CURRENT STATUS OF THE VEGETATION IN HISTORIC

KARUK CULTURAL USE SITES

 

 

by

 

 

 

Ellen Aegidia de Rijke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Humboldt State University

 

 

 

 

 

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirement for the Degree

Master of Arts

 

 

 

 

May 2001

CURRENT STATUS OF THE VEGETATION IN HISTORIC

KARUK CULTURAL USE SITES

 

by

 

Ellen de Rijke

 

We certify that we have read this study and that it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully acceptable, in scope and quality, as a thesis for degree of Master of Arts.

 

See original for signatures

 

Major Professor

Kathy Hill

John Reiss

 

Approved by the Graduate Coordinator

 

Milton J. Boyd

 

Approved by the Graduate Dean

 

                                   

 

ABSTRACT

The Karuk Indians currently inhabit some half a million hectares of ancestral homeland in northern California and have done so for an unknown number of generations.  Largely through the use of frequent, low intensity burns, the Karuk created, to some degree, the vegetation pattern encountered by Euro-Americans in the 1850’s.  Since this time, Forest Service land management has been based on the philosophy that the elimination of fire is fundamental to preserving natural environments.  I selected five historic Karuk cultural use sites to investigate the nature of change in the forest and the associated meadow as a result of fire suppression. 

I used digital orthoquadrangle maps to stratify the forest into tiers of plots with purposeful bias to capture potential change in stand structure and composition as distance from the meadow increased.  I sampled these forests to determine structure (tree basal area and density) and composition (canopy, undestory, regeneration, shrub, and herbaceous species), Douglas-fir seedling density, and Douglas-fir age.  In addition, I censused the associated meadow for composition and relative abundance.

Each use site is distinctive with general pattern found across them.  Douglas-fir shared importance with madrone or tanoak.  The Douglas-fir ages at Oak Bottom, Grasshopper Flat, Ishi Pishi, and Eyese Bar suggest that establishment has occurred after contact with Euro-Americans. The Douglas-fir ages and forest structure of the Persido Bar site are those of an old-growth stand.  The pattern of Douglas-fir ages appears to show that Douglas-fir is moving towards the meadows where hardwoods are prominent and shade requirements are optimal. 

The meadows support a large number of native non-use plant species though the abundance of these species is not as high as exotic weeds.  The number of Karuk use plants is low.  Several use plants with appropriate habitat requirements are not found. 

These patterns support the hypothesis that Douglas-fir is invading forests and meadow habitats.  The shade effects and cover changes of this invasion are negatively impacting the populations of plants used by the Karuk.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Though this part of the thesis is perhaps the most enjoyable for some to write, I am unfortunately having a very difficult time.  For instance, how can I express in words how much I appreciate my major advisor, Dr. John Sawyer, for all his guidance and support?  I believe that I have been properly “Sawyer-ized” and am proud of it.  I feel incredibly lucky to have been offered the opportunity to study with someone whose knowledge of the intricacies of the Klamath Mountains (and Piazzolla) is so vast and thorough.

I thank my committee members, Dr. Kathy Hill, Dr. John Reiss, and Dr. John Stuart, for their valuable feedback and insight.  I also thank Mc-Intire Stennis, Mazamas, and HSU Department of Biological Sciences for financial support.  I thank the Karuk Tribe of California for permitting me access to these sites and allowing me to experience the charge of the past. I thank Toz Soto, the Boatman, whose trusty hands on the oars allowed me to tell my story about Persido Bar. I thank Holly Taylor for the crazy adventures in the field and especially, Max Creasy, whose careful observation, concern, and love for the forest provided me with the idea to pursue this research.           

Finally, I thank my amazing parents, Huib and Johan, for all of their love and support.   Luck was in my corner the day the powers-that-be decided to make them my parents. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I guess that wasn’t so hard after all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

Problem Statement.................................................................................................. 4

METHODS........................................................................................................................ 5

Description of the Study Area................................................................................. 5

Study Site Selection................................................................................................ 7

Field Sampling...................................................................................................... 10

ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 13

Site Descriptions................................................................................................... 13

Patterns Across Sites............................................................................................ 15

Patterns Within Sites............................................................................................. 15

Meadow Composition.......................................................................................... 16

Karuk Use Plants.................................................................................................. 16

 

 

 

 

RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 17

Site Descriptions................................................................................................... 17

Oak Bottom............................................................................................. 17

Grasshopper Flat...................................................................................... 24

Ishi Pishi................................................................................................... 28

Eyese Bar................................................................................................. 32

Persido Bar.............................................................................................. 35

Patterns Across Sites............................................................................................ 39

Patterns Within Sites............................................................................................. 40

Tree Basal Area and Density..................................................................... 40

Age Pattern.............................................................................................. 44

Douglas-fir Seedlings................................................................................ 45

Persido Bar.......................................................................................................... 45

Tree Basal Area and Density..................................................................... 45

Age Distribution........................................................................................ 46

Douglas-fir Seedlings................................................................................ 46

Meadow Composition.......................................................................................... 49

General Pattern......................................................................................... 49

Persido Bar.............................................................................................. 49

Karuk Use Plants.................................................................................................. 51

 

 

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................. 52

Site Descriptions................................................................................................... 52

Oak Bottom............................................................................................. 52

Grasshopper Flat...................................................................................... 53

Ishi Pishi................................................................................................... 54

Eyese Bar................................................................................................. 55

Persido Bar.............................................................................................. 57

Patterns Across Sites............................................................................................ 58

Forest Pattern Within Sites.................................................................................... 60

General Pattern......................................................................................... 60

Persido Bar.............................................................................................. 62

Meadow Composition.......................................................................................... 63

General Pattern......................................................................................... 63

Persido Bar.............................................................................................. 63

Karuk Use Plants.................................................................................................. 64

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 66

LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................. 81

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.   Cultural summary of Karuk plant utilization.  Compiled by Beals and Hester (1974) from Schenk and Gifford (1952)............................................................................................................... 3

Table 2.   Douglas-fir age classes...................................................................................... 14

Table 3.   Tree density (stems/ha), basal area (m²/ha), frequency (%), and importance values ((relative density + relative basal area + relative frequency)/3) at Oak Bottom with the standard error in parenthesis.       18

Table 4.   Forest composition in terms of tree dominance ((percent cover + relative frequency)/2) at Oak Bottom.          19

Table 5.   Douglas-fir ages in years at use sites. Standard error in parenthesis..................... 22

Table 6.   Density of  Douglas-fir seedlings per plot at use sites.  Standard error in parenthesis.   22

Table 7.   Overall shrub cover values at use sites.  Standard error in parenthesis................. 22

Table 8.   Frequency table report of Douglas-fir age classes at Oak Bottom....................... 23

Table 9.   Tree density (stems/ha), basal area (m²/ha), frequency (%), and importance values ((relative density + relative basal area + relative frequency)/3) at Grasshopper Flat with the standard error in parenthesis.            25

Table 10.  Forest composition in terms of tree dominance ((percent cover + relative frequency)/2) at Grasshopper Flat  26

Table 11. Frequency table report of Douglas-fir age classes at Grasshopper Flat................ 28

Table 12. Tree density (stems/ha), basal area (m²/ha), frequency (%), and importance values ((relative density + relative basal area + relative frequency)/3) at Ishi Pishi with the standard error in parenthesis. 29

Table 13. Forest composition in terms of tree dominance ((percent cover + relative frequency)/2) at Ishi Pishi.   30

Table 14. Frequency Table report of Douglas-fir age classes at Ishi Pishi............................ 32

Table 15. Tree density (stems/ha), basal area (m²/ha), frequency (%), and importance values ((relative density + relative basal area + relative frequency)/3) at Eyese Bar with the standard error in parenthesis.          33

LIST OF TABLES cont'd

Table 16. Forest composition in terms of dominance ((percent cover + relative frequency) /2) at Eyese Bar.       33

Table 17. Frequency table report of Douglas-fir age classes at Eyese Bar........................... 35

Table 18. Tree density (stems/ha), basal area (m²/ha), frequency (%), and importance values ((relative density + relative basal area + relative frequency)/3) at Persido Bar with the standard error in parenthesis.        36

Table 19. Forest composition in terms of dominance ((percent cover/ relative frequency/2) at Persido Bar.         37

Table 20. Frequency table report of Douglas-fir age classes at Persido Bar........................ 39

Table 21. Tree basal area (m²/ha) and tree density (stems/ha) by species within sites, with the standard error in parenthesis.  Means with the same letter are not significantly different (one-way ANOVA, p=0.05).          42

Table 22. Basal area (m²/ha) and density (stems/ha) by species at Persido Bar, with the standard error in parenthesis. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (one-way ANOVA, p=0.05)... 47

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.  Map of historic Karuk cultural use sites used in my study (Bell 1991).  Numbers indicate use site. 1= Oak Bottom, 2=Grasshopper Flat, 3=Ishi Pishi, 4= Eyese Bar, 5=Persido Bar............ 8

Figure 2.  Tanoak importance ((relative density + relative basal area + relative   frequency )/3) across sites.        41

Figure 3.  Age distribution of Douglas-fir across sites......................................................... 41

Figure 4.  General pattern of Douglas-fir ages across tiers of plots with standard error represented by bars.        43

Figure 5.  General pattern of Douglas-fir seedling density across tiers of plots with standard error represented by bars.   43

Figure 6.  Persido Bar Douglas-fir ages across tiers of plots with standard error represented by bars.     48

Figure 7.  Persido Bar Douglas-fir seedling density across tiers of plots with standard error represented by bars.            48

INTRODUCTION

The Karuk Indians have lived along the lower region of the Klamath River in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California for an unknown number of generations. Karuk villages once extended for a 150 km stretch just below Seiad Valley to fifteen kilometers below Bluff Creek (Bright 1978).  The Karuk currently inhabit some half a million hectares of ancestral homeland in northern California (Hillman and Salter 1997).  The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Klamath National Forest (Weigand et al. 1998) designates three Karuk Cultural Management Areas to be managed in consultation with Six Rivers and Klamath National Forest staffs.  The Karuk will make decisions about adaptive management within management areas as provided by an agreed Memorandum of Understanding  (Weigand et al. 1998). In this study, I characterize the current status of the vegetation in historic cultural sites of the Karuk and seek to provide a baseline of information that will help in making these management decisions.

The Karuk depended heavily upon salmon, however, the hunting of deer and elk and the gathering of plant material remained important for the Karuk.  Everything the Karuk needed or used in their secular and religious lives existed in their territorial limits (Bell 1991).  They made baskets, ropes, homes, and medicines with plants (Schenk and Gifford 1952, Davis and Hendryx 1991).  Shamans and doctors used a variety of plants for curing purposes.  Tobacco (Nicotiana quadrivalvis) was cultivated and used medicinally (Harrington 1932, Schenk and Gifford 1952, Baker 1981, Davis and Hendryx 1991).  Acorns of tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) were the major plant food,

along with the acorns of Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and deer oak (Quercus sadleriana) (Schenck and Gifford 1952, Davis and Hendryx 1991).  Some plants served multiple purposes.  For instance, the nuts of California hazel (Corylus cornuta) were eaten while the young shoots were prepared for baskets.  Also, madrone (Arbutus menzeisii) berries were eaten after steaming them and the wood was used as firewood in the ceremonial salmon cooking in the First Salmon ceremony (Schenck and Gifford 1952, Davis and Hendryx 1991).   Homes were constructed of incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) (Schenck and Gifford 1952, Baker 1981, Davis and Hendryx 1991). Table 1 summarizes Karuk plant use.

Photographs and descriptions suggest that forests encountered by Euro-Americans in the mid-nineteenth century consisted of open stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), tanoak, madrone, canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), and incense-cedar (Schenck and Gifford 1952, Baker 1981, Davis and Hendryx 1991).  The Karuk, largely through the use of frequent, low intensity burns had created this vegetation pattern to some degree (Hillman and Salter 1997). Fire was used to preserve or increase the spatial and temporal extent of grasslands,  woodlands, forests, and chaparral creating vegetation patterns that were rich with plant materials and game (Huntsinger and McCaffrey 1995). 

In a recent fire history research on the Klamath National Forest, Wills and Stuart (1994) concluded that

“…the pre-settlement landscape was probably exceptionally patchy containing complex mosaics of different age and size Douglas-fir  dominated stands”

 

Table 1. Cultural summary of Karuk plant utilization.  Compiled by Beals and Hester (1974) from Schenk and Gifford (1952).