| | |
 |
|
| 
| ||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants |
|
|||
|
INTRODUCTORY
ABBREVIATION:CEAVEL SYNONYMS:Ceanothus velutinus var. laevigatus (Hook) T. & G. [129] = Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri M.C. Johnston [142] NRCS PLANT CODE [273]:CEVE CEVEH2 CEVEV4 COMMON NAMES:snowbrush ceanothus shiny-leaf ceanothus tobacco brush TAXONOMY:The currently accepted name of snowbrush ceanothus is Ceanothus velutinus Dougl. ex Hook. (Rhamnaceae) [70,82,142,284,285]. Infrataxa are as follows: Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri M.C. Johnston [127,142] Ceanothus velutinus var. velutinus [70,127,129,142] Ceanothus × lorenzenii (Jepson) McMinn is a cross between snowbrush ceanothus and mountain whitethorn (C. cordulatus) [142]. LIFE FORM:Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:No special status OTHER STATUS:No entry AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:Anderson, Michelle D. (2001, November). Ceanothus velutinus. In: Remainder of citation DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
Snowbrush ceanothus occurs from British Columbia and Alberta south to California, Utah, and Colorado [70,127,142,197,285] and as far east as South Dakota [142,197,285]. The PLANTS database provides a distributional map of snowbrush ceanothus. Distribution of snowbrush ceanothus may be influenced locally by frost patterns and the presence of insulating snow cover during the winter [116,197]. Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri grows on the west side of
the Cascade Range from northern California to British Columbia [129]. Ceanothus
velutinus var. velutinus is widespread and occurs form British Columbia through
California and Nevada east of the Cascades to South Dakota and Colorado
[63,129].
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [25]: 2 Cascade Mountains 4 Sierra Mountains 5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 8 Northern Rocky Mountains 9 Middle Rocky Mountains 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 15 Black Hills Uplift KUCHLER [151] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS: K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest K004 Fir-hemlock forest K005 Mixed conifer forest K006 Redwood forest K007 Red fir forest K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest K010 Ponderosa shrub forest K011 Western ponderosa forest K012 Douglas-fir forest K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest K015 Western spruce-fir forest K016 Eastern ponderosa forest K017 Black Hills pine forest K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest K022 Great Basin pine forest K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland K024 Juniper steppe woodland K026 Oregon oakwoods K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026 K029 California mixed evergreen forest K030 California oakwoods K032 Transition between K031 and K037 K033 Chaparral K034 Montane chaparral K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035 K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub K038 Great Basin sagebrush K050 Fescue-wheatgrass K055 Sagebrush steppe K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe SAF COVER TYPES [86]: 205 Mountain hemlock 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 207 Red fir 210 Interior Douglas-fir 211 White fir 212 Western larch 213 Grand fir 215 Western white pine 216 Blue spruce 217 Aspen 218 Lodgepole pine 219 Limber pine 220 Rocky Mountain juniper 224 Western hemlock 225 Western hemlock-Sitka spruce 226 Coastal true fir-hemlock 227 Western redcedar-western hemlock 228 Western redcedar 229 Pacific Douglas-fir 230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock 231 Port-Orford-cedar 232 Redwood 233 Oregon white oak 234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone 237 Interior ponderosa pine 238 Western juniper 239 Pinyon-juniper 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer 244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir 245 Pacific ponderosa pine 246 California black oak 247 Jeffrey pine 249 Canyon live oak 250 Blue oak-foothills pine 256 California mixed subalpine SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [235]: 104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue 107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 109 Ponderosa pine shrubland 110 Ponderosa pine-grassland 201 Blue oak woodland 206 Chamise chaparral 207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral 208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral 209 Montane shrubland 210 Bitterbrush 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 320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue 322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass 401 Basin big sagebrush 402 Mountain big sagebrush 403 Wyoming big sagebrush 411 Aspen woodland 412 Juniper-pinyon woodland 413 Gambel oak 415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany 416 True mountain-mahogany 417 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany 418 Bigtooth maple 419 Bittercherry 420 Snowbrush 421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES: Plant Communities and Associates: Snowbrush ceanothus is common in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) communities [53,80,174,191,203,275,276,285,291]. Plant associates in these communities include bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) [19,53,114,191,203,276,291], willow (Salix spp.), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) [291], rose (Rosa spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.) [174,291], quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) [174], giant chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), prince's pine (Chimaphila umbellata) [20,203], Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) [53], curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) [114], manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.) [19,53,191,203,276], bittercherry (Prunus emarginata), white spirea (Spiraea betulifolia), redstem ceanothus (Ceanothus sanguineus) [291], Ross' sedge (Carex rossii) [19], Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) [114,276], and western needlegrass [191,276] In the intermountain ponderosa pine region, snowbrush ceanothus forms extensive shrubfields with bush chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), ninebark, and willows [105]. In lodgepole pine communities (Pinus contorta) [226,276,285], snowbrush ceanothus occurs with ponderosa pine [226,276], white fir (Abies concolor) [276], white spruce (Picea glauca), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), common juniper (Juniperus communis), quaking aspen, bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), rose, red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium) [226], greenleaf manzanita, pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), and bitterbrush [276] In Douglas-fir forests (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [80,124], snowbrush ceanothus occurs with lodgepole pine, grand fir (Abies grandis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) [4], vine maple (Acer circinatum) [93], ninebark [11], Oregon boxwood (Paxistima myrsinites) [4,93,124], bearberry [4,93], mountain snowberry, chokecherry, currant, big sagebrush, Rocky Mountain maple, mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), common snowberry [65,210], willow [65,124], Oregon-grape, Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), white spirea [65], big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), dwarf Oregon-grape (Berberis nervosa), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) [93]. In mixed conifer communities [130,145,275], snowbrush ceanothus occurs with sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) [76,145], ponderosa pine [24,76,130,145,275], lodgepole pine [24,275], Douglas-fir [24,76,130], incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), white fir [76,130,145], grand fir [24,145], western hemlock, western redcedar, California red fir (Abies magnifica), tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) [145]. Understory associates include willow [24,76], Oregon boxwood [130], bitterbrush, needlegrass (Achnatherum spp.), sedge (Carex spp.) [275], common snowberry [76], bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) [130], manzanita [76,145,275], chinquapin [76,130,145,275], bittercherry, deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus), mountain whitethorn (C. cordulatus) [145], mahala mat (C. prostratus) [76,145], redstem ceanothus, and pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens) [24]. Snowbrush ceanothus occurs in white fir-California red fir forests [5,88] with ponderosa pine [88,122], Jeffrey pine [122], bush chinquapin [88], greenleaf manzanita [88,122], mahala mat [5,122], snowberry [5], rubber rabbitbrush, and wax currant (Ribes cereum) [122]. Snowbrush ceanothus occurs in Jeffrey pine-white fir forests [14,34,35] with sugar pine [34], lodgepole pine [34,35], golden currant (Ribes aureum), incense-cedar [34], mahala mat, bush chinquapin, greenleaf manzanita [34,35], wax currant, and bittercherry [35]. Snowbrush ceanothus is a common or dominant component in seral shrubfields of the northern Rockies [21,208,237]. Plant associates in these communities include Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), Rocky Mountain maple, Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) [21,51,120,166,208], currant (Ribes spp.), mountain whitethorn [170], redstem ceanothus [21,51,208], Oregon boxwood [21,51,120,208], red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), russet buffaloberry [237], white spirea, common snowberry [21,208], menziesia [21], ninebark [21,51,166,208], thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), bittercherry [120,208], oceanspray [51,208], Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), big huckleberry, and Utah honeysuckle (Lonicera utahensis) [208]. Snowbrush ceanothus may comprise up to 80% of the shrub volume in these communities [51]. In quaking aspen communities [16,49,50,134,285], snowbrush ceanothus occurs with chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), mountain snowberry [49,50], serviceberry, and Oregon boxwood [49,50,134]. In pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp.-Juniperus spp.) woodlands [80,147], snowbrush ceanothus occurs with serviceberry, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), rubber rabbitbrush, green rabbitbrush (C. viscidiflorus), green ephedra (Ephedra viridis), bitterbrush, desert gooseberry (Ribes velutinum), blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea), and mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) [147]. In mountain brush communities [14,15,42,221,285], snowbrush ceanothus commonly occurs with Rocky Mountain maple [202], bigtooth maple [42], big sagebrush [15,42,221], black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) [42], bearberry [14,42], ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.) [42], serviceberry [15,42,42,44,202,221], Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia mexicana var. stansburiana) [42], bitterbrush [15,42], snowberry [15,42,44,202,221], Oregon boxwood [15], curlleaf mountain-mahogany [42,119], true mountain-mahogany [42], ninebark [15,221], rubber rabbitbrush [202], oaks (Quercus spp.) [42,202,221], New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana) [42], Wood's rose [202], currant [44,202], Prunus spp. [14,15,42,44,202,221], quaking aspen [44,202], and Idaho fescue [44]. In montane chaparral communities [36,119], snowbrush ceanothus commonly occurs with manzanita [31,36,60,119], bush chinquapin [31,36,60,119], ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.) [31,36,119], currant [44,202], curlleaf mountain-mahogany, rubber rabbitbrush [119], silktassel (Garrya spp.) [36], quaking aspen [44,202], oaks (Quercus spp.) [31,36,60], and Prunus spp. [36,60,119]. Common tree species that may be present in these communities include white fir, California red fir, sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and incense-cedar [36]. Plant Community Dominance: BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:Snowbrush ceanothus is a native [37,38] evergreen [70,72,127,129,197,284,285] shrub. It generally grows 2 to 9 feet tall (0.5-2.7 m) [37,64,70,72,127,135,154,197,242,285], though it may also reach heights of 12 to 13 feet (4 m) [77,240,271]. Plants are freely branching [70] or spreading [121,154,271,285] with several stems growing from the base [64]. The growth form is ascending-erect [127,252], forming a dense, round-topped bush [64,121,127,197,271,285]. Snowbrush ceanothus has a single large taproot and a deep, spreading root system [240]. The roots extend to depths of 6 to 8 feet (2-2.5 m) and extend laterally past the crown of the plant [63,71]. Root nodules are nitrogen fixing [38,72,73,121,154,197] and are formed by actinomycetes [38,73]. The leaves are alternate [70,285], 1 to 3 inches long [37,70,127,129,197,284,285], and 0.5 to 2 inches (1.5-5 cm) wide [70,82]. The inflorescence of snowbrush ceanothus is less than 5 inches (12 cm) long [70,127], and branched with many flowers [70,154,197]. The inflorescence is borne on axillary and terminal peduncles [70]. Fruit is shallowly 3-lobed [37,70,109,127,197,285], 0.12 to 0.16 inch (3-4 mm) thick [70,127,285], 0.27 inch (6 mm) across [197], and sticky [70,127]. Each lobe contains a single seed [197]. Seeds are about 0.1 inch (2.8 mm) long, 0.1 inch (2.3 mm) wide, and 0.08 inch (2.0 mm) thick [109]. Snowbrush ceanothus forms large, dense colonies [70,121,240]. Thickets may be up to 33 feet (10 m) wide and are often dense and impenetrable [121,261]. In general, the number of snowbrush ceanothus plants in an area decreases with age [303]. Though stands of snowbrush ceanothus may begin to deteriorate after 15 years [175,303], the natural life span of snowbrush ceanothus is greater than 25 years [94,175], and 50-year-old plants have been observed [59,63]. RAUNKIAER [220] LIFE FORM:Phanerophyte Geophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES:Snowbrush ceanothus spreads by seed and vegetatively by sprouting and layering [31,121]. Breeding system: No information Pollination: | Snowbrush Ceanothus No information Seed production: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Snowbrush ceanothus produces abundant seed crops [240]. It 1st produces seed at about 3 to 6 years of age [63,263], and continues producing until past age 20 [263]. Sprouts can produce prolific seed crops 8 years after top-kill [63]. Snowbrush ceanothus in Oregon produced up to 100,000 seeds per acre (250,000 seeds/hectare) [109]. Seed dispersal: When Ceanothus seeds ripen, they are forcibly ejected from the pods [63,144]. The heavy snowbrush ceanothus seeds generally stay where they fall, gradually filtering into the duff and soil unless they are carried off by small animals [63,75,144,149,243,271,295]. Seed banking: Snowbrush ceanothus seed is stored in the soil [40,148,154] for up to 200 years [154], and can regenerate from seed stored in the soil for up to "several centuries" [21,63,91,109,143]. In British Columbia, germination of soil-stored seed occurred following fire on sites where snowbrush ceanothus had been excluded at least 200 years [293]. Counts made on tree stumps indicated that the intermission between 2 generations of snowbrush ceanothus might be as long as 575 years [301,303]. Snowbrush ceanothus