|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
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
|
 |
