL DS LU LH LHC LMT SASL SL SShSL STravel to macroplot 0 2.5 1 0 1 2 2 1 1.5 Site characterization 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Plot establishment 0 1.5 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1-m2 quadrat sampling 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10-m2 quadrat sampling 1 2.5 1 0 1 2 3 2 3 Line-point intercept sampling 0 2.5 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 Gap-intercept sampling 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.5 Pin placement 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Cumulative travel on line 1 3 1 1 2 4 3 2 3.5 

Table 41. Median impact-assessment ratings for types of impacts (broken branches, trampled plants, destabilized 

biological soil crusts, and quadrat-frame imprint) in quadrats, on the sampled side of the transect tape, and on the 

the transect tape at 11 Colorado Plateau ecological sites (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = slight to moderate, 3 = moderateextreme, 5 = extreme). See table 1 for key to ecological site codes. 

Ecological site 

Type of impact Impact location BL DS LU LH LHC LMT SASL SL SShS

In quadrats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Broken branches Sampled side of transect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unsampled side of transect 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

In quadrats 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 

Trampled plants Sampled side of transect 1 0 1 1 1.5 1 1 0 

Unsampled side of transect 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

In quadrats 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 

Destabilized soils Sampled side of transect 1 2 0 0 0 3 2 2 

Unsampled side of transect 1 3 0 0 0.5 3 3 2 

In quadrats 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Trampled BSCs Sampled side of transect 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 

Unsampled side of transect 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 2 

Quadrat imprint In quadrats 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 
56

could largely be accounted for by species with 6.7 percent frequency (or less) in 10-m2 quadrats. 

That is,after excluding these very infrequent species from 10-m2 quadrat data, we found no 

difference between 10- and 1-m2 quadrats in terms of mean estimates of site-level species 

richness. 

Table 42. Summary of comparisons among cover-sampling techniques in relation to repeatability 

between observers, efficiency, and sampling impacts on soils and vegetation (0 indicates no 

clear difference among techniques; -- indicates worst technique[s]; + indicates best 

technique[s]). 

Cover-sampling technique 

Evaluation criteria 

Line-point 

intercept 

1-m2 

quadrats 

10-m2

quadrats 

Efficiency 

Per-unit subsampling time + + -- 

Within-plot CV values for total live understory canopy cover -- + 

Time to estimate within-plot total live understory canopy cover with 20 percent 

precision + 0 0 

Among-plot CV values for total live understory canopy cover + 0 0 

Species detection (all species) -- + 

Species detection (frequent species) -- + + 

Repeatability between observers (measurement precision) 0 0 0 

Sampling impacts on soil and vegetation -- + -- 

Repeatability 

We found no differences among cover-estimation techniques in terms of observer 

repeatability (measurement precision). Cover estimates were highly repeatable between 

observers for 10-m2 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and line-point intercept sampling methods. 

Statistically significant differences between observers' cover estimates were found only in three 

cases: (1) line-point estimates of blackbrush cover at the Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ 

ecological site at Arches National Park, (2) line-point and 1-m2 quadrat estimates of 

undifferentiated soil crust at the Upland Shallow Loam ecological site at Capitol Reef National 

Park, and (3) 10-m2

 quadrat estimates of moss cover at the same Upland Shallow Loam 

ecological site. Differences in blackbrush cover estimates were due to the observers’ differing 

interpretations of line-point intercepts as “standing dead” vs. “live non-photosynthetic.” 

Repeatability in such cases can be improved by ensuring that observers use a standardized 

decision-making process for determining the status (“standing dead” vs. “live nonphotosynthetic”) of plant intercepts. For undifferentiated soil crust and moss cover at the Upland 

Shallow Loam ecological site, absolute differences in mean cover estimates between observers 

were low for 1-m2

 and 10-m2 quadrats, respectively (table F2). 

Because one member of the two-person field team recorded the other member's cover 

estimates, repeat sampling events were not fully independent of one another. This was 
particularly true for quadrat-based sampling because repeat events sampled the same quadrat 

space. However, it is unlikely that this sampling approach significantly affected the results. 

Although it was easy for the second observer to remember unique or infrequent species detected 

by the first observer, actual cover estimates could not be easily recalled. Independence of repeat 

observations was not an issue with line-point sampling, since it is highly improbable that the 

exact same points were resampled during repeat events. This factor explains why differences 

between observers' cover estimates tended to be slightly greater for line-point sampling than for 

quadrat-based sampling (Appendix F). 

We found that density measures also were repeatable between observers. Our analyses 

did not detect significant differences in density estimates between observers for any tree or shrub 

species. The power of our analyses may have been affected by small sample sizes because 

counts for many species such as Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii, QUGA) were low (n < 10). 

Additional data may be necessary for a more robust evaluation of the repeatability of density 

measures. Some shrubs were extremely difficult to sample for density because of their 

multistemmed growth habit. Gambel oak in the Brushy Loam ecological site at Mesa Verde was 

particularly challenging with respect to density sampling. First, it was difficult to classify as 

either a shrub or a tree. (We consistently called it a tree in this analysis.) Older specimens may 

have one or a few main stems and can appear "tree like," but younger plants exist as dense, 

multistemmed shrubs. Second, in the dense shrub form it is extremely difficult to distinguish 

individual plants or stems as unique counting units. Counting Gambel oak stems in dense stands 

was tedious and time consuming, sometimes taking longer than 10 minutes per quadrat. It also 

was time consuming to count high numbers of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata, ARTR2)

seedlings (up to 474 seedlings in one 10-m2

 quadrat) encountered at one Semidesert Loam 

macroplot in Dinosaur National Monument. To facilitate future density sampling in such cases, 

we recommend the use of 25- or 50-unit counting categories when individual stem counts exceed 

a threshold value such as 100 per 10-m2 quadrat. 

Sampling Impacts 

As expected, sampling activities had greatest impacts on soil and vegetation conditions at 

macroplots where there was a high degree of cover by biological or undifferentiated soil crusts. 

Impacts occurred primarily on paths on the unsampled sides of transects and around the 

perimeters of 10-m2 quadrats. Of all sampling procedures, 10-m2 quadrat sampling, line-point 

sampling, and gap-intercept sampling had the most impacts. Sampling 10-m2 quadrats resulted 

in foot paths surrounding all sides of the quadrat, although observers could choose and walk 

paths of least impact when moving from one quadrat location to the next. In contrast, line-point 

sampling at 50-cm and 1-m intervals and continuous gap-intercept sampling forced observers to 

trample crusts and plants in a continuous path very close to the tape, allowing little flexibility to 

minimize trampling impacts. Repeated travel back and forth along transects had the greatest 

cumulative impacts, but these impacts could be minimized by carefully stepping in previous 

footprints where possible. Although 1-m2

 quadrats had the least impacts in this study, impacts 

would be expected to increase proportionally if sampling objectives required a larger number of 

subsamples (perhaps placed at smaller intervals along the transect) in order to compensate for the 

fact that 1-m2

 quadrats typically had the highest within-plot CV values for total live understory 

canopy cover. 

57
Issues Associated with Electronic Data Entry and Management 

As described above, a Pocket PC was used to collect and store data in a database during 

the field season with the goal of facilitating real-time data analyses and reducing the amount of 

time required for post-season data entry. When transferred to a desktop computer, the database 

format provided immediate access and easy manipulation of data for purposes of review during 

the field season. Ideally, savings realized by eliminating post-season data entry are not offset by 

time delays attributable to recording data on the hand-held device or by complications associated 

with computer hardware or software. In reality, there were time costs associated with use of the 

Pocket PC for data entry, and cumulative technical complications slowed the pace of data 

collection to such a degree that the number of macroplots sampled over the course of the season 

was reduced relative to what might have been accomplished in the absence of such 

complications. Following are several issues encountered over the course of the field season. 

1. The database program that we used requires an expert in data management to design 

the database and to resolve problems which inevitably arise when adopting new 

techniques. These problems likely will become less significant as sampling and datamanagement protocols are refined, but technical complications always will occur to 

some degree – requiring contingencies to resolve issues without compromising the 

quality or quantity of data collected by field teams. 

2. Data can be lost from the computer. This can occur from an error in the back-up 

method, a power outage and subsequent operating system reset, and accidental 

deletions when the wrong key is pushed. Data loss also can occur while collecting 

data on paper, but it may be prevented in both cases with adequate safeguards. On 

the Pocket PC, it must be ensured that the field crew is properly trained in back-up 

procedures and is diligent and careful while recording data. During the 2005 field 

season, a back-up error caused data for an entire macroplot (Capitol Reef, Phase 2) to 

be lost – requiring that the plot be resampled in its entirety during a subsequent visit 

to the park. Because of the potential for power loss, system resets, and data loss, we 

recommend that future field crews be equipped with a laptop computer with a backup copy of the most recent database, connection cables, and CDs for software that 

may need to be reloaded on the hand-held. The likelihood of data loss also may be 

minimized in the future by ensuring that the field crew has multiple batteries and 

reliable procedures for charging batteries in remote settings. 

3. Computer-based methods require training time for field crews. This may require only 

a couple of days to initially learn the programs and procedures, but there also is a 

certain amount of comfort and speed only obtained after weeks or months of 

sampling. During the 2005 season, the field crew was still becoming familiar with 

operation of the Pocket PC two-thirds of the way through the field season. 

4. The actual time required to enter data with the Pocket PC while in the field is 

dependent upon several factors – the memory capacity and processor speed of the 

hand-held computer, the size (thus speed) of the program in relation to memory 

capacity, the size of the dataset, and the design of data-entry forms (e.g., the length of 

drop-down menus and pick-lists). When data were recorded by hand in field books 

during the 2005 season, sampling proceeded at a pace 10-20 percent faster than when 

using the Pocket PC. Excessive file size (i.e., running the PocketAccess database 

with all data accumulated during the entire field season) and long pick-lists were 

58
major factors slowing data entry with the Pocket PC. When procedures were 

modified to address these factors, the pace of sampling increased considerably. 

5. When data are collected on paper due to technical issues with the Pocket PC, entry of 

data into the database in the office can be very time consuming. Data entry in the 

office was very slow because data entry forms were designed specifically for the 

small, Pocket PC format using Sprint DB Pro interface software. In the future we 

recommend that alternative data entry forms (e.g., in Microsoft Access) be developed 

to facilitate direct entry of data into the project database when necessary. 

6. Data transfers between the Pocket PC and a desktop computer can be time 

consuming, particularly if the system is designed so that all accumulated data must be 

transferred during each synchronization event. We recommend that systems be 

designed so that a minimum amount of data must be transferred between the Pocket 

PC and the desktop during synchronization. 

Overall, the Pocket PC did provide data accessibility more quickly than had the crew 

recorded and entered data by hand, in spite of the various technical challenges that were 

encountered. However, the pace of field work delayed quality-assurance work until after the end 

of the field season. As a result, "real-time" data analyses were hampered by various issues (e.g., 

mislabeled data, missing data, consistency in species identification and naming across plots) that 

could not be fully resolved until data collection was completed. The handheld computer seemed 

to withstand the rigors of fieldwork, and it promises to be a useful tool for facilitating the 

collection and management of large data sets. 

References Cited 

Creque, J. A., S. D. Bassett, and N. E. West. 1999. Viewpoint: Delineating ecological sites. 

Journal of Range Management 52: 546-549. 

Herrick, J. E., J. W. Van Zee, K. M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W. G. Whitford. 2005. 

Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. Volume I: Quick start. 

Las Cruces, NM: USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. 36 p. 

McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. 

Version 4.34. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software. 

McCune, B. P., and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, 

OR: MjM Software Design. 300 p. 

NPS (U.S.D.I. National Park Service). 2003. Fire monitoring handbook. Boise, ID: Fire 

Management Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. 274 p. 

NRCS (U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2001a. Soil survey of Cortez Area, 

Colorado, parts of Dolores and Montezuma counties. Denver: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 627 p. 

NRCS (U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2001b. Soil survey of Dinosaur 

National Monument, Colorado and Utah. Denver: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 381 p. 

NRCS (U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2003. Soil survey of Grand Canyon 

area, Arizona, parts of Coconino and Mohave counties. Phoenix: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 602 p. 

NRCS (U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2004. Draft soil survey report for 

Capitol Reef National Park (soil survey area UT685). Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 389 p. 

59
Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, E. C. Benham, and W. D. Broderson, eds. 2002. Field book 

for describing and sampling soils, version 2.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. 

SCS (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service). 1983. Soil survey of Coconino County, Azizona, 

central part. Phoenix: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 212 p. 

SCS (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service). 1989. Soil survey of Grand County, Utah, central 

part. Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 200 p. 

SCS (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service). 1991. Soil survey of Canyonlands area, Utah, parts 

of Grand and San Juan counties. Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 293 p. 

SRM Task Group (Society for Range Management Task Group on Unity in Concepts and 

Terminology Committee). 1995. New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. Journal 

of Range Management 48: 271-282. 

StatSoft, Inc. 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com. 

Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Upple Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

663 p.

60
61

Appendix A—Species List and Species Occurrence by Ecological Site [Species codes are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, PLANTS database (http://plants

National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.] 

Species code Species name Family name 

Brushy Loam 

Desert Sand 

(Sand 

Sagebrush) 

Limy Upland, 

6-10" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

Cold, 25-33" pz 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

ABCO Abies concolor Pinaceae X X ABFR2 Abronia fragrans Nyctaginaceae X ABLA Abies lasiocarpa Pinaceae X X ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides Poaceae X ACMI2 Achillea millefolium Asteraceae X X X AGCR Agropyron cristatum Poaceae X AGSM Agropyron smithii Poaceae X ALAC4 Allium acuminatum Liliaceae X AMAC2 Ambrosia acanthicarpa Asteraceae X AMUT Amelanchier utahensis Rosaceae X ANPA5 Antennaria parvifolia Asteraceae X X ARBI3 Artemisia bigelovii Asteraceae X X ARDR4 Artemisia dracunculus Asteraceae X X ARFI2 Artemisia filifolia Asteraceae X ARNO4 Artemisia nova Asteraceae ARPU9 Aristida purpurea Poaceae X X ARTR2 Artemisia tridentata Asteraceae X X X ASMA10 Asclepias macrosperma Asclepiadaceae ASMO7 Astragalus mollissimus Fabaceae X ATCA2 Atriplex canescens Chenopodiaceae X X X ATCO Atriplex confertifolia Chenopodiaceae X X BASA3 Balsamorhiza sagittata Asteraceae X BEFR Berberis fremontii Berberidaceae BOCU Bouteloua curtipendula Poaceae X BOER4 Bouteloua eriopoda Poaceae X X BOGR2 Bouteloua gracilis Poaceae X X BRIN2 Bromus inermis Poaceae X X X 
Species code Species name Family name 

Brushy Loam 

Desert Sand 

(Sand 

Sagebrush) 

Limy Upland, 

6-10" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

Cold, 25-33" pz 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

BRTE Bromus tectorum Poaceae X X X X X X X CANU3 Calochortus nuttallii Liliaceae X X X CANU4 Carduus nutans Asteraceae X X CEMO2 Cercocarpus montanus Rosaceae X CELA4 Ceratoides lanata Chenopodiaceae X X X CHAL7 Chenopodium album Chenopodiaceae X X X X X CHLE4 Chenopodium leptophyllum Chenopodiaceae X X X X X CHNA2 Chrysothamnus nauseosus Asteraceae X X X CHST Chaenactis stevioides Asteraceae X X CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Asteraceae X COME5 Cowania mexicana Rosaceae CORA Coleogyne ramosissima Rosaceae X COUM Comandra umbellata Santalaceae X COWR2 Cordylanthus wrightii Scrophulariaceae X X CRCI3 Cryptantha cinerea Boraginaceae X CRFL5 Cryptantha flava Boraginaceae DAFL Dalea flavescens Fabaceae DEPI Descurainia pinnata Brassicaceae X X X X X ELEL5 Elymus elymoides Poaceae X X X X X EPAN Epilobium angustifolium Onagraceae X EPVI Ephedra viridis Ephedraceae X ERCE2 Eriogonum cernuum Polygonaceae X X X ERCO14 Eriogonum corymbosum Polygonaceae ERFO3 Erigeron formosissimus Asteraceae X ERIN4 Eriogonum inflatum Polygonaceae X ERMI4 Eriogonum microthecum Polygonaceae ERUM Eriogonum umbellatum Polygonaceae X X ESVI2 Escobaria vivipara Cactaceae X EUFE2 Euphorbia fendleri Euphorbiaceae FEOC3 Festuca octoflora Poaceae X FERU Fendlera rupicola Hydrangeaceae X FRAN2 Fraxinus anomala Oleaceae 

62
Species code Species name Family name 

Brushy Loam 

Desert Sand 

(Sand 

Sagebrush) 

Limy Upland, 

6-10" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

Cold, 25-33" pz 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

FRVI Fragaria virginiana Rosaceae X X GACO5 Gaura coccinea Onagraceae GAPI Gaillardia pinnatifida Asteraceae X GECA3 Geranium caespitosum Geraniaceae X X GIIN2 Gilia inconspicua Polemoniaceae X X X GOOB2 Goodyera oblongifolia Orchidaceae X X GUSA2 Gutierrezia sarothrae Asteraceae X X X HAGL Halogeton glomeratus Chenopodiaceae X HECO26 Hesperostipa comata Poaceae X X HENE5 Hesperostipa neomexicana Poaceae X HIJA Hilaria jamesii Poaceae X X X HYAC4 Hymenoxys acaulis Asteraceae IPAG Ipomopsis aggregata Polemoniaceae X JUCO6 Juniperus communis Cupressaceae X X JUMO Juniperus monosperma Cupressaceae X JUOS Juniperus osteosperma Cupressaceae X X X KOMA Koeleria macrantha Poaceae X X LAOC3 Lappula occidentalis Boraginaceae X X X X X LARE Lappula redowskii Boraginaceae X LASE Lactuca serriola Asteraceae X LATA Lactuca tatarica Asteraceae X X LEMO2 Lepidium montanum Brassicaceae LEPE2 Lepidium perfoliatum Brassicaceae X LEPU Leptodactylon pungens Polemoniaceae X X LIAR3 Linum aristatum Linaceae X X LUAR3 Lupinus argenteus Fabaceae X LUCA Lupinus caudatus Fabaceae X X MACA2 Machaeranthera canescens Asteraceae X X MAFR3 Mahonia fremontii Berberidaceae MARE11 Mahonia repens Berberidaceae X X X MATA2 Machaeranthera tanacetifolia Asteraceae X MEAL6 Mentzelia albicaulis Loasaceae X X X 

63
Species code Species name Family name 

Brushy Loam 

Desert Sand 

(Sand 

Sagebrush) 

Limy Upland, 

6-10" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

Cold, 25-33" pz 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

MUSQ Munroa squarrosa Poaceae X OECE2 Oenothera cespitosa Onagraceae X OEPA Oenothera pallida Onagraceae X X OPER Opuntia erinacea Cactaceae X X X X OPPO Opuntia polyacantha Cactaceae X ORHY Oryzopsis hymenoides Poaceae X X PAMY Paxistima myrsinites Celastraceae X PASM Pascopyrum smithii Poaceae X PEPU7 Petradoria pumila Asteraceae X X PHCR Phacelia crenulata Hydrophyllaceae X X PHHE2 Phacelia heterophylla Hydrophyllaceae X PIED Pinus edulis Pinaceae X X X PIEN Picea engelmannii Pinaceae X X PIPO Pinus ponderosa Pinaceae X X PLJA Pleuraphis jamesii Poaceae X PLPA2 Plantago patagonica Plantaginaceae X X X POFE Poa fendleriana Poaceae X X X X POSA12 Poa sandbergii Poaceae POSE Poa secunda Poaceae X POTR5 Populus tremuloides Salicaceae X X PSME Pseudotsuga menziesii Pinaceae X X PSSP Psilostrophe sparsiflora Asteraceae X PTAQ Pteridium aquilinum Dennstaedtiaceae X X PUME Purshia mexicana Rosaceae PUTR2 Purshia tridentata Rosaceae X X PYCH Pyrola chlorantha Pyrolaceae X X QUGA Quercus gambelii Fagaceae X RATE Ranunculus testiculatus Ranunculaceae X X SAIB Salsola iberica Chenopodiaceae X X SAKA Salsola kali Chenopodiaceae X SAPA8 Salsola paulsenii Chenopodiaceae X X SAPE10 Salsola pestifer Chenopodiaceae X 

64
Species code Species name Family name 

Brushy Loam 

Desert Sand 

(Sand 

Sagebrush) 

Limy Upland, 

6-10" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Loamy Hills, 

Cold, 25-33" pz 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

SAVE4 Sarcobatus vermiculatus Chenopodiaceae X X SCWH Sclerocactus whipplei Cactaceae SEMU3 Senecio multilobatus Asteraceae X X X SHRO Shepherdia rotundifolia Elaeagnaceae SIAL2 Sisymbrium altissimum Brassicaceae X X SIHY Sitanion hystrix Poaceae X X SISC7 Silene scouleri Caryophyllaceae X SPAI Sporobolus airoides Poaceae X X SPCO Sphaeralcea coccinea Malvaceae X X X X X SPCO4 Sporobolus contractus Poaceae X SPCR Sporobolus cryptandrus Poaceae X SPGR2 Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia Malvaceae X SPHA Sphaeralcea hastulata Malvaceae X SPPA2 Sphaeralcea parvifolia Malvaceae X X STCO4 Stipa comata Poaceae X STEX Stephanomeria exigua Asteraceae X STHY6 Stipa hymenoides Poaceae X X STLO4 Streptanthella longirostris Brassicaceae X X X X X STPI Stanleya pinnata Brassicaceae SYOR2 Symphoricarpos oreophilus Caprifoliaceae X X TESP2 Tetradymia spinosa Asteraceae X THFE Thalictrum fendleri Ranunculaceae X THSU Thelesperma subnudum Asteraceae X TOAN Townsendia annua Asteraceae X UNGRCA1 unkGRCA1 (Carex sp.) Cyperaceae X X VUOC Vulpia octoflora Poaceae X X WYAR Wyethia arizonica Asteraceae X YUBA Yucca baccata Agavaceae X X YUHA Yucca harrimaniae Agavaceae ZIGR Zinnia grandiflora Asteraceae X ZIPA2 Zigadenus paniculatus Liliaceae X 

65
66

Appendix B—Within-Macroplot Variability of Cover Estimates by 

Sampling Technique and Ecological Site 

Ecological site Table Page 

Brushy Loam B1 67 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) B2 68 

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz B3 69 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz B4 70 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz B5 71 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ B6 72 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) B7 73 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) B8 74 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ B9 75 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz B10 76 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) B11 77 
Table B1. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Brushy Loam m

Verde National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macroplots, subrequired to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estimated sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Brushy Loam ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 49.7 18.1 7.4 24.0 100.0 36.5 54 16 12.3 

1-m2 43.4 26.2 10.8 37.3 100.0 60.1 143 38 5.5 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 52.8 23.7 16.4 33.2 98.7 45.5 81 22 5.0 

10-m2 6.5 10.9 4.5 18.7 56.8 205.5 1077 270 12.3 

1-m2 3.2 9.2 0.4 22.3 25.3 259.7 3216 804 5.5 

AMUT Line-point 5.2 9.2 2.6 15.4 26.7 227.7 1198 300 5.0 

10-m2 9.6 8.8 0.2 22.6 62.7 145.0 324 84 12.3 

1-m2 7.6 10.2 0.2 32.2 52.7 219.3 684 174 5.5 

POFE Line-point 8.8 11.3 2.5 18.1 42.7 173.8 635 162 5.0 

10-m2 14.5 13.3 4.5 24.2 46.9 213.3 320 83 12.3 

1-m2 16.2 20.7 2.6 35.7 39.3 237.6 633 161 5.5 

QUGA Line-point 14.5 14.4 2.6 27.4 44.7 188.4 384 99 5.0 

10-m2 14.3 9.9 5.2 13.9 95.8 88.4 190 50 12.3 

1-m2 16.8 17.1 9.3 28.4 79.3 158.8 398 102 5.5 

Bare soil Line-point 41.3 18.9 15.2 21.8 83.3 79.8 83 23 5.0 

10-m2 70.4 15.8 8.8 22.1 100.0 25.3 22 8 12.3 

1-m2 75.4 19.8 10.5 31.4 100.0 29.6 30 10 5.5 

Litter Line-point 52.3 18.7 9.8 23.9 95.3 49.1 52 15 5.0 

10-m2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.9 21.0 214.7 3998 1005 12.3 

1-m2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.8 7.3 380.7 6777 1695 5.5 

BSC Line-point 0.2 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.0 467.5 46482 11621 5.0 3

67

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 
Table B2. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across two Desert Sand m

Canyonlands National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macroplsizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 13.4 3.7 3.4 4.0 100.0 27.7 32 10 8.8 

1-m2 12.3 7.7 6.5 8.8 100.0 61.9 151 40 4.6 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 11.7 11.1 10.2 12.1 68.3 95.4 350 90 3.6 

10-m2 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 50.0 170.8 973 243 8.8 

1-m2 1.7 7.1 5.1 9.1 11.7 426.8 7174 1794 4.6 

ATCA2 Line-point 1.3 3.7 2.5 4.8 11.7 311.3 2944 736 3.6 

10-m2 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.4 57.1 148.5 659 168 8.8 

1-m2 1.1 2.1 1.6 2.5 35.0 194.2 1309 348 4.6 

HIJA Line-point 1.2 4.4 3.1 5.7 8.3 366.8 5412 1354 3.6 

10-m2 0.6 0.7 0.2 1.1 69.0 115.1 418 107 8.8 

1-m2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 40.0 192.2 389 100 4.6 

STHY6 Line-point 1.8 3.3 1.8 4.8 18.3 345.8 1253 313 3.6 

10-m2 6.9 4.4 3.4 5.3 100.0 63.0 158 42 8.8 

1-m2 6.6 5.1 4.7 5.5 100.0 78.2 231 61 4.6 

Litter Line-point 8.3 8.9 7.2 10.7 56.7 108.3 441 113 3.6 

10-m2 67.6 14.7 12.4 17.0 97.6 22.1 21 8 8.8 

1-m2 79.1 10.6 10.2 11.0 100.0 13.4 10 5 4.6 

Undifferen

tiated 

crust Line-point 81.5 14.6 14.1 15.1 100.0 18.0 15 6 3.6 

10-m2 4.3 3.9 0.9 7.0 92.9 91.4 325 84 8.8 

1-m2 4.8 4.4 1.6 7.1 70.0 113.8 326 84 4.6 

BSC Line-point 6.7 7.6 3.8 11.5 40.0 162.9 504 129 3.6 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

68
Table B3. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Limy Upland m

Wupatki National Monument, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macropsizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes.

