1Up Info - A Portal with a Difference

1Up Travel - A Travel Portal with a Difference.    
1Up Info
   

Earth & EnvironmentHistoryLiterature & ArtsHealth & MedicinePeoplePlacesPlants & Animals  • Philosophy & Religion  • Science & TechnologySocial Science & LawSports & Everyday Life Wildlife, Animals, & PlantsCountry Study Encyclopedia A -Z
North America Gazetteer


You are here >1Up Info > Wildlife, Animals, and Plants > Plant Species > Shrub > Species: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
 

Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 


Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 

Wildlife Species

  Amphibians

  Birds

  Mammals

  Reptiles

 

Kuchler

 

Plants

  Bryophyte

  Cactus

  Fern or Fern Ally

  Forb

  Graminoid

  Lichen

  Shrub

  Tree

  Vine


Introductory

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
ABBREVIATION : CERMON SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : CEMO2 COMMON NAMES : true mountain-mahogany alderleaf mountain-mahogany TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name for true mountain-mahogany is Cercocarpus montanus Raf. [25]. It is a member of the rose family (Rosaceae). Kartesz [25] recognizes the following nine varieties: C. montanus var. argenteus (Rydb.) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. blancheae (Schneid.) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. flabellifolius (Rydb.) Kearney and Peebles C. montanus var. glaber (S. Wats.) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. macrourus (Rydb.) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. minutiflorus (Abrams) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. montanus Raf. C. montanus var. paucidentatus (S. Wats.) F. L. Martin C. montanus var. traskiae (Eastw.) F. L. Martin True mountain-mahogany hybridizes with curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) and littleleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus intricatus) where their ranges overlap [6]. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY COMPILED BY AND DATE : Nancy E. McMurray, August 1986 LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : K. Anna Marshall, January 1995 AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Marshall, K. Anna. 1995. McMurray, Nancy E. 1986. Cercocarpus montanus. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : The central distribution of true mountain-mahogany is located on the west side of the Rocky Mountains in the foothills and mountains of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. The range of true mountain-mahogany also extends north into Montana, east into South Dakota and Nebraska, south from Oklahoma into Mexico, and west into Arizona and Nevada [15,66]. True mountain-mahogany occasionally occurs in Idaho [48] and southwestern Oregon [43]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands STATES : AZ CO ID MT NE NV NM OK OR SD TX UT WY MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : AGFO ARCH BAND BIBE BLCA BRCA CACH CACA CANY CARE CHCU CHIR COLM CORO CURE DINO ELMA FLFO FOBU GLCA GRCA GRSA GUMO HOVE JECA LAME LAMR LABE MEVE NABR PECO ROMO SCBL TICA WACA WICA ZION BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 1 Northern Pacific Border 5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 8 Northern Rocky Mountains 9 Middle Rocky Mountains 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 15 Black Hills Uplift 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K011 Western ponderosa forest K012 Douglas-fir forest K015 Western spruce-fir forest K016 Eastern ponderosa forest K017 Black Hills pine forest K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest K019 Arizona pine forest K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest K022 Great Basin pine forest K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland K031 Oak-juniper woodlands K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub K038 Great Basin sagebrush K055 Sagebrush steppe K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass SAF COVER TYPES : 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 210 Interior Douglas-fir 219 Limber pine 220 Rocky Mountain juniper 237 Interior ponderosa pine 239 Pinyon-juniper 240 Arizona cypress 241 Western live oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 210 Bitterbrush 322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass 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 503 Arizona chaparral 504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland 509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association 733 Juniper-oak 735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : True mountain-mahogany commonly occurs as a dominant shrub or small tree in almost-pure stands, as a codominant in mountain shrub communities, and as an understory species in pinyon (Pinus spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.) communities. Where true mountain-mahogany forms a canopy layer, it is associated with grassy species [10]. In Utah, true mountain-mahogany stands supported a total plant cover of 12.8 percent [66]. In the Black Hills true mountain-mahogany grows in dense stands [53]. The mountain shrub community usually exhibits a mosaic pattern of several codominant shrub species distributed across a heterogeneous landscape. In such communities true mountain-mahogany is commonly associated with other mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), scrub oak (Quercus spp.), bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia mexicana var. stansburiana), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), pachistima (Pachistima myrsinities), ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), bitter cherry (P. emarginata), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.) [33]. The pinyon-juniper community is a tree/annual forb community type with relatively low cover value but high species diversity [10,14]. Pinyon-juniper sites in Utah supported a total plant cover of 26.8 percent. The relative frequency of true mountain-mahogany on these sites was 0.8 percent [66]. True mountain-mahogany occurs as an understory species in Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) stands and Arizona chaparral [7,8,46]. In southwestern Oregon, true mountain-mahogany is codominant with Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) [43]. In the Wasatch Mountains of Utah and Idaho, true mountain-mahogany codominates with antelope bitterbrush [42]. Publications listing true mountain-mahogany as a dominant or codominant species include: Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and community type [1] Arizona chaparral: plant associations and ecology [11] A vegetation classification system for New Mexico, U.S.A. [18] Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type classification [22] Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification [23] Woodland communities and soils of Fort Bayard, southwestern New Mexico [30] Vegetation and flora of Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona [54]