contributed 25% of the seeds found in soil samples taken from central Idaho Douglas-fir and grand fir habitat types [149]. Snowbrush ceanothus seeds are less successfully stored in wet soils [245]. Germination: Snowbrush ceanothus has a very hard, impermeable seedcoat that must be cracked, abraded, or exposed to heat in order for germination to occur [79,109,123,144,148,163,197,293,303]. Though exposure to heat is most effective in promoting germination, other disturbance (e.g. timber harvest) may stimulate snowbrush ceanothus germination by abrading the seedcoat [303]. Germination is improved by stratification [109,197]. Heating or breaking the seed coat allows the seeds to imbibe water and swell, but germination is unlikely if seeds are not exposed to cold stratification [109,123,144,197,218,219]. The mechanism for fire-induced germination in snowbrush ceanothus is a heat-induced, irreversible cracking of the hylar fissure in the seedcoat, which allows water to enter the seed and physiological processes to begin [22,109]. Temperatures of 176 to 203 degrees Fahrenheit (80-95 oC) are optimal to break the seedcoat [109,163]. Snowbrush ceanothus seeds may also germinate without high temperatures (e.g. on unburned sites), but snowbrush ceanothus stands develop more rapidly and more completely following heat exposure (burned sites) [63,109,288]. In a study conducted in Douglas-fir and grand fir habitat types, snowbrush ceanothus seeds found in the soil were 91% viable [148]. Seedling establishment/growth: Although large numbers of seeds typically germinate after fire, snowbrush ceanothus may experience high early mortality [63]. In general, snowbrush ceanothus is a slow-growing species [301,303]. Height growth of seedlings is slow for 3-5 years and then is rapid until about 10 years when it begins to level off [63,189]. Zavitovski [303] found that after 5 years, snowbrush ceanothus may be less than 3 feet (1 m) tall, but doubles its height in the next 5 years. Then height growth slows, gaining only 1.5 feet (0.5 m) in the following 5 years [303]. A typical snowbrush ceanothus stand in Oregon or California reaches 2 to 8 feet after 10 years; stand height may sometimes decrease between age 15 and 50 as older stems die back [63]. Asexual regeneration: Snowbrush ceanothus sprouts from the root crown [138,139] following damage to stems and/or top removal [30,31,63,121,162,178,238]. Sprout growth of 20 to 25 inches (51-65 cm) after 1 year, and growth of 3 to 7 feet (1.0-2.1 m) after 5 years has been observed. The ability to sprout may be a function of age and vigor of the plant when it is damaged. In 1 Cascade Range study, the percentage of sprouting plants decreased from 100% for 5-year-old plants to 50% for 11-year-old plants [63]. However, vigorous sprouting followed the cutting of 35- to 50-year-old snowbrush ceanothus in the Sierra Nevada [59,63]. Snowbrush ceanothus may increase in density by layering. Layering results when stems are forced close to the ground, bringing them in contact with the soil and allowing the branches to root [31]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS:Thickets of snowbrush ceanothus often occupy open rocky hillsides and partially shaded forests [37]. Plants are often found on moderately dry to moderately moist mountain slopes [70,130,132,136,154,197,209,240] and on steep canyon slopes [284]. Though found on all aspects [198,207,217,240,300], snowbrush ceanothus may be more likely to occur on south aspects [132,136,154,199,266], followed by west [132,136,154] and east slopes [207,217]. In the western redcedar-western hemlock zone of northern Idaho, frequency and percent cover of snowbrush ceanothus were significantly greater (p<0.01) on south aspects than on north aspects [198]. Though snowbrush ceanothus occurs on moist as well as relatively dry sites, it is more likely to dominate the vegetation on mesic sites [135,144,238]. Elevation: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Snowbrush ceanothus has a wide elevational distribution [240], extending from near sea level to high mountains [271]. It generally occurs at higher elevations on south-facing slopes than on north-facing slopes [5,14]. Elevation ranges for different areas of snowbrush ceanothus distribution are as follows:
Climate: | Snowbrush Ceanothus In the Pacific Northwest, winters are moderately cold and relatively wet, with precipitation generally occurring from November to May. Annual precipitation at sites with snowbrush ceanothus in this region has been reported at 18 to 23 inches (460-580 mm) [26,124]. Summers are warm and dry [26]. In California, annual precipitation may range from 40 to 60 inches (1020-1520 mm) [104,176]. In Montana and Idaho, annual precipitation ranges from 27 to 45 inches (690-1140 mm) [51,158]. In Utah, the moisture requirement of snowbrush ceanothus is 16 to 20 inches (410-510 mm) [209]. In Idaho, the growing season lasts from 70 to 90 days [51]. Snowbrush ceanothus has good winter hardiness, though it may be subject to winter dieback on exposed sites [121]. It is damaged by low temperatures if not protected by snow cover [162,252,261]. Conversely, if snowbrush ceanothus crowns are not covered by snow, they are susceptible to winterkill if a relatively warm period (reducing winter hardiness) is followed by a sudden severe drop in temperature [252]. Soils: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Growth of snowbrush ceanothus is fair on gravelly, sandy, and clay loam soils and poor on dense clays [80]. It grows well on sandy loams, loams, and clay loams [80,130,176,208] and on poorly developed, loose or unstable soils [14,26]. Soil depths range from shallow soils with numerous rock outcrops to deposits of unconsolidated material many feet deep [26]. Although snowbrush ceanothus grows in almost any soil, it grows best in medium- to coarse-textured, well-drained soils 20 to 60+ inches (51-152+ cm) deep [37,130,198,208,240,261]. Soil nutrient content is generally low [121,162]. A soil pH of 5.5 to 7.0 is often found on snowbrush ceanothus sites [37,261]. Snowbrush ceanothus has medium tolerance for acid soils [121,271], and neutral to moderately alkaline soils can also produce good growth [37]. Snowbrush ceanothus is moderately drought tolerant [121,261]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:Snowbrush ceanothus has been described as moderately shade tolerant [121] to very intolerant [11,60,163,242]: It grows on open, sunny sites [70,127,132,136,154,176,209,240] and in wooded areas [82,127,135,176]. Though snowbrush ceanothus occurs as an understory species [124,173,198,249,278,286,293], it is soon shaded out with increasing development of tree cover [11,63,154,163,182,199,242,249,300]. Snowbrush ceanothus occurs on both undisturbed and disturbed sites, with snowbrush ceanothus canopy cover [19,63,95,182,198] and occurrence [23,136] increasing under more open site conditions. Under patchy tree canopies, snowbrush ceanothus may persist for 40 years or more after trees establish [249]. Snowbrush ceanothus is an early to mid-seral species [7,60,63,75,85,116,150,242,244,245,249,255,288]. It invades recently disturbed sites [1,58,63,68,74,99,118,121,292], particularly burned sites [52,75,85,116,140,240]. Snowbrush ceanothus is essentially absent in mature seral and old-growth stages, often becoming a stand component after fire [11,223,288]. In several Douglas-fir habitat types [11,91,102,256,304] and in ponderosa pine habitat types [6,272], snowbrush ceanothus is common in early seral stages (within 1-7 years) following disturbance. The Douglas-fir-snowbrush ceanothus community type is characteristic of habitats that have been recently (within the last 100 years) and repeatedly burned [93]. Snowbrush ceanothus also occurs in dense stands of montane chaparral following major disturbance [14], though it may be eliminated from the chaparral after 40 years [301]. For further information on postfire succession of snowbrush ceanothus, see "Plant Response to Fire" in the "Fire Effects" section of this summary. Snowbrush ceanothus can be described as a seral dominant, becoming common after major disturbances, especially fire [12,18,148,162,163,194,229]. Seral shrubfields, of which snowbrush ceanothus is a major component, result from repeated disturbance [21,57,71,71,103,137,170,172,208]. Snowbrush ceanothus may dominate this seral vegetation [57,63,68,104,120,125,168,172,182,237,299,304] and retard succession [63,104]. Douglas-fir: Snowbrush ceanothus is generally considered an important early to mid-seral species in most Douglas-fir forests of the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. However, in some locations Douglas-fir forests are sufficiently open to allow snowbrush ceanothus to become a persistent, if not permanent, member of the community. It occurs as a climax dominant in some open Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Oregon and in eastern Montana habitat types on decomposed granitic substrates [63]. In Douglas-fir forests of the western Cascades, snowbrush ceanothus generally dominates the middle or tall shrub phase of succession from years 5 through 10 [115]. Here it replaces initial weedy annual, biennial, and short-statured perennial invaders [116]. Snowbrush ceanothus typically competes effectively with fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) by postfire year 6 and can become dominant by year 9 [94]. Earlier increases in snowbrush ceanothus have also been noted, with this shrub dominating some shrubfields as soon as 4 or 5 growing seasons after fire [83]. Snowbrush ceanothus generally persists for 20 to 40 years in the Cascades [63], although some stands may become decadent 10 to 15 years after disturbance [63,301]. Stands 40 or more years of age generally have only scattered dead shrubs [301]. South slopes offer the greatest potential for development of snowbrush ceanothus-dominated brushfields in these Douglas-fir types [206]. Shrubs decline rapidly as shade levels increase, and in parts of the northern Rockies, shrubs may become senescent by year 10 [301]. Western hemlock-western redcedar: Snowbrush ceanothus can dominate western hemlock-western redcedar-grand fir forests of the northern Rockies within 2 or 3 years after fire [157]. Snowbrush ceanothus cover typically declines rapidly in western hemlock-western redcedar forests of northern Idaho [159,199]. Grand fir: Snowbrush ceanothus is an important component of the initial shrub sere that following disturbance in grand fir habitat types and can become established by the 1st year after disturbance [300]. In north-central Idaho, it is particularly abundant on north slopes at higher elevations and can become a dominant shrubfield species by year 12 [299]. These shrubfields decline rapidly as shade increases. However, long-lived snowbrush ceanothus communities are prevalent on rocky outcrops in grand fir forests of Oregon and Washington [92]. Ponderosa pine: Snowbrush ceanothus assumes a dual successional role in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests of the Northwest. Where forests are relatively open, it can grow as a long-lived seral shrub or climax dominant, but where densely forested stands develop, snowbrush ceanothus declines rapidly as it is overtopped. Snowbrush ceanothus and bitterbrush occur as understory dominants in open ponderosa pine forests of south-central Oregon [92]. In an Oregon ponderosa pine-white fir forest, snowbrush ceanothus was only dominant on sites where the mean fire interval was 15 years or less over the past 250 years, and it was almost absent where the interval was greater than 20 years [181,182]. Snowbrush ceanothus also grows as a climax species in some open ponderosa pine woodlands on the east side of the Cascades [63]. In mixed-conifer forests of Oregon, snowbrush ceanothus and other tall shrubs become dominant within 14 years after timber harvest but begin to decline within 20 years [150]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:Snowbrush ceanothus seeds germinate in the spring [144]. Leaf buds of snowbrush ceanothus break from mid-April to early June, and leaves continue growth until early July [225,231]. Flowering begins in May or June and ends as late as September [80,225,231]. Snowbrush ceanothus blooms sporadically at higher elevations, but at lower elevations and in warmer climates, blooms can be expected from May to June [37]. Fruit ripens from late June to early August, and seed fall starts in August [225,231,240]. FIRE ECOLOGYFIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:Fuels Contribution: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Snowbrush ceanothus burns "quite hot" [2]. The foliage contains volatile oils that may contribute to fire hazard [284]. Percentage of solvent extractives (waxes, oils, terpenes, and fats) by dry weight found in snowbrush ceanothus fuel is as follows [64]:
The foliage extractive heating value for snowbrush ceanothus has been reported at 11,942 Btu per pound [64]. Richards [222] found that the potential rate of spread through snowbrush ceanothus can be expected to increase as the growing season progresses from June 20 to September 10. This expectation is based on an increase in caloric content (from 1,400-2,400 calories/gram) and a decrease in the water content (from 68% to 53%) of green vegetation. The following table presents information on snowbrush ceanothus fuel loading; the data is based on single-species plots and presented by fuel category [64]:
Fire Adaptations: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Snowbrush ceanothus has dormant, ground-stored seed that requires heat treatment to germinate [109,148,168,236]. Snowbrush ceanothus is promoted by fire, regenerating from seed stimulated by fire [63,143,163,201,228]. Where its seeds are present in the soil, snowbrush ceanothus may dominate early seral growth following a "medium or hot" fire [12]. Snowbrush ceanothus also sprouts vigorously from the root crown after fire [201,228,236]. Resprouting may be an adaptation to recurring fires, allowing for rapid growth and recovery [201]. Fire creates conditions more favorable for snowbrush ceanothus growth by removing the overstory [109]. Snowbrush ceanothus shows a marked increase in burned forest areas due to heat scarification of seed, sprouting, and increased light [109,119]. When conifers overtop the shrubfields, snowbrush ceanothus may die out because of reduced light intensities in the forest understory [119,120]. As a nitrogen fixer, snowbrush ceanothus plays an important role in nitrogen reaccumulation following fire [143]. Early seral shrub layers dominated by snowbrush ceanothus form in grand fir/big huckleberry [242], grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple [245,247], Douglas-fir/ninebark [244], Douglas-fir/pinegrass [246,248], Douglas-fir/white spirea [249], and Douglas-fir/Rocky Mountain maple [244] habitat types in response to fire. Dry weather patterns following canopy removal and repeated severe fires are likely to produce persistent seral shrubfields [239,304]. In the northern Rocky Mountains, pure stands of snowbrush ceanothus may form on the south-facing slopes of these shrubfields [239]. Fire Regimes: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which snowbrush ceanothus occurs are listed below. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities and ecosystems where snowbrush ceanothus is found, see the 'Fire Ecology and Adaptations' section of the FEIS species summary for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below.
