• ABBREVIATION
• SYNONYMS
• NRCS PLANT CODE
• COMMON NAMES
• TAXONOMY
• LIFE FORM
• FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS
• OTHER STATUS
• AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION

ABBREVIATION:

ACHNEL

SYNONYMS:

Stipa columbiana Macoun [10,25]
Stipa nelsonii Scribn. [23]
Stipa occidentalis Thurb. var. minor (Vasey) Hitchcoc. [22]
     = A. n. ssp. dorei [2]
Stipa columbiana var. nelsonii (Scribn.) St. John [10,54]

NRCS PLANT CODE:

ACNE9
ACNED
ACNEN2

COMMON NAMES:

Columbia needlegrass
subalpine needlegrass
western needlegrass

TAXONOMY:

The scientific name of Columbia needlegrass is Achnathrum nelsonii (Scribn.) Barkworth (Poaceae) [3,20,60]. Recognized subspecies are:

Achnathrum nelsonii ssp. dorei (Barkworth & J. Maze) Barkworth, Dore's needlegrass [3,20]   
Achnathrum nelsonii ssp. longiaristatum (Barkworth & J. R. Maze) Barkworth [3]
Achnathrum nelsonii ssp. nelsonii, Columbia or William's needlegrass [3,54]   

LIFE FORM:

Graminoid

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

NO-ENTRY

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Zouhar, Kristin L. (2000, May). Achnatherum nelsonii. In: Remainder of Citation

• GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
• ECOSYSTEMS
• STATES
• BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
• KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS
• SAF COVER TYPES
• SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES
• HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Columbia needlegrass grows throughout most of the West. It occurs from the Yukon and British Columbia east to western South Dakota, south to western Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and west to northern and eastern California, with the central Rocky Mountains as its center of distribution [10,53,21]. Dore's needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii ssp. dorei) does not occur in Nevada or Utah, and does occur in Texas [54]. Achnatherum nelsonii ssp. nelsonii is not found in Texas.

ECOSYSTEMS [16]:

FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands

STATES:

AZ	CA	CO	ID	MT
NV	NM	ND	OR	SD
TX	UT	WA	WY

AB

BC

MB

SK

YK

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [4]:

4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS [27]:

K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodlands
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K050 Fescue-wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass

SAF COVER TYPES [14]:

206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
217 Aspen
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
256 California mixed subalpine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [44]:

102 Idaho fescue
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
108 Alpine Idaho fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
216 Montane meadows
304 Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
305 Idaho fescue-Richardson needlegrass
306 Idaho fescue-slender wheatgrass
312 Rough fescue-Idaho fescue
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue
322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
409 Tall forb
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
607 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
613 Fescue grassland

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

• WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE
• IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
• PALATABILITY
• NUTRITIONAL VALUE
• COVER VALUE
• VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
• OTHER USES AND VALUES
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE:

N/A

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Columbia needlegrass provides valuable forage for many species of wildlife and all classes of livestock. Overall production is generally low in the upper sagebrush and mountain brush zones and at the limits of its range where Columbia needlegrass grows only in scattered patches [55,53]. It is usually more productive in open aspen and conifer sites, and in sub-alpine grasslands of the central Rocky Mountains, where it is especially valuable to cattle and horses on summer ranges [55] and to domestic sheep on lambing grounds [53]. It is more often cropped closely by cattle and horses than by sheep [53]. It has been found to make up a large portion of domestic sheep diets in the spring in a desert-forest fringe area of Oregon [56]. It is also consumed by mule deer [56,46] and other wildlife species throughout the growing season [55]. Needlegrasses are a significant component in the diet of pocket gophers [59].

Most needlegrasses cure well on the ground and can be used during the fall and winter [53]. The awns and/or callus of many species of needlegrasses can, however, cause injury to grazing animals. The pointed callus of Columbia needlegrass sometimes works into the mouths and ears of livestock [48]. Because of this, Columbia needlegrass is often avoided from the time of seed maturation until the ripe seed falls to the ground and can therefore withstand heavy grazing by domestic sheep in the central Rockies [55].