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 23.6 6.0 3.9 8.0 100.0 26.5 28 9 7.3 

1-m2 16.0 5.3 3.1 8.8 100.0 33.1 45 15 3.7 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 26.7 15.8 13.0 18.7 93.3 59.9 138 37 3.3 

10-m2 5.1 3.6 1.8 6.3 92.0 92.0 187 49 7.3 

1-m2 3.5 2.1 1.4 2.9 80.0 95.8 142 38 3.7 

CHLE4 Line-point 3.6 6.6 3.1 10.1 27.3 184.5 1280 320 3.3 

10-m2 3.7 3.0 1.8 6.5 84.8 125.1 248 65 7.3 

1-m2 2.8 2.3 1.0 3.6 65.3 150.9 258 75 3.7 

HENE5 Line-point 6.5 8.9 6.8 12.5 40.0 130.7 720 183 3.3 

10-m2 4.4 3.4 1.7 6.1 74.5 149.0 233 61 7.3 

1-m2 2.3 1.8 0.8 3.2 70.0 132.0 237 62 3.7 

PLJA Line-point 6.7 7.4 1.8 11.0 44.7 226.8 462 118 3.3 

10-m2 7.3 5.0 0.9 12.8 100.0 67.4 181 48 7.3 

1-m2 7.3 6.2 1.3 14.0 97.3 87.4 282 73 3.7 

Bare soil Line-point 16.3 12.5 5.1 26.4 59.3 112.0 227 59 3.3 

10-m2 6.6 4.4 2.4 6.0 100.0 64.9 167 44 7.3 

1-m2 7.1 4.9 2.6 9.7 100.0 66.3 181 47 3.7 

Litter Line-point 3.6 10.2 9.2 11.2 21.3 116.5 3084 771 3.3 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

69
Table B4. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Loamy Hills ma

Canyon National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macroplots, s

required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estimated sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 19.7 15.8 3.0 32.2 100.0 74.8 248 65 8.9 

1-m2 23.8 27.1 5.2 52.8 94.7 120.4 502 128 4.1 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 16.9 13.8 9.6 23.3 72.0 90.6 257 67 4.0 

10-m2 0.5 1.0 0.1 2.1 39.6 230.9 1451 363 8.9 

1-m2 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.2 25.3 220.8 1280 320 4.1 

POFE Line-point 1.5 3.7 1.8 4.9 15.3 282.4 2238 560 4.0 

10-m2 2.6 3.7 0.2 6.7 55.2 176.0 775 197 8.9 

1-m2 4.1 10.5 0.4 19.5 36.7 261.7 2551 638 4.1 

POTR5 Line-point 1.8 4.4 2.6 6.4 16.0 251.1 2285 572 4.0 

10-m2 1.4 1.7 0.2 2.5 74.7 142.7 529 135 8.9 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 1.2 1.5 0.4 2.1 54.7 177.2 586 150 4.1 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 6.5 10.0 5.2 12.6 40.0 123.4 925 232 4.0 

10-m2 1.5 1.9 1.3 2.3 72.2 126.9 571 145 8.9 

1-m2 1.9 3.2 1.4 6.6 53.3 157.5 1059 265 4.1 

Bare soil Line-point 14.9 17.1 9.0 28.0 49.3 138.0 502 128 4.0 

10-m2 74.8 11.8 8.8 20.1 100.0 16.6 12 5 8.9 

1-m2 80.1 15.6 5.2 22.6 99.3 20.2 18 7 4.1 

Litter Line-point 69.3 22.1 15.5 36.3 98.7 33.2 42 13 4.0 

10-m2 0.7 1.3 0.1 4.1 36.8 275.1 1242 310 8.9 

1-m2 0.6 1.5 0.3 3.5 23.3 291.1 2498 625 4.1 

BSC Line-point 0.3 2.9 1.8 4.0 2.0 475.2 46261 11609 4.0 3

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

70
Table B5. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across two Loamy Hills, C

Grand Canyon National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macrosizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 48.8 31.6 29.3 33.9 100.0 64.9 164 43 7.3 

1-m2 57.3 42.5 33.7 51.2 100.0 78.3 211 56 2.8 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 25.7 18.9 17.9 19.9 85.0 74.5 209 55 5.7 

10-m2 8.6 25.8 25.8 25.8 31.0 149.5 3432 858 7.3 

1-m2 12.9 29.6 29.6 29.6 33.3 115.1 2036 509 2.8 

ABCO Line-point 4.5 11.8 11.8 11.8 23.3 131.6 2664 666 5.7 

10-m2 6.9 15.7 13.6 17.8 28.6 311.7 2004 501 7.3 

1-m2 8.3 26.1 26.1 26.1 21.7 157.9 3831 958 2.8 

PIEN Line-point 4.2 8.1 3.7 12.5 20.0 355.4 1445 362 5.7 

10-m2 4.7 9.3 5.2 13.3 59.5 186.3 1478 370 7.3 

1-m2 6.2 13.5 8.3 18.7 38.3 210.8 1805 452 2.8 

POTR5 Line-point 1.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 10.0 319.9 3458 865 5.7 

10-m2 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 83.3 160.4 984 246 7.3 

1-m2 1.8 3.3 2.3 4.4 51.7 183.9 1323 331 2.8 

Bare soil Line-point 4.0 9.2 5.8 12.5 21.7 226.8 2024 506 5.7 

10-m2 70.2 15.3 14.4 16.1 100.0 21.7 21 8 7.3 

1-m2 80.4 13.4 12.6 14.2 100.0 16.7 14 6 2.8 

Litter Line-point 81.3 16.9 16.4 17.3 100.0 20.7 19 7 5.7 

10-m2 1.1 1.3 0.7 1.9 78.6 132.3 593 151 7.3 

1-m2 1.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 41.7 317.6 2454 613 2.8 

BSC Line-point 1.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 8.3 242.1 8999 2250 5.7 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

71
Table B6. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Loamy Mesa T

at Mesa Verde National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macrosizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 32.7 20.2 11.7 31.3 91.2 157.9 149 39 8.6 

1-m2 29.6 31.1 15.2 49.8 58.7 198.8 425 109 3.5 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 20.7 15.5 11.6 18.3 46.7 133.4 215 57 4.2 

10-m2 7.7 11.9 6.0 17.4 67.2 162.4 903 226 8.6 

1-m2 9.8 18.6 6.1 32.4 36.7 214.2 1396 349 3.5 

JUOS Line-point 3.4 5.8 4.1 7.8 28.0 179.8 1134 284 4.2 

10-m2 12.4 13.8 7.7 23.8 73.7 128.6 473 121 8.6 

1-m2 10.9 21.9 10.5 27.5 36.7 207.4 1566 392 3.5 

PIED Line-point 7.3 10.7 4.6 13.6 44.7 151.0 812 203 4.2 

10-m2 7.0 4.7 0.1 8.5 98.7 60.9 176 46 8.6 

1-m2 4.7 5.0 0.5 8.3 85.3 106.7 420 108 3.5 

POFE Line-point 7.7 8.6 4.1 14.2 55.3 128.7 485 124 4.2 

10-m2 2.1 3.7 0.6 8.6 100.0 63.9 1191 298 8.6 

1-m2 2.3 5.1 0.5 12.1 98.7 107.0 1908 477 3.5 

Bare soil Line-point 7.1 8.0 4.6 11.1 84.0 75.2 478 122 4.2 

10-m2 47.2 29.1 23.2 34.7 100.0 63.0 149 39 8.6 

1-m2 50.5 34.0 29.7 39.0 100.0 71.7 178 47 3.5 

Litter Line-point 47.5 22.7 16.6 25.6 94.7 52.6 90 25 4.2 

10-m2 3.9 3.7 2.0 5.2 97.1 97.4 346 89 8.6 

1-m2 5.4 7.8 1.9 14.9 77.3 132.5 796 202 3.5 

BSC Line-point 7.4 10.0 7.4 13.6 46.0 152.4 708 180 4.2 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

72
Table B7. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Semidesert Alk

macroplots at Capitol Reef National Park, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized ac

subsample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level meanamounts of sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macropsummarizing within-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil cru

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 20.3 8.8 4.5 16.9 100.0 45.5 75 21 8.8 

1-m2 18.1 12.7 6.1 20.1 98.7 72.8 193 50 4.4 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 25.4 16.4 11.9 19.4 85.3 71.7 163 43 2.4 

10-m2 2.6 3.1 1.0 5.2 71.6 138.2 554 141 8.8 

1-m2 2.5 4.4 1.3 12.4 46.7 186.0 1178 295 4.4 

ATCO Line-point 3.1 7.6 5.9 9.7 20.7 205.3 2378 595 2.4 

10-m2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 56.8 95.0 252 66 8.8 

1-m2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 38.7 140.0 567 145 4.4 

GIIN2 Line-point 0.3 2.7 1.8 3.5 3.3 405.8 24697 6156 2.4 

10-m2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.8 86.1 85.7 310 80 8.8 

1-m2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 55.3 100.7 355 92 4.4 

ORHY Line-point 1.2 3.8 2.5 6.6 10.0 307.5 3873 969 2.4 

10-m2 0.8 1.6 0.3 4.1 75.4 162.2 1337 335 8.8 

1-m2 1.2 1.5 0.5 2.7 63.3 178.7 654 166 4.4 

Bare soil Line-point 4.3 6.6 2.6 8.6 33.3 201.8 892 223 2.4 

10-m2 9.7 7.0 1.2 9.3 98.7 78.1 203 54 8.8 

1-m2 10.6 15.0 1.9 23.5 98.7 138.2 770 195 4.4 

Litter Line-point 5.5 7.5 2.6 11.3 37.3 182.6 723 184 2.4 

10-m2 1.8 1.5 0.4 4.3 78.7 94.4 273 71 8.8 

1-m2 1.5 1.5 0.6 2.9 58.0 126.7 411 106 4.4 

BSC Line-point 3.3 6.5 3.5 9.7 22.7 233.9 1502 376 2.4 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

73
Table B8. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Semidesert Lo

Dinosaur National Monument, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macrosizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 32.2 11.1 7.9 16.9 100.0 36.6 49 14 8.4 

1-m2 20.2 13.0 9.1 19.4 100.0 67.9 163 43 4.8 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 53.8 22.8 20.3 25.5 98.7 48.4 72 20 3.9 

10-m2 9.6 7.0 1.2 10.7 83.6 93.9 205 54 8.4 

1-m2 5.3 7.0 0.7 10.2 58.0 223.0 674 171 4.8 

ARTR2 Line-point 4.8 7.9 6.3 9.2 36.0 137.4 1044 261 3.9 

10-m2 11.9 9.1 2.7 24.7 93.7 114.4 227 60 8.4 

1-m2 7.3 7.7 1.6 22.0 77.3 140.0 431 111 4.8 

BRTE Line-point 30.1 20.1 14.2 29.4 80.0 90.3 174 46 3.9 

10-m2 2.5 3.0 0.3 9.4 62.7 97.8 544 139 8.4 

1-m2 1.3 1.6 0.5 3.4 48.0 134.5 568 145 4.8 

STCO4 Line-point 4.2 12.7 5.9 19.5 16.0 164.5 3518 880 3.9 

10-m2 0.7 0.7 0.2 1.9 72.0 93.5 372 96 8.4 

1-m2 1.1 1.6 0.4 3.7 51.3 159.7 843 211 4.8 

Bare soil Line-point 10.5 10.6 4.9 15.9 57.3 109.2 394 101 3.9 

10-m2 34.2 14.3 9.3 22.0 98.7 46.7 70 20 8.4 

1-m2 35.0 22.9 17.7 27.8 100.0 85.3 167 44 4.8 

Litter Line-point 29.8 16.5 13.0 20.3 83.3 69.5 121 32 3.9 

10-m2 5.5 5.5 1.1 12.9 100.0 88.2 384 99 8.4 

1-m2 5.5 4.8 1.1 15.1 98.7 68.6 285 74 4.8 

BSC Line-point 12.1 11.6 6.3 20.4 60.0 107.6 356 92 3.9 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

74
Table B9. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across seven Semidesert 

Loam macroplots at Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, within-macroplot variation in cover estimacross macroplots, subsample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of mmeans, and estimated amounts of sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See 

macroplot-level tables summarizing within-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (Bcrust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site, n = 7 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 18.8 11.7 6.0 18.4 98.6 65.1 152 40 7.9 

1-m2 16.4 14.7 10.2 25.1 96.7 96.0 311 81 3.8 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 13.3 13.2 7.0 23.6 66.7 102.3 380 98 2.5 

10-m2 10.3 7.5 5.5 11.4 68.3 106.5 202 53 7.9 

1-m2 9.2 9.8 4.8 12.9 72.4 130.7 438 112 3.8 

CORA Line-point 6.2 7.4 5.1 11.0 46.7 135.4 548 140 2.5 

10-m2 0.5 0.8 0.1 4.4 68.8 108.9 961 241 7.9 

1-m2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 49.0 129.4 283 73 3.8 

FEOC3 Line-point 0.9 4.1 2.5 8.3 7.1 320.0 7923 1981 2.5 

10-m2 1.0 1.2 0.0 4.0 88.8 92.1 572 146 7.9 

1-m2 1.5 2.2 0.5 5.7 58.6 141.2 833 209 3.8 

Bare soil Line-point 4.3 7.3 4.6 10.1 29.5 198.7 1103 276 2.5 

10-m2 5.6 8.7 1.5 18.8 99.3 149.9 920 230 7.9 

1-m2 6.0 12.0 1.4 23.7 99.0 181.5 1575 394 3.8 

Litter Line-point 3.6 7.3 2.6 18.1 19.5 303.4 1555 389 2.5 

10-m2 69.8 16.7 0.0 28.7 99.3 30.9 25 8 7.9 

1-m2 73.7 19.7 5.6 33.4 96.7 29.9 30 10 3.8 

Crusundi Line-point 70.4 18.7 13.7 28.0 98.6 30.3 30 10 2.5 

10-m2 5.6 5.1 2.8 8.5 89.5 106.2 321 83 7.9 

1-m2 6.3 6.5 2.3 11.6 81.0 113.9 400 103 3.8 

BSC Line-point 10.8 11.9 3.8 17.8 51.4 133.4 464 119 2.5 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

75
Table B10. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across two Shallow Loam

Wupatki National Monument, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized across macropsizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level means, and estim

sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macroplot-level tabwithin-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 18.3 7.4 5.8 9.0 100.0 43.0 66 19 6.5 

1-m2 17.2 13.8 10.7 17.0 100.0 87.4 250 65 3.4 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 27.3 12.8 9.6 16.0 90.0 54.9 88 24 3.0 

10-m2 2.0 1.6 0.6 2.6 95.2 89.3 252 66 6.5 

1-m2 1.7 2.2 1.2 3.1 71.7 124.1 625 159 3.4 

CHLE4 Line-point 3.0 4.4 2.5 6.3 26.7 249.2 831 208 3.0 

10-m2 3.5 3.7 1.8 5.5 92.9 102.2 428 110 6.5 

1-m2 2.3 2.1 1.3 2.9 81.7 92.2 335 87 3.4 

HENE5 Line-point 6.2 7.6 4.3 10.8 43.3 146.3 578 147 3.0 

10-m2 4.5 3.4 2.3 4.4 100.0 77.6 210 55 6.5 

1-m2 4.3 3.5 2.1 5.0 93.3 85.6 262 68 3.4 

PLJA Line-point 7.2 8.7 6.8 10.7 48.3 128.2 572 146 3.0 

10-m2 1.8 1.7 1.2 2.2 100.0 93.7 349 90 6.5 

1-m2 3.5 5.1 1.7 8.6 98.3 127.0 807 202 3.4 

Bare soil Line-point 9.3 11.4 8.6 14.3 50.0 149.0 579 147 3.0 

10-m2 6.4 5.1 4.7 5.6 92.9 81.5 251 65 6.5 

1-m2 8.5 12.2 11.1 13.3 95.0 143.2 789 200 3.4 

Litter Line-point 8.8 9.5 8.9 10.1 56.7 114.7 444 114 3.0 

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

76
Table B11. Summary of mean cover estimates for selected cover measures across five Upland Shallo

macroplots at Capitol Reef National Parks, within-macroplot variation in cover estimates summarized asubsample sizes required to achieve 10 and 20 percent precision in estimates of macroplot-level meanamounts of sampling time required to achieve those degrees of precision. See Appendix C for macropsummarizing within-plot variability. See Appendix A for key to species codes (BSC = biological soil cru

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Within-macroplot variation in cover estimates Subsample size 

(summarized across macroplots) (by precision) 

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover Mean sd Min sd Max sd 

Mean 

freq* Mean CV 10% 20% 

Unit time 

(min) 

10-m2 16.5 19.7 11.3 29.3 96.0 117.4 546 139 5.3 

1-m2 15.4 24.5 18.9 30.8 88.7 176.4 976 244 2.8 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 11.7 13.3 9.2 15.4 56.0 126.3 491 126 2.3 

10-m2 1.9 6.1 5.0 7.1 18.7 204.3 4159 1040 5.3 

1-m2 1.3 5.5 1.4 12.3 12.0 252.6 6828 1709 2.8 

CEMO2 Line-point 2.4 11.3 8.3 14.2 13.3 192.5 8456 2114 2.3 

10-m2 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.8 80.4 116.9 484 124 5.3 

1-m2 1.1 1.2 0.8 2.3 63.3 115.1 482 124 2.8 

COWR2 Line-point 2.3 5.9 3.5 9.4 18.7 208.8 2424 606 2.3 

10-m2 5.6 12.1 9.7 17.0 29.0 228.0 1792 448 5.3 

1-m2 4.8 13.9 2.6 19.4 15.3 307.2 3168 792 2.8 

JUOS Line-point 2.5 5.8 2.6 8.0 17.3 255.7 2022 506 2.3 

10-m2 1.1 1.4 0.1 2.5 95.8 108.1 588 150 5.3 

1-m2 1.6 1.5 1.1 2.0 86.7 98.5 367 95 2.8 

Bare soil Line-point 15.3 13.5 10.1 19.4 72.7 96.8 300 78 2.3 

10-m2 16.8 22.1 9.9 28.1 100.0 142.2 667 170 5.3 

1-m2 22.0 31.4 23.3 39.5 99.3 169.9 783 198 2.8 

Litter Line-point 6.8 11.4 5.9 16.4 32.7 209.9 1071 268 2.3 

10-m2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 15.2 221.0 2661 666 5.3 

1-m2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 6.0 399.7 7197 1827 2.8 

BSC Line-point 0.2 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.0 464.1 45641 11411 2.3 1

* frequency for line-point sampling was calculated on the basis of 10-point groups 

77
78

Appendix C—Summaries of Frequency and Cover Estimates by Macroplot 

and Sampling Technique 

Ecological site Macroplot Phase Table Page 

MEVE1 2 C1 79 

MEVE2 2 C2 80 

MEVE5 3 C3 81 

MEVE6 3 C4 82 

Brushy Loam 

MEVE7b 3 C5 83 

CANY1 2 C6 84 Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) CANY2b 2 C7 85 

WUPA1 2 C8 86 

WUPA2 2 C9 87 

WUPA5 3 C10 88 

WUPA6 3 C11 89 

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz 

WUPA7 3 C12 90 

GRCA3 2 C13 91 

GRCA4 2 C14 92 

GRCA5 3 C15 93 

GRCA6 3 C16 94 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz 

GRCA7 3 C17 95 

GRCA1 2 C18 96 Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz GRCA2 2 C19 97 

MEVE3 2 C20 98 

MEVE4 2 C21 99 

MEVE8 3 C22 100 

MEVE9 3 C23 101 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ 

MEVE10 3 C24 102 

CARE1 2 C25 103 

CARE2 2 C26 104 

CARE5 3 C27 105 

CARE6 3 C28 106 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam 

(Alkali Sacaton) 

CARE7 3 C29 107 

DINO1 2 C30 108 

DINO2b 2 C31 109 

DINO3 3 C32 110 

DINO4b 3 C33 111 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush) 

DINO5 3 C34 112 

ARCH1b 2 C35 113 

ARCH2 2 C36 114 

ARCH3 3 C37 115 

ARCH4b 3 C38 116 

ARCH5 3 C39 117 

CANY3 2 C40 118 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam 

PJ 

CANY4 2 C41 119 

WUPA3 2 C42 120 Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz WUPA4 2 C43 121 