VALUE AND USE

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : NO-ENTRY IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : True mountain-mahogany is good forage for all classes of browsing animals in both summer and winter [6,15,48]. Livestock and big game browse new growth in the spring [48]. True mountain-mahogany constituted 56 to 92 percent of the summer diet of bighorn sheep in Waterton Canyon, Colorado [44]. Deer and elk consume the leaves and twigs of true mountain-mahogany in the summer and browse the twigs in winter [48]. PALATABILITY : True mountain mahogany is highly palatable forage. New spring foliage is preferred by livestock and wildlife and remains palatable until late fall [48]. The palatability of true mountain-mahogany to livestock and wildlife is rated as follows: CO MT UT WY Cattle Good ---- Fair ---- Sheep Good ---- Good Good Horses Fair ---- Fair Good Pronghorn ---- ---- ---- Poor Elk Good ---- Good Good Mule deer Good Fair Good Good Small mammals Good ---- Fair Good Small nongame birds ---- ---- Fair Good Upland game birds ---- ---- Fair Fair Waterfowl ---- ---- Poor Poor NUTRITIONAL VALUE : True mountain-mahogany is nutritious forage. Mineral levels in true mountain-mahogany compare favorably with those of other forage species, and true mountain-mahogany has a desirable calcium to phosphorus ratio (7.5:1) [10]. Summer foliage of true mountain-mahogany in Waterton Canyon, Colorado, contained 11.2 to 16.3 percent crude protein and 33.4 to 38.7 percent digestible organic matter [44]. In the Uintah Basin, Utah, true mountain-mahogany leaves and twigs collected in early October contained the following mineral concentrations in parts per million [10]: Zn 34.2 Cu 28.9 Mn 12.0 Fe 166.4 Ca 5486.0 Mg 2632.0 Na 386.6 P 731.8 N 9048.0 True mountain-mahogany has low manganese, iron, potassium, and phosphorus when compared to its associates. Copper concentration is relatively high; browsing animals would be poisoned by copper toxicity if true mountain-mahogany were their sole diet item [10]. COVER VALUE : True mountain-mahogany provides cover for a wide variety of wildlife species due to the juxtaposition of stands within forested and nonforested communities [16]. The degree to which true mountain-mahogany provides environmental protection during one or more seasons for wildlife species is as follows [17]: CO UT WY Pronghorn ---- ---- Good Elk ---- Fair Fair Mule deer ---- Good Good White-tailed deer ---- Fair Poor Small mammals Good Fair Good Small nongame birds Good Fair Good Upland game birds ---- Fair Good Waterfowl ---- Poor Poor VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : True mountain-mahogany can be used to improve ranges or rehabilitate mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper communities [33,50], although it may be difficult to establish [31]. True mountain-mahogany exhibits relatively low seedling vigor and initial growth rates [31]. Regional seed sources should be used in revegetation work [27]. Achenes should be collected in years when precipitation during the growing season is average or above average [46]. The average germination rate of seeds collected during a dry year was 33 percent; it was 80 percent in years when precipitation was average or above average in Colorado. Seeds from northwest-facing slopes had much higher germination rates than those from southwest-facing slopes. Achenes should be collected when they are just beginning to fall naturally (September 15 to October 5 in Colorado) [46], and collection should be limited to the first seeds detaching from the bush. Immature and poor-quality seeds adhere to the plant and disseminate last [33]. True mountain-mahogany seeds can be stored for a number of years. Smith [46] found that true mountain-mahogany seeds from Colorado could be stored at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 deg C) for up to 3 years before viability was reduced. Stevens and others [51] stored seeds in an open, unheated, and uncooled warehouse in Utah. Germination rates remained at 64 percent for storage years 2 through 5. Germination for storage year 7 was 46 percent, and by storage year 10, germination had dropped to 25 percent. Viability was highest for true mountain-mahogany seeds stored at either -5 to -10 degrees Fahrenheit (-20.5 to -23.3 deg C) or 36 to 44 degrees Fahrenheit (2.2-6.7 deg C) [47]. True mountain-mahogany may be seeded or transplanted. Allison [2] recommended seeding New Mexico rangeland at a rate of 0.9 