**mean POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [258]:Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community) FIRE EFFECTS
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:Snowbrush ceanothus is top-killed by fire [228]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:No entry PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:Snowbrush ceanothus establishes from seed [63,85,109,288] and sprouts from the root crown [40,41,59,65,66,81,90,163,213,217,240,256,295] after fire. Postfire recovery of snowbrush ceanothus can be expected within 2 to 5 years in the Intermountain region [295]. Snowbrush ceanothus usually increases following fire, often dramatically [40,41,65,75,90,140,295]. Snowbrush ceanothus seedlings often appear on sites following fire where it was previously uncommon or not present [75,164,165,167,194,217,223,251,256,269,293]. Following a severe fire in Douglas-fir in Oregon, snowbrush ceanothus seedlings were found on lightly and severely burned areas, but they were absent on adjacent, unburned areas [85]. Following fall prescribed burning in a quaking aspen stand in Idaho, biomass of snowbrush ceanothus increased substantially by sprouting [43]. Seedling Density: A flush of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings appeared in quaking aspen and quaking aspen/mixed conifer stands the 1st year after the Idaho prescribed fire. The seedling density decreased substantially by the 2nd postfire year; a much smaller decrease occurred in subsequent years. The average number of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings/ha in 3 different stands over 4 postfire years is presented below [43]:
In Idaho, Lyon [165] found 4,000 snowbrush ceanothus seedlings/1,000 ft2 1 year after an August prescribed fire. By the 2nd postfire year, over 40% of the seedlings had died, and by the 7th postfire year, only 20% of the original seedlings were still alive [165]. Seedling densities following fire are not uniform, and a study in a Douglas-fir stand in Oregon found snowbrush ceanothus densities ranging from 200 seedlings/ha to 30,000 seedlings/ha [190]. Weatherspoon [282] reported up to 410,000 snowbrush ceanothus seedlings/hectare following a moderate-consumption prescribed fire in a white fir forest in California. In an Oregon Douglas-fir forest, Gratkowski [109] found that although snowbrush ceanothus seedlings emerged on both logged/unburned and logged/burned sites, seedlings were far more numerous on burned sites. Fire Severity: Higher densities of snowbrush ceanothus may be related to increased fire severity [115,140,239,243]. Dense stands of snowbrush ceanothus often develop following a severe burn, as seeds stored in the soil are stimulated to germinate [40,41,116,154,163,217,234,240,250]. In northeastern Oregon, snowbrush ceanothus cover increased from 3% to as much as 32% 5 years following a severe burn [140]. Snowbrush ceanothus may dominate a site within 2 to 11 years [41,43,75,239,253,254]. Following a severe fire in a western larch-Douglas-fir forest in western Montana, snowbrush ceanothus formed a nearly closed shrub layer with 94% cover by the 13th postfire year [254,257]. Another severe fire in a Douglas-fir forest in Washington resulted in 10% snowbrush ceanothus cover by the 4th postfire year, increasing from 1% prior to the fire [266]. Height Growth: Snowbrush ceanothus height growth after fire is variable and may increase with the severity of the burn [101]. Snowbrush ceanothus seedlings can be expected to grow 3 to 5 feet tall within 3 postfire years in the Payette National Forest, Idaho [81]. Following a prescribed burn in Idaho, snowbrush ceanothus plants reached 2.4 feet tall by 7 postfire years [165]. However, on another site in Idaho, snowbrush ceanothus plants were only 2.8 inches (7 cm) tall after 1 year and only 2.6 feet (0.8 m) 12 years following broadcast burning [300]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:Density: Following a prescribed fire in a quaking aspen/mixed conifer stand in Idaho, the density of snowbrush ceanothus stems was about half of the preburn density, and biomass was considerably less than preburn levels. Some mortality to snowbrush ceanothus and the long time needed to grow clumps of large diameter stems, like those that existed before fire, accounts for its slow recovery [43]. Fire severity: Though some authors report that snowbrush ceanothus establishment from seed is greatest following severe burns and lowest following low-severity burns [81,101], Gratkowksi [109] found that snowbrush ceanothus seedlings were far more abundant on "lightly" burned sites than on "severely" burned sites. Weatherspoon [281] found that greater snowbrush ceanothus seedling development occurred in areas of moderate burn depth or severity than in either unburned areas or areas of high burn depth. Moderate-severity fire removes the litter layer, sufficiently scarifying and leaving most snowbrush ceanothus seeds close enough to the postfire surface to permit emergence. Severe fire, on the other hand, results in lethal temperatures at a soil depth where most of the seed bank is located. Though creating a zone of scarification below that depth, much of the snowbrush ceanothus seed bank is consumed by the fire, leaving fewer seeds to germinate [281]. Following a prescribed fire in a white fir forest in California that burned to a depth of 4 inches (10 cm) in the soil, 94% of snowbrush ceanothus seeds were killed, with no viable seeds remaining above the 1.5-inch (4-cm) depth [282]. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Season of Burning: In general, low severity spring burns can increase snowbrush ceanothus cover quickly through regrowth from root crowns. Spring burning of seral brushfields in the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in Montana resulted in snowbrush ceanothus exceeding its prefire coverage in the 1st postfire growing season, and its percent coverage nearly doubled during the 3rd postfire growing season [206]. While potentially killing a large number of mature snowbrush ceanothus plants [207], severe summer and fall burns generally stimulate germination of ground-stored seed to produce young plants, thus providing a long-term increase in snowbrush ceanothus [206]. Snowbrush ceanothus seedling establishment is usually enhanced by fall burns. A high-severity fall burn is more likely to produce a dense stand of snowbrush ceanothus than a "cooler" spring burn [217], and spring burns produce fewer sprouts [295]. Prescribed fires must burn hot enough to stimulate seed germination, otherwise snowbrush ceanothus is unlikely to increase on a site [264]. Slash Disposal: Snowbrush ceanothus commonly establishes on sites that have been broadcast burned following harvesting activities, and can establish by the 1st year after disturbance [54,109,223,300]. Burned sites are more likely to have substantial snowbrush ceanothus in the successional community than unburned sites [199]. In the western redcedar-western hemlock zone of northern Idaho, the frequency, crown cover, and relative importance of snowbrush ceanothus were much greater in broadcast burned areas than in either undisturbed or logged, unburned areas [198]. Maximum cover was attained 3 to 5 years after timber harvest associated with subsequent slash burns in western hemlock forests of north-central Idaho. Where timber harvest was not followed by postharvest burns, cover increased much more slowly, and maximum values were not reached until 15 to 25 years after disturbance [159]. Snowbrush ceanothus also responded to broadcast burning following harvest in ponderosa pine stands in Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon [228]. Broadcast burning results in a greater number of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings than piling and burning slash [109], though the occurrence of snowbrush ceanothus also increases on sites that have been slash-burned rather than not burned [251]. Snowbrush ceanothus may dominate early seral stages following clearcut and severe broadcast burning activities in grand fir and Douglas-fir habitat types [101,110,250,300], as well as sites in the western hemlock zone that have been logged and lightly or heavily burned [117]. Seven years following a prescribed fire in a Douglas-fir forest in Idaho, snowbrush ceanothus density increased from 0.1 to 56.4 per 1,000 square feet, and percent canopy cover increased from 0.02 to 10% [165]. In another study, however, snowbrush ceanothus cover on clearcut, broadcast burned Douglas-fir sites in Oregon did not increase substantially until 15 years after treatment, with cover values dropping again by postfire year 20 [232]. Fire Severity: The duration and magnitude of snowbrush ceanothus dominance generally increase with the severity of disturbance [117,155]. Following the Waterfalls Canyon Fire, a severe burn in Wyoming, snowbrush ceanothus remained abundant for more than 40 postfire years [18]. Fourteen to 23 years following a clearcut and "hot" broadcast burn treatment in a Douglas-fir forest, percent cover of snowbrush ceanothus ranged from 4 to 85%, increasing from the original 0% [12]. In a study of clearcut and broadcast burned grand fir sites, snowbrush ceanothus disappeared by 23 years after treatment [300]. Lafferty [155] found that the highest canopy cover increase of snowbrush ceanothus on sites in western Montana occurred on severely burned (vs. lightly burned), south-facing sites. In the western redcedar-western hemlock zone of northern Idaho, snowbrush ceanothus occurred more frequently and with greater percent cover on sites that had been burned than on sites that were either undisturbed or logged and not burned. Sites that were broadcast burned had more snowbrush ceanothus than sites that were slash-piled and burned, and multiple broadcast burns resulted in the highest snowbrush ceanothus values [199]. In a Douglas-fir forest on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, percent cover of snowbrush ceanothus increased 2 years after clearcutting with no burning, clearcutting with light burning, and clearcutting with severe burning. The greatest increase in percent cover followed the light burn treatment [83]. On another Douglas-fir site in Oregon, snowbrush ceanothus percent cover steadily increased for 5 years following slash burning in clearcuts, from 0.3% to 7.5%. After logging but prior to burning, no increase of snowbrush ceanothus percent cover was observed [84]. Morris [194,195] found that snowbrush ceanothus grew on harvested sites following slash burning, but was much more scarce on unburned sites in Douglas-fir communities of Oregon. Wildlife Implications: Dense canopies of snowbrush ceanothus generally result from severe burns, and will deter both livestock and erosion; light canopies generated by a low-severity burn can provide shelter for Douglas-fir seedlings [242,244,246,247,248]. In western Montana, long-term propagation of snowbrush ceanothus for elk winter range may be best accomplished through fall burning, both to stimulate seed germination and reduce impacts of concentrated browsing [169]. However, Noste [205] found that survival of snowbrush ceanothus was higher on spring-burned that on fall-burned sites (100% survival versus 40%). Nutrient Content: During the 1st growing season following prescribed burning of seral shrubfields (Douglas-fir climax) in British Columbia, nitrogen concentration and phosphorus concentration of snowbrush ceanothus leaves increased, though the levels returned to preburn concentrations by the 2nd growing season. Copper concentrations in snowbrush ceanothus leaves and stems decreased following burning [78]. The following table summarizes snowbrush ceanothus plant information and nitrogen accretion of a snowbrush ceanothus stand developing on a Douglas-fir clearcut and slash-burn site in Oregon [298]:
As snowbrush ceanothus biomass increased with age, nitrogen concentration decreased due to the higher proportion of woody material relative to leaf tissue. Net accretion of nitrogen by snowbrush ceanothus fixation was 1,110 pounds per acre (1,261 kg/ha) over the 15 years of the study [298]. Root Nodulation: Nodulation of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings that establish following fire may be a function of the overstory stand age before disturbance. Wollum and others [289] found that, in stands that were harvested and burned before the stand age reached 100 years, snowbrush ceanothus nodulation was substantially higher than in stands over 100 years old. Snowbrush ceanothus generally disappears from stands as the canopy closes, and the authors speculate that in the absence of a host, the actinomycetes responsible for nodulation in snowbrush ceanothus also decline on the site [289].FIRE CASE STUDIES
1st CASE STUDY:
Preharvest underburn - Pringle Falls, Oregon REFERENCE: Martin, R. E. 1982 [171] FIRE CASE STUDY AUTHORSHIP: Tirmenstein, D. A. 1990. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION: Initial burn: upper plot - September 27, 1976/ moderate Initial burn: lower plot - October 1, 1976/moderate Reburn: upper plot - October 2, 1979/moderate Reburn: lower plot - June 9, 1980/low STUDY LOCATION: The study was conducted on the east slope of Lookout Mountain in the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, approximately 30 miles (48 km) south-southwest of Bend, Oregon. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY: Two distinct units were burned. The lower unit is representative of the ponderosa pine (Ponderosa pine)/bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata)/snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus)/needlegrass (Achnatherum spp.) habitat as described by Volland [276]. The upper unit is identified as a mixed conifer/ceanothus/sedge (Carex spp.) community type. Ponderosa pine basal area ranged from 100 to 140 ft2/acre (23-32 m2/ha). Some white fir (Abies concolor) saplings and seedlings were also present on the upper plot. Common shrubs included snowbrush ceanothus, giant chinkapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), bitterbrush, and greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula). Needlegrass was also present. TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE: Initial burn: seed fall Reburn: lower plot - seed fall Reburn: upper plot - leaf growth/flowering SITE DESCRIPTION: elevation: upper plot - 5,000 feet (1,525 m) lower plot - 4,550 feet (1,390 m) precipitation: 30 inches (76 cm) per year, primarily as snow aspect: east FIRE DESCRIPTION: Management objective: To evaluate potential shrub control using preharvest prescribed burning. Weather and fuel conditions were as follows:
Fuel consumption (tonnes/ha) was as follows:
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES: The 1st fire on upper and lower plots top-killed many snowbrush ceanothus plants, stimulated sprouting, and provided heat scarification, which caused many seeds to germinate. The 2nd fire killed all new seedlings and reduced the sprouts resulting from the 1st burn. From 71 to 100% of the sprouting adult plants were killed. No shrub seedlings were observed on either plot after the 2nd burn. Percent cover of snowbrush ceanothus was as follows:
** % of all old plants burned *** seedlings emerging after 1st burn and "living or killed by the 2nd burn were the only ones counted" FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that preharvest burns can control snowbrush ceanothus and therefore reduce competition with regenerating conifers. Successive fires may kill most shrub seedlings and increase mortality in older plants. Detrimental effects to snowbrush ceanothus are amplified when additional heat is concentrated near the root crown and roots. Fall burns, conducted when soil moisture levels are low, are particularly damaging. 2nd CASE STUDY:
O'Keefe Creek wildlife habitat improvement burn, southwestern Montana REFERENCE: Noste, N. V. 1982 [205] Noste, N. V. 1985 [206] FIRE CASE STUDY AUTHORSHIP: Tirmenstein, D.A. 1990. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION: spring/not reported fall/high STUDY LOCATION: Study sites are located in northwestern Montana, approximately 9.4 miles (16 km) north of Missoula. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY: The prefire community was a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)/ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) habitat type. Common shrubs included Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), redstem ceanothus (Ceanothus sanguineus), snowbrush ceanothus (C. velutinus), Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), rose (Rosa spp.), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Herbaceous species such as spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and timothy (Phleum pratense) were well represented in the prefire community. TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE: spring: leaf bud burst/ growth fall: seed fall SITE DESCRIPTION: aspect - southeast elevation - less than 4,900 feet (1,500 m) slope - average of 30%; 50% maximum FIRE DESCRIPTION: Management objective: To compare the effects of spring and fall prescribed fire treatments for rejuvenating deteriorating stands of snowbrush ceanothus and improving wildlife browse. Weather conditions during burn:
Fuel loading, fine fuel moisture content, and fire behavior varied by position on the slope and season of burn. Fine fuel moisture content:
Prefire fuel loadings, by size class, were as follows:
Rates of spread ranged from 2,640 to 3,696 feet per hour (805-1,126 m/hr) in fall burns, which had flame lengths of 8 to 10 feet (2.5-3.0 m). Spring burns produced average flame lengths of 3 feet (0.9 m) with rate of spread measured at 659 to 1,188 feet per hour (201-362 m/hr). FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:Soils and fuels were drier in the fall, and heat transfer downward was presumably greater, thus increasing the likelihood of damage to underground regenerative structures. Portions of all spring-burned plants survived, but 60% of shrubs burned in the fall were killed. Many seedlings emerged on fall-burned plots, but none were observed on plots burned during the spring. Heat generated by the spring burns may not have been adequate to scarify the seeds. Exposed mineral soil, which normally serves as an excellent seedbed, was also lacking. By the fourth growing season, nearly 6,500 snowbrush ceanothus seedlings per acre (16,000/ha) were observed on the fall-burned plots, but none were present on plots burned in spring. Root crown sprouting following spring burns enabled snowbrush ceanothus to recover much more rapidly than after fall burns, where recovery was through seedling establishment. On the spring-burned plot, cover exceeded preburn values by the 1st growing season and had doubled by the 3rd growing season. Cover on fall-burned plots averaged only 0.2% 1 year after fire but increased to approximately one-half of preburn coverage by the 3rd growing season. Comparative cover values for snowbrush ceanothus were:
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS: Both spring and fall fires can rejuvenate decadent stands of snowbrush ceanothus and produce sufficient stocking to improve wildlife browse. Lighter spring burns, after which shrubs reestablished through sprouting, promoted rapid short-term wildlife browse improvement. Fall burns produced vigorous seedling growth and more long-term benefits to wildlife as succession was delayed. Management programs that include a combination of spring and fall burns can produce both short and long-term benefits to wildlife. Potential for postfire reestablishment of snowbrush ceanothus on south slopes in Douglas-fir habitat types of western Montana is high. 3rd CASE STUDY:
Preharvest burn - Lassen National Forest, California REFERENCE: Weatherspoon, C. P. 1985. [280] FIRE CASE STUDY AUTHORSHIP: Tirmenstein, D. A. 1990. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION: spring/variable fall/variable STUDY LOCATION: The study site is located on the Lassen National Forest in northeastern California. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY: The stand was dominated by 60- to 70- year-old white fir (Abies concolor), but included a few scattered red fir (Abies magnifica). Basal area ranged from 300 to 350 ft2/acre (67-78 m2/ha) and the overstory canopy cover was described as "nearly complete". Shrubs were "not a significant factor" within the study area prior to treatment. However, a shrubfield dominated by bush chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens) and snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus) bordered the study area to the north and northeast. TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE: spring: leaf bud burst/ growth fall: seed fall SITE DESCRIPTION: aspect - southeast elevation - 6,200 feet (1,891 m) slope - <10% precipitation - 50 inches (127 cm) per year, primarily as snow between November and April FIRE DESCRIPTION: Management objective: To evaluate potential shrub control and reduction of competition with conifer seedlings using preharvest prescribed burning. Initial preharvest burns were conducted during the spring of 1982. Fires were carried by natural fuels (15-20 tons/acre of downed woody fuels) and 2 to 4 inches (5-10 cm) of the upper forest floor. Stands were commercially thinned in the fall of 1982. Subsequent burns (2nd burns for the twice-burned plots) were carried out during the spring and fall of 1983. Harvested plots burned only once and uncut plots were burned only in 1983. FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:Because snowbrush ceanothus plants were not "a significant factor" in the study area before treatments began, sprouting was not a factor and only the production of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings from dormant seeds is described here. Seedling densities of snowbrush ceanothus were significantly lower (p<0.01) on plots burned twice than on the once-burned plots. Seedling density (number of seedlings per acre) in relation to treatment was:
Seedling densities were reduced with increasing slash depth. These reductions were particularly noticeable on unburned plots. The density of snowbrush ceanothus after burning increased with moderate burn depth, with density decreasing in response to high burns depth. Results suggest that a deep burn may kill much of the stored seed rather than stimulate germination. Snowbrush ceanothus densities (number of seedlings per acre) in relation to burn depth were as follows:
L - fire burned into, but not deeper than the litter layer F - fire burned into, but not deeper than fermentation layer (moderate severity) H - fire burned into, or completely consumed, humus layer (high severity) FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS: These study results are inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of preharvest prescribed burning to reduce snowbrush ceanothus competition with conifer seedlings. Preharvest burning may reduce the amount of snowbrush ceanothus establishing after treatment. The preharvest fires in this study were relatively low consumption fires that provided insufficient heat scarification for many of the seeds stored in the soil. High consumption preharvest fires would presumably result in a reduction of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings. Fall preharvest fires or spring fires under dry conditions may stimulate more seeds to germinate and could result in greater reductions of snowbrush ceanothus seedlings. Higher severity fires may destroy more of the snowbrush ceanothus seed bank. Multiple preharvest fires may also reduce posttreatment snowbrush ceanothus density. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS, VALUE AND USE
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:Snowbrush ceanothus provides poor forage for domestic cattle, sheep, and horses [177,197,240]. Snowbrush ceanothus is a valuable year-round browse species for deer and elk [50,100,113,153,154,160,161,164,172,200,296]. However, some authors report that deer and elk will browse snowbrush ceanothus only if better forage is unavailable [197,240]. Shrubfields in the northern Rocky Mountains are an important source of browse and habitat for ungulates, and the presence of snowbrush ceanothus may extend their value by providing forage after other desirable shrubs have grown out of reach [164]. Snowbrush ceanothus is of moderate to high importance for mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain goat, mountain sheep, elk, and moose winter browse [33,121,128,137,146,152,169,212,267]. In 1 California study, however, snowbrush ceanothus ranged from only 0.2 to 3.6% of mule deer stomach contents in the months of October though April [29]. Because it is evergreen and seldom grows over 3 feet tall, snowbrush ceanothus is generally available as browse [146]. Makela [169] noted that elk utilization of snowbrush ceanothus may be generally higher in more forested areas than in open shrubfield vegetation, though Irwin and Peek [137] found that winter elk use of snowbrush ceanothus was higher in seral brushfields. As coastal mule deer, bighorn sheep, and caribou winter browse, it is of low importance [33]. Small mammals and birds eat the seeds of snowbrush ceanothus [243,244,271]. Snowbrush ceanothus has also been recorded in stomach samples of mountain lions [270]. PALATABILITY:The palatability of snowbrush ceanothus has been rated as follows [80]:
Hill [128] found that snowbrush ceanothus is highly to moderately palatable for white-tailed deer in South Dakota during late fall and winter, but unpalatable during the remainder of the year. NUTRITIONAL VALUE:The following table presents mean nutrient content of snowbrush ceanothus branch material in the absence of recent fire at 4 sites in northwestern Montana [241]:
The foliage nutrient content of snowbrush ceanothus at 4 sites in Oregon is presented in the following table [287]:
Snowbrush ceanothus has fair energy value and fair protein value for domestic livestock [80]. In 1 analysis, the crude protein content of snowbrush ceanothus ranged from 7.1% in January to 18.3% in June [29]. Mean nutritional content of snowbrush ceanothus for elk and domestic sheep is presented below [32]:
The following table presents differences in the nutritional value of snowbrush ceanothus on burned and unburned sites. Sites were prescribe burned in October 1982, and study samples were subsequently collected during the summers of 1982 and 1983 [32].
Snowbrush ceanothus nutritive value does not appear substantially affected by burning in quaking aspen stands. Information on the percent crude protein and in-vitro dry matter digestibility of snowbrush ceanothus during the 3rd year postfire growing season, for both burned and unburned aspen stands, is presented below [49]:
As a nitrogen fixing plant, snowbrush ceanothus may provide high quality browse. The following table presents information on the biomass and nitrogen capital, according to plant part, of a snowbrush ceanothus stand on H. J. Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve. Data are means and 1 standard error [67].