CARE3 2 C44 122 

CARE4b 2 C45 123 

CARE8 3 C46 124 

CARE9 3 C47 125 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah 

Juniper) 

CARE10 3 C48 126 
Brushy Loam ecological site – MEVE1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 71.21 21.60 30.34 9.24 12.97 

1-m2 30 100.0 62.60 30.26 48.34 10.83 17.30 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 93.3 50.00 33.22 66.44 11.89 23.77 

10-m2 21 71.4 15.45 18.67 120.84 7.99 51.68 

1-m2 30 46.7 10.77 22.31 207.18 7.98 74.14 

AMUT Line-point 30 36.7 10.33 15.42 149.24 5.52 53.40 

10-m2 21 57.1 0.29 0.25 88.74 0.11 37.95 

1-m2 30 33.3 0.33 0.48 143.84 0.17 51.47 

POFE Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 95.2 37.40 24.23 64.79 10.37 27.71 

1-m2 30 80.0 37.13 31.43 84.64 11.25 30.29 

QUGA Line-point 30 80.0 30.00 27.42 91.39 9.81 32.70 

10-m2 21 85.7 7.02 11.46 163.12 4.90 69.76 

1-m2 30 43.3 4.23 15.47 365.46 5.54 130.78 

Bare soil Line-point 30 30.0 8.00 17.69 221.18 6.33 79.15 

10-m2 21 100.0 76.79 14.94 19.46 6.39 8.32 

1-m2 30 100.0 86.03 21.93 25.49 7.85 9.12 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 87.00 18.96 21.80 6.79 7.80 

10-m2 21 38.1 0.43 0.88 206.36 0.38 88.26 

1-m2 30 3.3 0.03 0.18 547.72 0.07 196.00 

BSC Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

Table C1. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE1 (Brushy Loam ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

79
Table C2. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE2 (Brushy Loam ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Brushy Loam ecological site – MEVE 2 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 46.21 23.96 51.85 10.25 22.18 

1-m2 30 100.0 48.97 37.26 76.09 13.33 27.23 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 100.0 54.00 27.24 50.45 9.75 18.05 

10-m2 21 52.4 3.60 8.30 230.95 3.55 98.78 

1-m2 30 26.7 2.80 7.80 278.45 2.79 99.64 

AMUT Line-point 30 16.7 3.00 7.94 264.79 2.84 94.75 

10-m2 21 9.5 0.05 0.15 315.83 0.06 135.08 

1-m2 30 3.3 0.03 0.18 547.72 0.07 196.00 

POFE Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 85.7 27.43 22.21 80.99 9.50 34.64 

1-m2 30 63.3 29.67 35.70 120.33 12.77 43.06 

QUGA Line-point 30 83.3 33.00 25.62 77.63 9.17 27.78 

10-m2 21 100.0 32.26 13.92 43.14 5.95 18.45 

1-m2 30 93.3 40.93 28.38 69.33 10.16 24.81 

Bare soil Line-point 30 100.0 47.33 21.80 46.06 7.80 16.48 

10-m2 21 100.0 44.19 22.05 49.90 9.43 21.34 

1-m2 30 100.0 48.97 31.39 64.10 11.23 22.94 

Litter Line-point 30 96.7 47.33 23.92 50.53 8.56 18.08 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

BSC Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

80
Table C3. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE5 (Brushy Loam ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Brushy Loam ecological site – MEVE 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 44.73 19.60 43.81 9.92 22.17 

1-m2 15 100.0 37.13 30.28 81.54 15.32 41.27 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 55.33 17.67 31.94 8.94 16.16 

10-m2 15 60.0 8.20 18.17 221.54 9.19 112.12 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.13 0.35 263.90 0.18 133.55 

AMUT Line-point 15 40.0 7.33 11.63 158.58 5.89 80.25 

10-m2 15 73.3 15.03 22.56 150.04 11.41 75.93 

1-m2 15 73.3 20.87 32.24 154.50 16.32 78.19 

POFE Line-point 15 60.0 15.33 18.07 117.87 9.15 59.65 

10-m2 15 13.3 1.37 4.53 331.43 2.29 167.72 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

QUGA Line-point 15 26.7 4.00 8.28 207.02 4.19 104.76 

10-m2 15 93.3 6.67 5.18 77.72 2.62 39.33 

1-m2 15 100.0 11.87 17.94 151.21 9.08 76.52 

Bare soil Line-point 15 100.0 78.00 21.11 27.07 10.68 13.70 

10-m2 15 100.0 80.83 14.84 18.36 7.51 9.29 

1-m2 15 100.0 80.53 19.34 24.01 9.79 12.15 

Litter Line-point 15 80.0 17.33 20.86 120.36 10.56 60.91 

10-m2 15 13.3 0.07 0.18 263.90 0.09 133.55 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.07 0.26 387.30 0.13 196.00 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

81
Table C4. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE6 (Brushy Loam ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Brushy Loam ecological site – MEVE 6 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 28.37 7.37 25.99 3.73 13.15 

1-m2 15 100.0 25.80 10.75 41.67 5.44 21.09 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 48.67 24.16 49.65 12.23 25.13 

10-m2 15 13.3 1.37 4.53 331.43 2.29 167.72 

1-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

AMUT Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 73.3 2.30 2.51 108.94 1.27 55.13 

1-m2 15 53.3 2.20 3.32 150.95 1.68 76.39 

POFE Line-point 15 53.3 7.33 8.84 120.51 4.47 60.98 

10-m2 15 6.7 1.17 4.52 387.30 2.29 196.00 

1-m2 15 20.0 1.93 6.94 359.14 3.51 181.74 

QUGA Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 17.27 12.04 69.74 6.09 35.29 

1-m2 15 86.7 20.27 14.53 71.71 7.35 36.29 

Bare soil Line-point 15 100.0 48.00 15.21 31.69 7.70 16.04 

10-m2 15 100.0 65.83 18.58 28.22 9.40 14.28 

1-m2 15 100.0 70.47 16.10 22.85 8.15 11.56 

Litter Line-point 15 100.0 43.33 9.76 22.52 4.94 11.40 

10-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

82
Table C5. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE7b (Brushy Loam eco

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Brushy Loam ecological site– MEVE 7b macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 58.10 17.82 30.66 9.02 15.52 

1-m2 15 100.0 42.40 22.50 53.06 11.38 26.85 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 56.00 16.39 29.26 8.29 14.81 

10-m2 15 86.7 3.93 4.84 122.95 2.45 62.22 

1-m2 15 40.0 2.20 6.36 289.12 3.22 146.31 

AMUT Line-point 15 33.3 4.67 8.34 178.67 4.22 90.42 

10-m2 15 100.0 30.37 18.62 61.33 9.42 31.04 

1-m2 15 100.0 14.60 14.53 99.55 7.36 50.38 

POFE Line-point 15 93.3 20.67 15.80 76.43 7.99 38.68 

10-m2 15 33.3 5.37 10.83 201.87 5.48 102.16 

1-m2 15 26.7 11.40 27.00 236.84 13.66 119.85 

QUGA Line-point 15 26.7 4.67 8.34 178.67 4.22 90.42 

10-m2 15 100.0 8.10 7.14 88.17 3.61 44.62 

1-m2 15 73.3 6.80 9.27 136.29 4.69 68.97 

Bare soil Line-point 15 86.7 25.33 18.46 72.89 9.34 36.89 

10-m2 15 100.0 84.17 8.80 10.45 4.45 5.29 

1-m2 15 100.0 91.07 10.47 11.50 5.30 5.82 

Litter Line-point 15 100.0 66.67 20.24 30.36 10.24 15.36 

10-m2 15 53.3 0.43 0.75 173.72 0.38 87.91 

1-m2 15 26.7 0.40 0.83 207.02 0.42 104.76 

BSC Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

83
Table C6. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CANY1 (Desert Sand ecolo

point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calculation

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species codbiological soil crust). 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) ecological site – CANY 1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 13.07 3.45 26.37 1.47 11.28 

1-m2 30 100.0 12.13 6.49 53.49 2.32 19.14 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 63.3 11.67 12.06 103.36 4.31 36.99 

10-m2 21 66.7 1.83 2.30 125.67 0.99 53.75 

1-m2 30 13.3 1.57 5.13 327.48 1.84 117.19 

ATCA2 Line-point 30 16.7 2.00 4.84 242.12 1.73 86.64 

10-m2 21 28.6 1.17 2.36 202.08 1.01 86.43 

1-m2 30 23.3 1.00 2.53 253.25 0.91 90.62 

HIJA Line-point 30 6.7 1.33 5.71 428.51 2.04 153.34 

10-m2 21 38.1 0.19 0.25 130.62 0.11 55.87 

1-m2 30 10.0 0.10 0.31 305.13 0.11 109.19 

STHY6 Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

10-m2 21 100.0 7.69 5.30 68.88 2.27 29.46 

1-m2 30 100.0 7.53 5.53 73.35 1.98 26.25 

Litter Line-point 30 63.3 10.33 10.66 103.18 3.82 36.92 

10-m2 21 100.0 72.02 12.44 17.27 5.32 7.39 

1-m2 Undifferenti 30 100.0 80.90 10.18 12.58 3.64 4.50 

ated crust Line-point 30 100.0 84.67 14.08 16.63 5.04 5.95 

10-m2 21 85.7 1.02 0.93 90.68 0.40 38.78 

1-m2 30 50.0 1.13 1.61 142.34 0.58 50.93 

BSC Line-point 30 16.7 1.67 3.79 227.43 1.36 81.38 

84
Table C7. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CANY2b (Desert Sand ecol

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) ecological site – CANY 2b macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 13.69 3.98 29.09 1.70 12.44 

1-m2 30 100.0 12.53 8.82 70.40 3.16 25.19 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 73.3 11.67 10.20 87.42 3.65 31.28 

10-m2 21 33.3 1.07 2.31 216.02 0.99 92.39 

1-m2 30 10.0 1.73 9.12 526.13 3.26 188.27 

ATCA2 Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 85.7 2.29 2.17 94.99 0.93 40.63 

1-m2 30 46.7 1.17 1.58 135.21 0.56 48.38 

HIJA Line-point 30 10.0 1.00 3.05 305.13 1.09 109.19 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.10 1.09 99.62 0.47 42.61 

1-m2 30 70.0 0.93 0.74 79.25 0.26 28.36 

STHY6 Line-point 30 33.3 3.33 4.79 143.84 1.72 51.47 

10-m2 21 100.0 6.05 3.45 57.04 1.48 24.39 

1-m2 30 100.0 5.63 4.68 83.06 1.67 29.72 

Litter Line-point 30 50.0 6.33 7.18 113.43 2.57 40.59 

10-m2 21 95.2 63.10 16.99 26.93 7.27 11.52 

1-m2 Undifferenti 30 100.0 77.37 10.98 14.20 3.93 5.08 

ated crust Line-point 30 100.0 78.33 15.10 19.28 5.41 6.90 

10-m2 21 100.0 7.55 6.95 92.13 2.97 39.40 

1-m2 30 90.0 8.37 7.13 85.24 2.55 30.50 

BSC Line-point 30 63.3 11.67 11.47 98.33 4.11 35.19 

85
Table C8. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA1 (Limy Upland ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site – WUPA 1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 34.40 5.98 17.39 2.56 7.44 

1-m2 30 100.0 20.07 5.46 27.20 1.95 9.73 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 90.0 31.33 16.34 52.16 5.85 18.67 

10-m2 21 100.0 10.71 6.26 58.45 2.68 25.00 

1-m2 30 100.0 5.40 2.82 52.29 1.01 18.71 

CHLE4 Line-point 30 46.7 6.33 8.50 134.26 3.04 48.04 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.79 1.79 100.40 0.77 42.94 

1-m2 30 53.3 1.27 1.82 143.54 0.65 51.36 

HENE5 Line-point 30 26.7 4.33 8.17 188.58 2.92 67.48 

10-m2 21 19.0 0.55 1.72 314.84 0.74 134.66 

1-m2 30 16.7 0.33 0.88 265.23 0.32 94.91 

PLJA Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

10-m2 21 100.0 16.12 8.89 55.15 3.80 23.59 

1-m2 30 100.0 16.67 13.97 83.84 5.00 30.00 

Bare soil Line-point 30 93.3 40.67 26.38 64.88 9.44 23.22 

10-m2 21 100.0 7.43 4.70 63.26 2.01 27.06 

1-m2 30 100.0 6.83 3.93 57.53 1.41 20.59 

Litter Line-point 30 63.3 11.00 11.25 102.27 4.03 36.60 

86
Table C9. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA2 (Limy Upland ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site – WUPA 2 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 25.79 7.04 27.30 3.01 11.68 

1-m2 30 100.0 18.17 8.75 48.19 3.13 17.24 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 96.7 26.67 14.22 53.34 5.09 19.09 

10-m2 21 66.7 1.14 1.83 160.24 0.78 68.53 

1-m2 30 26.7 0.73 1.76 240.05 0.63 85.90 

CHLE4 Line-point 30 10.0 1.00 3.05 305.13 1.09 109.19 

10-m2 21 90.5 2.19 2.18 99.36 0.93 42.50 

1-m2 30 73.3 1.63 1.50 91.64 0.54 32.79 

HENE5 Line-point 30 33.3 4.33 6.79 156.67 2.43 56.06 

10-m2 21 100.0 9.64 6.06 62.81 2.59 26.86 

1-m2 30 100.0 5.53 3.23 58.46 1.16 20.92 

PLJA Line-point 30 86.7 14.00 10.03 71.67 3.59 25.65 

10-m2 21 100.0 14.67 12.79 87.20 5.47 37.30 

1-m2 30 100.0 12.67 11.16 88.14 4.00 31.54 

Bare soil Line-point 30 90.0 27.00 15.79 58.48 5.65 20.93 

10-m2 21 100.0 7.21 4.80 66.50 2.05 28.44 

1-m2 30 100.0 7.30 4.28 58.58 1.53 20.96 

Litter Line-point 30 43.3 7.00 9.15 130.77 3.28 46.79 

87
Table C10. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA5 (Limy Upland eco

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site – WUPA 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 18.00 5.24 29.11 2.65 14.73 

1-m2 15 100.0 13.33 5.84 43.79 2.95 22.16 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 30.67 18.70 60.96 9.46 30.85 

10-m2 15 93.3 7.37 3.55 48.16 1.80 24.37 

1-m2 15 100.0 6.60 2.87 43.54 1.45 22.03 

CHLE4 Line-point 15 53.3 8.00 10.14 126.77 5.13 64.15 

10-m2 15 33.3 0.63 1.91 302.05 0.97 152.86 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.27 1.03 387.30 0.52 196.00 

HENE5 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 100.0 6.30 2.06 32.70 1.04 16.55 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.07 0.80 38.65 0.40 19.56 

PLJA Line-point 15 73.3 10.00 8.45 84.52 4.28 42.77 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.00 1.27 63.39 0.64 32.08 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.33 1.29 55.33 0.65 28.00 

Bare soil Line-point 15 40.0 6.00 9.10 151.71 4.61 76.77 

10-m2 15 100.0 8.37 6.04 72.16 3.06 36.51 

1-m2 15 100.0 8.33 9.69 116.23 4.90 58.82 

Litter Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

88
Table C11. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA6 (Limy Upland eco

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site – WUPA 6 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 19.57 3.92 20.02 1.98 10.13 

1-m2 15 100.0 16.93 3.10 18.33 1.57 9.28 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 93.3 21.33 13.02 61.03 6.59 30.89 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.53 4.21 92.89 2.13 47.01 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.93 1.44 49.01 0.73 24.80 

CHLE4 Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.93 2.56 51.94 1.30 26.29 

1-m2 15 100.0 5.20 3.65 70.17 1.85 35.51 

HENE5 Line-point 15 60.0 8.67 8.34 96.21 4.22 48.69 

10-m2 15 53.3 0.90 1.97 219.43 1.00 111.04 

1-m2 15 40.0 0.93 2.05 219.83 1.04 111.25 

PLJA Line-point 15 13.3 2.00 5.61 280.31 2.84 141.85 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.67 0.88 32.99 0.45 16.69 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.87 2.29 80.06 1.16 40.51 

Bare soil Line-point 15 40.0 4.00 5.07 126.77 2.57 64.15 

10-m2 15 100.0 3.87 2.42 62.68 1.23 31.72 

1-m2 15 100.0 4.80 2.62 54.67 1.33 27.67 

Litter Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

89
Table C12. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA7 (Limy Upland eco

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site – WUPA 7 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 20.47 7.96 38.91 4.03 19.69 

1-m2 15 100.0 11.67 3.24 27.81 1.64 14.07 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 86.7 23.33 16.76 71.84 8.48 36.35 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.97 1.97 100.08 1.00 50.65 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.60 1.50 93.90 0.76 47.52 

CHLE4 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 100.0 9.03 6.47 71.63 3.27 36.25 

1-m2 15 93.3 5.67 3.52 62.09 1.78 31.42 

HENE5 Line-point 15 80.0 15.33 12.46 81.26 6.31 41.12 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.60 5.31 115.41 2.69 58.41 

1-m2 15 93.3 2.47 1.92 77.93 0.97 39.44 

PLJA Line-point 15 46.7 7.33 11.00 149.97 5.57 75.89 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.17 1.14 98.09 0.58 49.64 

1-m2 15 86.7 1.87 2.42 129.44 1.22 65.50 

Bare soil Line-point 15 33.3 4.00 6.32 158.11 3.20 80.02 

10-m2 15 100.0 6.37 3.80 59.70 1.92 30.21 

1-m2 15 100.0 8.47 3.78 44.61 1.91 22.58 

Litter Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

90
Table C13. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA3 (Loamy Hills ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species codbiological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 3 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 25.76 17.08 66.30 7.31 28.36 

1-m2 30 93.3 28.90 39.58 136.94 14.16 49.00 

Total live 

understory 

vegetation Line-point 30 46.7 8.00 12.15 151.86 4.35 54.34 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

POFE Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 71.4 4.02 5.25 130.59 2.25 55.85 

1-m2 30 63.3 7.97 19.47 244.46 6.97 87.48 

POTR5 Line-point 30 20.0 2.33 5.04 216.00 1.80 77.29 

10-m2 21 14.3 0.07 0.18 251.00 0.08 107.35 

1-m2 30 6.7 0.10 0.40 402.58 0.14 144.06 

UNGRCA1 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 71.4 1.50 2.27 151.66 0.97 64.86 

1-m2 30 43.3 2.73 6.56 240.18 2.35 85.95 

Bare soil Line-point 30 33.3 5.33 9.73 182.48 3.48 65.30 

10-m2 21 100.0 63.69 9.61 15.08 4.11 6.45 

1-m2 30 100.0 73.93 17.47 23.62 6.25 8.45 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 78.00 18.27 23.42 6.54 8.38 

10-m2 21 85.7 1.50 1.85 123.38 0.79 52.77 

1-m2 30 53.3 1.43 2.08 145.06 0.74 51.91 

BSC Line-point 30 6.7 1.00 4.03 402.58 1.44 144.06 

91
Table C14. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA4 (Loamy Hills ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species codbiological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 4 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 35.17 32.20 91.57 13.77 39.16 

1-m2 30 100.0 57.47 52.82 91.91 18.90 32.89 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 66.7 24.33 23.29 95.73 8.34 34.26 

10-m2 21 4.8 0.02 0.11 458.26 0.05 196.00 

1-m2 30 6.7 0.07 0.25 380.56 0.09 136.18 

POFE Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

10-m2 21 71.4 2.76 5.37 194.36 2.30 83.13 

1-m2 30 26.7 5.60 18.13 323.83 6.49 115.88 

POTR5 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 85.7 1.57 2.23 142.04 0.95 60.75 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 30 80.0 1.47 1.72 117.05 0.61 41.88 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 30 40.0 8.33 12.62 151.41 4.51 54.18 

10-m2 21 76.2 1.64 2.27 138.18 0.97 59.10 

1-m2 30 50.0 1.50 2.58 172.21 0.92 61.62 

Bare soil Line-point 30 26.7 4.67 9.00 192.76 3.22 68.98 

10-m2 21 100.0 61.31 20.12 32.81 8.60 14.03 

1-m2 30 96.7 74.90 21.40 28.57 7.66 10.22 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 72.33 16.33 22.58 5.84 8.08 

10-m2 21 71.4 1.93 4.12 213.84 1.76 91.46 

1-m2 30 50.0 1.43 3.51 244.91 1.26 87.64 

BSC Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

92
Table C15. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA5 (Loamy Hills ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species codbiological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 11.67 8.51 72.96 4.31 36.92 

1-m2 15 100.0 10.13 12.06 119.06 6.11 60.25 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 93.3 20.00 11.34 56.69 5.74 28.69 

10-m2 15 33.3 0.97 2.08 215.46 1.05 109.04 

1-m2 15 26.7 0.60 1.18 197.20 0.60 99.80 

POFE Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 80.0 5.70 6.70 117.49 3.39 59.46 

1-m2 15 66.7 5.60 11.62 207.57 5.88 105.04 

POTR5 Line-point 15 40.0 4.67 6.40 137.13 3.24 69.40 

10-m2 15 86.7 1.90 2.03 106.76 1.03 54.03 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 15 60.0 1.33 2.13 159.52 1.08 80.73 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 15 53.3 9.33 11.63 124.60 5.89 63.05 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.00 1.27 63.39 0.64 32.08 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.60 1.40 87.75 0.71 44.41 

Bare soil Line-point 15 73.3 28.67 26.15 91.22 13.23 46.16 

10-m2 15 100.0 80.83 11.44 14.16 5.79 7.16 

1-m2 15 100.0 89.53 5.24 5.85 2.65 2.96 

Litter Line-point 15 100.0 62.00 23.96 38.65 12.13 19.56 

10-m2 15 6.7 0.03 0.13 387.30 0.07 196.00 

1-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

93
Table C16. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA6 (Loamy Hills ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calculadefined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

biological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 6 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 20.37 18.34 90.06 9.28 45.57 

1-m2 15 100.0 17.20 26.09 151.71 13.21 76.77 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 86.7 21.33 12.46 58.40 6.31 29.56 

10-m2 15 66.7 0.50 0.73 146.39 0.37 74.08 

1-m2 15 20.0 0.27 0.59 222.61 0.30 112.65 

POFE Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 33.3 0.17 0.24 146.39 0.12 74.08 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.13 0.35 263.90 0.18 133.55 

POTR5 Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.93 2.48 128.15 1.25 64.85 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 15 66.7 1.87 1.88 100.97 0.95 51.10 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 15 60.0 10.00 10.69 106.90 5.41 54.10 

10-m2 15 53.3 1.23 2.09 169.85 1.06 85.95 

1-m2 15 46.7 1.80 2.68 148.78 1.36 75.29 

Bare soil Line-point 15 53.3 11.33 12.46 109.94 6.31 55.63 

10-m2 15 100.0 84.17 8.80 10.45 4.45 5.29 

1-m2 15 100.0 75.80 22.61 29.83 11.44 15.10 

Litter Line-point 15 100.0 74.00 15.49 20.94 7.84 10.59 

10-m2 15 6.7 0.03 0.13 387.30 0.07 196.00 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.07 0.26 387.30 0.13 196.00 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

94
Table C17. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA7 (Loamy Hills ecolo

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species codbiological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 7 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 5.63 2.98 52.88 1.51 26.76 

1-m2 15 80.0 5.07 5.19 102.41 2.63 51.83 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 66.7 10.67 9.61 90.11 4.86 45.60 