seeds per square foot [2]. Competing vegetation should be reduced to a practical minimum. Nitrogen fertilizers should not be used; they may increase use of soil moisture to the detriment of young seedlings, increase undesirable competition from forbs or grasses, and increase the palatability of young plants. True mountain-mahogany should be transplanted in the fall. Protection from the effects of overbrowsing may be necessary [46]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : True mountain-mahogany is used in landscaping. As a heat- and drought-tolerant plant, it can be used for water-efficient landscaping in arid environments [20]. It is planted as an ornamental throughout the Southwest [49]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Because true mountain-mahogany grows more slowly than many of its associates, it continues to provide succulent forage after other species become unpalatable [38]. Disturbance and browsing may promote the health and vigor of true mountain-mahogany. Very old, undisturbed stands of true mountain-mahogany may become decadent, and their forage may become less palatable or out of reach to most browsing animals [34]. Protecting true mountain-mahogany from browsing may result in growth stagnation; 40 years of protection from browsing resulted in significantly decreased true mountain-mahogany stem elongation in Laramie, Wyoming [55]. In southwestern Colorado browse weight yields of true mountain-mahogany increased when current annual growth stems were clipped by 20 to 80 percent. Clipping true mountain-mahogany by 60 percent resulted in maximum growth rates [45].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : True mountain-mahogany is a native, xerophytic, deciduous shrub or small tree growing up to 19.8 feet (6 m) tall [6,15,26,29]. Leaves are simple, alternate, lanceolate to roundish, and 0.28 to 2.4 inches (0.7-6 cm) long [40]. Flowers are borne solitarily or in fascicles on short spur branchlets [29]. Achenes retain their long (up to 4 inches [10 cm]), twisted, plumose styles [6,29]. The stout, lateral roots of true mountain-mahogany arise from a large root crown. In alluvial soils, they descend downward to depths of 3.3 feet (1 m) or more. In shallow soils underlain by tuff, they penetrate to the depth of the bedrock, grow at right angles until encountering a crack, and descend downward once again. Average root depth for true mountain-mahogany in north-central New Mexico was 3.7 feet (1.13 m) [67]. Near Colorado Springs, Colorado, true mountain-mahogany roots reached maximum depths between 4 and 5.6 feet (1.2-1.7 m) on residual loamy soils [5]. True mountain-mahogany roots may have associations of nitrogen-fixing endomycorrhizae [56]. True mountain-mahogany is probably long-lived. In the Uintah Basin of Utah, some true mountain-mahogany was 54 years old [19]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : True mountain-mahogany reproduces vegetatively and sexually. True mountain-mahogany sprouts from the root crown following disturbance [13,15]. In favorable years, true mountain-mahogany produces a good crop of seedlings [48]; however, seedling establishment can be very sporadic. True mountain-mahogany did not reproduce during a 10-year period from 1965 to 1975 on a northeast-facing slope in Chadron, Nebraska [69]. Stanton [48] suggested that poor seedling establishment may be caused by drought or frost. Woodmansee [71] found that relatively mesic habitats were critical for true mountain-mahogany seedling success in New Mexico. Establishment was dependent on abundant sheltering and shading and the presence of litter. Germination occurred under or near mature true mountain-mahogany. The germination requirements of true mountain-mahogany may vary with site climatic factors. Seeds collected from Utah and Colorado varied in their chilling requirements; however, true mountain-mahogany probably does not require extremely long periods of chilling for germination [27]. Scarifying seeds from a Wyoming collection did not result in increased germination. Both vernalization and soaking seeds in distilled water did increase germination [9]. Monsen and Christenson [32] recommended a long stratification period. Smith [46] recommended after-ripening true mountain-mahogany seeds by storing them at room temperature for 5 months, dry-storing them for 6 weeks at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 deg C), and wet-prechilling the seeds for 2 to 3 weeks. Day and night temperatures