COVER VALUE:Cover value of snowbrush ceanothus for wildlife has been rated as follows [80]:
Snowbrush ceanothus shrub layers provide nesting sites for small birds [244]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:Snowbrush ceanothus is recommended for land reclamation, range restoration, and amenity planting [87,192,193,216,271]. Snowbrush ceanothus' ability to rapidly invade disturbed areas, its persistence, and its extensive soil-binding roots make snowbrush ceanothus valuable for reducing erosion potential [121,197,216]. The nitrogen-fixing ability of snowbrush ceanothus may be useful in replenishing soil nutrients in disturbed areas [39,63,216,295]. Artificial regeneration: Seed dormancy of snowbrush ceanothus can be broken by a hot water soak at 175 degrees Fahrenheit (75 oC) for 1/2 day [45]. Germination is improved by stratification, moistening and storing the seed for a few weeks near 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 oC) [109,197]. Borland [37] recommends seed be soaked in water at 194 degrees Fahrenheit (90 oC) for several hours, then be subjected to a moist and cool (34-41 oF (1-5 oC)) period for 63 to 84 days. Hudson and Carlson [131] found that placing snowbrush ceanothus seed in water at 190 degrees Fahrenheit (88 oC) allowing it to cool followed by stratification at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 oC) for 4 to 5 months was an effective pretreatment. Heit [123] found that 30 minutes in sulfuric acid or a hot-water soak of 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, followed by a moist prechilling of 2 months, resulted in optimum germination rates. The best germination is achieved when the treated seed is planted 0.25 to 0.5 inch (0.5-1.3 cm) deep and temperature is alternated between 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 oC) for 8 hours and 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 oC) for 16 hours [37]. Fall planting of snowbrush ceanothus seeds is recommended, allowing for a natural required stratification period [123,193]. Seedling growth may be encouraged by nitrogen fertilization, and is improved by drier soil conditions [131]. Snowbrush ceanothus can be propagated from hardwood or softwood cuttings [240]. Semiripe tip cuttings treated with 0.8% idolebutyric acid can be rooted under mist with 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 oC) bottom heat, though rooted cuttings are difficult to overwinter [37]. Transplanting snowbrush ceanothus has been described as both effective [121,271] and unsuccessful [154]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Wollum and Youngberg [290] suggest that temperature influences the rate of snowbrush ceanothus nodulation, with 72 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit (22-26 oC) most effective for nodule development and nodulation inhibited at 88 degrees Fahrenheit (31 oC). Over a 10-year period, snowbrush ceanothus nitrogen-fixing rates may range from 9 to 489 pounds per acre per year (10-556 kg/ha/yr) [48,72,180,297], with lower rates related to decreased moisture availability [48] and increased moisture stress [180]. Stands of snowbrush ceanothus older than 10 years may contain more than 445 pounds per acre (500 kg/ha) of nitrogen in the biomass [63]. Zavitovski [303] found that 15-year-old, mature stands of snowbrush ceanothus contained 678 pounds per acre (770 kg/ha) of nitrogen, representing approximately 22% of the nitrogen in the ecosystem. Nitrogen fixing by snowbrush ceanothus helps maintain the nutrient balance, replacing nitrogen lost to fire volatilization, soil erosion, and leaching [28,48,69,94,297,303]. In high densities, snowbrush ceanothus may compete with conifer seedlings for moisture and nutrients [55,61,63,81,108,109,126,141,214,215,259,263,302] and may shade out intolerant tree species [302]. Snowbrush ceanothus may substantially reduce height growth of Douglas-fir under the shrub cover [108]. In an Oregon study, the early growth rate of Douglas-fir trees decreased significantly (p=0.008) as the density of snowbrush ceanothus increased to 15,000 seedlings/ha [190]. Snowbrush ceanothus may also have the potential to reduce the growth of Douglas-fir seedlings by means of water soluble substances contained in the dead foliage [268]. However, beneficial nitrogen accretion from a lower density of snowbrush ceanothus may enhance long-term forest productivity [69,81,126], as well as provide beneficial partial shading for tree seedlings [81,109,141]. During the early period of establishment and growth of Douglas-fir [297,298] and ponderosa pine [277,297], snowbrush ceanothus may ameliorate harsh environmental conditions, including temperature and moisture, as well as improve nitrogen nutrition for tree regeneration. The nutrient-rich litter and debris produced by snowbrush ceanothus as a result of nitrogen fixing may provide microsites for conifer seedlings [63,102]. In 1 Douglas-fir/elk sedge habitat type, 21% of Douglas-fir seedlings occurred under Ceanothus spp. [102]. In an Idaho study, Douglas-fir seedlings were found to have a positive relationship with snowbrush ceanothus, occurring under snowbrush ceanothus canopies more than other shrub species [141]. Conifers established at the same time as snowbrush ceanothus will dominate the snowbrush ceanothus [301,303], emerging above the shrub canopy after 10 to 30 years [215]. Snowbrush ceanothus is eventually suppressed by conifers [283,301], but the period of dominance by snowbrush ceanothus may determine species composition of the succeeding conifer stand [301,302]. If snowbrush ceanothus remains dominant for more than 15 years, it will be succeeded primarily by shade tolerant species [301]. Releasing conifers from snowbrush ceanothus may increase conifer stem diameter and height growth [215]. Snowbrush ceanothus tolerates moderate browsing, and a level of use consistent with 40% removal of current annual twig growth has been suggested [96,97]. Heavy browsing may damage snowbrush ceanothus, and wildlife exclusion results in healthy, robust plants [264]. A study evaluating the effects of clipping current-year twig growth on snowbrush ceanothus growth found that light (25%) and moderate (50%) clipping yielded more twigs than other clipping treatments. Both treatments resulted in an abundance of foliage; however, lightly clipped plants were taller than moderately clipped plants after 4 years, and their crowns were more open near the ground. Unclipped plants were the tallest after 4 years, with a sparse amount of foliage. Heavily (75%) and completely (100%) clipped plants made no gains in height, and after the 4th harvest, as much as 20% of each crown of the heavily clipped plants died [96]. Tiedmann and Berndt [265] report that snowbrush ceanothus growth and density were much greater in an elk exclosure in central Washington than in the adjacent area under unspecified browsing pressure. Control: | Snowbrush Ceanothus Moderate to high damage to snowbrush ceanothus may be achieved with applications of triclopyr ester [17,47,55,56,62,120,185,186,187,279], 2,4-D [17,47,56,62,106,107,120,187,204,229], hexazinone, sulfometuron, imazapyr [55], metsulfuron methyl [56], picloram [62,204,279], dichlorprop [106], and glyphosate [47,55]. Effects of herbicide treatments may be temporary, as many applications result in top-kill of snowbrush ceanothus rather than plant death [106]. Spring and summer applications of herbicide may be more effective than fall treatments for controlling snowbrush ceanothus [156]. On sites in California, multiple glyphosate treatments reduced the height and cover of snowbrush ceanothus, but substantially increased the density of seedlings [179]. Miller [184] found that applications of glyphosate failed to control snowbrush ceanothus, with crown cover increasing an average of 41% following treatment. Hand slashing treatments are not particularly effective for reducing snowbrush ceanothus cover due to its ability to resprout [120]. Unless burned to further stimulate sprouting and seed germination, snowbrush ceanothus responds to mechanical disturbance with a scattered, low percent cover [81]. The root crown of snowbrush ceanothus is resistant to removal by mechanical site preparation [178].Ceanothus velutinus: References1. Adams, Paul W.; Flint, Alan L.; Fredriksen, Richard L. 1991. Long-term patterns in soil moisture and revegetation after a clearcut of a Douglas-fir forest in Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 41: 249-263. [18415] 2. Agee, James K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In: Proceedings, 17th annual forest vegetation management conference; 1996 January 16-18; Redding, CA. Redding, CA:[Publisher unknown]: 52-68. [27641] 3. Agee, James K.; Finney, Mark; de Gouvenain, Roland. 1990. Forest fire history of Desolation Peak, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 350-356. [11035] 4. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. [6327] 5. Allen-Diaz, Barbara H. 1991. Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. The American Midland Naturalist. 126: 30-43. [16149] 6. Anderson, E. William; Brooks, Lee E. 1975. Reducing erosion hazard on a burned forest in Oregon by seeding. Journal of Range Management. 28(5): 394-398. [12807] 7. Anthony, R. G.; Forsman, E. D.; Green, G. A.; [and others]. 1987. Small mammal populations in riparian zones of different-aged coniferous forests. Murrelet. 68: 94-102. [7789] 8. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990] 9. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 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: 97-120. [36984] 10. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342] 11. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p. [349] 12. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1986. Characterizing succession within a forest habitat type--an approach designed for resource managers. Res. Note INT-357. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8 p. [347] 13. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350] 14. Bailey, Warren Hutchinson. 1963. Revegetation in the 1914-1915 devastated area of Lassen Volcanic National Park. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 195 p. Dissertation. [29203] 15. Baker, F. S.; Korstian, Clarence F. 1931. Suitability of brush lands in the Intermountain region for the growth of natural or planted western yellow pine forests. Tech. Bull. No. 256. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 82 p. [15591] 16. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380] 17. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. [12148] 18. Barmore, William J., Jr.; Taylor, Dale; Hayden, Peter. 1976. Ecological effects and biotic succession following the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p. [16109] 19. Barrett, James W. 1970. Ponderosa pine saplings respond to control of spacing and understory vegetation. Res. Note PNW-106. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [15815] 20. Barrett, James W.; Newman, Richard P. 1974. High yields from 100-year-old ponderosa pine. Res. Note PNW-220. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [15816] 21. Barrett, Stephen W. 1982. Fire's influence on ecosystems of the Clearwater National Forest: Cook Mountain fire history inventory. Orofino, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest. 42 p. [10042] 22. Barro, S. C.; Conard, S. G. 1991. Fire effects on California chaparral systems: an overview. Environmental International. 17(2-3): 135-149. [15760] 23. Bartolome, James W.; Erman, Don C.; Schwarz, Charles F. 1990. Stability and change in minerotrophic peatlands, Sierra Nevada of California and Nevada. Res. Pap. PSW-198. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [14106] 24. Beebe, Tom. 1982. Are handscalps an effective method of site preparation in central Washington. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 45-48. [18530] 25. 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] 26. Berndt, H. W. 1971. Early effects of forest fire on streamflow characteristics. Res. Note PNW-148. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 9 p. [8568] 27. Billings, W. D. 1994. Ecological impacts of cheatgrass and resultant fire on ecosystems in the western Great Basin. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 22-30. [24248] 28. Binkley, Dan; Cromack, Kermit, Jr.; Fredriksen, Richard L. 1982. Nitrogen accretion and availability in some snowbrush ecosystems. Forest Science. 28(4): 720-724. [4149] 29. Bissell, Harold D.; Strong, Helen. 1955. The crude protein variations in the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and Game. 41(2): 145-155. [10524] 30. Biswell, Harold H. 1973. Fire ecology in ponderosa pine-grassland. In: Komarek, Edwin V., Sr., technical coordinator. Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. Number 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 69-96. [8462] 31. Biswell, Harold H. 1974. Effects of fire on chaparral. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 321-364. [14547] 32. Blank, Deborah L. 1984. Forage quality of burned and nonburned aspen communities. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 74 p. Thesis. [471] 33. Blower, Dan. 1982. Key winter forage plants for B.C. ungulates. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Terrestrial Studies Branch. [17065] 34. Bock, Carl E.; Lynch, James F. 1970. Breeding bird populations of burned and unburned conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada. The Condor. 72: 182-189. [5113] 35. Bock, Jane H.; Raphael, Martin; Bock, Carl E. 1978. A comparison of planting and natural succession after a forest fire in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Applied Ecology. 15: 597-602. [480] 36. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1989. Shrubs of California's chaparral, timberland, and woodland: area, ownership, and stand characteristics. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-160. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station. 50 p. [7426] 37. Borland, Jim. 1988. Ceanothus velutinus. American Nurseryman. 168(9): 154. [35445] 38. Bormann, Bernard T. 1988. A masterful scheme: Symbiotic nitrogen-fixing plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Arboretum Bulletin. 51(2): 10-14. [6796] 39. Bowcutt, Frederica. 1990. Native herbaceous species used in mitigation project in Lake Tahoe Basin. Restoration & Management Notes. 8(1): 38. [13778] 40. Bradley, Anne F.; Fischer, William C.; Noste, Nonan V. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. [19557] 41. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1991. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18211] 42. Brown, David E. 1982. Great Basin montane scrubland. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 83-84. [8890] 43. Brown, James K.; DeByle, Norbert V. 1989. Effects of prescribed fire on biomass and plant succession in western aspen. Res. Pap. INT-412. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 p. [9286] 44. Bunting, Stephen C.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Gruell, George E. 1985. Fire ecology of antelope bitterbrush in the northern Rocky Mountains. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 48-57. [560] 45. Burcham, L. T. 1974. Fire and chaparral before European settlement. In: Rosenthal, Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral: Proceedings; 1973 March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The Sierra Club: 101-120. [4669] 46. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565] 47. Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural Communications. 276 p. [6235] 48. Busse, Matt D. 2000. Ecological significance of nitrogen fixation by actinorhizal shrubs in interior forests of California and Oregon. In: Powers, Robert F.; Hauxwell, Donald L.; Nakamura, Gary M., eds. Proceedings, California forest soils council conference on forest soils biology and forest management; 1996 February 23-24; Sacramento, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-178. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23-41. [38244] 49. Canon, S. K.; Urness, P. J.; DeByle, N. V. 1987. Habitat selection, foraging behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in burned aspen forest. Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 443-438. [3453] 50. Canon, Stephen Kemble. 1985. Habitat selection, foraging behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in burned vs unburned aspen forest. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 110 p. Thesis. [599] 51. Christianson, Steven P.; Adams, David L.; Grahm, Russell T. 1984. First season survival and growth of Douglas-fir planted in north Idaho shrubfields. Tech. Rep. 16. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [7256] 52. Clark, David Lee. 1991. The effect of fire on Yellowstone ecosystem seed banks. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 115 p. Thesis. [36504] 53. Clary, Warren P. 1988. Silvicultural systems for forage production in ponderosa pine forests. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Ponderosa pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29 - October 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 185-191. [9417] 54. Clayton, James L.; Kennedy, Debora A. 1985. Nutrient losses from timber harvest in the Idaho batholith. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 49: 1041-1049. [8197] 55. Cole, E. C.; Newton, M. 1990. Broadcast spraying of snowbrush ceanothus and greenleaf manzanita. In: Progress report--Western Society of Weed Science; Notes from a meeting held 1990 March 13-15; Reno, NV. [Place of publication unknown]: Western Society of Weed Science: 122-125. [35509] 56. Cole, Elizabeth C.; Newton, Michael; White, Diane E. 1987. Evaluation of herbicides for early season conifer release. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 40: 119-128. [38437] 57. Coleman, Robert G.; Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1999. Geology and plant life of the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountain Region. Natural Areas Journal. 19(4): 320-340. [33090] 58. Conard, S. G.; Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Photosynthesis, xylem pressure potential, and leaf conductance of three montane chaparral species in California. Forest Science. 27(4): 627-639. [8761] 59. Conard, S. G.; Radosevich, S. R. 1982. Growth responses of white fir to decreased shading and root competition by montane chaparral shrubs. Forest Science. 28(2): 309-320. [35046] 60. Conard, S. G.; Radosevich, S. R. 1982. Post-fire succession in white fir (Abies concolor) vegetation of the northern Sierra Nevada. Madrono. 29(1): 42-56. [4931] 61. Conard, Susan G. 1985. Inhibition of Abies concolor radicle growth by extracts of Ceanothus velutinus. Madrono. 32(2): 118-121. [35446] 62. Conard, Susan G.; Emmingham, W. H. 1984. Herbicides for forest brush control in southwestern Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry. 7 p. [10817] 63. Conard, Susan G.; Jaramillo, Annabelle E.; Cromack, Kermit, Jr.; Rose, Sharon, compilers. 1985. The role of the genus Ceanothus in western forest ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-182. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 72 p. [668] 64. Countryman, Clive M. 1982. Physical characteristics of some northern California brush fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-61. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [4177] 65. Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 85 p. [5297] 66. Crawford, Ralph H.; Carpenter, Steven E.; Mayfield, John; Martin, Robert E. 1987. Fungi from foliage of Arctostaphylos patula, Castanopsis chrysophylla, and Ceanothus velutinus. Res. Note PNW-RN-462. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 p. [286] 67. Cromack, K., Jr.; Delwiche, C. C.; McNabb, D. H. 1979. Prospects and problems of nitrogen management using symbiotic nitrogen fixers. In: Gordon, J. C.; Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April 2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 210-223. [4294] 68. Cromack, K.; Swanson, F. J.; Grier, C. C. 1979. A comparison of harvesting methods and their impact on soils and environment in the Pacific Northwest. In: Youngberg, Chester T., ed. Forest soils and land use--Proceedings, 5th North American forest soils conference; 1978 August 6-9; Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University: 449-476. [8420] 69. Cromack, Kermit, Jr.; Landsberg, Johanna D.; Everett, Richard L.; [and others]. 2000. Assessing the impacts of severe fire on forest ecosystem recovery. In: Sampson, R. Neil; Atkinson, R. Dwight; Lewis, Joe W., eds. Mapping wildfire hazards and risks. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc: 177-228. [36516] 70. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A. Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652] 71. Curtis, James D. 1952. Effect of pregermination treatments on the viability of Ceanothus seed. Ecology. 33(4): 577-578. [4124] 72. Cutright, Paul Russell. 1989. Lewis and Clark: pioneering naturalists. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, First Bison Book. 506 p. [20300] 73. Danielson, Robert M.; Visser, Suzanne. 1988. Revegetation of oil sands tailings: growth improvement of silver-berry and buffalo-berry by inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi and N2-fixing bacteria. Rep. No. RRTAC 88-3. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 98 p. [15458] 74. DeBano, Leonard F. 1999. Chaparral shrublands in the southwestern United States. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo, eds. Ecology and management of forests, woodlands, and shrublands in the dryland regions of the United States and Mexico: perspectives for the 21st century. Co-edition No. 1. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona; La Paz, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, SC; Flagstaff, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 83-94. [37047] 75. DeByle, Norbert V. 1981. Clearcutting and fire in the larch/Douglas-fir forests of western Montana--a multifaceted research summary. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p. [7270] 76. DellaSalla, Dominick A.; Anthony, Robert G.; Spies, Thomas A.; Engel, Kathleen A. 1998. Management of bald eagle communal roosts in fire-adapted mixed-conifer forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(1): 322-333. [28597] 77. Delwiche, C. C.; Zinke, Paul J.; Johnson, Clarence M. 1965. Nitrogen fixation by ceanothus. Plant Pathology. 40: 1045-1047. [16852] 78. Demarchi, Dennis A. 1988. Comments from a mid-1970's, southern Rocky Mountain Trench prescribed burning study. In: Feller, M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. Wildlife and range prescribed burning workshop proceedings; 1987 October 27-28; Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry: 112-119. [3105] 79. Dietz, Donald R.; Uresk, Daniel W.; Messner, Harold E.; McEwen, Lowell C. 1980. Establishment, survival, and growth of selected browse species in a ponderosa pine forest. Res. Pap. RM-219. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [3471] 80. 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] 81. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626] 82. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129] 83. Dyrness, C. T. 1965. The effect of logging and slash burning on understory vegetation in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Res. Note PNW-31. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [4939] 84. Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Early stages of plant succession following logging and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon. Ecology. 54(1): 57-69. [7345] 85. Dyrness, C. T. 1976. Effect of wildfire on soil wettability in the high Cascades of Oregon. PNW-202. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p. [8573] 86. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 87. Fessenden, R. J. 1979. Use of actinorhizal plants for land reclamation and amenity planting in the U.S.A. and Canada. In: Gordon, J. C.; Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April 2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 403-419. [4308] 88. Fiddler, Gary O.; McDonald, Philip M. 1999. Treatment duration and time since disturbance affect vegetation development in a young ponderosa pine plantation. Res. Note PSW-RN-424. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 8 p. [37341] 89. Finney, Mark A.; Martin, Robert E. 1989. Fire history in a Sequoia sempervirens forest at Salt Point State Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1451-1457. [9845] 90. Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p. [633] 91. Franklin, Jerry F. 1988. Pacific Northwest forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 103-130. [13879] 92. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p. [961] 93. Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; [and others]. 1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park. Scientific Monograph Series No 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 194 p. [12392] 94. Fredriksen, Richard L.; Harr, R. Dennis. 1979. Soil, vegetation, and watershed management. In: Heilman, Paul E.; Anderson, Harry W.; Baumgartner, David M., eds. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service: 231-260. [8212] 95. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319] 96. Garrison, George A. 1953. Effects of clipping on some range shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 6(5): 309-317. [995] 97. Garrison, George A. 1972. Carbohydrate reserves and response to use. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 271-278. [997] 98. 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] 99. Gashwiler, Jay S. 1970. Plant and mammal changes on a clearcut in west-central Oregon. Ecology. 51(6): 1018-1026. [8523] 100. Gastler, George F.; Moxon, Alvin L.; McKean, William T. 1951. Composition of some plants eaten by deer in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 15(4): 352-357. [3996] 101. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. Vegetation response to helicopter logging and broadcast burning in Douglas-fir habitat types at Silver Creek, central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-405. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 24 p. [6810] 102. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1991. Natural regeneration microsites for Douglas-fir in central Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Interior Douglas-fir: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1991 February 27 - March 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 247-254. [18299] 103. Graham, Joseph N.; Murray, Edward W.; Minore, Don. 1982. Environment, vegetation, and regeneration after timber harvest in the Hungry-Pickett area of southwest Oregon. Res. Note PNW-400. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [8424] 104. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush seedlings after controlled burning of brushlands in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 59(12): 885-888. [3392] 105. Gratkowski, H. 1974. Brushfield reclamation and type conversion. In: Cramer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: I-1 to I-31. [6418] 106. Gratkowski, H. 1975. Silvicultural use of herbicides in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-37. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [10998] 107. Gratkowski, H. J. 1977. Seasonal effects of phenoxy herbicides on ponderosa pine and associated brush species. Forest Science. 23(1): 2-12. [8798] 108. Gratkowski, H.; Lauterbach, P. 1974. Releasing Douglas-firs from varnishleaf ceanothus. Journal of Forestry. 72(3): 150-152. [16510] 109. Gratkowski, Henry John. 1962. Heat as a factor in germination of seeds of Ceanothus velutinus var. laevigatus T. & G. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 122 p. Dissertation. [34941] 110. Green, Pat; Jensen, Mark. 1991. Plant succession within managed grand fir forests of northern Idaho. In: Harvey, Alan E.; Neuenschwander, Leon F., compilers. Proceedings--management and productivity of western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 232-236. [15987] 111. Grier, Charles Crocker. 1972. Effects of fire on the movement and distribution of elements within a forest ecosystem. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 167 p. Dissertation. [35584] 112. 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] 113. Gruell, George E. 1991. Historical perspective: a prerequisite for better public understanding of fire management challenges. In: Proceedings, 17th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1989 May 18-21; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 25-41. [17599] 114. Habeck, James R. 1994. Dynamics of forest communities used by great gray owls. In: Hayward, Gregory D.; Verner, Jon, tech. eds. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 176-201. [27356] 115. Halpern, C. B. 1989. Early successional patterns of forest species: interactions of life history traits and disturbance. Ecology. 70(3): 704-720. [6829] 116. Halpern, Charles B. 1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance and resilience of forest communities. Ecology. 69(6): 1703-1715. [6390] 117. Halpern, Charles B.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1989. Understory development in Pseudotsuga forests: multiple paths of succession. In: Ferguson, Dennis E.; Morgan, Penelope; Johnson, Frederic D., compilers. Proceedings--land classifications based on vegetation: applications for resource management; 1987 November 17-19; Moscow, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-257. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 293-297. [6961] 118. Halpern, Charles B.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1990. Physiognomic development of Pseudotsuga forests in relation to initial structure and disturbance intensity. Journal of Vegetation Science. 1(4): 475-482. [13288] 119. Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 417-469. [7216] 120. Hann, Wendel J. 1986. Evaluation of site preparation and conifer release treatments in north Idaho shrubfields. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Breuer, David W.; Miller, Daniel L., compilers and eds. Weed control for forest productivity in the Interior West: Symposium proceedings; 1985 February 5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 115-119. [1074] 121. Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p. [15460] 122. Hawthorne, Vernon M. 1971. Coyote movements in Sagehen Creek Basin, northeastern California. California Fish and Game. 57(3): 154-161. [25126] 123. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45. [1120] 124. Helvey, J. D. 1980. Effects of a north central Washington wildfire on runoff and sediment production. Water Resources Bulletin. 16(4): 627-634. [8562] 125. Helvey, J. D.; Tiedemann, A. R.; Anderson, T. D. 1985. Plant nutrient losses by soil erosion and mass movement after wildfire. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 40(1): 168-173. [8565] 126. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Emmingham, W. H.; Halverson, Nancy M.; [and others]. 1982. Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone, Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests. R6-Ecol 100-1982a. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 104 p. [5784] 127. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992] 128. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270] 129. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168] 130. Hopkins, William E. 1979. Plant associations of south Chiloquin and Klamath Ranger Districts--Winema National Forest. R6-Ecol-79-005. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 96 p. [7339] 131. Hudson, Shelley; Carlson, Michael. 1998. Propagation of interior British Columbia native plants from seed. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Research Program. 30 p. [38690] 132. Humphrey, Harry B.; Weaver, John Ernst. 1915. Natural reforestation in the mountains of northern Idaho. Plant World. 