10-m2 15 93.3 1.13 1.17 103.42 0.59 52.34 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.07 0.88 82.85 0.45 41.93 

POFE Line-point 15 33.3 3.33 4.88 146.39 2.47 74.08 

10-m2 15 20.0 0.27 0.78 291.05 0.39 147.29 

1-m2 15 13.3 1.13 3.04 268.60 1.54 135.93 

POTR5 Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 86.7 1.60 1.37 85.34 0.69 43.19 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 15 60.0 1.47 1.55 105.84 0.79 53.56 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 15 46.7 4.67 5.16 110.66 2.61 56.00 

10-m2 15 60.0 1.30 1.45 111.47 0.73 56.41 

1-m2 15 53.3 2.07 2.87 138.64 1.45 70.16 

Bare soil Line-point 15 60.0 24.67 28.00 113.50 14.17 57.44 

10-m2 15 100.0 84.17 8.80 10.45 4.45 5.29 

1-m2 15 100.0 86.53 11.51 13.30 5.83 6.73 

Litter Line-point 15 93.3 60.00 36.25 60.42 18.35 30.58 

10-m2 15 13.3 0.07 0.18 263.90 0.09 133.55 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.07 0.26 387.30 0.13 196.00 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

95
Table C18. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA1 (Loamy Hills, Cold

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 43.57 29.26 67.14 12.51 28.72 

1-m2 30 100.0 37.37 33.72 90.23 12.06 32.29 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 86.7 23.67 19.91 84.13 7.12 30.10 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

ABCO Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 52.4 10.81 17.84 165.06 7.63 70.60 

1-m2 30 43.3 16.50 26.05 157.89 9.32 56.50 

PIEN Line-point 30 36.7 7.67 12.51 163.14 4.48 58.38 

10-m2 21 81.0 3.74 5.21 139.43 2.23 59.63 

1-m2 30 50.0 4.33 8.29 191.20 2.96 68.42 

POTR5 Line-point 30 13.3 1.33 3.46 259.31 1.24 92.79 

10-m2 21 95.2 2.67 4.04 151.44 1.73 64.77 

1-m2 30 63.3 2.30 4.38 190.43 1.57 68.14 

Bare soil Line-point 30 20.0 2.67 5.83 218.73 2.09 78.27 

10-m2 21 100.0 70.83 14.43 20.38 6.17 8.72 

1-m2 30 100.0 81.80 12.64 15.45 4.52 5.53 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 81.00 17.29 21.35 6.19 7.64 

10-m2 21 90.5 1.64 1.91 116.35 0.82 49.76 

1-m2 30 73.3 1.70 2.87 168.62 1.03 60.34 

BSC Line-point 30 16.7 2.00 4.84 242.12 1.73 86.64 

96
Table C19. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot GRCA2 (Loamy Hills, Cold

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz ecological site – GRCA 2 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 54.05 33.87 62.67 14.49 26.80 

1-m2 30 100.0 77.27 51.21 66.27 18.32 23.71 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 83.3 27.67 17.94 64.85 6.42 23.21 

10-m2 21 61.9 17.24 25.76 149.46 11.02 63.92 

1-m2 30 66.7 25.73 29.62 115.10 10.60 41.19 

ABCO Line-point 30 46.7 9.00 11.85 131.63 4.24 47.10 

10-m2 21 4.8 2.98 13.64 458.26 5.83 196.00 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

PIEN Line-point 30 3.3 0.67 3.65 547.72 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 21 38.1 5.71 13.33 233.21 5.70 99.74 

1-m2 30 26.7 8.13 18.74 230.38 6.70 82.44 

POTR5 Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 71.4 2.33 3.95 169.45 1.69 72.47 

1-m2 30 40.0 1.30 2.31 177.44 0.83 63.49 

Bare soil Line-point 30 23.3 5.33 12.52 234.77 4.48 84.01 

10-m2 21 100.0 69.64 16.09 23.11 6.88 9.88 

1-m2 30 100.0 78.97 14.23 18.02 5.09 6.45 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 81.67 16.42 20.10 5.87 7.19 

10-m2 21 66.7 0.50 0.74 148.32 0.32 63.44 

1-m2 30 10.0 0.67 3.11 466.65 1.11 166.98 

BSC Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

97
Table C20. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE3 (Loamy Mesa Top 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site – MEVE 3 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 41.07 24.62 59.95 10.53 25.64 

1-m2 30 100.0 40.10 38.61 96.29 13.82 34.46 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 86.7 19.67 16.08 81.75 5.75 29.25 

10-m2 21 66.7 11.74 13.29 113.26 5.69 48.44 

1-m2 30 33.3 15.17 26.70 176.05 9.55 63.00 

JUOS Line-point 30 20.0 2.33 5.04 216.00 1.80 77.29 

10-m2 21 81.0 16.02 16.30 101.72 6.97 43.51 

1-m2 30 40.0 15.37 27.49 178.92 9.84 64.03 

PIED Line-point 30 40.0 8.33 13.41 160.95 4.80 57.59 

10-m2 21 100.0 8.43 6.18 73.34 2.64 31.37 

1-m2 30 96.7 6.50 8.31 127.87 2.97 45.76 

POFE Line-point 30 53.3 7.00 8.37 119.52 2.99 42.77 

10-m2 21 90.5 3.62 8.62 238.13 3.69 101.85 

1-m2 30 60.0 2.93 9.92 338.07 3.55 120.97 

Bare soil Line-point 30 53.3 9.33 11.12 119.15 3.98 42.64 

10-m2 21 100.0 46.55 23.22 49.88 9.93 21.33 

1-m2 30 100.0 51.40 39.04 75.95 13.97 27.18 

Litter Line-point 30 93.3 57.00 25.21 44.23 9.02 15.83 

10-m2 21 100.0 5.17 5.18 100.31 2.22 42.90 

1-m2 30 80.0 9.07 13.97 154.06 5.00 55.13 

BSC Line-point 30 36.7 6.00 11.92 198.65 4.27 71.09 

98
Table C21. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE4 (Loamy Mesa Top 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mea

as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site – MEVE 4 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 55.71 31.30 56.19 13.39 24.03 

1-m2 30 100.0 43.67 49.82 114.10 17.83 40.83 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 93.3 26.67 17.09 64.07 6.11 22.93 

10-m2 21 76.2 12.19 17.42 142.94 7.45 61.13 

1-m2 30 50.0 20.10 32.36 160.98 11.58 57.60 

JUOS Line-point 30 40.0 5.33 7.76 145.51 2.78 52.07 

10-m2 21 81.0 26.21 23.84 90.95 10.20 38.90 

1-m2 30 36.7 13.27 25.39 191.41 9.09 68.49 

PIED Line-point 30 43.3 6.33 10.66 168.35 3.82 60.24 

10-m2 21 100.0 13.10 8.50 64.88 3.63 27.75 

1-m2 30 96.7 8.03 7.69 95.78 2.75 34.27 

POFE Line-point 30 76.7 12.67 11.12 87.80 3.98 31.42 

10-m2 21 85.7 4.21 6.10 144.71 2.61 61.89 

1-m2 30 73.3 6.27 12.14 193.67 4.34 69.30 

Bare soil Line-point 30 26.7 3.00 5.35 178.33 1.91 63.81 

10-m2 21 100.0 58.45 28.05 47.98 12.00 20.52 

1-m2 30 100.0 69.70 29.72 42.64 10.63 15.26 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 69.33 16.60 23.94 5.94 8.57 

10-m2 21 85.7 3.71 3.73 100.52 1.60 42.99 

1-m2 30 53.3 2.80 4.13 147.52 1.48 52.79 

BSC Line-point 30 33.3 5.00 8.20 164.00 2.93 58.69 

99
Table C22. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE8 (Loamy Mesa Top 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site – MEVE 8 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 23.77 14.59 61.37 7.38 31.06 

1-m2 15 100.0 21.60 26.38 122.14 13.35 61.81 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 80.0 20.67 18.31 88.59 9.27 44.83 

10-m2 15 73.3 3.27 6.09 186.46 3.08 94.36 

1-m2 15 33.3 5.07 9.79 193.16 4.95 97.75 

JUOS Line-point 15 26.7 4.00 7.37 184.20 3.73 93.21 

10-m2 15 60.0 6.63 11.09 167.21 5.61 84.62 

1-m2 15 46.7 10.47 23.34 223.01 11.81 112.86 

PIED Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 100.0 10.13 6.58 64.91 3.33 32.85 

1-m2 15 100.0 5.33 4.08 76.55 2.07 38.74 

POFE Line-point 15 80.0 12.00 14.24 118.69 7.21 60.06 

10-m2 15 100.0 0.97 1.81 186.97 0.91 94.62 

1-m2 15 66.7 1.00 1.46 146.39 0.74 74.08 

Bare soil Line-point 15 80.0 14.00 10.56 75.40 5.34 38.16 

10-m2 15 100.0 46.53 29.48 63.35 14.92 32.06 

1-m2 15 100.0 54.00 30.99 57.38 15.68 29.04 

Litter Line-point 15 93.3 42.00 23.36 55.62 11.82 28.15 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.77 2.00 113.14 1.01 57.26 

1-m2 15 66.7 1.87 1.88 100.97 0.95 51.10 

BSC Line-point 15 33.3 4.67 7.43 159.26 3.76 80.60 

100
Table C23. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE9 (Loamy Mesa Top 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site – MEVE 9 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 20.90 18.67 89.32 9.45 45.20 

1-m2 15 93.3 13.20 15.21 115.26 7.70 58.33 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 80.0 19.33 14.38 74.36 7.28 37.63 

10-m2 15 60.0 7.03 16.47 234.11 8.33 118.47 

1-m2 15 33.3 2.67 6.14 230.15 3.11 116.47 

JUOS Line-point 15 20.0 2.00 4.14 207.02 2.10 104.76 

10-m2 15 73.3 5.40 10.06 186.21 5.09 94.24 

1-m2 15 26.7 4.60 10.47 227.68 5.30 115.22 

PIED Line-point 15 60.0 10.00 13.63 136.28 6.90 68.96 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.93 2.16 73.70 1.09 37.30 

1-m2 15 86.7 3.40 4.17 122.69 2.11 62.09 

POFE Line-point 15 46.7 4.67 5.16 110.66 2.61 56.00 

10-m2 15 80.0 0.90 1.11 122.80 0.56 62.14 

1-m2 15 33.3 0.67 1.54 231.46 0.78 117.13 

Bare soil Line-point 15 46.7 6.67 8.16 122.47 4.13 61.98 

10-m2 15 100.0 46.37 34.68 74.80 17.55 37.85 

1-m2 15 100.0 40.87 36.65 89.68 18.55 45.38 

Litter Line-point 15 93.3 34.67 22.64 65.30 11.46 33.04 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.07 3.80 93.51 1.92 47.32 

1-m2 15 93.3 8.13 14.89 183.13 7.54 92.67 

BSC Line-point 15 40.0 6.00 9.10 151.71 4.61 76.77 

101
Table C24. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot MEVE10 (Loamy Mesa To

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site – MEVE 10 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 22.23 11.66 52.45 5.90 26.54 

1-m2 15 100.0 29.53 25.70 87.03 13.01 44.04 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 80.0 17.33 11.63 67.09 5.89 33.95 

10-m2 15 60.0 4.47 6.03 135.02 3.05 68.33 

1-m2 15 33.3 5.80 18.03 310.84 9.12 157.30 

JUOS Line-point 15 33.3 3.33 4.88 146.39 2.47 74.08 

10-m2 15 73.3 7.90 7.66 96.91 3.87 49.04 

1-m2 15 33.3 10.67 23.05 216.05 11.66 109.34 

PIED Line-point 15 53.3 9.33 11.00 117.83 5.57 59.63 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.47 0.13 27.66 0.07 14.00 

1-m2 15 46.7 0.47 0.52 110.66 0.26 56.00 

POFE Line-point 15 20.0 2.00 4.14 207.02 2.10 104.76 

10-m2 15 100.0 0.67 0.65 96.82 0.33 49.00 

1-m2 15 60.0 0.60 0.51 84.52 0.26 42.77 

Bare soil Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 100.0 38.20 30.25 79.18 15.31 40.07 

1-m2 15 100.0 36.40 33.79 92.83 17.10 46.98 

Litter Line-point 15 93.3 34.67 25.60 73.84 12.95 37.37 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.83 3.84 79.52 1.95 40.24 

1-m2 15 93.3 5.07 3.88 76.61 1.96 38.77 

BSC Line-point 15 86.7 15.33 13.56 88.42 6.86 44.75 

102
Table C25. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE1 (Semidesert Alkal

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site – CARE 1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 23.33 7.02 30.09 3.00 12.87 

1-m2 30 100.0 19.50 6.93 35.52 2.48 12.71 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 93.3 37.33 18.18 48.70 6.51 17.43 

10-m2 21 81.0 4.19 5.16 123.16 2.21 52.68 

1-m2 30 46.7 1.97 3.63 184.78 1.30 66.12 

ATCO Line-point 30 36.7 5.67 9.71 171.43 3.48 61.34 

10-m2 21 47.6 0.24 0.26 107.47 0.11 45.97 

1-m2 30 33.3 0.33 0.48 143.84 0.17 51.47 

GIIN2 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 95.2 0.71 0.77 107.47 0.33 45.97 

1-m2 30 56.7 0.70 0.75 107.10 0.27 38.33 

ORHY Line-point 30 23.3 3.33 6.61 198.27 2.36 70.95 

10-m2 21 100.0 0.74 0.75 101.88 0.32 43.57 

1-m2 30 90.0 1.53 1.72 111.96 0.61 40.06 

Bare soil Line-point 30 36.7 4.67 7.30 156.49 2.61 56.00 

10-m2 21 100.0 15.64 9.08 58.03 3.88 24.82 

1-m2 30 96.7 11.83 14.97 126.54 5.36 45.28 

Litter Line-point 30 43.3 8.00 11.26 140.81 4.03 50.39 

10-m2 21 85.7 1.10 0.85 77.23 0.36 33.03 

1-m2 30 50.0 1.00 1.26 125.94 0.45 45.07 

BSC Line-point 30 6.7 1.00 4.03 402.58 1.44 144.06 

103
Table C26. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE2 (Semidesert Alkal

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stanwas calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appe

species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site – CARE 2 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 35.48 16.87 47.55 7.21 20.34 

1-m2 30 100.0 24.60 14.49 58.91 5.19 21.08 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 93.3 30.33 19.38 63.90 6.94 22.87 

10-m2 21 90.5 4.60 4.92 107.14 2.11 45.82 

1-m2 30 53.3 7.13 12.38 173.49 4.43 62.08 

ATCO Line-point 30 26.7 3.67 6.69 182.37 2.39 65.26 

10-m2 21 42.9 0.21 0.25 118.32 0.11 50.61 

1-m2 30 20.0 0.20 0.41 203.42 0.15 72.79 

GIIN2 Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

10-m2 21 95.2 0.60 0.56 94.36 0.24 40.36 

1-m2 30 53.3 0.60 0.62 103.58 0.22 37.06 

ORHY Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 23.8 1.26 4.06 321.80 1.74 137.63 

1-m2 30 13.3 0.60 2.74 456.12 0.98 163.22 

Bare soil Line-point 30 23.3 3.67 8.09 220.56 2.89 78.92 

10-m2 21 100.0 9.83 8.96 91.11 3.83 38.97 

1-m2 30 96.7 9.50 12.59 132.48 4.50 47.41 

Litter Line-point 30 56.7 7.33 7.40 100.87 2.65 36.09 

10-m2 21 81.0 1.12 1.14 101.79 0.49 43.54 

1-m2 30 66.7 1.57 1.77 113.30 0.64 40.54 

BSC Line-point 30 33.3 6.00 9.68 161.41 3.47 57.76 

104
Table C27. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE5 (Semidesert Alkal

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site – CARE 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 19.17 9.04 47.17 4.58 23.87 

1-m2 15 100.0 20.93 20.14 96.20 10.19 48.68 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 28.67 16.42 57.27 8.31 28.98 

10-m2 15 53.3 0.60 1.00 167.26 0.51 84.64 

1-m2 15 46.7 0.73 1.28 174.53 0.65 88.32 

ATCO Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 73.3 0.37 0.23 62.42 0.12 31.59 

1-m2 15 60.0 0.60 0.51 84.52 0.26 42.77 

GIIN2 Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 86.7 0.60 0.69 114.43 0.35 57.91 

1-m2 15 66.7 0.67 0.49 73.19 0.25 37.04 

ORHY Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 100.0 0.97 1.81 186.97 0.91 94.62 

1-m2 15 86.7 2.07 1.83 88.59 0.93 44.83 

Bare soil Line-point 15 40.0 4.67 6.40 137.13 3.24 69.40 

10-m2 15 100.0 10.00 9.29 92.87 4.70 47.00 

1-m2 15 100.0 11.67 23.50 201.43 11.89 101.93 

Litter Line-point 15 33.3 6.00 9.86 164.27 4.99 83.13 

10-m2 15 40.0 0.33 0.45 134.96 0.23 68.30 

1-m2 15 20.0 0.27 0.59 222.61 0.30 112.65 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

105
Table C28. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE6 (Semidesert Alkal

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site – CARE 6 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 7.27 4.46 61.43 2.26 31.09 

1-m2 15 93.3 7.07 6.13 86.82 3.10 43.93 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 66.7 11.33 11.87 104.76 6.01 53.01 

10-m2 15 46.7 1.03 2.06 199.06 1.04 100.74 

1-m2 15 20.0 0.93 2.63 281.93 1.33 142.67 

ATCO Line-point 15 20.0 2.67 5.94 222.61 3.00 112.65 

10-m2 15 33.3 0.17 0.24 146.39 0.12 74.08 

1-m2 15 26.7 0.27 0.46 171.65 0.23 86.87 

GIIN2 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 60.0 0.30 0.25 84.52 0.13 42.77 

1-m2 15 33.3 0.33 0.49 146.39 0.25 74.08 

ORHY Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 53.3 0.27 0.26 96.82 0.13 49.00 

1-m2 15 26.7 0.27 0.46 171.65 0.23 86.87 

Bare soil Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.33 1.22 91.49 0.62 46.30 

1-m2 15 100.0 1.73 1.91 110.04 0.97 55.69 

Litter Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 5.33 4.25 79.76 2.15 40.36 

1-m2 15 80.0 3.20 2.88 90.11 1.46 45.60 

BSC Line-point 15 60.0 8.00 8.62 107.74 4.36 54.52 

106
Table C29. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE7 (Semidesert Alkal

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site – CARE 7 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 16.27 6.70 41.20 3.39 20.85 

1-m2 15 100.0 18.27 15.82 86.62 8.01 43.83 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 73.3 19.33 16.24 84.01 8.22 42.51 

10-m2 15 86.7 2.53 2.39 94.50 1.21 47.82 

1-m2 15 66.7 1.80 2.08 115.39 1.05 58.40 

ATCO Line-point 15 20.0 3.33 8.16 244.95 4.13 123.96 

10-m2 15 86.7 0.43 0.18 40.60 0.09 20.55 

1-m2 15 53.3 0.53 0.52 96.82 0.26 49.00 

GIIN2 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.47 0.13 27.66 0.07 14.00 

1-m2 15 66.7 0.67 0.49 73.19 0.25 37.04 

ORHY Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.00 1.04 103.51 0.52 52.38 

1-m2 15 100.0 1.40 0.91 65.02 0.46 32.90 

Bare soil Line-point 15 60.0 8.00 8.62 107.74 4.36 54.52 

10-m2 15 93.3 11.73 6.70 57.08 3.39 28.89 

1-m2 15 100.0 18.20 21.92 120.42 11.09 60.94 

Litter Line-point 15 46.7 5.33 6.40 119.99 3.24 60.72 

10-m2 15 86.7 1.20 0.94 78.43 0.48 39.69 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.27 1.03 81.54 0.52 41.26 

BSC Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

107
Table C30. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot DINO1 (Semidesert Loam 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site – DINO 1 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 59.36 16.86 28.40 7.21 12.15 

1-m2 30 100.0 36.63 19.37 52.88 6.93 18.92 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 100.0 96.33 23.56 24.46 8.43 8.75 

10-m2 21 47.6 0.71 1.16 162.02 0.49 69.30 

1-m2 30 3.3 0.13 0.73 547.72 0.26 196.00 

ARTR2 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 100.0 39.21 24.69 62.97 10.56 26.93 

1-m2 30 100.0 23.73 22.00 92.68 7.87 33.16 

BRTE Line-point 30 100.0 57.00 29.38 51.54 10.51 18.44 

10-m2 21 100.0 9.67 9.44 97.64 4.04 41.76 

1-m2 30 73.3 3.43 3.43 99.93 1.23 35.76 

STCO4 Line-point 30 60.0 18.33 19.49 106.31 6.97 38.04 

10-m2 21 71.4 1.76 1.91 108.66 0.82 46.48 

1-m2 30 70.0 2.27 2.75 121.48 0.99 43.47 

Bare soil Line-point 30 66.7 15.00 15.92 106.13 5.70 37.98 

10-m2 21 100.0 60.12 15.62 25.99 6.68 11.11 

1-m2 30 100.0 72.23 17.68 24.47 6.33 8.76 

Litter Line-point 30 96.7 54.33 20.29 37.34 7.26 13.36 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.76 1.07 60.61 0.46 25.92 

1-m2 30 93.3 2.37 1.13 47.71 0.40 17.07 

BSC Line-point 30 36.7 4.33 6.26 144.48 2.24 51.70 

108
Table C31. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot DINO2b (Semidesert Loam 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mea

as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site – DINO 2b macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 29.12 10.18 34.97 4.36 14.96 

1-m2 30 100.0 19.03 13.37 70.27 4.79 25.14 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 100.0 54.67 20.47 37.44 7.32 13.40 

10-m2 30 90.5 13.24 8.49 64.13 3.63 27.43 

1-m2 30 80.0 9.03 8.24 91.22 2.95 32.64 

ARTR2 Line-point 21 46.7 6.67 9.22 138.34 3.30 49.50 

10-m2 30 95.2 10.19 6.30 61.82 2.69 26.44 

1-m2 21 93.3 6.67 7.66 114.94 2.74 41.13 

BRTE Line-point 30 100.0 41.00 19.71 48.08 7.05 17.21 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

STCO4 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 30 95.2 0.83 0.91 109.54 0.39 46.85 

1-m2 30 66.7 1.80 3.70 205.50 1.32 73.54 

Bare soil Line-point 21 46.7 8.67 10.74 123.95 3.84 44.35 

10-m2 30 100.0 36.79 14.08 38.27 6.02 16.37 

1-m2 21 100.0 32.67 27.82 85.16 9.95 30.47 

Litter Line-point 30 100.0 45.33 17.56 38.74 6.29 13.86 

10-m2 21 100.0 7.88 12.90 163.64 5.52 69.99 

1-m2 30 100.0 4.50 2.16 48.04 0.77 17.19 

BSC Line-point 30 56.7 8.67 9.73 112.29 3.48 40.18 

109
Table C32. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot DINO3 (Semidesert Loam 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site – DINO 3 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 20.70 9.42 45.49 4.77 23.02 

1-m2 15 100.0 15.47 11.33 73.23 5.73 37.06 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 42.67 25.49 59.73 12.90 30.23 