should alternate between 86 and 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20.0/30.0 deg C). Differences in size among seed collections from northern New Mexico did not explain differences in germination rates; collections containing mostly large seeds did not exhibit a greater average germination rate than those with a fewer large seeds and more small seeds [37]. True mountain-mahogany seeds are wind dispersed [7]. The pointed basal end of the achene and the corkscrew-like tail enable it to penetrate the ground [26]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : True mountain-mahogany commonly grows on plains, foothills, moderately steep slopes, ridges, and bluffs [9,15,46,48]. Its occurrence is not usually related to a particular parent material [9], but in the Black Hills, true mountain-mahogany grows only on limestone formations [53]. True mountain-mahogany commonly grows in coarse, shallow, well-drained residual soils on sunny sites [9,48], and it sometimes grows in the moist, fertile, relatively deep soil of canyon bottoms [6,48]. The average pH at sites dominated by true mountain-mahogany in Utah was 7.7 [66]. True mountain-mahogany distribution is dependent on moisture availability [70]. In Utah true mountain-mahogany communities on south-facing slopes always occur at higher elevations than those on north-facing slopes [3,70]. In central and western Colorado, where true mountain-mahogany occurs in mountain shrub communities from 4,000 to 10,000 feet (1,200-3,000 m) elevation, annual precipitation averages from 10 to 20 inches (2,540-5,080 mm) [46]. In the Laramie Basin, Wyoming, true mountain-mahogany stands grow at 7,000 to 8,000 feet (2,100-2,400 m) elevation, and the average annual precipitation is 10 to 17 inches (2,540-4,318 mm). Temperatures at Laramie may range from -47 degrees Fahrenheit (-43.8 deg C) in winter to 97 degrees Fahrenheit (36.1 deg C) in summer [9]. Dittberner and Olson [17] list elevations for true mountain-mahogany as follows: Colorado 4,000 to 10,000 feet (1,220-3,049 m) Utah 5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,524-2,134 m) Wyoming 4,400 to 8,500 feet (1,341-2,591 m) SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : True mountain-mahogany is somewhat shade tolerant. It is able to grow in open ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stands; however, it occurs most often and grows more vigorously on sites without forest canopy. The successional role of true mountain-mahogany may vary with community type. In north-central Utah true mountain-mahogany communities on xeric sites are more likely to persist and those on mesic sites are more likely to be seral [70]. In central Utah Anderson [3] found evidence indicating succession of true mountain-mahogany stands towards mountain shrub communities dominated by other species. Greenwood and Brotherson [66] observed the establishment of pinyon and juniper in true mountain-mahogany communities in Utah. In 11 out of 20 sites where true mountain-mahogany was the dominant species growing in shallow soil within slickrock areas, pinyon seedlings grew beneath true mountain-mahogany shrubs. The deeper soil and modified habitat around true mountain-mahogany apparently provided a route for pinyon establishment. Juniper seedlings were also present. In the Black Hills, climax mountain shrub communities dominated by true mountain-mahogany occur near ponderosa pine communities. In the ponderosa pine communities, succession after fire includes a stage of true mountain-mahogany that may be shaded out by the overstory canopy of ponderosa pine. However, true mountain-mahogany is rarely eliminated from the community. Some stands are ecotonal between ponderosa pine and true mountain-mahogany and may remain so indefinitely [23]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : The seasonal development of true mountain-mahogany varies by region and elevation. In Utah flowering varies from mid-May to late June and fruit ripens from late July to mid-September [6]. In Idaho true mountain-mahogany fruits from August to October [48]. Phenological data from two elevations on the Wasatch Plateau in Utah are presented below [12]: Phenological Event Elevation Elevation 7,480 ft (2,280 m) 7,890 ft (2,405 m) Flower buds bursting May 23 June 2 Leaf buds bursting April 30 May 3 In full leaf May 28 June 5 In full bloom May 28 June 7 Fruit all ripe July 23 August 2 Fruit all dropped August 11 August 3 Leaves all dropped October 14 October 19

