Are habitat types compatible with floristically‐derived associations?

Abstract

Abstract. The habitat type system developed by R. Daubenmire has been widely adopted throughout the western United States. Habitat types result from a site classification derived from the classification of late seral plant communities using selected indicator species. It has been suggested that the classification of late successional vegetation used to derive habitat types does not substantially differ from phytosociological classification in the sense of Braun‐Blanquet approach, and that habitat types can be adopted in their present form into floristically‐based vegetation classifications. Despite the many commonalities between the two systems, however, the classification methods, and specifically the use of indicator species in the habitat type system, yield a significantly different classification than the phytosociological approach. This is demonstrated in the comparison of a habitat type classification with the results of a recent phytosociological classification of forest vegetation in the northern Salish Mountains of Montana.