18: 31-49. [12448] 133. Hungerford, Roger D. 1984. Native shrubs: suitability for revegetating road cuts in northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. INT-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [1220] 134. Hungerford, Roger D. 1988. Soil temperatures and suckering in burned and unburned aspen stands in Idaho. Research Note INT-378. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 p. [5180] 135. Idaho State Department of Commerce and Development. [n.d.]. Idaho wild flowers. Boise, ID: Idaho State Department of Commerce and Development. Pamphlet. 10 p. [17999] 136. Irwin, Larry L.; Peek, James M. 1979. Shrub production and biomass trends following five logging treatments within the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Forest Science. 25(3): 415-426. [16511] 137. Irwin, Larry L.; Peek, James M. 1983. Elk, Cervus elaphus, foraging related to forest management and succession in Idaho. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 97(4): 443-447. [16524] 138. James, Susanne Marie. 1983. Lignotubers and vegetative regeneration of Arctostaphylos in the California chaparral--anatomy , morphology and ecological significance. Riverside, CA: University of California. 133 p. Dissertation. [12197] 139. James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical Review. 50(3): 225-266. [5590] 140. Johnson, Charles Grier, Jr. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in national forests of northeastern Oregon. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 128 p. (+ appendices). [30061] 141. Jones, Michael Hunt. 1995. Do shade and shrubs enhance natural regeneration of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho? Western Journal of Applied Science. 10(1): 24-28. [25494] 142. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715] 143. Kauffman, J. B.; Sapsis, D. B. 1989. The natural role of fire in Oregon's high desert. In: Oregon's high desert: the last 100 years. Special Report 841. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: 15-19. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. [15514] 144. Keeley, Jon E. 1991. Seed germination and life history syndromes in the California chaparral. The Botanical Review. 57(2): 81-116. [36973] 145. Kinloch, Bohun B., Jr.; Scheuner, William. 1990. Pinus lambertiana Dougl. sugar pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agricultural Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 370-379. [13194] 146. Klebenow, Donald A. 1965. A montane forest winter deer habitat in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29(1): 27-33. [8430] 147. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371] 148. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375] 149. Kramer, Neal B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of three habitat types in central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1961-1966. [3961] 150. Krueger, William C. 1983. Cattle grazing in managed forests. In: Roche, Ben F., Jr.; Baumgartner, David M., editors. Forestland grazing: Proceedings of a symposium; 1983 February 23-25; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 29-41. [1378] 151. 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] 152. Kufeld, Roland C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management. 26(2): 106-113. [1385] 153. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [1387] 154. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798] 155. Lafferty, Ralph R. 1970. Effect of burn intensities on vegetal composition and canopy-coverage in a selected area of western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 81 p. Thesis. [35756] 156. Lanini, W. Thomas; Radosevich, Steven R. 1982. Herbicide effectiveness in response to season of application and shrub physiology. Weed Science. 30: 467-475. [3389] 157. Larsen, J. A. 1929. Fires and forest succession in the Bitterroot Mountains of northern Idaho. Ecology. 10: 67-76. [6990] 158. Larsen, J. A. 1930. Forest types of the northern Rocky Mountains and their climatic controls. Ecology. 11(4): 631-672. [12449] 159. Laursen, Steven B. 1984. Predicting shrub community composition and structure following management disturbance in forest ecosystems of the Intermountain West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 261 p. Dissertation. [6717] 160. Leach, Howard R. 1956. Food habits of the Great Basin deer herds of California. California Fish and Game. 38: 243-308. [3502] 161. Leege, Thomas A., compiler. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho. Wildlife Bull. No. 11: Federal Aid Project W-160-R. Boise, ID: Idaho Fish and Game Department. 37 p. [13681] 162. Lewis, Mont E. 1971. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon. Elko, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Humboldt National Forest. 62 p. [1450] 163. Lotan, James E. 1986. Silvicultural management of competing vegetation. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Breuer, David W.; Miller, Daniel L., compilers/eds. Weed control for forest productivity in the Interior West: Symposium proceedings; 1985 February 5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 9-16. [1474] 164. Lyon, L. Jack. 1966. Initial vegetal development following prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-29. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [1494] 165. Lyon, L. Jack. 1971. Vegetal development following prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p. [1495] 166. Lyon, L. Jack. 1979. Influences of logging and weather on elk distribution in western Montana. Res. Pap. INT-236. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [7958] 167. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1966. Two forest fires: and some specific implications in big-game management. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 46: 181-193. [17169] 168. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496] 169. Makela, Paul D. 1990. Effects of prescribed burning on the Burdette Creek winter range. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 112 p. Thesis. [20681] 170. Marcot, Bruce G. 1983. Snag use by birds in Douglas-fir clearcuts. In: Davis, Jerry W.; Goodwin, Gregory A.; Ockenfeis, Richard A., technical coordinators. Snag habitat management: proceedings of the symposium; 1983 June 7-9; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 134-139. [17828] 171. Martin, Robert E. 1982. Shrub control by burning before timber harvest. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 35-40. [18528] 172. Martinka, C. J. 1976. Fire and elk in Glacier National Park. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 377-389. [7523] 173. Maskarinec, Gary S. 1994. Native plant die-offs. In: Despain, Don G., ed. Plants and their environments: Proceedings of the 1st biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; 1991 September 16-17; Yellowstone National Park, WY. Tech. Rep. NPS/NRYELL/NRTR. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Yellowstone National Park: 199-204. [26285] 174. McConnell, Burt R.; Smith, Justin G. 1970. Response of understory vegetation to ponderosa pine thinning in eastern Washington. Journal of Range Management. 23(3): 208-212. [15839] 175. McDonald, Philip M.; Abbott, Celeste S. 1997. Vegetation trends in a 31-year-old ponderosa pine plantation: effect of different shrub densities. Res. Paper PSW-RP-231. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 35 p. [38454] 176. McDonald, Philip M.; Fiddler, Gary O. 1990. Ponderosa pine seedlings and competing vegetation: ecology, growth, and cost. Res. Pap. PSW-199. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 10 p. [15769] 177. McDonald, Philip M.; Fiddler, Gary O. 1991. Grazing with sheep: effect on pine seedlings, shrubs, forbs, and grasses. In: Garrett, H. E., ed. Proceedings, 2nd conference on agroforestry in North America; 1991 August 18-21; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, The School of Natural Resources: 221-231. [21262] 178. McDonald, Philip M.; Fiddler, Gary O. 1995. Development of a mixed shrub - ponderosa pine community in a natural and treated condition. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-224. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 18 p. [34998] 179. McDonald, Philip M.; Fiddler, Gary O. 1997. Treatment duration and time since disturbance affect vegetation development in a young California red fir plantation. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-233. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 14 p. [28933] 180. McNabb, D. H.; Geist, J. M.; Youngberg, C. T. 1979. Nitrogen fixation by Ceanothus velutinus in northern Oregon. In: Gordon, J. C.; Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April 2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 481-482. Abstract. [4316] 181. McNeil, Robert C.; Zobel, Donald B. 1980. Vegetation and fire history of a ponderosa pine-white fir forest in Crater Lake National Park. Northwest Science. 54(1): 30-46. [166] 182. McNeil, Robert Curlan. 1975. Vegetation and fire history of a ponderosa pine - white fir forest in Crater Lake National Park. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 171 p. Thesis. [5737] 183. 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] 184. Miller, Daniel L. 1981. The effects of Roundup herbicide on northern Idaho conifers and shrub species. Forestry Technical Paper TP-81-2. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 13 p. [3581] 185. Miller, Daniel L. 1982. Herbicides: guidelines for use and site preparation prescriptions in the Inland Northwest. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 55-62. [18532] 186. Miller, Daniel L.; Pope, W. W. 1982. The effects of Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 on North Idaho conifers and shrubs. Forestry Technical Paper TP-82-3. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 11 p. [3583] 187. Miller, Daniel L.; Wagner, Robert G. 1984. The effects of Garlon 4 and Esteron 99 on snowbrush ceanothus. Forestry Research Note RN-84-2. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation, Wood Products, Western Division. 4 p. [3402] 188. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [26637] 189. Minore, Don; Means, Joseph E.; Cunningham, Patrick G.; Weatherly, Howard G. 1991. Growth patterns of deerbrush and snowbrush as functions of age and shrub vigor. Forest Science. 37(4): 1140-1149. [17713] 190. Monleon, V. J.; Newton, M.; Hooper, C.; Tappeiner, J. C., II. 1999. Ten-year growth response of young Douglas-fir to variable density varnishleaf ceanothus and herb competition. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(4): 208-213. [31113] 191. Monleon, Vicente J.; Cromack, Kermit, Jr. 1996. Long-term effects of prescribed underburning on litter decomposition and nutrient release in ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 81: 143-152. [26774] 192. Monsen, Stephen B. 1984. Use of shrubs on mine spoils. In: Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings: Intermountain Nurseryman's Association 1983 conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 26-31. [6847] 193. Monsen, Stephen B.; Christensen, Donald R. 1975. Woody plants for rehabilitating rangelands in the Intermountain Region. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings--symposium and workshop; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, UT. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University: 72-119. [1680] 194. Morris, William G. 1958. Influence of slash burning on regeneration, other plant cover, and fire hazard in the Douglas-fir region: A progress report. Res. Pap. PNW-29. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 49 p. [4803] 195. Morris, William G. 1970. Effects of slash burning in overmature stands of the Douglas-fir region. Forest Science. 16(3): 258-270. [4810] 196. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. [13074] 197. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702] 198. Mueggler, W. F. 1961. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Durham, NC: Duke University. 126 p. Thesis. [9981] 199. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35: 165-185. [4016] 200. Mundinger, John D. 1978. Population ecology and habitat relationships of white-tailed deer in coniferous forest habitat of northwestern Montana. Montana deer studies: Job progress report 1977-1978. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish and Game. 74 p. [21525] 201. Neuenschwander, L. F. 1978. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art review. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 31 p. [1747] 202. Nevada Chapter - The Wildlife Society. 1998. Influence of fire on wildlife habitat in the Great Basin: a position statement - August 16, 1998. Transactions, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 34: 42-57. [35093] 203. Nissley, S. D.; Zasoski, R. J.; Martin, R. E. 1980. Nutrient changes after prescribed surface burning of Oregon ponderosa pine stands. In: Martin, Robert E.; Edmonds, Donald A.; Harrington, James B.; [and others], eds. Proceedings, 6th conference of fire and forest meterology; 1980 April 22-24; Seattle, WA. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 214-219. [10207] 204. Norris, L. A.; Montgomery, M. L.; Warren, L. E.; Mosher, W. D. 1982. Brush control with herbicides on hill pasture sites in southern Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 35(1): 75-80. [7872] 205. Noste, Nonan V. 1982. Vegetation response to spring and fall burning for wildlife habitat improvement. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 125-132. [1784] 206. Noste, Nonan V. 1985. Influence of fire severity on response of evergreen ceanothus. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1985 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 91-96. [4119] 207. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255] 208. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 391-420. [6273] 209. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878] 210. Patten, Tom; Oliver, Mike. 1986. Fire management plan: Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region; Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 154 p. [21208] 211. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978] 212. Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North America. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 101: 195-215. [7420] 213. Peek, James. 1985. Bighorn sheep responses to fire. The Habitat Express. No. 85-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 3 p. [5224] 214. Petersen, T. D.; Newton, M.; Zedaker, S. M. 1988. Influence of Ceanothus velutinus and associated forbs on the water stress and stemwood production of Douglas-fir. Forest Science. 34(2): 333-343. [5019] 215. Petersen, Terry D.; Newton, Michael. 1982. Growth of Douglas-fir following release from snowbrush and forbs-- implications for vegetation management of brushfields. Research Note RM82-8. Milltown, MT: Champion International Corporation, Rocky Mountain Timberlands Research and Development. 9 p. [3398] 216. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain Area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171] 217. Powell, David C. 1994. Effects of the 1980's western spruce budworm outbreak on the Malheur National Forest in northeastern Oregon. Tech. Pub. R6-FI&D-TP-12-94. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Natural Resources Staff, Forest Insects and Diseases Group. 176 p. [29717] 218. Quick, Clarence R. 1935. Notes on the germination of ceanothus seeds. Madrono. 3: 135-140. [4135] 219. Quick, Clarence R.; Quick, Alice S. 1961. Germination of ceanothus seeds. Madrono. 16: 23-30. [4134] 220. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 221. Ream, Robert Ray. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah and Idaho. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 178 p. Dissertation. [5506] 222. Richards, Leon W. 1940. Effect of certain chemical attributes of vegetation in forest inflammability. Journal of Agricultural Research. 60(12): 833-838. [1972] 223. Richardson, Nancy. 1980. Species-specific aboveground shrub biomass in seral communities in three habitat types in west central Montana. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory; Final Report. 57 p. [7309] 224. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. [33881] 225. Roach, A. W. 1952. Phytosociology of the Nash Crater lava flows, Linn County, Oregon. Ecological Monographs. 22: 169-193. [8759] 226. Rogers, Dilwyn J. 1969. Isolated stands of lodgepole pine and limber pine in the Black Hills. Proceedings, South Dakota Academy of Sciences. 48: 138-147. [34994] 227. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. [9696] 228. Ruha, T. L. A.; Landsberg, J. D.; Martin, R. E. 1996. Influence of fire on understory shrub vegetation in ponderosa pine stands. In: Barrow, Jerry R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Tausch, Robin J., compilers. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment; 1995 May 23-25; Las Cruces, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-338. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 108-113. [27036] 229. Rynearson, Bob. 1995. Reforestation in northeastern California utilizing the vegetation management program. In: Breton, Robert; Sherlock, Joe, compilers. Proceedings: 16th annual forest vegetation management conference; 1995 January 10-12; Sacramento, CA. Redding, CA: Shasta Opportunity Center: 55-60. [27761] 230. 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] 231. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082] 232. Schoonmaker, Peter; McKee, Arthur. 1988. Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Forest Science. 34(4): 960-979. [6214] 233. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064] 234. Shearer, Raymond C. 1976. Early establishment of conifers following prescribed broadcast burning in western larch/Douglas-fir forests. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 481-500. [12499] 235. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362] 236. Shiplett, Brian; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1994. Fire ecology in the cedar-hemlock zone of North Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E.; Tonn, Jonalea R., compiler. Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management: Symposium proceedings; 1993 March 2-4; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources: 41-51. [25789] 237. Simpson, Michael L. 1990. The subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type: Succession and management. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 134 p. Thesis. [13464] 238. Skau, C. M.; Meeuwig, R. O.; Townsend, T. W. 1970. Ecology of eastside Sierra chaparral: A literature review. R71. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 14 p. [3798] 239. Smith, Jane Kapler; Fischer, William C. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 142 p. [27992] 240. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation. Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 90 p. [2221] 241. Stark, N. 1983. The nutrient content of Rocky Mountain vegetation: a handbook for estimating nutrients lost through harvest and burning. Misc. Publ. 14. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 81 p. [8617] 242. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1987. The grand fir/blue huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-228. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 66 p. [8133] 243. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. The Douglas-fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Preliminary draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 77 p. [8434] 244. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. The Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-252. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 65 p. [8136] 245. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Review draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 148 p. [8435] 246. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1990. The Douglas-fir/pinegrass habitat type in central Idaho: Succession and management. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 155 p. Review draft. [15764] 247. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1992. The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 90 p. [17791] 248. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1993. The Douglas-fir/pinegrass habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-298. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 83 p. [21512] 249. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1994. The Douglas-fir/white spirea habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-305. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 81 p. [23481] 250. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1995. Major Douglas-fir habitat types of central Idaho: a summary of succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p. [26587] 251. Steen, Harold K. 1966. Vegetation following slash fires in one western Oregon locality. Northwest Science. 40(3): 113-120. [5671] 252. Stickney, Peter F. 1965. Note on winter crown kill of Ceanothus velutinus. Proceedings, Montana Academy of Sciences. 25: 52-57. [38268] 253. Stickney, Peter F. 1981. Vegetative recovery and development. In: DeByle, Norbert V., ed. Clearcutting and fire in the larch/Douglas-fir forests of western Montana - a multifaceted research summary. Gen, Tech. Rep. INT-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 33-37. [34969] 254. Stickney, Peter F. 1982. Initial stages of a natural forest succession following wildfire in the northern Rocky Mountains, a case study. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 2 p. [20956] 255. Stickney, Peter F. 1982. Vegetation response to clearcutting and broadcast burning on north and south slopes at Newman Ridge. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 119-124. [18538] 256. Stickney, Peter F. 1985. Data base for early postfire succession on the Sundance Burn, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-189. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 121 p. [7223] 257. Stickney, Peter F. 1985. Initial stages of a natural forest succession following wildfire in the Northern Rocky Mountains, a case study. In: Lotan, James E.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Fischer, William C.; Mutch, Robert W., technical coordinators. Proceedings--symposium and workshop on wilderness fire; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-181. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 383-384. [7367] 258. 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. 10 p. [20090] 259. Strothmann, R. O.; Roy, Douglass F. 1984. Regeneration of Douglas-fir in the Klamath Mountains Region, California and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-81. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p. [5640] 260. Stuart, John D. 1987. Fire history of an old-growth forest of Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forest in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California. Madrono. 34(2): 128-141. [7277] 261. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 135 p. [49] 262. Swedberg, Kenneth C. 1973. A transition coniferous forest in the Cascade Mountains of northern Oregon. The American Midland Naturalist. 89(1): 1-25. [4806] 263. Tappeiner, John C., II; McDonald, Philip M.; Newton, Michael; Harrington, Timothy B. 1992. Ecology of hardwoods, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation: effects on conifer regeneration. In: Hobbs, Stephen D.; Tesch, Steven D.; Owston, Peyton W.; [and others], eds. Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 136-164. [22157] 264. Thompson, S. M. 1990. The initial response of several forage species to prescribed burning in southeastern British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 137 p. Thesis. [27997] 265. Tiedemann, A. R.; Berndt, H. W. 1972. Vegetation and soils of a 30-year deer and elk exclosure in central Washington. Northwest Science. 46(1): 59-66. [14379] 266. Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Klock, Glen O. 1976. Development of vegetation after fire, seeding, and fertilization on the Entiat Experimental Forest. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1974 October 16-17; Portland, OR. No. 15. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 171-191. [2328] 267. Tilton, Mark E.; Willard, E. Earl. 1981. Winter food habits of mountain sheep in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45(2): 548-553. [13580] 268. Tinnin, Robert O.; Kirkpatrick, Lee Ann. 1985. The allelopathic influence of broadleaf trees and shrubs on seedlings of Douglas-fir. Forest Science. 31(4): 945-952. [9692] 269. Tonn, Jonalea R.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Mroz, Glenn D.; Page-Dumroese, Deborah S. 2000. Miller Creek: ecosystem recovery in a western Montana forest 30 years after prescribed burning and wildfire. In: Moser, W. Keith; Moser, Cynthia F., eds. Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management: Proceedings of the 21st Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: an international symposium; 1998 April 14-16; Tallahassee, FL. No. 21. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc: 67-73. [37612] 270. Toweill, Dale E.; Maser, Chris. 1985. Food of cougars in the Cascade Range of Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(1): 77-80. [24562] 271. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1976. Some important native shrubs of the west. Ogden, UT. 16 p. [2388] 272. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Boise National Forest. 1993. Snapshot in time: Repeat photography on the Boise National Forest: 1870-1992. Ogden, UT. 239 p. [22745] 273. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2002. PLANTS database (2002), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262] 274. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698] 275. Volland, Leonard A. 1974. Relation of pocket gophers to plant communities in the pine region of central Oregon. In: Black, Hugh C., ed. Wildlife and forest management in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a symposium; 1973 September 11-12; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory: 149-166. [8003] 276. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon pumice zone. R6-ECOL-104-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 138 p. [7341] 277. Wahlenberg, W. G. 1930. Effect of ceanothus brush on western yellow pine plantations in the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Agricultural Research. 41(8): 601-612. [10347] 278. Wallace, Michael Wayne. 1976. The effects of fire on nutrient conditions in the Pinus ponderosa zone of central Oregon. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 73 p. Thesis. [34456] 279. Washington State Cooperative Extension Service. 1982. Herbicides in forestry. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 13 p. [7873] 280. Weatherspoon, C. Phillip. 1985. Preharvest burning for shrub control in a white fir stand: preliminary observations. In: Proceedings, 6th annual forest vegetation management conference; 1984 November 1-2; Redding, CA. Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 71-88. [11568] 281. Weatherspoon, C. Phillip. 1988. Preharvest prescribed burning for vegetation management: effects on Ceanothus velutinus seeds in duff and soil. In: Proceedings, 9th annual forest vegetation management conference; 1987 November 4-5; Redding, CA. Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 125-141. [17072] 282. Weatherspoon, C. Phillip. 1990. Pre-harvest prescribed burning for vegetation management. In: Hamilton, Evelyn, compiler. Vegetation management: An integrated approach--Proceedings of the 4th annual vegetation management workshop; 1989 November 14-16; Vancouver, BC. FRDA Report 109. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Research Branch: 65-66. [10963] 283. Weaver, Harold. 1934. The development and control of pine beetle epidemics. Journal of Forestry. 32: 100-103. [12266] 284. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706] 285. 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] 286. Wilcox, Richard B.; Brotherson, Jack D.; Evenson, William E. 1981. Canopy influence on understory community composition. Northwest Science. 55(3): 194-201. [109] 287. Will, G.M.; Youngberg, C. T. T. 1979. Some foliage nutrient levels in tree and brush species growing on pumice soils in central Oregon. Northwest Science. 53(4): 274-276; 1979. [2564] 288. Wittinger, W. T.; Pengelly, W. L.; Irwin, L. L.; Peek, J. M. 1977. A 20-year record of shrub succession in logged areas in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Northwest Science. 51(3): 161-171. [6828] 289. Wollum II, A. G.; Youngberg, C. T.; Chichester, F. W. 1968. Relation of previous timber stand age to nodulation of Ceanothus velutinus. Forest Science. 14(2): 115-118. [38401] 290. Wollum, A. G., II; Youngberg, C. T. 1969. Effect of soil temperature on nodulation of Ceanothus velutinus Dougl. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 33(5): 801-803. [35434] 291. Wright, Henry A. 1978. The effect of fire on vegetation in ponderosa pine forests: A state-of-the-art review. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 21 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. [4425] 292. Yerkes, Vern P. 1960. Occurrence of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation after clear cutting old-growth Douglas-fir. Res. Pap. PNW-34. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [8937] 293. Youds, John A.; Hebert, Daryll M. 1988. Prescribed burning for wildlife in the Cariboo. In: Feller, M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. Wildlife and range prescribed burning workshop proceedings; 1987 October 27-28; Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry: 73-83. [3102] 294. 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] 295. 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 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: 18-31. [2681] 296. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bulletin No. 9. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. [6831] 297. Youngberg, C. T.; Wollum, A. G., II. 1976. Nitrogen accretion in developing Ceanothus velutinus stands. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 40: 109-112. [16350] 298. Youngberg, C. T.; Wollum, A. G.; Scott, W. 1979. Ceanothus in Douglas-fir clear-cuts: nitrogen accretion and impact on regeneration. In: Gordon, J. C.; Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April 2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 224-233. [4295] 299. Zamora, Benjamin A. 1982. Understory development in forest succession: an example from the Inland Northwest. In: Means, J., ed. Forest succession and stand development research in the Inland Northwest; 1981 March 26; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Lab: 63-69. [8766] 300. Zamora, Benjamin Abel. 1975. Secondary succession on broadcast-burned clearcuts of the Abies grandis-Pachistima myrsinites habitat type in northcentral Idaho. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 127 p. Dissertation. [5154] 301. Zavitkovski, J.; Newton, M. 1968. Ecological importance of snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus in the Oregon Cascades. Ecology. 49(6): 1134-1145. [4118] 302. Zavitkovski, J.; Newton, Michael; El-Hassan, Babiker. 1969. Effects of snowbrush on growth of some conifers. Journal of Forestry. 67(4): 242-246; 1969. [2691] 303. Zavitkovski, Jaroslav. 1966. Snowbrush, Ceanothus velutinus Dougl., its ecology and role in forest regeneration in the Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 102 p. Dissertation. [35485] 304. Ziemer, R. R. 1981. Roots and the stability of forested slopes. In: Proceedings of the symposium on erosion and sediment transport in Pacific Rim steeplands; 1981 January 25-31; Christchurch, New Zealand. IAHO Publication No. 132. Washington, DC: International Association of Hydrological Sciences: 343-361. [39481] Ceanothus velutinus Index
Related categories for SPECIES: Ceanothus velutinus | Snowbrush Ceanothus |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |
| |
| |
| Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities. | |
| |
|
About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory |
| 1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution. |