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : True mountain-mahogany is usually temporarily damaged by fire [41]. True mountain-mahogany burns less readily than other shrubs [28,36] and sprouts vigorously from the root crown after most fires [7,13,36]. In open, dry habitats where true mountain-mahogany is likely to occur, fires in presettlement times were of low severity because of fuel discontinuity. Today, many formerly open stands are dominated by conifers and decadent shrubs which provide greater fuel loads. When fires occur, they are likely to be more severe [7]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Fire generally top kills true mountain-mahogany [36]. Live crowns of plants occurring in Arizona chaparral dominated by shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella) and true mountain-mahogany were reduced by 88.5 to 99 percent during prescribed fires of various intensities. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : True mountain-mahogany sprouts vigorously after fire. True mountain-mahogany sprouted after severe fire in Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico. Prefire canopy cover consisted mainly of ponderosa pine; tree foliage was either completely scorched or consumed by the fire in the two stands where true mountain-mahogany occurred. True mountain-mahogany density and height in postfire year 2 were as follows [39]: clumps/acre sprouts/acre average height (cm) Frijoles Rim stand 70 75 38 Burnt Mesa stand 5 20 83 The cover of true mountain-mahogany in Arizona chaparral before a prescribed fire was 16.5 percent. By postfire year 5, true mountain-mahogany had recovered to 8.5 percent cover through sprouting. Herbicide was applied to leaves of oaks in the stand in order to assure fuel flammability. Oak leaf moistures averaged 13 percent or less after herbicide desiccation; untreated oak leaf moistures averaged 85 percent or greater [36]. True mountain-mahogany seedlings may establish after fire, although seedling establishment may be relatively low. One year after a prescribed fire in Arizona chaparral, seven true mountain-mahogany seedlings per acre were observed [36]. Five seedlings per acre emerged in postfire year 2. No seedlings emerged in postfire years 3, 4, or 5. Seedling mortality may be high. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : The response of true mountain-mahogany to fire may vary seasonally. High- and low-severity fire treatments applied to true mountain-mahogany during the dormant season in north-central Colorado were more effective in increasing biomass production than those applied during the growing season [57]. Current annual growth production of true mountain-mahogany, expressed as a ratio to control plant production, for high- and low-intensity fire treatments were as follows: Fire Growing-season Dormant-season 1971 1972 1971 1972 High-intensity 0.6 1.0 4.8 4.6 Low-intensity 1.0 1.7 6.5 9.1 Fire treatments were applied to plants individually with a kerosene-burning flame gun. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Fuel loadings for chaparral communities containing true mountain-mahogany are described [35].