10-m2 15 93.3 9.73 10.72 110.16 5.43 55.75 

1-m2 15 73.3 5.13 10.22 199.05 5.17 100.73 

ARTR2 Line-point 15 40.0 5.33 8.34 156.34 4.22 79.12 

10-m2 15 100.0 3.87 6.05 156.43 3.06 79.17 

1-m2 15 60.0 2.53 4.14 163.35 2.09 82.66 

BRTE Line-point 15 66.7 18.67 20.66 110.66 10.45 56.00 

10-m2 15 73.3 1.87 1.45 77.41 0.73 39.18 

1-m2 15 86.7 2.20 1.86 84.52 0.94 42.77 

STCO4 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 33.3 0.17 0.24 146.39 0.12 74.08 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.13 0.35 263.90 0.18 133.55 

Bare soil Line-point 15 73.3 10.00 8.45 84.52 4.28 42.77 

10-m2 15 93.3 14.90 9.27 62.24 4.69 31.50 

1-m2 15 100.0 18.00 19.97 110.93 10.10 56.14 

Litter Line-point 15 60.0 17.33 18.31 105.63 9.27 53.46 

10-m2 15 100.0 6.07 4.67 77.05 2.37 38.99 

1-m2 15 100.0 4.87 1.77 36.32 0.89 18.38 

BSC Line-point 15 53.3 8.00 9.41 117.64 4.76 59.53 

110
Table C33. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot DINO4b (Semidesert Loam 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site – DINO 4b macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 25.67 11.30 44.03 5.72 22.28 

1-m2 15 100.0 14.00 11.98 85.54 6.06 43.29 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 100.0 41.33 20.31 49.13 10.28 24.86 

10-m2 15 93.3 7.83 6.62 84.50 3.35 42.76 

1-m2 15 60.0 4.40 7.41 168.51 3.75 85.27 

ARTR2 Line-point 15 33.3 4.00 6.32 158.11 3.20 80.02 

10-m2 15 100.0 3.53 2.70 76.29 1.36 38.61 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.13 1.55 72.76 0.79 36.82 

BRTE Line-point 15 93.3 26.00 16.39 63.03 8.29 31.90 

10-m2 15 46.7 0.23 0.26 110.66 0.13 56.00 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.20 0.56 280.31 0.28 141.85 

STCO4 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 73.3 0.37 0.23 62.42 0.12 31.59 

1-m2 15 40.0 0.40 0.51 126.77 0.26 64.15 

Bare soil Line-point 15 66.7 15.33 13.02 84.91 6.59 42.97 

10-m2 15 100.0 37.83 22.00 58.14 11.13 29.42 

1-m2 15 100.0 33.80 24.97 73.89 12.64 37.39 

Litter Line-point 15 80.0 17.33 13.35 76.99 6.75 38.96 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.27 2.15 50.28 1.09 25.45 

1-m2 15 100.0 5.20 3.67 70.55 1.86 35.70 

BSC Line-point 15 86.7 17.33 12.23 70.55 6.19 35.70 

111
Table C34. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot DINO5 (Semidesert Loam 

For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency caPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mea

as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site – DINO 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 26.23 7.87 30.01 3.98 15.18 

1-m2 15 100.0 15.67 9.05 57.78 4.58 29.24 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 93.3 34.00 24.14 71.01 12.22 35.93 

10-m2 15 93.3 16.33 7.95 48.70 4.03 24.65 

1-m2 15 73.3 7.73 8.40 108.68 4.25 55.00 

ARTR2 Line-point 15 60.0 8.00 7.75 96.82 3.92 49.00 

10-m2 15 73.3 2.80 6.01 214.69 3.04 108.65 

1-m2 15 33.3 1.20 3.08 256.27 1.56 129.69 

BRTE Line-point 15 40.0 8.00 14.24 178.03 7.21 90.10 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.63 0.67 105.36 0.34 53.32 

1-m2 15 66.7 0.67 0.49 73.19 0.25 37.04 

STCO4 Line-point 15 20.0 2.67 5.94 222.61 3.00 112.65 

10-m2 15 86.7 0.43 0.18 40.60 0.09 20.55 

1-m2 15 66.7 0.73 0.59 80.95 0.30 40.96 

Bare soil Line-point 15 33.3 3.33 4.88 146.39 2.47 74.08 

10-m2 15 100.0 21.50 10.56 49.10 5.34 24.85 

1-m2 15 100.0 18.07 23.82 131.82 12.05 66.71 

Litter Line-point 15 80.0 14.67 13.02 88.77 6.59 44.92 

10-m2 15 100.0 7.63 6.81 89.25 3.45 45.16 

1-m2 15 100.0 10.73 15.07 140.39 7.63 71.05 

BSC Line-point 15 66.7 22.00 20.42 92.84 10.34 46.98 

112
Table C35. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot ARCH1b (Semidesert Sha

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – ARCH 1b macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 18.67 5.97 31.98 2.55 13.68 

1-m2 30 96.7 12.30 10.77 87.59 3.86 31.34 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 73.3 13.33 12.95 97.16 4.64 34.77 

10-m2 21 95.2 14.07 5.79 41.12 2.47 17.59 

1-m2 30 83.3 8.30 8.45 101.80 3.02 36.43 

CORA Line-point 30 63.3 10.33 10.98 106.26 3.93 38.03 

10-m2 21 23.8 0.12 0.22 183.30 0.09 78.40 

1-m2 30 10.0 0.10 0.31 305.13 0.11 109.19 

FEOC3 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 76.2 1.45 1.39 95.47 0.59 40.83 

1-m2 30 50.0 1.20 2.07 172.87 0.74 61.86 

Bare soil Line-point 30 16.7 3.00 7.94 264.79 2.84 94.75 

10-m2 21 100.0 2.02 3.73 184.13 1.59 78.75 

1-m2 30 96.7 3.23 7.16 221.49 2.56 79.26 

Litter Line-point 30 10.0 1.00 3.05 305.13 1.09 109.19 

10-m2 21 100.0 72.98 21.03 28.82 8.99 12.33 

1-m2 30 96.7 71.90 27.11 37.70 9.70 13.49 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 30 100.0 84.00 14.29 17.01 5.11 6.09 

10-m2 21 52.4 1.60 2.80 175.81 1.20 75.19 

1-m2 30 33.3 1.03 2.25 217.86 0.81 77.96 

BSC Line-point 30 16.7 1.67 3.79 227.43 1.36 81.38 

113
Table C35. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot ARCH2 (Semidesert Shall

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stanwas calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appe

species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – ARCH 2 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 28.24 12.23 43.33 5.23 18.53 

1-m2 30 100.0 24.00 14.44 60.15 5.17 21.52 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 83.3 15.33 12.24 79.84 4.38 28.57 

10-m2 21 100.0 22.88 11.36 49.65 4.86 21.23 

1-m2 30 96.7 19.60 12.89 65.77 4.61 23.54 

CORA Line-point 30 70.0 10.33 9.99 96.72 3.58 34.61 

10-m2 21 52.4 0.26 0.26 97.70 0.11 41.79 

1-m2 30 26.7 0.27 0.45 168.67 0.16 60.36 

FEOC3 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 95.2 1.86 3.95 212.70 1.69 90.97 

1-m2 30 66.7 3.07 5.66 184.45 2.02 66.00 

Bare soil Line-point 30 53.3 7.33 8.28 112.87 2.96 40.39 

10-m2 21 100.0 4.55 7.97 175.29 3.41 74.97 

1-m2 30 100.0 4.67 5.38 115.24 1.92 41.24 

Litter Line-point 30 6.7 1.33 5.71 428.51 2.04 153.34 

10-m2 21 100.0 70.83 14.43 20.38 6.17 8.72 

1-m2 30 100.0 71.67 17.60 24.56 6.30 8.79 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 30 100.0 83.00 13.68 16.49 4.90 5.90 

10-m2 21 90.5 6.12 8.50 138.86 3.63 59.39 

1-m2 30 83.3 8.27 11.61 140.39 4.15 50.24 

BSC Line-point 30 33.3 4.33 7.28 167.98 2.60 60.11 

114
Table C35. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot ARCH3 (Semidesert Shall

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – ARCH 3 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 13.73 8.68 63.24 4.39 32.00 

1-m2 15 100.0 10.47 11.26 107.54 5.70 54.42 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 46.7 6.67 8.16 122.47 4.13 61.98 

10-m2 15 80.0 9.23 7.53 81.51 3.81 41.25 

1-m2 15 86.7 8.40 10.06 119.79 5.09 60.62 

CORA Line-point 15 40.0 4.00 5.07 126.77 2.57 64.15 

10-m2 15 80.0 0.40 0.21 51.75 0.10 26.19 

1-m2 15 33.3 0.33 0.49 146.39 0.25 74.08 

FEOC3 Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.47 0.13 27.66 0.07 14.00 

1-m2 15 66.7 0.67 0.49 73.19 0.25 37.04 

Bare soil Line-point 15 33.3 4.67 8.34 178.67 4.22 90.42 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.73 4.77 174.48 2.41 88.30 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.47 3.83 155.41 1.94 78.65 

Litter Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 85.83 6.45 7.52 3.27 3.81 

1-m2 15 100.0 86.27 9.19 10.66 4.65 5.39 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 15 100.0 82.67 13.87 16.78 7.02 8.49 

10-m2 15 93.3 3.33 2.96 88.68 1.50 44.88 

1-m2 15 80.0 3.67 3.11 84.79 1.57 42.91 

BSC Line-point 15 46.7 10.00 15.12 151.19 7.65 76.51 

115
Table C38. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot ARCH4b (Semidesert Sha

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stanwas calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appe

species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – ARCH 4b macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 15.87 12.88 81.15 6.52 41.07 

1-m2 15 100.0 11.20 12.36 110.40 6.26 55.87 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 60.0 7.33 7.04 95.96 3.56 48.56 

10-m2 15 53.3 7.33 7.99 108.93 4.04 55.12 

1-m2 15 80.0 4.93 4.82 97.65 2.44 49.42 

CORA Line-point 15 40.0 4.00 5.07 126.77 2.57 64.15 

10-m2 15 80.0 1.53 4.42 288.38 2.24 145.94 

1-m2 15 46.7 0.47 0.52 110.66 0.26 56.00 

FEOC3 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 100.0 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

1-m2 15 60.0 1.13 1.41 124.19 0.71 62.85 

Bare soil Line-point 15 46.7 8.00 10.14 126.77 5.13 64.15 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.40 5.62 127.79 2.85 64.67 

1-m2 15 100.0 7.40 23.69 320.11 11.99 161.99 

Litter Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 100.0 74.50 21.94 29.45 11.10 14.90 

1-m2 15 93.3 76.13 21.86 28.72 11.06 14.53 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 15 100.0 59.33 22.19 37.40 11.23 18.93 

10-m2 15 100.0 4.60 5.98 129.99 3.03 65.78 

1-m2 15 93.3 4.53 3.66 80.78 1.85 40.88 

BSC Line-point 15 53.3 10.67 12.23 114.64 6.19 58.01 

116
Table C39. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot ARCH5 (Semidesert Shall

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appespecies codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – ARCH 5 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 100.0 18.40 8.44 45.85 4.27 23.20 

1-m2 15 100.0 20.67 10.17 49.23 5.15 24.91 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 86.7 18.67 15.52 83.16 7.86 42.08 

10-m2 15 73.3 12.83 8.01 62.42 4.05 31.59 

1-m2 15 93.3 13.67 12.03 88.01 6.09 44.54 

CORA Line-point 15 66.7 8.00 6.76 84.52 3.42 42.77 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.47 0.13 27.66 0.07 14.00 

1-m2 15 93.3 0.93 0.26 27.66 0.13 14.00 

FEOC3 Line-point 15 26.7 4.00 8.28 207.02 4.19 104.76 

10-m2 15 100.0 0.67 0.65 96.82 0.33 49.00 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.00 1.00 100.00 0.51 50.61 

Bare soil Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 100.0 2.97 1.53 51.54 0.77 26.08 

1-m2 15 100.0 2.60 1.40 54.00 0.71 27.33 

Litter Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 100.0 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

1-m2 15 100.0 86.73 5.61 6.47 2.84 3.27 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 15 100.0 74.00 15.95 21.55 8.07 10.91 

10-m2 15 100.0 10.93 5.81 53.10 2.94 26.87 

1-m2 15 100.0 7.07 4.50 63.62 2.27 32.19 

BSC Line-point 15 73.3 17.33 15.34 88.49 7.76 44.78 

117
Table C40. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CANY3 (Semidesert Shall

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stanwas calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appe

species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – CANY 3 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 20.95 15.30 73.02 6.54 31.23 

1-m2 30 96.7 20.83 19.00 91.19 6.80 32.63 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 70.0 21.67 23.65 109.14 8.46 39.06 

10-m2 21 52.4 3.60 6.24 173.57 2.67 74.24 

1-m2 30 50.0 5.20 9.65 185.65 3.45 66.43 

CORA Line-point 30 23.3 3.33 6.61 198.27 2.36 70.95 

10-m2 21 90.5 0.45 0.15 33.25 0.06 14.22 

1-m2 30 83.3 0.83 0.38 45.49 0.14 16.28 

FEOC3 Line-point 30 10.0 1.00 3.05 305.13 1.09 109.19 

10-m2 21 57.1 0.29 0.25 88.74 0.11 37.95 

1-m2 30 26.7 0.73 1.57 214.67 0.56 76.82 

Bare soil Line-point 30 16.7 2.67 6.91 259.31 2.47 92.79 

10-m2 21 100.0 13.12 18.78 143.15 8.03 61.22 

1-m2 30 96.7 11.30 21.47 189.96 7.68 67.98 

Litter Line-point 30 60.0 12.33 15.47 125.40 5.53 44.87 

10-m2 21 100.0 66.55 24.32 36.55 10.40 15.63 

1-m2 30 100.0 76.80 23.12 30.11 8.27 10.77 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 30 100.0 69.67 22.66 32.53 8.11 11.64 

10-m2 21 95.2 4.33 3.52 81.13 1.50 34.70 

1-m2 30 86.7 7.60 9.07 119.38 3.25 42.72 

BSC Line-point 30 73.3 13.33 11.55 86.60 4.13 30.99 

118
Table C41. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CANY4 (Semidesert Shall

ecological site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes 

calculations. Precision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The stan

was calculated as the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appe

species codes (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site – CANY 4 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 90.5 15.71 18.44 117.34 7.89 50.19 

1-m2 30 83.3 15.13 25.08 165.70 8.97 59.29 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 46.7 10.00 12.87 128.65 4.60 46.04 

10-m2 21 23.8 2.40 5.49 228.49 2.35 97.72 

1-m2 30 16.7 4.17 10.67 256.18 3.82 91.67 

CORA Line-point 30 23.3 3.67 7.65 208.61 2.74 74.65 

10-m2 21 61.9 0.31 0.25 80.38 0.11 34.38 

1-m2 30 50.0 0.50 0.51 101.71 0.18 36.40 

FEOC3 Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.43 1.76 123.39 0.75 52.77 

1-m2 30 66.7 2.57 3.06 119.18 1.09 42.65 

Bare soil Line-point 30 13.3 1.67 4.61 276.68 1.65 99.01 

10-m2 21 95.2 9.62 18.55 192.86 7.93 82.49 

1-m2 30 100.0 10.00 21.41 214.06 7.66 76.60 

Litter Line-point 30 33.3 8.00 18.08 226.00 6.47 80.87 

10-m2 21 95.2 30.60 28.69 93.78 12.27 40.11 

1-m2 30 86.7 46.70 33.36 71.42 11.94 25.56 

Undifferentiated 

crust Line-point 30 90.0 40.00 28.04 70.10 10.03 25.08 

10-m2 21 95.2 8.14 6.16 75.68 2.64 32.37 

1-m2 30 90.0 12.23 11.08 90.59 3.97 32.42 

BSC Line-point 30 63.3 18.33 17.83 97.24 6.38 34.80 

119
Table C42. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA3 (Shallow Loamy e

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz ecological site – WUPA 3 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 25.02 8.99 35.94 3.85 15.37 

1-m2 30 100.0 20.50 10.66 51.98 3.81 18.60 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 100.0 41.00 16.05 39.15 5.74 14.01 

10-m2 21 100.0 3.36 2.61 77.70 1.12 33.23 

1-m2 30 73.3 2.37 3.15 132.92 1.13 47.56 

CHLE4 Line-point 30 46.7 5.33 6.29 117.90 2.25 42.19 

10-m2 21 100.0 5.02 5.52 109.95 2.36 47.03 

1-m2 30 86.7 3.03 2.89 95.42 1.04 34.15 

HENE5 Line-point 30 63.3 10.00 10.83 108.28 3.87 38.75 

10-m2 21 100.0 6.40 4.39 68.58 1.88 29.33 

1-m2 30 100.0 6.30 4.98 79.00 1.78 28.27 

PLJA Line-point 30 60.0 9.67 10.66 110.30 3.82 39.47 

10-m2 21 100.0 2.12 2.16 101.74 0.92 43.51 

1-m2 30 100.0 4.60 8.56 186.10 3.06 66.59 

Bare soil Line-point 30 70.0 14.33 14.31 99.82 5.12 35.72 

10-m2 21 90.5 5.38 4.70 87.26 2.01 37.32 

1-m2 30 93.3 7.77 11.11 143.08 3.98 51.20 

Litter Line-point 30 70.0 11.33 10.08 88.94 3.61 31.83 

120
Table C43. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot WUPA4 (Shallow Loamy e

line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequency calcula

defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized mean was calcuthe mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys to species cod

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz ecological site – WUPA 4 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 11.55 5.79 50.14 2.48 21.44 

1-m2 30 100.0 13.87 17.02 122.72 6.09 43.91 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 80.0 13.67 9.64 70.56 3.45 25.25 

10-m2 21 90.5 0.57 0.58 100.86 0.25 43.14 

1-m2 30 70.0 1.07 1.23 115.30 0.44 41.26 

CHLE4 Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

10-m2 21 85.7 1.95 1.84 94.41 0.79 40.38 

1-m2 30 76.7 1.47 1.31 89.05 0.47 31.86 

HENE5 Line-point 30 23.3 2.33 4.30 184.36 1.54 65.97 

10-m2 21 100.0 2.69 2.33 86.67 1.00 37.07 

1-m2 30 86.7 2.30 2.12 92.16 0.76 32.98 

PLJA Line-point 30 36.7 4.67 6.81 146.02 2.44 52.25 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.45 1.24 85.65 0.53 36.63 

1-m2 30 96.7 2.47 1.68 67.95 0.60 24.31 

Bare soil Line-point 30 30.0 4.33 8.58 198.08 3.07 70.88 

10-m2 21 95.2 7.33 5.56 75.78 2.38 32.41 

1-m2 30 96.7 9.27 13.28 143.33 4.75 51.29 

Litter Line-point 30 43.3 6.33 8.90 140.51 3.18 50.28 

121
Table C44. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE3 (Upland Shallow L

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site – CARE 3 macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 20.02 24.10 120.35 10.31 51.47 

1-m2 30 93.3 10.13 19.95 196.92 7.14 70.47 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 46.7 10.00 13.65 136.46 4.88 48.83 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

CEMO2 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 95.2 1.76 1.81 102.95 0.78 44.03 

1-m2 30 90.0 1.63 1.47 90.22 0.53 32.28 

COWR2 Line-point 30 30.0 4.67 9.37 200.81 3.35 71.86 

10-m2 21 42.9 8.76 17.01 194.10 7.27 83.02 

1-m2 30 10.0 3.83 14.42 376.30 5.16 134.65 

JUOS Line-point 30 16.7 2.67 6.91 259.31 2.47 92.79 

10-m2 21 85.7 0.90 1.06 116.73 0.45 49.93 

1-m2 30 80.0 1.23 1.10 89.54 0.40 32.04 

Bare soil Line-point 30 73.3 15.67 14.06 89.77 5.03 32.12 

10-m2 21 100.0 16.24 25.15 154.87 10.76 66.24 

1-m2 30 100.0 13.63 25.84 189.53 9.25 67.82 

Litter Line-point 30 13.3 3.67 11.59 316.14 4.15 113.13 

10-m2 21 28.6 0.14 0.23 162.02 0.10 69.30 

1-m2 30 13.3 0.17 0.46 276.68 0.17 99.01 

BSC Line-point 30 6.7 0.67 2.54 380.56 0.91 136.18 

122
Table C45. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE4b (Upland Shallow 

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site – CARE 4b macroplot, Phase 2 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 21 100.0 15.14 20.83 137.57 8.91 58.84 

1-m2 30 96.7 20.17 30.81 152.77 11.02 54.67 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 30 60.0 13.33 15.39 115.41 5.51 41.30 

10-m2 21 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

CEMO2 Line-point 30 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.33 1.21 90.57 0.52 38.74 

1-m2 30 80.0 1.77 2.27 128.46 0.81 45.97 

COWR2 Line-point 30 23.3 3.00 5.96 198.65 2.13 71.09 

10-m2 21 28.6 5.74 11.83 206.16 5.06 88.17 

1-m2 30 20.0 6.43 18.64 289.70 6.67 103.67 

JUOS Line-point 30 16.7 3.33 8.02 240.69 2.87 86.13 

10-m2 21 100.0 1.52 2.18 142.83 0.93 61.09 

1-m2 30 86.7 2.10 2.01 95.53 0.72 34.18 

Bare soil Line-point 30 76.7 18.67 19.43 104.08 6.95 37.24 

10-m2 21 100.0 16.00 22.54 140.86 9.64 60.25 

1-m2 30 96.7 19.13 30.28 158.23 10.83 56.62 

Litter Line-point 30 16.7 3.00 7.50 249.90 2.68 89.43 

10-m2 21 14.3 0.07 0.18 251.00 0.08 107.35 

1-m2 30 3.3 0.03 0.18 547.72 0.07 196.00 

BSC Line-point 30 3.3 0.33 1.83 547.72 0.65 196.00 

123
Table C46. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE8 (Upland Shallow L

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site – CARE 8 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 93.3 15.97 13.00 81.40 6.58 41.19 

1-m2 15 93.3 18.33 26.16 142.69 13.24 72.21 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 66.7 14.67 13.56 92.44 6.86 46.78 

10-m2 15 40.0 4.23 7.15 168.86 3.62 85.46 

1-m2 15 33.3 1.40 2.85 203.47 1.44 102.97 

CEMO2 Line-point 15 26.7 4.00 8.28 207.02 4.19 104.76 

10-m2 15 73.3 0.70 0.96 137.13 0.49 69.40 

1-m2 15 60.0 0.87 0.83 96.21 0.42 48.69 

COWR2 Line-point 15 26.7 2.67 4.58 171.65 2.32 86.87 

10-m2 15 26.7 5.33 10.85 203.45 5.49 102.96 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.87 2.64 304.86 1.34 154.28 

JUOS Line-point 15 26.7 4.00 7.37 184.20 3.73 93.21 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.17 1.14 98.09 0.58 49.64 

1-m2 15 100.0 1.80 1.78 98.94 0.90 50.07 

Bare soil Line-point 15 86.7 17.33 13.35 76.99 6.75 38.96 

10-m2 15 100.0 20.03 25.01 124.83 12.66 63.17 

1-m2 15 100.0 31.00 39.47 127.32 19.97 64.43 

Litter Line-point 15 46.7 10.67 15.34 143.79 7.76 72.77 

10-m2 15 13.3 0.07 0.18 263.90 0.09 133.55 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.07 0.26 387.30 0.13 196.00 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

124
Table C47. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE9 (Upland Shallow L

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site – CARE 9 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 93.3 10.23 11.25 109.94 5.69 55.63 

1-m2 15 80.0 7.20 18.92 262.75 9.57 132.97 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 26.7 4.67 9.15 196.17 4.63 99.28 

10-m2 15 26.7 2.87 6.24 217.80 3.16 110.22 

1-m2 15 13.3 0.47 1.36 290.52 0.69 147.02 

CEMO2 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 60.0 0.97 1.29 133.26 0.65 67.44 

1-m2 15 40.0 0.60 0.83 138.01 0.42 69.84 

COWR2 Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

10-m2 15 20.0 3.03 9.73 320.69 4.92 162.29 

1-m2 15 6.7 5.00 19.36 387.30 9.80 196.00 

JUOS Line-point 15 6.7 0.67 2.58 387.30 1.31 196.00 

10-m2 15 93.3 0.47 0.13 27.66 0.07 14.00 

1-m2 15 73.3 1.07 1.22 114.64 0.62 58.01 

Bare soil Line-point 15 33.3 6.67 10.47 156.98 5.30 79.44 

10-m2 15 100.0 5.40 9.92 183.73 5.02 92.98 

1-m2 15 100.0 8.53 23.33 273.39 11.81 138.35 

Litter Line-point 15 20.0 2.67 5.94 222.61 3.00 112.65 

10-m2 15 20.0 0.10 0.21 207.02 0.10 104.76 

1-m2 15 6.7 0.07 0.26 387.30 0.13 196.00 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

125
Table C48. Summary of frequency (freq) and cover estimates in macroplot CARE10 (Upland Shallow 

site). For line-point sampling, 10-point groups were used as subsampling units for purposes of frequenPrecision is defined as one-half the width of the 95 percent confidence interval. The standardized meaas the ratio of the mean for a particular method to the among-method mean. See Appendix A for keys (BSC = biological soil crust). 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site – CARE 10 macroplot, Phase 3 

Cover 

Measure Method Subsample n Freq Mean sd CV Precision 

Precision % 

of mean 

A

m

10-m2 15 93.3 21.23 29.29 137.92 14.82 69.80 

1-m2 15 80.0 21.07 26.72 126.85 13.52 64.19 

Total live 

understory 

canopy 

cover Line-point 15 80.0 16.00 14.54 90.88 7.36 45.99 

10-m2 15 26.7 2.20 4.97 226.10 2.52 114.42 

1-m2 15 13.3 4.67 12.32 263.90 6.23 133.55 

CEMO2 Line-point 15 40.0 8.00 14.24 178.03 7.21 90.10 

10-m2 15 73.3 1.03 1.25 120.58 0.63 61.02 

1-m2 15 46.7 0.67 0.82 122.47 0.41 61.98 

COWR2 Line-point 15 13.3 1.33 3.52 263.90 1.78 133.55 

10-m2 15 26.7 5.03 10.85 215.54 5.49 109.08 

1-m2 15 26.7 8.00 14.24 178.03 7.21 90.10 

JUOS Line-point 15 20.0 2.00 4.14 207.02 2.10 104.76 

10-m2 15 100.0 1.60 2.48 154.99 1.25 78.44 

1-m2 15 93.3 1.73 1.62 93.71 0.82 47.42 

Bare soil Line-point 15 93.3 18.00 10.14 56.34 5.13 28.51 

10-m2 15 100.0 26.37 28.09 106.54 14.22 53.92 

1-m2 15 100.0 37.67 38.01 100.90 19.23 51.06 

Litter Line-point 15 66.7 14.00 16.39 117.06 8.29 59.24 

10-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

1-m2 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

BSC Line-point 15 0.0 0.00 - - - - 

126
127

Appendix D—Among-Macroplot Variation in Selected Cover Measures by 

Ecological Site 

Ecological site Table Page 

Brushy Loam D1 128 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) D2 129 

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz D3 130 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz D4 131 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz D5 132 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ D6 133 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) D7 134 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) D8 135 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ D9 136 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz D10 137 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) D11 138 
Brushy Loam ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precisio

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 49.7 16.0 28.4 71.2 42.8 32.2 42 

1-m2 Total live understory 43.4 13.7 25.8 62.6 36.8 31.6 42 

canopy cover Line-point 52.8 3.3 48.7 56.0 7.3 6.2 4 

10-m2 6.5 5.6 1.4 15.5 14.1 85.7 286 

1-m2 3.2 4.4 0.0 10.8 10.8 138.9 727 1

AMUT Line-point 5.2 3.8 0.7 10.3 9.7 72.3 206 

10-m2 9.6 13.2 0.0 30.4 30.3 136.9 720 1

1-m2 7.6 9.5 0.0 20.9 20.8 125.4 605 1

POFE Line-point 8.8 9.1 0.0 20.7 20.7 103.1 409 1

10-m2 14.5 16.8 1.2 37.4 36.2 115.3 511 1

1-m2 16.2 16.5 0.7 37.1 36.5 102.0 400 1

QUGA Line-point 14.5 15.7 0.7 33.0 32.3 108.2 451 1

10-m2 14.3 11.0 6.7 32.3 25.6 76.9 228 

1-m2 16.8 14.8 4.2 40.9 36.7 88.0 298 

Bare soil Line-point 41.3 26.4 8.0 78.0 70.0 63.9 160 

10-m2 70.4 16.2 44.2 84.2 40.0 23.0 23 

1-m2 75.4 16.6 49.0 91.1 42.1 22.1 22 

Litter Line-point 52.3 26.2 17.3 87.0 69.7 50.0 99 

10-m2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 121.4 588 1

1-m2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 170.0 1111 2

BSC Line-point 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 149.1 865 2

Table D1. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Brushy Loam macroplots in National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of ecologmeans, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BSC = b

128
Table D2. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for two Desert Sand (Sand Sagebr

Canyonlands National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estim

site-level means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes soil crust). 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precisio

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 13.4 0.4 13.1 13.7 0.6 3.3 3 

1-m2 Total live understory 12.3 0.3 12.1 12.5 0.4 2.3 3 

canopy cover Line-point 11.7 0.0 11.7 11.7 0.0 0.0 2 

10-m2 1.5 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.8 37.1 56 

1-m2 1.7 0.1 1.6 1.7 0.2 7.1 5 

ATCA2 Line-point 1.3 0.9 0.7 2.0 1.3 70.7 194 

10-m2 1.7 0.8 1.2 2.3 1.1 45.8 83 

1-m2 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.2 0.2 10.9 8 

HIJA Line-point 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.3 0.3 20.2 19 

10-m2 0.6 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.9 99.5 381 

1-m2 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.8 114.0 501 1

STHY6 Line-point 1.8 2.1 0.3 3.3 3.0 115.7 514 1

10-m2 6.9 1.2 6.0 7.7 1.6 16.9 14 

1-m2 6.6 1.3 5.6 7.5 1.9 20.4 19 

Litter Line-point 8.3 2.8 6.3 10.3 4.0 33.9 47 

10-m2 67.6 6.3 63.1 72.0 8.9 9.3 6 

1-m2 79.1 2.5 77.4 80.9 3.5 3.2 3 

Undifferentiated crust Line-point 81.5 4.5 78.3 84.7 6.3 5.5 4 

10-m2 4.3 4.6 1.0 7.5 6.5 107.6 446 1

1-m2 4.8 5.1 1.1 8.4 7.2 107.7 445 1

BSC Line-point 6.7 7.1 1.7 11.7 10.0 106.1 432 1

129
Table D3. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Limy Upland macroplots in 

Monument, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of ecologicaand ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes. 

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precisio

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 23.6 6.7 18.0 34.4 16.4 28.3 34 

1-m2 Total live understory 16.0 3.5 11.7 20.1 8.4 21.6 21 

canopy cover Line-point 26.7 4.4 21.3 31.3 10.0 16.5 13 

10-m2 5.1 4.0 1.1 10.7 9.6 76.8 227 

1-m2 3.5 2.5 0.7 6.6 5.9 72.1 202 

CHLE4 Line-point 3.6 3.4 0.0 8.0 8.0 95.6 351 

10-m2 3.7 3.4 0.6 9.0 8.4 90.6 317 

1-m2 2.8 2.5 0.3 5.7 5.4 87.5 293 

HENE5 Line-point 6.5 5.8 0.0 15.3 15.3 88.7 303 

10-m2 4.4 3.8 0.5 9.6 9.1 86.8 290 

1-m2 2.3 2.0 0.3 5.5 5.2 89.0 305 

PLJA Line-point 6.7 5.6 0.3 14.0 13.7 83.7 270 

10-m2 7.3 7.4 1.2 16.1 15.0 101.1 393 1

1-m2 7.3 6.9 1.9 16.7 14.8 94.8 346 

Bare soil Line-point 16.3 16.7 4.0 40.7 36.7 102.3 403 1

10-m2 6.6 1.7 3.9 8.4 4.5 25.7 28 

1-m2 7.1 1.5 4.8 8.5 3.7 20.7 19 

Litter Line-point 3.6 5.1 0.0 11.0 11.0 142.5 781 1

130
Table D4. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Loamy Hills macroplots in G

National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of ecologmeans, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BSC = b

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 19.7 11.6 5.6 35.2 29.5 58.9 136 

1-m2 Total live understory 23.8 20.9 5.1 57.5 52.4 87.8 297 

canopy cover Line-point 16.9 7.1 8.0 24.3 16.3 42.2 71 

10-m2 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.1 99.6 377 

1-m2 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 1.1 109.9 465 1

POFE Line-point 1.5 1.4 0.0 3.3 3.3 94.3 344 

10-m2 2.6 2.4 0.2 5.7 5.5 92.9 332 

1-m2 4.1 3.3 0.1 8.0 7.8 81.1 254 

POTR5 Line-point 1.8 1.8 0.0 4.7 4.7 101.1 393 1

10-m2 1.4 0.8 0.1 1.9 1.9 54.4 117 

1-m2 UNGRCA1 1.2 0.7 0.1 1.9 1.8 53.9 114 

(Carex sp.) Line-point 6.5 4.2 0.0 10.0 10.0 64.3 162 

10-m2 1.5 0.3 1.2 2.0 0.8 20.0 19 

1-m2 1.9 0.5 1.5 2.7 1.2 25.4 27 

Bare soil Line-point 14.9 11.1 4.7 28.7 24.0 74.4 213 

10-m2 74.8 11.4 61.3 84.2 22.9 15.2 12 

1-m2 80.1 7.3 73.9 89.5 15.6 9.1 6 

Litter Line-point 69.3 7.9 60.0 78.0 18.0 11.3 8 

10-m2 0.7 0.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 130.2 656 1

1-m2 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.4 1.4 126.9 617 1

BSC Line-point 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.0 1.0 163.0 997 2

131
Table D5. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for two Loamy Hills, Cold, macroplo

Canyon National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates o

level means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BScrust). 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 48.8 7.4 43.6 54.0 10.5 15.2 12 

1-m2 Total live understory 57.3 28.2 37.4 77.3 39.9 49.2 96 

canopy cover Line-point 25.7 2.8 23.7 27.7 4.0 11.0 8 

10-m2 8.6 12.2 0.0 17.2 17.2 141.4 769 1

1-m2 12.9 18.2 0.0 25.7 25.7 141.4 769 1

ABCO Line-point 4.5 6.4 0.0 9.0 9.0 141.4 768 1

10-m2 6.9 5.5 3.0 10.8 7.8 80.4 249 

1-m2 8.3 11.7 0.0 16.5 16.5 141.4 769 1

PIEN Line-point 4.2 4.9 0.7 7.7 7.0 118.8 543 1

10-m2 4.7 1.4 3.7 5.7 2.0 29.6 37 

1-m2 6.2 2.7 4.3 8.1 3.8 43.1 74 

POTR5 Line-point 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 47.1 88 

10-m2 2.5 0.2 2.3 2.7 0.3 9.4 7 

1-m2 1.8 0.7 1.3 2.3 1.0 39.3 63 

Bare soil Line-point 4.0 1.9 2.7 5.3 2.7 47.1 89 

10-m2 70.2 0.8 69.6 70.8 1.2 1.2 3 

1-m2 80.4 2.0 79.0 81.8 2.8 2.5 3 

Litter Line-point 81.3 0.5 81.0 81.7 0.7 0.6 3 

10-m2 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.6 1.1 75.4 220 

1-m2 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.0 61.7 149 

BSC Line-point 1.0 1.4 0.0 2.0 2.0 141.4 764 1

132
Table D6. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Loamy Mesa Top PJ macro

Verde National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of 

means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BSC = b

Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 32.7 15.2 20.9 55.7 34.8 46.5 86 

1-m2 Total live understory 29.6 12.7 13.2 43.7 30.5 42.7 73 

canopy cover Line-point 20.7 3.5 17.3 26.7 9.3 17.0 14 

10-m2 7.7 4.1 3.3 12.2 8.9 52.9 110 

1-m2 9.8 7.5 2.7 20.1 17.4 76.7 227 

JUOS Line-point 3.4 1.3 2.0 5.3 3.3 39.5 63 

10-m2 12.4 8.8 5.4 26.2 20.8 70.4 193 

1-m2 10.9 4.0 4.6 15.4 10.8 37.2 56 

PIED Line-point 7.3 3.0 2.7 10.0 7.3 40.3 65 

10-m2 7.0 5.2 0.5 13.1 12.6 74.2 212 

1-m2 4.7 2.9 0.5 8.0 7.6 61.7 149 

POFE Line-point 7.7 4.6 2.0 12.7 10.7 60.2 142 

10-m2 2.1 1.7 0.7 4.2 3.5 82.0 259 

1-m2 2.3 2.4 0.6 6.3 5.7 105.4 428 1

Bare soil Line-point 7.1 4.7 2.7 14.0 11.3 66.2 171 

10-m2 47.2 7.2 38.2 58.5 20.3 15.3 12 

1-m2 50.5 13.0 36.4 69.7 33.3 25.7 28 

Litter Line-point 47.5 15.2 34.7 69.3 34.7 32.0 42 

10-m2 3.9 1.3 1.8 5.2 3.4 34.1 47 

1-m2 5.4 3.2 1.9 9.1 7.2 58.9 136 

BSC Line-point 7.4 4.5 4.7 15.3 10.7 60.5 143 

133
Table D7. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Semidesert Alkali Sandy Lo

Capitol Reef National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimasite-level means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes soil crust). 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 20.3 10.3 7.3 35.5 28.2 50.9 102 

1-m2 Total live understory 18.1 6.6 7.1 24.6 17.5 36.5 54 

canopy cover Line-point 25.4 10.1 11.3 37.3 26.0 40.0 64 

10-m2 2.6 1.8 0.6 4.6 4.0 69.5 188 

1-m2 2.5 2.6 0.7 7.1 6.4 104.9 424 1

ATCO Line-point 3.1 2.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 66.7 175 

10-m2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 39.3 61 

1-m2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 44.6 77 

GIIN2 Line-point 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 173.2 1166 2

10-m2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 29.5 37 

1-m2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 25.2 28 

ORHY Line-point 1.2 1.3 0.0 3.3 3.3 106.9 438 1

10-m2 0.8 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.0 44.1 76 

1-m2 1.2 0.7 0.3 2.1 1.8 62.2 152 

Bare soil Line-point 4.3 2.6 0.7 8.0 7.3 60.6 143 

10-m2 9.7 5.2 1.3 15.6 14.3 53.9 114 

1-m2 10.6 5.9 1.7 18.2 16.5 55.9 123 

Litter Line-point 5.5 2.9 0.7 8.0 7.3 52.7 110 

10-m2 1.8 2.0 0.3 5.3 5.0 110.0 466 1

1-m2 1.5 1.1 0.3 3.2 2.9 74.3 215 

BSC Line-point 3.3 3.5 0.0 8.0 8.0 107.6 446 1

134
Table D8. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for five Semidesert Loam macroplo

National Monument, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of e

means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BSC = b

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 32.2 15.5 20.7 59.4 38.7 48.0 92 

1-m2 Total live understory 20.2 9.4 14.0 36.6 22.6 46.6 86 

canopy cover Line-point 53.8 24.9 34.0 96.3 62.3 46.3 85 

10-m2 9.6 5.9 0.7 16.3 15.6 62.0 150 

1-m2 5.3 3.4 0.1 9.0 8.9 65.1 166 

ARTR2 Line-point 4.8 3.1 0.0 8.0 8.0 63.9 160 

10-m2 11.9 15.5 2.8 39.2 36.4 130.4 653 1

1-m2 7.3 9.4 1.2 23.7 22.5 130.3 653 1

BRTE Line-point 30.1 19.2 8.0 57.0 49.0 63.8 159 

10-m2 2.5 4.1 0.0 9.7 9.7 164.6 1040 2

1-m2 1.3 1.5 0.0 3.4 3.4 113.2 492 1

STCO4 Line-point 4.2 8.0 0.0 18.3 18.3 190.1 1387 3

10-m2 0.7 0.6 0.2 1.8 1.6 89.1 301 

1-m2 1.1 0.9 0.1 2.3 2.1 86.5 286 

Bare soil Line-point 10.5 5.0 3.3 15.3 12.0 47.4 89 

10-m2 34.2 17.5 14.9 60.1 45.2 51.1 103 

1-m2 35.0 22.2 18.0 72.2 54.2 63.5 158 

Litter Line-point 29.8 18.6 14.7 54.3 39.7 62.4 152 

10-m2 5.5 2.6 1.8 7.9 6.1 46.2 85 

1-m2 5.5 3.1 2.4 10.7 8.4 56.2 124 

BSC Line-point 12.1 7.3 4.3 22.0 17.7 60.7 144 

135
Table D9. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for seven Semidesert Shallow Sand

in Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% prof ecological-site-level means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to s

= biological soil crust). 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) ecological site, n = 7 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 18.8 4.8 13.7 28.2 14.5 25.5 28 

1-m2 Total live understory 16.4 5.4 10.5 24.0 13.5 33.1 45 

canopy cover Line-point 13.3 5.7 6.7 21.7 15.0 42.7 73 

10-m2 10.3 7.0 2.4 22.9 20.5 68.0 181 

1-m2 9.2 5.6 4.2 19.6 15.4 61.1 146 

CORA Line-point 6.2 3.2 3.3 10.3 7.0 51.4 105 

10-m2 0.5 0.5 0.1 1.5 1.4 92.6 332 

1-m2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.8 61.3 147 

FEOC3 Line-point 0.9 1.4 0.0 4.0 4.0 157.3 946 2

10-m2 1.0 0.6 0.3 1.9 1.6 64.6 161 

1-m2 1.5 0.9 0.7 3.1 2.4 63.7 158 

Bare soil Line-point 4.3 2.5 1.7 8.0 6.3 57.9 132 

10-m2 5.6 4.1 2.0 13.1 11.1 73.7 209 

1-m2 6.0 3.6 2.5 11.3 8.8 61.2 147 

Litter Line-point 3.6 4.7 0.7 12.3 11.7 128.6 635 1

10-m2 69.8 18.9 30.6 87.5 56.9 27.1 31 

1-m2 73.7 13.4 46.7 86.7 40.0 18.2 16 

Undifferentiated crust Line-point 70.4 16.1 40.0 84.0 44.0 22.9 23 

10-m2 5.6 3.1 1.6 10.9 9.3 56.2 124 

1-m2 6.3 3.6 1.0 12.2 11.2 57.3 129 

BSC Line-point 10.8 6.2 1.7 18.3 16.7 57.5 130 

136
Table D10. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for two Shallow Loamy macroplots 

National Monument, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of e

means, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes. 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz ecological site, n = 2 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 18.3 9.5 11.5 25.0 13.5 52.1 107 

1-m2 Total live understory 17.2 4.7 13.9 20.5 6.6 27.3 32 

canopy cover Line-point 27.3 19.3 13.7 41.0 27.3 70.7 195 

10-m2 2.0 2.0 0.6 3.4 2.8 100.3 387 1

1-m2 1.7 0.9 1.1 2.4 1.3 53.5 113 

CHLE4 Line-point 3.0 3.3 0.7 5.3 4.7 110.0 465 1

10-m2 3.5 2.2 2.0 5.0 3.1 62.3 152 

1-m2 2.3 1.1 1.5 3.0 1.6 49.2 96 

HENE5 Line-point 6.2 5.4 2.3 10.0 7.7 87.9 297 

10-m2 4.5 2.6 2.7 6.4 3.7 57.8 131 

1-m2 4.3 2.8 2.3 6.3 4.0 65.8 169 

PLJA Line-point 7.2 3.5 4.7 9.7 5.0 49.3 97 

10-m2 1.8 0.5 1.5 2.1 0.7 26.4 30 

1-m2 3.5 1.5 2.5 4.6 2.1 42.7 73 

Bare soil Line-point 9.3 7.1 4.3 14.3 10.0 75.8 221 

10-m2 6.4 1.4 5.4 7.3 2.0 21.7 21 

1-m2 8.5 1.1 7.8 9.3 1.5 12.5 9 

Litter Line-point 8.8 3.5 6.3 11.3 5.0 40.0 65 

137
Table D11. Among-macroplot variation in selected cover measures for two Upland Shallow Loam mac

Reef National Park, macroplot sample sizes required to achive 10 and 20% precision in estimates of emeans, and ratios of within-to-among CV values. See Appendix A for keys to species codes (BSC = b

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) ecological site, n = 5 macroplots 

Sample size 

Among-macroplot variation in cover estimates (by precision

Measure Method 

Mean 

cover sd Min Max Range CV 10% 2

10-m2 16.5 4.4 10.2 21.2 11.0 26.4 30 

1-m2 Total live understory 15.4 6.3 7.2 21.1 13.9 40.9 67 

canopy cover Line-point 11.7 4.5 4.7 16.0 11.3 38.7 60 

10-m2 1.9 1.8 0.0 4.2 4.2 99.4 381 

1-m2 1.3 2.0 0.0 4.7 4.7 150.3 864 2

CEMO2 Line-point 2.4 3.6 0.0 8.0 8.0 149.1 855 2

10-m2 1.2 0.4 0.7 1.8 1.1 35.0 51 

1-m2 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.2 49.9 98 

COWR2 Line-point 2.3 1.8 0.0 4.7 4.7 75.6 219 

10-m2 5.6 2.1 3.0 8.8 5.7 36.9 55 

1-m2 4.8 2.7 0.9 8.0 7.1 56.1 124 

JUOS Line-point 2.5 1.3 0.7 4.0 3.3 50.6 101 

10-m2 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 41.1 69 

1-m2 1.6 0.4 1.1 2.1 1.0 26.8 31 

Bare soil Line-point 15.3 4.9 6.7 18.7 12.0 32.3 43 

10-m2 16.8 7.6 5.4 26.4 21.0 45.4 82 

1-m2 22.0 12.1 8.5 37.7 29.1 55.0 119 

Litter Line-point 6.8 5.2 2.7 14.0 11.3 76.5 225 

10-m2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 68.6 169 

1-m2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 93.5 309 

BSC Line-point 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 149.1 865 2

138
139

Appendix E—Mean Species-Area and Compositional Curves by 

Ecological Site 

Ecological site Figure Page 

Brushy Loam E1 140 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) E2 141 

Limy Upland, 6-10" pz E3 142 

Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz E4 143 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz E5 144 

Loamy Mesa Top PJ E6 145 

Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) E7 146 

Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) E8 147 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ E9 148 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz E10 149 

Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) E11 150 
Figure E1. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Brushy L

at Mesa Verde National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, exluding 

species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all species; and (d) excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for quadrats 1-15 macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

140
Figure E2. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Desert S

at Canyonlands National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, exludin

species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all species; and (d) 

excluding rare species. All curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

141
Figure E3. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Limy Up

at Mesa Verde National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, exluding 

species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all species; and (d) excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for quadrats 1-15 macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

142
Figure E4. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Loamy H

at Grand Canyon National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, exlud

species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all species; and (d) 

excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for quadrats 1-15 macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

143
Figure E5. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Loamy H

ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 qrare (infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all 

m2 quadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for 

two macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

144
Figure E6. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Loamy M

ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 qua

rare (infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all 

m2 quadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for 

two macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

145
Figure E7. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Semides

Loam ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-exluding rare (infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, incand (d) 1-m2 quadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macr

1-15 and two macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macrop

146
Figure E8. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Semides

site at Dinosaur National Monument for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, e

(infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all specquadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for quamacroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

147
Figure E9. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Semides

Loam ecological site at Arches and Canyonlands National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all spquadrats, exluding rare (infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 qua

species; and (d) 1-m2 quadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from 

for quadrats 1-15 and four macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from 

148
Figure E10. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Shallow 

site at Wupatki National Monument for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 quadrats, e(infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all spec

quadrats, excluding rare species. All curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

149
Figure E11. Mean species-area and compositional curves (mean Sørensen distances) for the Upland 

ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park for (a) 10-m2 quadrats, including all species; (b) 10-m2 qu

rare (infrequent) species that occurred in only one subsample quadrat; (c) 1-m2 quadrats, including all 

m2 quadrats, excluding rare species. Species-area curves are based on data from five macroplots for 

two macroplots for quadrats > 15. Compositional curves are based on data from two macroplots. 

150
151

Appendix F—Between-Observer Differences in Estimates of Cover and 

Density 

Table F1. Mean estimates of plant cover (%) by sampling method (10-m2 quadrats, 1-m2

quadrats, and line-point intercept) and observer (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at Colorado Plateau 

ecological sites sampled during Phase 3, absolute between-observer differences, and 

differences expressed as percent of the mean of both observations. See Appendix A for 

key to species codes associated with cover measures. 

10-m2 quadrats 1-m2 quadrats Line-point 

Ecological 

site 

Cover 

measure 

Obs. 

1 

Obs. 

2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Obs. 

1 

Obs. 

2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Obs. 

1 

Obs. 

2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

QUGA 1.2 1.5 0.3 22.2 1.3 1.2 0.1 8.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 

POFE 12.0 9.8 2.2 20.2 8.6 6.0 2.6 35.6 17.9 16.9 1.0 5.7 

SYOR2 2.9 4.4 1.5 41.1 1.5 1.1 0.4 30.8 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 

Total live 

understory 45.3 43.3 2.0 4.5 34.9 29.6 5.3 16.4 64.6 76.4 11.8 16.7 

Brushy 

Loam 

Mean % diff 1.5 22.0 2.1 22.7 3.2 5.6 

CHLE4 4.3 2.9 1.4 38.9 3.4 2.4 1.0 34.5 2.4 2.2 0.2 8.7 

HENE5 3.8 3.3 0.5 14.1 2.7 2.1 0.6 25.0 5.6 7.2 1.6 25.0 

PLJA 3.3 3.1 0.2 6.2 1.6 2.3 0.7 35.9 5.5 6.5 1.0 16.7 

Total live 

understory 19.9 16.5 3.4 18.7 13.9 12.8 1.1 8.2 26.9 31.2 4.3 14.8 

Limy 

Upland, 6-

10" pz 

Mean % diff 1.4 19.5 0.9 25.9 1.8 16.3 

POFE 0.9 0.8 0.1 11.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.4 1.6 133.3 

POTR5 1.1 1.2 0.1 8.7 1.1 0.9 0.2 20.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 

UNGRCA1 

(Carex sp.) 1.7 2.2 0.5 25.6 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 9.2 0.7 7.9 

Total live 

understory 12.7 11.7 1.0 8.2 9.8 8.9 0.9 9.6 18.7 21.4 2.7 13.5 

Loamy Hills, 

25-33" pz 

Mean % diff 0.4 13.6 0.3 7.4 1.3 38.7 

JUOS 5.5 6.0 0.5 8.7 3.3 2.3 1.0 35.7 3.1 2.3 0.8 29.6 

PIED 7.9 7.4 0.5 6.5 5.7 3.6 2.1 45.2 7.3 7.9 0.6 7.9 

POFE 3.5 2.8 0.7 22.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 12.2 7.2 6.2 1.0 14.9 

Total live 

understory 26.1 24.7 1.4 5.5 20.0 15.3 4.7 26.6 23.8 25.9 2.1 8.5 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Mean % diff 0.8 10.7 2.0 29.9 1.1 15.2 

ATCO 1.2 0.8 0.4 40.0 0.9 0.8 0.1 11.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 

GIIN2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 28.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 

ORHY 0.4 0.5 0.1 22.2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 

Total live 

understory 14.2 12.9 1.3 9.6 14.6 12.9 1.7 12.4 19.6 22.3 2.7 12.9 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Mean % diff 0.5 18.0 0.5 13.2 0.7 3.2 

ARTR2 10.8 9.7 1.1 10.7 5.0 5.4 0.4 7.7 5.5 7.9 2.4 35.8 

BRTE 2.9 1.7 1.2 52.2 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 18.9 2.2 12.4 

STCO4 0.8 0.7 0.1 13.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.4 28.6 

Total live 

understory 26.2 23.4 2.8 11.3 14.5 14.2 0.3 2.1 43.6 48.4 4.8 10.4 

Semidesert 

Loam 

(Wyoming 

Big 

Sagebrush) Mean % diff 1.3 21.9 0.2 2.4 2.5 21.8 

CORA 13.4 12.3 1.1 8.6 8.3 10.3 2.0 21.5 5.5 9.6 4.1 54.3 

FEOC3 0.6 0.5 0.1 18.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 33.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 40.0 

STLO4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.1 15.4 0 0.3 0.3 200.0 

Total live 

understory 19.7 18.5 1.2 6.3 13.6 15.8 2.2 15.0 10.7 15.5 4.8 36.6 

Semidesert 

Shallow 

Sandy Loam 

(PJ) 

Mean % diff 0.6 8.3 1.1 21.3 2.4 82.7 

CEMO2 3.2 2.1 1.1 41.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 43.5 2 1.5 0.5 28.6 

COWR2 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 1 0.3 35.3 

JUOS 7.7 5.5 2.2 33.3 2.1 0.9 1.2 80.0 1.4 0.7 0.7 66.7 

Total live 

understory 22.2 16.6 5.6 28.9 14.1 11.4 2.7 21.2 10.5 10.4 0.1 1.0 

Upland 

Shallow 

Loam 

(PinyonUtah 

Juniper) Mean % diff 2.2 25.9 1.1 36.2 0.4 32.9 
Table F2. Mean estimates of biological soil crust cover (%) by sampling method (10-m2 

quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, and line-point intercept) and observer (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at 

Colorado Plateau ecological sites sampled during Phase 3, absolute between-observer 

differences, and differences expressed as percent of the mean of both observations. 

1-m2 quadrats 10-m2 quadrats Line-point 

Ecological 

site Cover measure 

Obs. 

2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Obs. 

1 

Obs. 

2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Obs. 

2 

Obs. 

1 

Obs. 

1 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Undifferentiated 

crust 46.2 45.1 1.1 2.4 43.8 45.8 2.0 4.5 43.6 38.9 4.7 11.4 

Cyanobacteria 1.8 2.2 0.4 20.0 1.3 2.2 0.9 51.4 4.4 5.6 1.2 24.0 

Lichen 0.7 1.2 0.5 52.6 0.9 0.8 0.1 11.8 1.1 1.3 0.2 16.7 

Moss 1.0 3.0 2.0 100.0 2.8 1.0 1.8 94.7 3.1 3.3 0.2 6.2 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

Mean % diff 1.0 43.8 1.2 40.6 1.6 14.6 

Undifferentiated 

crust 83.6 85.3 1.7 2.0 82.4 83.6 1.2 1.4 84.4 78.2 6.2 7.6 

Cyanobacteria 1.8 1.5 0.3 18.2 1.1 1.8 0.7 48.3 2.9 3.1 0.2 6.7 

Lichen 0.4 0.6 0.2 40.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 22.2 0.2 0.9 0.7 127.3 

Moss 0.1 0.2 0.1 66.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 200.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 200.0 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

Mean % diff 0.6 31.7 0.5 68.0 1.8 85.4 

Undifferentiated 

crust 60.9 65.4 4.5 7.1 61.3 65.2 3.9 6.2 54.0 52.2 1.8 3.4 

Cyanobacteria 0.5 0.9 0.4 57.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 28.6 1.1 1.8 0.7 48.3 

Lichen 1.1 1.3 0.2 16.7 1.1 0.7 0.4 44.4 1.6 2.2 0.6 31.6 

Moss 4.4 7.2 2.8 48.3 5.1 4.8 0.3 6.1 13.1 15.3 2.2 15.5 

Semidesert 

Loam 

(Wyoming 

Big 

Sagebrush) Mean % diff 2.0 32.3 1.2 21.3 1.3 24.7 

Undifferentiated 

crust 82.6 80.3 2.3 2.8 83.0 78.2 4.8 6.0 72.0 68.7 3.3 4.7 

Cyanobacteria 0.8 1.5 0.7 60.9 1.2 1.4 0.2 15.4 2.4 4.0 1.6 50.0 

Lichen 0.5 0.9 0.4 57.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 57.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 200.0 

Moss 5.0 5.8 0.8 14.8 3.1 6.5 3.4 70.8 10.2 11.6 1.4 12.8 

Semidesert 

Shallow 

Sandy Loam 

(PJ) 

Mean % diff 1.1 33.9 2.2 37.3 1.7 66.9 

Undifferentiated 

crust 6.3 9.8 3.5 43.5 4.9 5.5 0.6 11.5 14.9 25.6 10.7 52.8 

Cyanobacteria 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Lichen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Moss 0.1 0.2 0.1 66.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 200.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 200.0 

Upland 

Shallow 

Loam 

(PinyonUtah 

Juniper) Mean % diff 0.9 27.5 0.2 52.9 2.8 63.2 

152
Table F3. Mean estimates of biological soil crust cover (%) based on the 

characterization of soil darkness (see table 10 and fig. 5 in main body of report) in 25 

cm x 25 cm BSC frames for two observers (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at Colorado Plateau 

ecological sites sampled during Phase 3, absolute between-observer differences, and 

differences expressed as percent of the mean of both observations. 

Ecological site 

Biological soil crust 

cover measure 

(Soil-surface category) Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Abs diff 

Diff % 

of 

mean 

Darkness 1 0.4 0.9 0.5 76.9 

Darkness 2 17.9 18.2 0.3 1.7 

Darkness 3 8.8 9.2 0.4 4.4 

Darkness 4 2.9 3.5 0.6 18.8 

Darkness 5 1.4 1.7 0.3 19.4 

Total 31.4 33.5 2.1 6.5 

Loamy Mesa Top 

PJ 

Mean % diff 0.7 21.3 

Darkness 1 13.5 11.3 2.2 17.7 

Darkness 2 44.0 45.8 1.8 4.0 

Darkness 3 8.5 11.4 2.9 29.1 

Darkness 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Darkness 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 66.1 68.5 2.4 3.6 

Semidesert Alkali 

Sandy Loam 

(Alkali Sacaton) 

Mean % diff 1.6 9.1 

Darkness 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 200.0 

Darkness 2 29.4 18.7 10.7 44.5 

Darkness 3 22.1 28.9 6.8 26.7 

Darkness 4 0.0 0.4 0.4 200.0 

Darkness 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 51.5 48.0 3.5 7.0 

Semidesert Loam 

(Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush) 

Mean % diff 3.6 79.7 

Darkness 1 8.7 6.4 2.3 30.5 

Darkness 2 37.2 40.1 2.9 7.5 

Darkness 3 16.6 22.8 6.2 31.5 

Darkness 4 0.4 0.0 0.4 200.0 

Darkness 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 62.9 69.4 6.5 9.8 

Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy 

Loam (PJ) 

Mean % diff 3.1 46.5 

Darkness 1 5.9 5.4 0.5 8.8 

Darkness 2 0.2 1.2 1.0 142.9 

Darkness 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Darkness 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Darkness 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 6.1 6.6 0.5 7.9 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

Mean % diff 0.3 26.6 

153
Table F4. Mean estimates of litter cover (%) by sampling method (10-m2 quadrats, 1-m2 quadrats, 

intercept) and observer (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at Colorado Plateau ecological sites sampled during Pbetween-observer differences, and differences expressed as percent of the mean of both observati

10-m2 quadrats 1-m2 quadrats Line-poi

Ecological site Obs. 1 Obs. 2 

Abs 

diff 

Diff % 

of mean Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Abs diff 

Diff % 

of mean Obs. 1 Obs. 2 

Brushy Loam 77.8 78.9 1.1 1.4 82.0 79.4 2.6 3.2 73.0 78.3 Limy Upland, 6-10” pz 5.9 4.1 1.8 36.0 6.8 5.1 1.7 28.6 33.8 34.6 Loamy Hills, 25-33”pz 83.3 80.9 2.4 2.9 84.6 84.7 0.1 0.1 88.8 94.1 Loamy Mesa Top PJ 43.6 44.7 1.1 2.5 43.4 42.2 1.2 2.8 54.6 50.9 Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) 6.6 6.0 0.6 9.5 8.7 6.8 1.9 24.5 15.2 17.8 Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) 23.9 21.0 2.9 12.9 21.6 19.1 2.5 12.3 40.5 44.4 Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (PJ) 2.9 3.5 0.6 18.8 3.3 3.9 0.6 16.7 13.3 16.5 Upland Shallow Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 15.5 16.6 1.1 6.9 23.4 23.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 26.2 

1.5 11.4 1.3 11.0 

154
155

Table F5. Mean estimates of shrub density (counts per quadrat) by species, height class, 

and observer (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at Colorado Plateau ecological sites sampled during 

Phase 3, absolute between-observer differences, and differences expressed as percent of 

the mean of both observations. 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

0-10 cm 0 0.11 0.055 0.110 200.0 

10-25 cm 0.04 0.18 0.110 0.140 127.3 

25-50 cm 0.56 0.78 0.670 0.220 32.8 

50 cm - 1 m 2.4 2.4 2.400 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0.8 0.89 0.845 0.090 10.7 

>2 m 0.13 0.11 0.120 0.020 16.7 

Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 64.6 

0-10 cm 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

10-25 cm 0.02 0.07 0.045 0.050 111.1 

25-50 cm 0.04 0 0.020 0.040 200.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.04 0.09 0.065 0.050 76.9 

1-2 m 0.31 0.29 0.300 0.020 6.7 

>2 m 0 0.02 0.010 0.020 200.0 

Amerlanchier 

utahensis 

(AMUT)

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 110.2 

0-10 cm 1.6 1.3 1.450 0.300 20.7 

10-25 cm 0.09 0.09 0.090 0.000 0.0 

25-50 cm 0.02 0.07 0.045 0.050 111.1 

50 cm - 1 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Artemisia 

bigelovii 

(ARBI3)

Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 33.0 

0-10 cm 0.29 0.38 0.335 0.090 26.9 

10-25 cm 0.13 0.36 0.245 0.230 93.9 

25-50 cm 0.33 0.62 0.475 0.290 61.1 

50 cm - 1 m 0.76 0.64 0.700 0.120 17.1 

1-2 m 0.13 0.16 0.145 0.030 20.7 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

 mean diff 43.9 

0-10 cm 42.8 67 54.900 24.200 44.1 

10-25 cm 1.4 1.3 1.350 0.100 7.4 

25-50 cm 3.9 4.3 4.100 0.400 9.8 

50 cm - 1 m 3.1 3.2 3.150 0.100 3.2 

1-2 m 0.11 0.11 0.110 0.000 0.0 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Artemisia 

tridentata 

(ARTR2) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

 mean diff 12.9 
Table F5.—Continued 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0.07 0.07 0.070 0.000 0.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.11 0.09 0.100 0.020 20.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Atriplex 

canescens 

(ATCA2) 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

 mean diff 10.0 

0-10 cm 2 2.9 2.450 0.900 36.7 

10-25 cm 0.69 0.69 0.690 0.000 0.0 

25-50 cm 0.62 0.82 0.720 0.200 27.8 

50 cm - 1 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

 mean diff 21.5 

0-10 cm 0.24 0.24 0.240 0.000 0.0 

10-25 cm 0.18 0.16 0.170 0.020 11.8 

25-50 cm 0.11 0.16 0.135 0.050 37.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Atriplex 

confertifolia 

(ATCO) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

 mean diff 12.2 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0.02 0 0.010 0.020 200.0 

25-50 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

50 cm - 1 m 0.04 0.07 0.055 0.030 54.5 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Berberis 

fremontii 

(BEFR) 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 127.3 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

25-50 cm 0.58 0.6 0.590 0.020 3.4 

50 cm - 1 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Limy Upland, 6-

10" pz 

 mean diff 23.4 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

50 cm - 1 m 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Chrysothamnus 

nauseosus 

(CHNA2) 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

 mean diff 0.0 

156
Table F5.—Continued 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0.02 0.010 0.020 200.0 

25-50 cm 0.09 0.11 0.100 0.020 20.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.27 0.22 0.245 0.050 20.4 

1-2 m 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Chrysothamnus 

nauseosus 

(CHNA2) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

 mean diff 76.8 

0-10 cm 0.09 0.11 0.100 0.020 20.0 

10-25 cm 0.58 0.82 0.700 0.240 34.3 

25-50 cm 4.6 5.1 4.850 0.500 10.3 

50 cm - 1 m 1 0.9 0.950 0.100 10.5 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Coleogyne 

ramosissima 

(CORA) 

Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy 

Loam PJ 

 mean diff 18.8 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.04 0.07 0.055 0.030 54.5 

1-2 m 0.07 0.07 0.070 0.000 0.0 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Purshia 

mexicana 

(PUME) 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 18.2 

0-10 cm 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

50 cm - 1 m 0.02 0 0.010 0.020 200.0 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 100.0 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 0.0 

0-10 cm 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0 0.09 0.045 0.090 200.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.09 0.02 0.055 0.070 127.3 

1-2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Purshia 

tridentata 

(PUTR2) 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

 mean diff 109.1 

157
Table F5.—Continued 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

0-10 cm 0.02 0 0.010 0.020 200.0 

10-25 cm 0.07 0.04 0.055 0.030 54.5 

25-50 cm 0.29 0.4 0.345 0.110 31.9 

50 cm - 1 m 0.58 0.62 0.600 0.040 6.7 

1-2 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

>2 m 0 0.02 0.010 0.020 200.0 

Semidesert 

Alkali Sandy 

Loam (Alkali 

Sacaton) 

 mean diff 82.2 

0-10 cm 2.8 3.2 3.000 0.400 13.3 

10-25 cm 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

25-50 cm 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

50 cm - 1 m 0.22 0.27 0.245 0.050 20.4 

1-2 m 0.11 0.09 0.100 0.020 20.0 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus 

(SAVE4) 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

 mean diff 24.1 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

25-50 cm 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

50 cm - 1 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

1-2 m 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Shepherdia 

rotundifolia 

(SHRO) 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 0.0 

0-10 cm 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

10-25 cm 0.07 0.07 0.070 0.000 0.0 

25-50 cm 0.78 0.53 0.655 0.250 38.2 

50 cm - 1 m 1.6 1.7 1.650 0.100 6.1 

1-2 m 0.78 0.73 0.755 0.050 6.6 

>2 m 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus 

(SYOR2) 

Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 12.7 

158
Table F6. Mean estimates of tree density (counts per quadrat) by species, size class, and 

observer (Obs. 1 and Obs. 2) at Colorado Plateau ecological sites sampled during Phase 

3, absolute between-observer differences, and differences expressed as percent of the 

mean of both observations. 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

Seedling 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Abies concolor 

(ABCO) 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz 

 mean diff 0.0 

Seedling 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Semidesert 

Shallow Sandy 

Loam PJ 

 mean diff 0.0 

Seedling 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

Overstory 0.09 0.13 0.110 0.040 36.4 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 34.3 

Seedling 0.04 0.13 0.085 0.090 105.9 

Pole 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Semidesert 

Loam (Wyoming 

Big Sagebrush) 

 mean diff 52.9 

Seedling 1.1 1 1.050 0.100 9.5 

Pole 0.29 0.33 0.310 0.040 12.9 

Overstory 0.18 0.22 0.200 0.040 20.0 

Juniperus 

osteosperma 

(JUOS) 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

 mean diff 14.1 

Seedling 0.07 0.04 0.055 0.030 54.5 

Pole 0.07 0.07 0.070 0.000 0.0 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Upland Shallow 

Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) 

 mean diff 27.3 

Seedling 1.4 1.3 1.350 0.100 7.4 

Pole 0.36 0.38 0.370 0.020 5.4 

Overstory 0.04 0.04 0.040 0.000 0.0 

Loamy Mesa 

Top PJ 

 mean diff 4.3 

Seedling 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Pinus edulis 

(PIED) 

Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 0.0 

Seedling 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0.07 0.07 0.070 0.000 0.0 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Picea 

engelmannii 

(PIEN) 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz 

 mean diff 0.0 

Seedling 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Pole 0.04 0.02 0.030 0.020 66.7 

Overstory 0.18 0.16 0.170 0.020 11.8 

Pinus ponderosa 

(PIPO) 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz 

 mean diff 39.2 

159
Table F6.—Continued 

Species Ecological site Size class Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Mean Abs. Diff 

Diff % of 

Mean 

Seedling 3.4 3.2 3.300 0.200 6.1 

Pole 0.29 0.29 0.290 0.000 0.0 

Overstory 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Populus 

tremuloides 

(POTR5) 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz 

 mean diff 2.0 

Seedling 0.02 0.02 0.020 0.000 0.0 

Pole 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Pseudotsuga 

menziesii 

(PSME) 

Loamy Hills, 25-

33" pz 

 mean diff 0.0 

Seedling 4.3 5.2 4.750 0.900 18.9 

Pole 0.02 0 0.010 0.020 200.0 

Overstory 0 0 0.000 0.000 n/a 

Quercus gambelii 

(QUGA) Brushy Loam 

 mean diff 109.5 

160
Appendix G—Nested Frequency Data by Ecological Site 

Ecological site Table Page 

G1 162 Brushy Loam G2 164 

Desert Sand (Sand Sagebrush) G3 166 

G4 167 Limy Upland, 6-10" pz G5 168 

G6 169 Loamy Hills, 25-33" pz G7 170 

Loamy Hills, Cold, 25-33" pz G8 171 

G9 172 Loamy Mesa Top PJ G10 173 

G11 174 Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam (Alkali Sacaton) G12 176 

G13 178 Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) G14 179 

G15 180 

Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam PJ G16 182 

G17 184 

Shallow Loamy, 10-14" pz G18 186 

G19 187 Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) G20 188 

161
162

Table G1. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (MEVE1, MEV

associated with the Brushy Loam ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park. See Appendix A for key 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE1 MEVE2 MEVE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ACMI2 0 0 0 10 13 13 37 94 13 23 AGCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 ALAC4 0 3 10 24 0 0 23 42 0 0 AMUT 3 3 37 70 0 7 13 47 3 7 ARBI3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDR4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BASA3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 16 0 0 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 CANU4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 48 0 0 CEMO2 0 0 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 7 27 79 0 0 CHLE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHVI8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16 0 0 COUM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 ELEL5 0 0 0 5 3 3 10 29 13 40 ERUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FERU 0 0 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 HECO26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IPAG 0 3 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUOS 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 KOMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LATA 0 0 0 0 10 33 70 89 0 0 LUCA 0 3 10 24 0 0 0 0 7 7 MARE11 0 0 0 5 0 7 13 23 0 0 PAMY 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 PASM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 20 PEPU7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 7 PHHE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIED 0 0 13 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 POFE 0 7 33 62 0 0 3 8 43 63 PUTR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QUGA 20 43 70 94 17 23 50 100 0 0 SIAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 
Table G1.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE1 MEVE2 MEVE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STLO4 3 3 20 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 SYOR2 0 13 40 69 3 10 20 39 0 0 WYAR 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 24 0 0 YUBA 0 3 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 

163
Table G2. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Brushy Loam macroplots (M

MEVE7) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Brushy Loam ecologVerde National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE6 MEVE7b All macroplots com

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ACMI2 0 10 27 43 10 20 53 93 7 13 AGCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 ALAC4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 AMUT 0 3 3 13 0 13 43 93 1 7 ARBI3 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDR4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 BASA3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 10 30 0 3 27 50 1 1 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 1 CANU4 0 7 13 13 0 0 13 50 0 1 CEMO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CHLE4 10 27 50 53 0 0 0 7 2 5 CHVI8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEL5 27 50 80 87 3 13 33 47 9 21 ERUM 0 0 3 23 0 0 0 7 0 0 FERU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HECO26 10 20 27 30 0 0 0 0 2 4 IPAG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 JUOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KOMA 7 13 30 80 0 3 17 47 1 3 LATA 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 7 LUCA 0 3 23 70 3 3 40 63 2 3 MARE11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PAMY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PASM 7 7 7 17 0 0 0 0 2 5 PEPU7 23 27 67 80 0 0 0 27 5 7 PHHE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 30 0 0 

164
Table G2.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE6 MEVE7b All macroplots com

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 PIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POFE 13 47 70 80 80 87 100 100 27 41 PUTR2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 QUGA 0 0 7 20 7 13 27 30 9 16 SIAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 STLO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 SYOR2 0 0 3 37 17 27 40 87 4 10 WYAR 0 0 17 53 0 0 13 23 0 1 YUBA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

165
Table G3. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Desert Sand macroplots (C

CANY2b) and combined frequency values for both macroplots associated with the Desert Sand ecologicCanyonlands National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CANY1 CANY2b Both macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ABFR2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 11 0 2 ARPU9 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 10 53 0 3 10 29 0 2 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 CELA4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 CORA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 EPVI 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERCE2 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEOC3 10 30 63 78 0 13 47 90 5 22 GAPI 0 17 40 88 7 27 70 99 3 22 HIJA 3 17 23 33 7 10 43 86 5 13 LAOC3 0 13 50 83 20 77 100 100 10 45 LIAR3 0 3 43 72 0 13 40 69 0 8 MACA2 0 0 3 3 0 10 37 84 0 5 MEAL6 3 3 20 63 3 10 40 92 3 7 OEPA 0 0 0 14 0 0 7 16 0 0 OPPO 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLPA2 7 37 60 89 10 27 57 80 8 32 SAPA8 0 3 27 84 0 0 3 3 0 2 SAPE10 3 7 20 68 0 0 17 55 2 3 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 11 0 2 SPGR2 3 30 70 94 10 43 77 100 7 37 STEX 0 3 17 36 0 10 30 40 0 7 STHY6 0 7 10 39 3 27 70 100 2 17 STLO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 29 0 0 TOAN 0 10 27 46 0 0 10 15 0 5 

166
Table G4. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (WUPA1, WU

associated with the Limy Upland ecological site at Wupatki National Monument. See Appendix A for ke

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

WUPA1 WUPA2 WUPA

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ACHY 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARPU9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 BOER4 7 53 90 95 3 20 47 94 0 0 BOGR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHLE4 17 77 100 100 0 3 27 74 33 80 CHNA2 0 3 7 50 3 7 40 92 0 0 CRCI3 0 7 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 3 3 23 76 3 3 7 30 0 7 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 37 83 93 100 0 7 27 41 30 70 HENE5 7 17 53 100 0 20 73 92 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAL6 20 50 83 98 3 27 60 89 23 43 OPER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLJA 0 7 13 23 33 67 100 100 47 73 PSSP 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAKA 3 3 23 52 0 0 0 5 0 0 SPAI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 SPHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 SPPA2 0 3 13 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZIGR 0 0 3 3 0 7 7 7 0 0 

167
Table G5. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Limy Upland macroplots (W

WUPA7) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Limy Upland ecolog

National Monument. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

WUPA6 WUPA7 All macroplots com

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ACHY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARPU9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOER4 3 23 80 90 10 20 57 87 5 23 BOGR2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 CHLE4 43 83 100 100 30 57 77 100 25 60 CHNA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60 1 2 CRCI3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 DEPI 3 17 70 93 0 0 0 10 2 6 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 10 50 93 97 0 0 3 17 15 42 HENE5 17 43 97 100 0 0 0 0 5 16 LAOC3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAL6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 24 OPER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHCR 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLJA 7 10 43 63 17 53 93 100 21 42 PSSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAKA 0 0 20 53 0 0 0 23 1 1 SPAI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPPA2 0 0 57 90 0 0 17 53 0 1 ZIGR 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 7 0 1 

168
Table G6. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (GRCA3, GR

associated with the Loamy Hills ecological site at Grand Canyon National Park. See Appendix A for key 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

GRCA3 GRCA4 GRCA

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ABCO 0 0 13 28 0 3 23 90 0 0 ABLA 0 0 0 29 0 0 3 37 0 0 ACMI2 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 24 0 0 ANPA5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRIN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 0 3 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 13 0 3 EPAN 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRVI 0 0 0 5 0 3 10 29 0 0 GECA3 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 24 0 0 GOOB2 3 3 23 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUCO6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUAR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARE11 0 3 3 13 3 7 13 23 0 0 PIEN 0 0 0 38 0 3 7 40 0 0 PIPO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 POFE 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 3 13 POTR5 0 7 37 89 0 0 10 58 0 13 PSME 0 3 20 44 0 0 7 40 0 0 PTAQ 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 PYCH 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 SYOR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 0 0 THFE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNGRCA1 0 0 7 11 23 63 80 94 10 33 

169
Table G7. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Loamy Hills macroplots (G

and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Loamy Hills ecological site at National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

GRCA6 GRCA7 All macroplots com

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ABCO 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 ABLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACMI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ANPA5 0 7 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 BRIN2 0 7 17 40 0 0 0 0 0 2 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 ELEL5 0 0 10 50 0 7 17 40 0 3 EPAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRVI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 GECA3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 GOOB2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 JUCO6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUAR3 0 0 0 0 3 20 27 47 1 4 MARE11 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 27 1 2 PIEN 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 PIPO 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 20 0 0 POFE 7 13 27 73 7 33 70 93 3 12 POTR5 0 3 13 33 0 0 13 20 0 5 PSME 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 PTAQ 0 3 37 67 0 0 0 0 0 1 PYCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 7 33 0 0 0 0 1 1 SYOR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THFE 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNGRCA1 37 63 70 100 10 43 60 87 16 41 

170
Table G8. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Loamy Hills, Cold, macropl

GRCA2) and combined frequency values for both macroplots associated with the Loamy Hills, Cold, ecoGrand Canyon National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

GRCA1 GRCA2 Both macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ABCO 0 0 0 0 0 3 37 84 0 2 ABLA 0 0 10 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACMI2 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 0 5 ANPA5 3 3 7 7 0 0 0 5 2 2 BRIN2 0 10 23 66 0 7 13 37 0 8 ELEL5 0 0 10 24 0 0 3 8 0 0 ERFO3 0 3 10 24 3 7 7 11 2 5 FRVI 0 0 10 24 7 10 27 46 3 5 GECA3 0 3 3 13 0 3 17 26 0 3 GOOB2 0 3 13 47 0 0 0 14 0 2 JUCO6 0 0 17 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARE11 0 3 10 29 0 0 27 60 0 2 PIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 PIEN 0 0 20 68 0 0 0 5 0 0 PIPO 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 5 0 0 POFE 0 3 7 26 3 13 17 31 2 8 POTR5 3 7 33 81 3 7 7 50 3 7 PSME 0 7 37 75 0 3 17 55 0 5 PTAQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16 0 0 PYCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 0 5 3 10 13 18 2 5 SISC7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 UNGRCA1 3 20 37 70 10 17 53 77 7 18 

171
Table G9. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (MEVE3, MEV

associated with the Loamy Mesa Top PJ ecological site at Mesa Verde National Park. See Appendix A codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE3 MEVE4 MEVE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ARTR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 CANU4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 13 0 0 CHLE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COWR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ERUM 0 0 13 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESVI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 GUSA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HECO26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 JUOS 0 0 10 48 0 3 33 86 3 20 KOMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LATA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPE2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPU 0 7 37 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPU 0 0 0 0 3 10 27 50 0 0 LUCA 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 OPER 0 0 7 78 0 0 3 65 0 0 PEPU7 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIED 0 0 23 61 0 0 23 80 0 0 POFE 10 57 97 100 20 57 97 100 27 60 PUTR2 0 3 20 72 0 0 0 10 0 0 RATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 STHY6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STLO4 0 0 0 5 3 3 3 27 0 0 YUBA 0 0 3 8 0 3 7 30 0 0 

172
Table G10. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Loamy Mesa Top PJ mac

and MEVE10) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Loamy Mesa Tsite at Mesa Verde National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

MEVE9 MEVE10 All macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ARTR2 0 0 0 0 7 13 67 97 1 3 BRTE 0 0 3 17 0 7 20 33 0 1 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANU4 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 3 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 0 CHLE4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 COWR2 0 10 33 77 0 0 43 83 0 2 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 0 0 ELEL5 0 0 0 7 0 0 13 37 0 0 ERUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESVI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUSA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 HECO26 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 13 1 1 JUOS 0 17 20 63 7 7 13 70 2 9 KOMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 0 0 LATA 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 10 0 0 LEPE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LEPU 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 1 2 LUCA 0 0 3 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 OPER 0 0 13 67 0 0 33 67 0 0 PEPU7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIED 0 3 17 50 0 0 20 63 0 1 POFE 13 30 87 100 3 10 53 87 15 43 PUTR2 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 RATE 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 27 0 1 SEMU3 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 STHY6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STLO4 0 7 7 17 0 0 13 20 1 2 YUBA 0 3 7 53 0 0 0 7 0 1 

173
Table G11. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (CARE1, CA

associated with the Semidesert Alkali Sandy Loam ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. See A

species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE1 CARE2b CARE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AMAC2 0 3 33 48 0 0 3 3 0 0 ARBI3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ARDR4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARFI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 ARTR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCO 0 3 30 97 3 13 50 98 0 7 BOER4 3 10 13 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOGR2 3 3 23 57 3 7 10 29 0 0 BRIN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 BRTE 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 3 CELA4 0 3 17 50 0 0 7 21 0 0 CHAL7 7 13 20 63 7 37 47 80 0 10 CHLE4 0 13 33 67 0 0 0 0 7 10 CHNA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 20 COWR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 ERCE2 17 40 73 100 0 10 30 44 3 10 ERIN4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 10 33 48 0 3 20 44 3 20 GUSA2 0 3 43 96 0 3 37 70 0 3 HAGL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIJA 0 7 7 21 7 10 10 15 0 0 LAOC3 0 7 17 45 0 3 3 18 3 37 LIAR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 0 0 MACA2 0 3 13 51 0 0 7 11 0 3 MATA2 3 7 17 36 0 10 30 68 0 7 MEAL6 0 3 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 33 MUSQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 OECE2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 OEPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 OPER 3 17 57 100 0 13 37 75 0 0 ORHY 0 10 53 100 7 20 53 100 3 23 PHCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

174
Table G11.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE1 CARE2b CARE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 PLPA2 40 80 100 100 47 70 83 93 0 3 SAIB 13 57 80 90 0 0 0 0 53 77 SAPA8 0 0 0 0 3 23 63 73 0 0 SAVE4 0 7 17 55 0 0 10 72 0 0 SIHY 0 3 7 73 0 0 3 22 0 0 SPAI 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 20 49 0 7 13 56 0 0 SPCO4 37 57 87 96 7 17 57 80 3 7 SPCR 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 10 0 0 SPPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 STLO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TESP2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 THSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 VUOC 0 3 10 29 0 0 0 10 10 23 

175
Table G12. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Semidesert Alkali Sandy L

(CARE6 and CARE7) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the SemidLoam ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE6 CARE7 All macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AMAC2 0 0 7 23 7 13 47 70 1 3 ARBI3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARDR4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARFI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARTR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCO 0 7 20 47 0 3 60 100 1 7 BOER4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 BOGR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 BRIN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BRTE 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 33 1 1 CELA4 0 0 0 0 7 10 17 23 1 3 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 CHLE4 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 23 1 6 CHNA2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHST 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 5 COWR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 ERCE2 0 3 7 20 0 0 23 47 4 13 ERIN4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 GIIN2 3 17 27 33 3 20 43 83 2 14 GUSA2 0 10 17 17 0 7 13 37 0 5 HAGL 0 0 0 0 7 13 33 47 1 3 HIJA 7 23 30 63 0 3 27 57 3 9 LAOC3 0 10 30 60 17 70 93 100 4 25 LIAR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACA2 0 3 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 MATA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 MEAL6 0 0 0 3 0 0 33 63 0 7 MUSQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OECE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OEPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPER 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 47 1 6 ORHY 0 10 33 63 0 3 60 93 2 13 PHCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

176
Table G12.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE6 CARE7 All macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 PLPA2 0 0 7 13 0 23 87 100 17 35 SAIB 0 0 0 13 20 73 93 97 17 41 SAPA8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 SAVE4 0 0 0 7 0 3 23 50 0 2 SIHY 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 0 1 SPAI 0 3 20 60 0 0 0 13 0 1 SPCO 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 1 SPCO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 16 SPCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SPPA2 0 0 7 7 0 0 3 10 1 1 STLO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 63 0 0 TESP2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VUOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 5 

177
Table G13. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (DINO1, DIN

associated with the Semidesert Loam ecological site at Dinosaur National Monument. See Appendix A codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

DINO1 DINO2b DINO

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AGSM 0 13 33 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARTR2 0 0 3 41 7 23 70 99 30 57 ASMO7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCO 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 51 0 0 BRTE 73 97 100 100 87 93 93 93 27 60 CANU3 0 7 27 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CELA4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHLE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CHNA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 7 30 82 0 7 23 52 0 7 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 0 33 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUSA2 0 0 3 3 0 7 20 63 0 0 HIJA 7 7 7 11 3 3 13 23 7 17 JUOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LARE 0 3 20 30 10 30 70 94 0 0 LASE 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPER 0 0 3 18 0 3 3 3 0 0 ORHY 0 3 7 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLPA2 0 0 3 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSE 0 10 23 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 RATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAIB 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 SAVE4 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 46 0 0 SIHY 0 0 3 3 3 20 47 99 0 3 SPCO 0 20 57 80 0 0 0 38 0 10 STCO4 17 37 73 88 0 0 0 0 3 23 STLO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VUOC 77 97 97 97 3 7 13 23 0 0 ZIPA2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

178
Table G14. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Semidesert Loam macrop

DINO5) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Semidesert Loam ecDinosaur National Monument. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

DINO4b DINO5 All macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AGSM 0 0 0 0 3 17 30 47 1 6 ARTR2 0 10 43 100 10 13 67 100 9 21 ASMO7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCO 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 87 100 100 100 30 43 53 83 61 79 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CANU3 0 0 0 0 3 10 23 73 1 2 CELA4 0 0 0 0 7 13 27 57 1 3 CHLE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CHNA2 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 3 7 47 0 0 0 10 0 5 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 GUSA2 3 7 53 83 0 0 0 20 1 3 HIJA 0 0 7 20 7 20 20 23 5 9 JUOS 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 17 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 LARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 LASE 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPU 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 30 0 0 OPER 0 0 7 43 0 0 20 60 0 1 ORHY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 PLPA2 0 0 0 0 10 20 33 63 2 4 POSE 3 10 20 67 43 73 100 100 9 19 RATE 3 10 20 37 0 0 0 0 1 2 SAIB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAVE4 0 0 7 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIHY 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 7 1 5 SPCO 3 7 7 17 7 13 30 67 2 10 STCO4 0 3 17 50 7 17 77 97 5 16 STLO4 3 3 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 VUOC 13 40 63 83 10 27 87 97 21 34 ZIPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

179
Table G15. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (ARCH1b, A

ARCH3) associated with the Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam ecological site at Arches National Park. 

key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

ARCH1b ARCH2 ARCH

Code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ARFI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASMA10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASMO7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CHVI8 0 0 7 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 CORA 3 20 77 100 17 47 97 100 0 10 COWR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAFL 0 3 20 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EPVI 0 3 7 64 0 0 13 47 0 7 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERCO14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERIN4 0 3 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERMI4 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 EUFE2 3 10 23 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEOC3 0 7 10 24 0 3 27 46 10 30 FRAN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 0 10 15 0 3 37 56 0 3 GUSA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIJA 3 10 53 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUOS 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 0 3 7 33 48 0 0 LEMO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAFR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAL6 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 OECE2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPER 0 0 0 0 3 10 47 70 0 3 OPPO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEPU7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 

180
Table G15.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

ARCH1b ARCH2 ARCH

Code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 PHCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 PIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAPE10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCWH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STHY6 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 STLO4 0 7 13 18 3 23 83 93 23 37 YUHA 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZIPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

181
Table G16. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (ARCH4b, A

CANY3) associated with the Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam ecological site at Arches and CanyonlandSee Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

ARCH4b ARCH5 CANY

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ARFI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASMA10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASMO7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 3 7 0 3 23 50 0 7 CANU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHST 0 0 7 47 3 43 83 97 0 0 CHVI8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CORA 0 10 43 97 3 7 73 100 3 7 COWR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 DAFL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 7 23 0 0 0 0 0 10 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EPVI 0 0 13 27 0 10 33 40 0 3 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERCO14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERIN4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERMI4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EUFE2 0 0 3 10 0 0 7 13 3 10 FEOC3 13 13 53 90 27 77 97 97 3 30 FRAN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 3 3 47 87 30 60 80 87 3 13 GUSA2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 HIJA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAOC3 0 0 0 17 7 17 27 57 0 10 LEMO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEPE2 0 0 30 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAFR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAL6 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 OECE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPER 3 3 7 13 3 17 77 100 0 0 OPPO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 PEPU7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

182
Table G16.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

ARCH4b ARCH5 CANY

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 PHCR 20 43 67 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 PUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAPE10 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCWH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEMU3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPCO 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 STEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STHY6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STLO4 0 13 30 100 37 50 93 100 0 0 YUHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZIPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

183
Table G17. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at one Semidesert Shallow Sand

(CANY4) at Canyonlands National Park and combined frequency values for all seven macroplots assocSemidesert Shallow Sandy Loam ecological site at Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. See Appe

species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CANY4 All macroplots combined (n = 7) 

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2ARFI2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 ASMA10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASMO7 0 0 10 34 0 0 1 6 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BRTE 0 3 7 30 0 2 12 25 CANU3 0 3 3 8 0 0.5 0.5 1 CHAL7 0 0 0 10 0 0 0.5 2 CHST 0 0 3 22 0.5 7 17 30 CHVI8 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 6 CORA 0 3 17 31 4 15 59 86 COWR2 3 13 33 62 0.5 4 12 23 DAFL 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 3 8 DEPI 0 0 20 49 0 1 6 22 ELEL5 0 3 10 10 0 0.5 2 3 EPVI 0 3 10 24 0 4 13 33 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ERCO14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 ERIN4 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 2 ERMI4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 EUFE2 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 13 FEOC3 3 13 50 69 8 25 53 70 FRAN2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0.5 0.5 GIIN2 0 10 37 70 5 13 37 57 GUSA2 0 0 3 13 0 0.5 2 9 HIJA 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 8 12 JUOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LAOC3 3 3 7 16 2 5 13 24 LEMO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 LEPE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 MAFR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

184
Table G17.—Continued 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CANY4 All macroplots combined (n = 7) 

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2MEAL6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 OECE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OPER 0 0 0 0 1 5 22 34 OPPO 0 3 7 35 0.5 1 3 11 PEPU7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PHCR 0 0 0 0 3 6 10 15 PIED 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 PLPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SAPE10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 2 SCWH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SEMU3 0 3 3 22 0 0.5 1 4 SPCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 STEX 0 0 3 18 0 0 0.5 3 STHY6 3 3 17 26 0.5 0.5 4 9 STLO4 0 0 10 43 9 19 45 67 YUHA 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 4 ZIPA2 0 0 3 8 0 0 0.5 1 

185
Table G18. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Shallow Loamy macroplot

WUPA4) and combined frequency values for both macroplots associated with the Shallow Loamy ecolo

National Monument. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

WUPA3 WUPA4 Both macroplots co

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 ACHY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 ATCA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 BOER4 7 7 47 90 0 3 13 18 3 5 CHLE4 7 40 77 91 10 30 70 99 8 35 CHNA2 0 0 7 16 0 0 3 22 0 0 CRCI3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEPI 0 0 17 69 0 0 7 7 0 0 ELEL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 EPVI 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 16 0 2 GACO5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 47 87 100 100 0 33 77 86 23 60 HENE5 17 50 87 100 10 33 80 99 13 42 MEAL6 10 23 60 84 13 43 83 100 12 33 OPER 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLJA 23 57 97 97 10 53 87 100 17 55 SAKA 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 SPAI 0 3 10 15 0 0 10 10 0 2 SPPA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 STPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 

186
Table G19. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at three macroplots (CARE3, CA

associated with the Upland Shallow Loam ecological site at Capitol Reef National Park. See Appendix A codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE3 CARE4b CARE

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AMUT 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 13 0 0 BEFR 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CEMO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHVI8 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 COME5 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 COWR2 17 53 90 95 17 47 80 99 3 7 CRFL5 0 0 7 30 0 0 7 35 0 0 DEPI 0 3 10 20 0 0 20 25 0 3 EPVI 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 5 0 3 ERCE2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERMI4 0 0 7 21 0 0 3 3 0 0 FRAN2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 10 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 7 GUSA2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 HIJA 0 0 7 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUOS 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 5 0 3 ORHY 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 7 PEPU7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 PIED 0 0 0 19 0 0 3 18 0 0 POFE 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 POSA12 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUTR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHRO 0 0 0 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 SIHY 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 STPI 0 0 7 30 0 0 3 22 0 0 

187
188

Table G20. Frequency (%) of plant species in different-sized quadrats at two Upland Shallow Loam maand CARE10) and combined frequency values for all five macroplots associated with the Upland Shallow site at Capitol Reef National Park. See Appendix A for key to species codes. 

Frequency (%) by macroplot and quadrat size 

CARE9 CARE10 Ecological S

Species code 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 1 m2 10 m2 0.01 m2 0.1 m2 AMUT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BEFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CEMO2 0 0 7 13 0 3 10 27 0 1 CHAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHVI8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COME5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 COWR2 20 37 47 67 17 33 47 80 15 35 CRFL5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 43 0 0 DEPI 0 3 20 53 7 13 20 23 1 5 EPVI 0 0 0 7 0 0 17 37 0 1 ERCE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERMI4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRAN2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIIN2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 GUSA2 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 7 0 1 HIJA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 ORHY 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 10 0 1 PEPU7 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 0 0 POFE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 POSA12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUME 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUTR2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHRO 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 1 1 SIHY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 STPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0