PALATABILITY:

Columbia needlegrass is palatable to many species of wildlife and livestock throughout its range. As with most needlegrasses, it is most palatable early in the season before the foliage becomes coarse and wiry [53]. Palatability to cows and horses is increased because large amounts of fine leafage remain green throughout the gowing season [53,40]. Palatability of Columbia needlegrass is described as "fair to good" for cattle and horses, and "fair" for wildlife overall, becoming nearly unpalatable at maturity [48]. The degree of use by livestock and wildlife species for Columbia needlegrass in several western states is [12]:

    


                       CO       MT       ND       UT       WY
Cattle                Good     Good     Good     Good     Good
Sheep                 Fair     Fair     ----     Fair     Good
Horses                Good     Good     ----     Good     Good
Pronghorn             ----     ----     ----     Fair     Fair
Elk                   ----     ----     ----     Good     Good
Mule deer             ----     Good     ----     Fair     ----
White-tailed deer     ----     ----     ----     ----     Good
Small mammals         ----     ----     ----     Fair     Good
Small nongame birds   ----     ----     ----     Fair     Good
Upland game birds     ----     ----     ----     Fair     Good
Waterfowl             ----     ----     ----     Poor     Poor

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

NO-ENTRY

COVER VALUE:

Columbia needlegrass provides some cover for small birds and mammals. The degree to which Columbia needlegrass provides environmental protection during one or more seasons for wildife species is as follows [12]:

  

                      MT       UT       WY

Small mammals        Fair     Good     Good
Small nongame birds  Fair     Fair     Good
Upland game birds    Fair     Fair     Fair
Waterfowl            Good     Poor     Poor

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Mc Arthur and others [30] suggest using Columbia needlegrass for reseeding disturbed meadow sites currently occupied by extensive stands of smooth brome (Bromus inermis) in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Kay and others [24] note that the geniculate, twisted awn and sharp-pointed callus of Columbia needlegrass make harvesting and processing of seed difficult and planting next to impossible with conventional equipment. Seeds and planting guidelines are available through Davenport [11].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

NO-ENTRY

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Most grazing animals avoid mature Columbia needlegrass because of its sharply pointed callus [48]. Consequently, Columbia needlegrass generally reproduces well in grazed areas, particularly where domestic sheep are present [40] and is listed as an increaser on some sites [31]. On severely overgrazed ranges Columbia needlegrass may be one of the last palatable species to disappear and one of the first to come back when range conditions improve [53]. For example, the dominance of Columbia needlegrass in subalpine rangelands of eastern Oregon and Washington is considered an indicator of past overgrazing [62]. This species increases on many ranges where bluegrasses (Poa spp.) and wheatgrasses (Triticeae) have been removed by overgrazing [18], and is considered a valuable replacement plant under these conditions [53].

Ellison [13] notes that Columbia needlegrass is unaffected by moderate grazing, but disappears under heavy grazing. Columbia needlegrass can be damaged when grazed during drought periods or when it grows as the most palatable species in scattered stands [55]. For example, in parts of the Southwest where it occurs with less palatable grasses, Columbia needlegrass is frequently grazed so closely that seeds cannot mature. Potter and Krenetsky [37] observed a greater increase in coverage of grasses, including Columbia needlegrass, in plots protected from grazing than in grazed plots in an upper ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest at 9400 ft (2870 m) in New Mexico. Leege and others [29] report that Columbia needlegrass consistently declines in abundance with grazing in the mountain meadows of north-central Idaho. Similarly, Columbia needlegrass was found only on undisturbed subalpine sites in a Wyoming study [52], and Rummell [39] found it present only on undisturbed sites in a ponderosa pine forest in central Washington.

• GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM
• REGENERATION PROCESSES
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• SUCCESSIONAL STATUS
• SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Columbia needlegrass is a native, cool-season, perennial bunchgrass that grows in dense, leafy tufts [48]. It is long-lived and drought tolerant, with a slow to moderate seedling growth rate and medium herbage volume [19]. Culms are erect, 1-3.3 ft (0.3-1 m) tall, and stout. Leaves are narrow and mostly basal. Much of the foliage remains green throughout the growing season [53].

Panicles are 2.8-11.8 in (7-30 cm) long, narrow and dense, borne on short, appressed branches [48]. Spikelets are one-flowered, 0.2-0.3 in (5-7 mm) long; callus is pointed and sharp when mature; awns are 0.7-1.3 in (1.8-3.3 cm) long [48].

Roots are deep and fibrous, frequently extending vertically more than 3 feet (0.9 m) [45,53].

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:

Hemicryptophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Columbia needlegrass reproduces by seed and by tillers [48]. Stubbendieck and others [48] provide the only mention of tillers in the literature. Tisdale and Hironaka [51] state that reproduction is entirely by seed in needlegrasses. Seed is typically produced in abundance and ripens during the late summer and early fall [40,51]. The sharp, pointed callus and awns aid in seed dispersal by ready attachhment to coats of animals [51]. Columbia needlegrass may regrow in the fall with adequate moisture [48]. Because of the sharp pointed callus, Columbia needlegrass is avoided from the time of seed maturation until the ripe seed falls to the ground. This morphological adaptation promotes stand replenishment [48].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Columbia needlegrass prefers well-drained, fine-textured soils with clay loam to sandy loam surface texture [19]. It has low fertility requirements and good heat tolerance, does well on shallow soils, is moderately tolerant of salinity, and can form a good ground cover on dry, rocky, infertile sites [19].

Columbia needlegrass grows on a wide variety of middle and upper elevation sites [21]. It occurs in dry plains, meadows and open woods in foothills and mountains [48] from the upper sagebrush zone to subalpine sites [53].

This species typically occurs as scattered individuals in uppermost elevations and moist sites of sagebrush [51] and mountain-brush zones [6], but is prominent in denser stands in the open parkland and drier sites of subalpine zones [55]. It also grows in extensive stands in the central Rockies but more often grows as scattered plants at the northern and southern edges of its range [53].

Columbia needlegrass is important at medium and high altitudes [21] and appears at the following elevations [25,40,50,28,55]:

State      

Elevation in feet

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Columbia needlegrass is a climax species in many sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities [15,26,28,49,50]. It has also been found to be a successional species after fire in higher elevation vegetation zones in New Mexico, and has been observed in recently burned areas [26].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Columbia needlegrass begins growth in early spring. In sagebrush communities, seed ripens and disseminates in early and late July, respectively [51]. In the Sierra Nevada of California, seed generally ripens in August and September [40]. Foliage remains green throughout a long growing season and occasionally remains green until snow falls [53].

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Perennial needlegrasses tend to be among the least fire resistant bunchgrasses [63,64] due, in part, to their densely tufted stems [66]. Columbia needlegrass is, however, only slightly to moderately damaged by fire [64], probably because it has relatively few culms per clump which may help to minimize the amount of subsurface heat transfer and subsequent damage.

The Colorado pinyon-oneseed juniper/Columbia needlegrass habitat type in the Lincoln National Forest of New Mexico may be maintained by relatively frequent, low-severity, surface fires [26]. Here Columbia needlegrass is not only a climax species, but it is also observed in areas with fairly recent burns.

Fire regimes for plant communities in which Columbia needlegrass occurs are summarized below. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities where Columbia needlegrass is found, see the Fire Ecology and Adaptations section of hte FEIS species summary for the plant community or ecosystem doninants.

Community or Ecosystem	Dominant Species	Fire Return Interval Range in Years
basin big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata	12-43 [41]
mountain big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana	5-15 [65]
Wyoming big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis	10-70 (40)** [65,57]
California montane chaparral	Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp.	50-100 [8]
Rocky Mountain juniper	Juniperus scopulorum	< 35 [8]
pinyon-juniper	Pinus-Juniperus spp.	< 35 [8]
Colorado pinyon	Pinus edulis	10-49 [8]
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine*	Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum	2-10 [8]
quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains)	Populus tremuloides	7-120 [8,32,17]
mountain grasslands	Pseudoroegneria spicata	3-40 (10)** [1]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir*	Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca	25-100 [8]

*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary
**(mean)

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [47]:

Tussock graminoid
Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)

• IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT
• PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE
• FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Columbia needlegrass is generally top-killed by fire. In some instances, particularly with severe fires, soil heating caused by combustion of fine leaves at the soil surface further damages the plant. Researchers classify Columbia needlegrass as slightly to moderately damaged by fire [64].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

Specific fire effects depend on the season of burn, phenology, plant size, and fire severity. Season of burn is of primary importance in determining the effects of fire on some needlegrasses [63]. The related species, needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), which begins growth in the early spring, is most seriously injured by midsummer fires and less seriously damaged by late spring or fall burns [58]. Columbia needlegrass also begins growth during the early spring and a similar seasonal fire damage pattern is possible though not documented.

The effects of fire on bunch grasses are related to culm density, culm-leaf morphology, and size of the bunch. Densely clustered, leafy culms may burn long after passage of the flaming front [66]. Columbia needlegrass has relatively few culms per clump which may help to minimize the amount of subsurface heat transfer and subsequent damage. Wright and others [64] classify Columbia needlegrass and western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale) as slightly susceptible to damage by fire in sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, whereas needle-and-thread and Thurber needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberiana) are likely to be severely damaged by the fire. This difference appears to be related to the different amounts of dead material per unit basal area between species [7].

Large plants of needlegrass species are more susceptible to fire-caused damage than are smaller plants [64]. Basal area reduction has been noted in all size classes of needlegrasses, with large plants being most severely damaged [66]. With needlegrasses in general, plant size becomes an increasingly important determinant of fire damage late in the summer [63].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Columbia needlegrass is slightly to moderately damaged by fire [36] and has a moderate to rapid (2-10 years) postburn "recovery time" [66]. When the plant is only top-killed, regrowth can begin as early as the first post-burn season [67]. Increases in basal diameter [67], height [67], and dry weight production [33,5] have been recorded following burning. Because Columbia needlegrass does not spread by rootstocks and must await production of seeds, the number of individual plants increases slowly after burning [36].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

The postfire response of Columbia needlegrass varies with season and intensity of burn, size of plants, and proximity to other fuels.

Fall prescribed burning seemed to stimulate seed production in Columbia needlegrass (number of seeds per plant) in a sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) grassland site [35]. Columbia needlegrasses had more inflorescences per plant and more florets per inflorescence contributing to greater seed production on plants in the 2-year-old burn than on adjacent unburned areas [35]. According to Mueggler and Blaisdell [33], an August prescribed burn to control big sagebrush appeared to benefit Columbia needlegrass in southern Idaho. Response following a variety of treatments was as follows:

Air-dry (lbs/acre) herbage production 3 years after treatment

  Untreated Control     August Burn      Sprayed   
          51                123            138       
		  

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Removal of competing sagebrush through prescribed burning may enhance survival of Columbia needlegrass, unless plants are in close proximity to shrubby fuels [67]. Abundant precipitation after fire may significantly aid recovery of Columbia needlegrass [67]. Pechanec [36] suggests waiting 10 days after seeds of perennial grasses are ripe and scattered before burning.

Achnatherum nelsonii: References

1. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990]

2. Barkworth, Mary E.; Maze, Jack. 1982. The identity of Stipa columbiana Macoun and S. viridula var. minor Vasey (Gramineae, Stipeae): a rebuttal. Taxon. 31(2): 290-299. [30517]

3. Barkworth, Mary. 1993. North American Stipeae (Gramineae): taxonomic changes and other comments. Phytologia. 74(1): 1-25. [29158]

4. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

5. Blaisdell, James P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the Upper Snake River Plains. Tech. Bull. 1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 39 p. [462]

6. Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climatic factors. Tech. Bull. 1190. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 68 p. [463]

7. Britton, Carlton M.; Ralphs, Michael H. 1979. Use of fire as a management tool in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources. 101-109. [518]

8. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [33874]

9. Cottam, Walter P.; Evans, Frederick R. 1945. A comparative study of the vegetation of grazed and ungrazed canyons of the Wasatch Range, Utah. Ecology. 26(2): 171-181. [695]

10. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6. The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]

11. Davenport Seed Corporation. 1997. Rainier Seed., Inc. [Catalog]. Davenport, WA: Davenport Seed Corporation. 20 p. [27624]

12. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]

13. Ellison, Lincoln. 1954. Subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau, Utah. Ecological Monographs. 24: 89-184. [861]

14. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

15. Francis, Richard E. 1983. Sagebrush-steppe habitat types in northern Colorado: a first approximation. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Abluquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 67-71. [955]

16. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

17. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [3862]

18. Hassell, Wendell G.; Barker, Reed E. 1985. Relationships and potential development of selected needlegrasses and ricegrasses for western North American rangelands. In: Carlson, Jack R.; McArthur, E. Durant, chairmen. Range plant improvement in western North America: Proceedings of a symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985 February 14; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 14-19. [4382]

19. Hassell, Wendell G.; Carlson, Jack; Doughty, Jim. 1983. Grasses for revegetation of mountain sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range & wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-101. [1105]

20. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

21. Hitchcock, A. S. 1951. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Misc. Publ. No. 200. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration. 1051 p. [2nd edition revised by Agnes Chase in two volumes. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.]. [1165]

22. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]

23. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

24. Kay, Burgess L.; Love, R. Morton; Slayback, Robert D. 1981. Discussion: revegetation with native grasses. I. A disappointing history. Fremontia. 9(3): 11-14. [28356]

25. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]

26. Kennedy, Kathryn L. 1983. A habitat type classification of the pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 54-61. [1332]

27. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

28. Larson, Milo; Moir, W. H. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of northern New Mexico and northern Arizona. 2d ed. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 90 p. [8947]

29. Leege, Thomas A.; Herman, Daryl J.; Zamora, Benjamin. 1981. Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 34(4): 324-328. [2961]

30. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Monsen, Stephen B.; Sanderson, Stewart C. 1995. Plant inventory, succession, and reclamation alternatives on disturbed lands in Grand Teton National Park. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Halllley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K, compilers. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 343-358. [24866]

31. McLean, Alastair; Marchand, Leonard. 1968. Grassland ranges in the southern interior of British Columbia. Publication 1319. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture, Division. 18 p. [1622]

32. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [26669]

33. Mueggler, Walter F.; Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Effects on associated species of burning, rotobeating, spraying, and railing sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 11: 61-66. [1712]

34. Pase, Charles E.; Thilenius, John F. 1968. Composition, production, and site factors of some grasslands in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Res. Note RM-103. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [5744]

35. Patton, Bob D.; Hironaka, M.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1988. Effect of burning on seed production of bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and Columbia needlegrass. Journal of Range Management. 41(3): 232-234. [5234]

36. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Blaisdell, James P. 1954. Sagebrush burning good and bad. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [1859]

37. Potter, Loren D.; Krenetsky, John C. 1967. Plant succession with released grazing on New Mexico range lands. Journal of Range Management. 20: 145-151. [5129]

38. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

39. Rummell, Robert S. 1951. Some effects of livestock grazing on ponderosa pine forest and range in central Washington. Ecology. 32(4): 594-607. [16338]

40. Sampson, Arthur W.; Chase, Agnes; Hedrick, Donald W. 1951. California grasslands and range forage grasses. Bull. 724. Berkeley, CA: University of California College of Agriculture, California Agricultural Experiment Station. 125 p. [2052]

41. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579]

42. Schwarz, A. G.; Wein, Ross W. 1997. Threatened dry grasslands in the continental boreal forests of Wood Buffalo National Park. Canandian Journal of Botany. 75: 1363-1370. [28005]

43. Schwarz, A. G.; Wein, Ross W. 1999. Dry grasslands in Wood Buffalo National Park: reply. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(7): 918-921. [33077]

44. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

45. Smith, Edwin Lamar, Jr. 1966. Soil-vegetation relationships of some Artemisia types in North Park, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 203 p. Dissertation. [2171]

46. Smith, Justin G. 1952. Food habits of mule deer in Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 16(2): 148-154. [2174]

47. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]

48. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

49. Stuever, Mary C.; Hayden, John S. 1996. Plant associations (habitat types) of the forests and woodlands of Arizona and New Mexico. Final report submitted to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Contract R3-95-27. Placitas, NM: Seldom Seen Expeditions, Inc. 520 p. [28868]

50. Tiedeman, James A.; Francis, Richard E.; Terwilliger, Charles, Jr.; Carpenter, Len H. 1987. Shrub-steppe habitat types of Middle Park, Colorado. Res. Pap. RM-273. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2329]

51. Tisdale, E. W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [2344]

52. Turner, George T.; Paulsen, Harold A., Jr. 1976. Management of mountain grasslands in the Central Rockies: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-161. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [2372]

53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]

54. U.S.Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2000. The PLANTS database. (1999).(Online). Available: http://plants.usda.gov/plants/intellect.html [2000, March 14]. [34260]

55. Vallentine, John F. 1961. Important Utah range grasses. Extension Circular 281. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 48 p. [2937]

56. Vavra, M.; Sneva, F. A. 1979. Diets of grazing animals using common range in eastern Oregon. In: 1979 Progress report...research in rangeland management. Special Report 549. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: 25-29. In cooperation with: USDA, Agricultural Research--SEA. [2744]

57. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco Area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]

58. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]

59. Ward, A. Lorin; Keith, James O. 1962. Feeding habits of pocket gophers on mountain grasslands, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology. 43(4): 744-749; 1962. [2453]

60. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]

61. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

62. Willard, E. Earl. 1990. Use and impact of domestic livestock in whitebark pine forests. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings-symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 201-207. [11687]

63. Wright, Henry A.; Klemmedson, James O. 1965. Effect of fire on bunchgrasses of the sagebrush-grass region in southern Idaho. Ecology. 46(5): 680-688. [2624]

64. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]

65. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]

66. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681]

67. Zschaechner, Greg A. 1985. Studying rangeland fire effects: a case study in Nevada. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment, Idaho State Office: 66-84. [2692]

Related categories for SPECIES: Achnatherum nelsonii | Columbia Needlegrass