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany
REFERENCES : 1. Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and community type. Res. Note RM-478. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [9092] 2. Allison, Chris. 1988. Seeding New Mexico rangeland. Circular 525. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Cooperative Extension Service. 15 p. [11830] 3. Anderson, David Lee. 1974. Ecological aspects of Cercocarpus montanus Raf. communities in central Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 84 p. Thesis. [313] 4. Arnold, Joseph F. 1963. Uses of fire in the management of Arizona watersheds. In: Proceedings, 2nd annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1963 March 14-15; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 99-111. [13528] 5. Berndt, Herbert W.; Gibbons, Robert D. 1958. Root distribution of some native trees and understory plants growing on three sites within ponderosa pine watersheds in Colorado. Station Paper No. 37. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [16337] 6. Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; McArthur, E. Durant; [and others]. 1975. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. I. Rose family. Res. Pap. INT-169. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [472] 7. 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] 8. Brock, John H.; DeBano, Leonard F. 1990. Wettability of an Arizona chaparral soil influenced by prescribed burning. In: Krammes, J. S., technical coordinator. Effects of fire management of Southwestern natural resources: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 November 15-17; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech, Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 206-209. [11291] 9. Brooks, Asa C. 1962. An ecological study of Cercocarpus montanus and adjacent communities in part of the Laramie Basin. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 53 p. M.S. thesis. [526] 10. Brotherson, Jack D.; Osayande, Solomon T. 1980. Mineral concentrations in true mountain mahogany and Utah juniper, and in associated soils. Journal of Range Management. 33(3): 182-185. [531] 11. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038] 12. Costello, David F.; Price, Raymond. 1939. Weather and plant-development data as determinants of grazing periods on mountain range. Tech. Bull. 686. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [694] 13. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292] 14. Cully, Anne C.; Cully, Jack F., Jr. 1989. Spatial and temporal variability in perennial and annual vegetation at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Great Basin Naturalist. 49(1): 113-122. [6742] 15. Davis, James N. 1990. General ecology, wildlife use, and management of the mountain mahoganies in the Intermountain West. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 5th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Cercocarpus; 1988 July 13-14; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 1-13. [16092] 16. Deitschman, Glenn H.; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1974. Cercocarpus H.B.K. cercocarpus (mountain-mahogany). In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 309-312. [7583] 17. 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] 18. Donart, Gary B.; Sylvester, Donell; Hickey, Wayne. 1978. A vegetation classification system for New Mexico, U.S.A. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. Proceedings, 1st international rangeland congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 488-490. [4094] 19. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings in the Intermountain West. 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: 136-149. [915] 20. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166] 21. Henrickson, James. 1987. Two new species of Cercocarpus (Rosaceae) from Mexico. Systematic Botany. 12(2): 293-298. [1129] 22. Hess, Karl; Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-266. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1141] 23. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1181] 24. Horton, Jerome S. 1960. Vegetation types of the San Bernardino Mountains. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [10687] 25. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II--thesaurus. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 816 p. [23878] 26. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563] 27. Kitchen, Stanley G.; Meyer, Susan E. 1990. Seed dormancy in two species of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius and Cercocarpus montanus). In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 5th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Cercocarpus; 1988 July 13-14; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 27-41. [16094] 28. Lindenmuth, A. W., Jr.; Glendening, G. E. 1962. Controlled burning of Arizona chaparral: A 1962 progress report. Proceedings, Annual Arizona Watershed Symposium. 6: 23-24. [10490] 29. Martin, Floyd L. 1950. A revision of Cercocarpus. Brittonia. 7(2): 91-111. [12586] 30. Medina, Alvin L. 1987. Woodland communities and soils of Fort Bayard, southwestern New Mexico. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 21: 99-112. [3978] 31. Monsen, Stephen B. 1987. Shrub selections for pinyon-juniper plantings. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 316-329. [4925] 32. 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 Univeristy: 72-119. [1680] 33. Monsen, Stephen B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1985. Factors influencing establishment of seeded broadleaf herbs and shrubs following fire. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: a symposium: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office: 112-124. [1682] 34. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747] 35. Nord, Eamor C.; Countryman, Clive M. 1972. Fire relations. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of the 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: 88-97. [1773] 36. Pase, Charles P.; Lindenmuth, A. W., Jr. 1971. Effects of prescribed fire on vegetation and sediment in oak-mountain mahogany chaparral. Journal of Forestry. 69: 800-805. [1829] 37. Piatt, J. R. 1973. Seed size affects germination of true mountainmahogany. Journal of Range Management. 26(3): 231-232. [13566] 38. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968. Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554] 39. Potter, Loren D.; Foxx, Teralene. 1979. Recovery and delayed mortality of ponderosa pine after wildfire. Final Report (Part I), Contract No. 16-608-GR, EC-291. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Biology Department. 33 p. [11748] 40. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130] 41. Ralphs, Michael H.; Schen, David C.; Busby, Fee. 1975. Prescribed burning--effective control of sagebrush and open juniper. Utah Science. 36(3): 94-98. [1931] 42. Ream, Robert Ray. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah and Idaho. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 178 p. Ph.D. thesis. [5506] 43. Riegel, Gregg M.; Smith, Bradley G.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1992. Foothill oak woodlands of the interior valleys of southwestern Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(2): 66-76. [18470] 44. Rominger, Eric M.; Dale, Alan R.; Bailey, James A. 1988. Shrubs in the summer diet of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(1): 47-50. [3885] 45. Shepherd, Harold R. 1971. Effects of clipping on key browse species in southwestern Colorado. Technical Publication Number 28. [Place of publication unknown]: Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks. 104 p. [4064] 46. Smith, Dwight Raymond. 1971. Growth responses of true mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) on four soil types within the Front Range of Colorado. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 206 p. Dissertation. [5721] 47. Springfield, H. W. 1973. Cliffrose and mountainmahogany seeds retain viability 6 years in cold storage. Res. Note RM-236. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 2 p. [43] 48. 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] 49. Steger, Robert E.; Beck, Reldon F. 1973. Range plants as ornamentals. Journal of Range Management. 26: 72-74. [12038] 50. Stevens, Richard. 1983. Species adapted for seeding mountain brush, big, black, and low sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper communities. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 78-82. [2240] 51. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Davis, James N. 1981. Viability of seed from thirty-two shrub and forb species through fifteen years of warehouse storage. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 274-277. [2244] 52. Texas Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Plant communities of Texas (Series level). Unpublished report. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 26 p. [23810] 53. Thilenius, John F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. [2317] 54. Warren, Peter L.; Hoy, Marina S.; Hoy, Wilton E. 1992. Vegetation and flora of Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona. Tech. Rep. NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/43. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 78 p. [19871] 55. Waugh, William J. 1990. Stagnation and decadence of Cercocarpus montanus in a southeastern Wyoming big game exclosure. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 5th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Cercocarpus; 1988 July 13-14; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 89-95. [16099] 56. Williams, Stephen E.; Aldon, Earl F. 1976. Endomycorrhizal (vesicular arbuscular) associations of some arid zone shrubs. Southwestern Naturalist. 20(4): 437-444. [5517] 57. Young, D. Lewis; Bailey, James A. 1975. Effects of fire and mechanical treatment on Cercocarpus montanus and Ribes cereum. Journal of Range Management. 28(6): 495-497. [6935] 58. 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] 59. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 60. 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] 61. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384] 62. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 63. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090] 64. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104] 65. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [23119] 66. Greenwood, Larry R.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1978. Ecological relationships between pinyon-juniper and true mountain mahogany stands in the Uintah Basin, Utah. Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 164-167. [15654] 67. Foxx, Teralene S.; Tierney, Gail D. 1987. Rooting patterns in the pinyon-juniper woodland. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 69-79. [4790] 68. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362] 69. Nixon, E. S. 1977. A mountain cercocarpus population--revisited. Great Basin Naturalist. 37(1): 97-99. [24497] 70. Brotherson, Jack D.; Anderson, D. L.; Szyska, L. A. 1984. Habitat relations of Cercocarpus montanus (true mountain mahogany) in central Utah. Journal of Range Management. 37(4): 321-324. [529] 71. Woodmansee, Robert G. 1969. Natural reproduction of Eurotia lanata, Atriplex canescens, Cercocarpus montanus, and Cowania mexicana in New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. M.S. thesis. [2597]

Index

Related categories for Species: Cercocarpus montanus | True Mountain-Mahogany

Send this page to a friend
Print this Page

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.

Information Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System

About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory
Link to 1Up Info | Add 1Up Info Search to your site

1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution.