|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
ABBREVIATION :
CHRCHR
SYNONYMS :
Castanea chrysophylla Dougl.
Castanopsis chrysophylla A. DC.
SCS PLANT CODE :
CACH6
COMMON NAMES :
giant chinquapin
giant chinkapin
chinkapin
chinquapin
golden chinkapin
goldenleaf chestnut
western chinkapin
giant evergreen chinkapin
giant evergreen-chinkapin
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of giant chinquapin is
Chrysolepis chrysophylla (Hook.) Hjelmqv. [34].
Giant chinquapin is closely related to members of the chestnut genus
(Castanea). It was formerly included within the genus Castanopsis
[32,39,44], which includes the Asiatic evergreen trees and shrubs, but
most authorities now place the two North American chinquapin species, C.
chrysophylla and C. sempervirens (Sierra or bush chiquapin), in the
segregate genus Chrysolepis [34].
Giant chinquapin develops a number of shrubby ecotypes which intergrade
with treelike growth forms [40]. Differences in form are currently
thought to reflect site conditions rather than genetic differences
[40,54,55]. Consequently, the shrubby variety (var. minor), commonly
known as golden or shrub chinquapin [33,51], is no longer recognized as
a separate entity [39]. The shrub Sierra chinquapin (C. sempervirens)
hybridizes with shrubby ecotypes of C. chrysophylla in areas where their
ranges overlap [25].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Giant chinquapin is ranked by The Nature Conservancy as imperiled or
rare (S2S3) in the state of Washington [72].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
N. McMurray, November 1989
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
McMurray, Nancy E. 1989. Chrysolepis chrysophylla. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Giant chinquapin is restricted to the Pacific Coast region, occurring
from central California to west-central Washington [32,44,51]. Giant
chinquapin is most abundant in the coastal mountain ranges of
northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. It is also common
throughout most of western Oregon, extending eastward along the southern
end of the Cascade Range into southeastern Oregon and as far north as
the Columbia River gorge [1,18,64]. Several disjunct populations occur
in western Washington in the vicinity of Puget Sound [1,42].
Giant chinquapin trees range primarily from San Fransico Bay northward
[19]. Shrubby ecotypes of giant chinquapin make up the entire southern
portion of the species distribution from Marin County south to the Santa
Lucia Mountains in Monterey County [18,25,69]. Shrubby growth forms
also occur throughout the range of the species in southern Oregon and
northern California [51]. Disjunct populations of both trees and shrubs
grow locally on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada in central
California [25,55].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
STATES :
CA OR WA
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CRLA PORE REDW
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
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
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
SAF COVER TYPES :
207 Red fir
211 White fir
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
231 Port Orford-cedar
232 Redwood
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
246 California black oak
247 Jeffery pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Self-perpetuating stands of giant chinquapin are indicative of climax
conditions in a number of communities within redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer, white fir (Abies
concolor), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and Shasta red fir
(Abies magnifica var. shastensis) forests [18,36,56,63,66]. Giant
chiquapin may occur as either a subdominant tree or a dominant
understory shrub, depending upon moisture conditions, elevation, and
overstory density [40,42].
In the absence of fire, giant chinquapin is the potential climax
dominant at upper elevations of the mixed-evergreen zone in northwestern
California [40]. These communities are associated with mesic north
slopes at the interface of the white fir zone and are currently
dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [40]. Climax
associates include Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum),
vine maple (Acer circinatum), beargrass (Xerophyllum tenex), and
twinflower (Linnaea borealis). In the the western Cascades of Oregon,
sites supporting the western hemlock/giant chinquapin habitat type are
only slightly more mesic than those of the western
hemlock-Douglas-fir/oceanspray (Holdiscus discolor) habitat type; the
latter type occupies some of the hottest and driest forested sites in
the western Cascades [14,29,30]. Within this region, the presence of
giant chinquapin often indicates infertile, droughty soils [2,14,30,71].
Classification schemes listing giant chinquapin as a dominant component
of the vegetation in habitat types (hts), community types (cts), or
plant associations (pas) are presented below:
Area Classification Authority
OR, WA general veg. cts Franklin &
Dyrness 1973
c OR general veg. pas Volland 1985
s OR: s.Chiloquin & Klamath general veg. pas Hopkins 1979
RD, Winema NF
c OR: western Cascades forest hts, cts Hawk 1979
pas
c OR: central Cascades forest pas, cts Dyrness, Franklin,
& Moir 1974
n CA & sw OR: Siskiyou forest pas Atzet & Wheeler 1984
Mountain Province
CA gen veg. cts Thorne 1976
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
The wood of giant chinquapin is light brown with a pinkish tinge and is
moderately heavy, hard, and strong [1]. However, giant chinquapin trees
are rarely found in sufficient quantities to warrant commercial
utilization [62]. During settlement times, giant chinquapin was used
locally to make agricultural tools and other items requiring a strong
hardwood [1].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Tree forms of giant chinquapin are generally considered of minor
importance to wildlife and livestock [62]. Giant chinquapin nuts are
nutritious [48] but are produced at irregular intervals and in low
numbers [40,62]. When available, nuts are eaten by numerous small
mammals, including the Allen's chipmunk and the golden-mantled ground
squirrel [11,62].
Giant chinquapin shrubs are rarely browsed by livestock [37], but
certain shrubby ecotypes are of moderate importance as mule deer browse
in portions of California [62].
PALATABILITY :
Giant chinquapin browse is of low palatability to most livestock and
wildlife [37,62]. Utilization of chinquapin occurs primarily when other
more preferred species are unavailable and on many sites is indicative
of overgrazing [62].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
Giant chinquapin and redstem ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus) often
codominate the shrub layer of mixed-conifer communities. These
understories provide good mule deer escape cover on summer range in the
southern Oregon Cascades [64,65]. Mature stands of the white fir/giant
chiquapin-boxwood/prince's pine and the Shasta red fir-white fir/giant
chinquapin-boxwood/princes pine plant associations are utilized as
elk-calving and deer-fawning areas. Such stands also provide feeding
and nesting habitat for the spotted owl, goshawk, and pileated
woodpecker [36].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Chinquapins may be useful for erosion control, since vigorous sprouting
occurs following disturbance [37]. Propagation difficulties may,
however, limit their usefulness in planting programs [54,55]. Plants
usually survive several potting stages, but survival from outplanting is
rare to nonexistant.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Although often of horticultural interest due to its graceful beauty and
evergreen nature, giant chinquapin is notoriously prone to transplant
failure [37,54,55]. Historically, giant chinquapin nuts were roasted
and eaten by indigenous people throughout the Coast Ranges of northern
California and southwestern Oregon [41]. Nuts are similar in taste and
appearance to filberts or hazelnuts [41,54].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Competition with conifers: Giant chinquapin competes with conifers
following logging or burning in the Klamath Mountain region [16,22,60].
Although inconspicuous beneath closed conifer overstories, suppressed
giant chinquapin develops with remarkable speed once released from dense
shade [36,65]. In the southern and eastern Cascades, giant chinquapin
is a common species in brushfields dominated by chaparrallike, evergreen
shrubs such as ceanothus, manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), and canyon
live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) [17,21]. Drier sites within
mixed-conifer and mixed-evergreen forests are particularly prone to the
rapid development of a dense giant chinquapin cover. Predisturbance
densities of giant chinkquapin are likely to be high on sites with dry,
nutrient-poor soils where seedlings become increasingly competitive
[48].
On sites where conifer regeneration is a primary management concern,
herbicide treatments can be effective in temporarily reducing giant
chinquapin [6,7,58,59,68]. Both tree and shrub forms are resistant to
single herbicide treatments which only partially kill stems and branches
[22]. Repeated applications are necessary to reduce giant chinquapin
cover effectively [22,23,59]. Preharvest burning alone or brush
slashing used in conjunction with either preharvest or postharvest
burning are also potential methods of controlling suppressed
sclerophyllous understories [35,46]. Other nonchemical control methods
include mechanical means of site preparation, such as uprooting stumps
or stump grinding [16]. Nonchemical treatments are most successful when
applied within a few years of conifer planting programs; postplanting
follow-up treatments may be necessary on many sites. Preliminary
research indicates that foliar fungi may serve as biological control
agents for giant chinquapin [9].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Giant chinquapin is a native, broad-leaved, sclerophyllous, evergreen
tree or shrub [22,32,51]. When it is a subcanopy component of coastal
and cismontane forests, giant chinquapin typically develops into a small
tree or arborescent shrub ranging from 20 to 50 feet (6-15 m) tall
[1,30,32,42,54]. Tree forms of giant chinquapin may reach heights of 50
to 150 feet (15-45 m) [51], with some individuals occasionally reaching
127 feet (38 m) in height and 5 feet (1.5 m) in diameter [1,55]. Large,
single-trunked trees are usually restricted to mesic valley bottoms and
cool north-facing slopes [40]. Shrubby growth forms develop on more
xeric sites with poor soils and at higher elevations [22]; heights
generally do not exceed 16 feet (5 m) [40,42,51]. Giant chinquapin bark
is thin, smooth, and dark gray when young. As it ages, the bark becomes
thick and fissured, with wide, reddish-brown plates [1,41]. Mature
trees have stout, spreading branches; open-grown crowns exhibit a
conical shape, with principal branches deflexed [1,40]. The narrow,
leathery evergreen leaves are dark green on the upper surface and are
commonly folded upward along the midrib, revealing yellow-green to
golden undersides [32,44].
Giant chinquapin is monecious. Chestnutlike spikes of creamy-white male
flowers are borne in the leaf axils; female flowers usually occur in a
cluster at the base of male spikes [37]. Giant chinquapin produces a
distinctive, spine-covered bur which encloses from one to three
sweet-tasting nuts [1,41]. At the soil surface, giant chinquapin
possesses a woody regenerative organ known as a burl [40,54].
Established individuals are both drought tolerant and wind firm [48,54].
Despite being closely related to chestnuts (Castanea ssp.), giant
chinquapin remains unaffected by the chestnut blight [1].
Tree forms of giant chinquapin may live to be 400 to 500 years old on
favorable growth sites [1,40]. Growth beneath redwood and
mixed-evergreen forests is slow and uniform; trees typically reach 24
inches (60 cm) d.b.h. within approximately 210 to 260 years [40]. In
contrast, giant chinquapin sprouts grow rapidly after disturbance
[18,20]. On mixed-evergreen sites, giant chinquapin sprouts attain
diameters of 18 inches (46 cm) within 50 years following burning;
seedlings in the understory attain comparable diameters in approximately
140 years [40]. Greatest longevity and stem diameters are more
consistently achieved on xeric mixed-evergreen sites; heartrot causes
death of mature trees on mesic sites [40].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Giant chinquapin regenerates both sexually and vegetatively. Seedling
reproduction is generally restricted to mesic sites and is characterized
by a slow, steady accumulation of seedlings on undisturbed sites
[40,63]. Vegetative regeneration becomes more prevalent as sites become
increasingly xeric [40].
Sexual regeneration: Giant chinquapin is a poor and irregular seeder
[62]. Seed production generally occurs at 2- to 5-year intervals, and
most of the filbertlike nuts are infertile [1]. Nut production may be
adversely affected by the filbert worm [48]. Giant chinquapin nuts
mature during the fall of their second year [37] and are usually
deposited directly beneath the parent plant [48]. Some long-distance
dispersal occurs via animal vectors [40,42,48]. Rate of germination
varies from 14 to 53 percent, lower than in many other hardwood species
[37,48]. In laboratory studies, germination occurs 16 to 24 days after
sowing; cold stratification does not enhance germination [37]. Nuts
remain viable for at least 2 years when stored at 41 degrees Fahrenheit
(5 deg C) [37].
Giant chinquapin seedling densities are characteristically low, even on
favorable sites [40,42]. Successful establishment apparently requires
mesic and shady nursery conditions [40]. On mixed-evergreen sites in
northwestern California, seedling establishment occurs most frequently
in moist valley bottoms where cool, shady conditions predominate [40].
Limited information on seedbed ecology suggests that giant chinquapin
requires a moister seedbed than tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflora), a
common hardwood associate on mixed-evergreen sites [40]. Establishment
occurs on either organic or mineral seedbeds [2,42]. Although seedlings
may establish in full or partial shade [10,31,40,63], germination and
early development tends to be hindered on sites with a dense ground
cover [40].
Significant seedling establishment is likely to occur only during a
series of abnormally moist years on more xeric exposures. Keeler-Wolf
[40] suggests that major establishment episodes occur approximately once
every 200 years on dry upper slopes and ridgetops within mixed-evergreen
forests. Seedlings appear quite competitive on dry sites with
nutrient-poor soils [48]. Once established, giant chinquapin is very
drought tolerant [40,54].
Vegetative regeneration: Following disturbance, giant chinquapin
regenerates vegetatively from adventitious buds located on stumps or
basal burls [1,2,48,54,66]. Vegetative regeneration appears to be the
primary means of reproduction on relatively xeric upper slopes where
fires occur more frequently and moisture regimes are less conducive to
seedling establishment [40].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Giant chinquapin occurs on a variety of sites ranging from coastal
redwood forests to woodland and chaparral communities [8,18,20,42].
Tree and shrub forms occupy distinctly different habitats. Giant
chinquapin usually grows as a single-stemmed, subcanopy tree on sites
with deep soils, ample winter rainfall, and frequent summer fog
[4,40,54]. Since it is able to tolerate drought, giant chinquapin also
inhabits relatively xeric sites with poor soils where it grows as a
shrub [1,40,51].
Tree forms: Giant chinquapin trees reach greatest stature and grow most
abundantly in the mixed-evergreen forests of the Klamath Geological
Province of northern California and southwestern Oregon at elevations
ranging from sea level to approximately 5,250 feet (1,600 m) [8,40].
Soils are derived from sandstone and granite and may include acid sands
[55]. Although a characteristic component of mixed-evergreen forests,
tree forms of giant chinquapin are not as ubiquitous as other species of
sclerophyllous hardwoods (tanoak, madrone [Arbutus menziesii], or canyon
live oak). In the Coast Ranges and Klamath Mountains of California,
giant chinquapin trees are generally restricted to cool north slopes or
moist canyon bottoms. Trees most often occur as widely scattered
individuals or groves and are rarely found in pure stands [25,54].
However, giant chinquapin may occasionally dominate the sclerophyllous
subcanopy of mixed-evergreen forests on mesic north slopes at elevations
between 3,280 and 4,600 feet (1,000-1,400 m); annual rainfall on these
sites exceeds 60 inches (152.4 cm) [40]. At these upper elevations of
the mixed-evergreen forest, tree forms of giant chinquapin are able to
persist and become dominant over other sclerophyllous hardwoods because
of the superior snowshedding abilities of mature crowns (deflexed
principal branches and conical shape) [40].
Farther north in the western Cascades of central Oregon, giant
chinquapin is associated with warm to cool, dry sites and is a component
of western hemlock forests [18,28]. Increased regional rainfall
apparently allows giant chinquapin to expand into drier habitats than in
the mixed-evergreen zone [24,67,71]. Sites are often associated with
moisture or soil nutrient restrictions which tend to constrain more
shade-tolerant competitors [2,18,42]. Greatest abundance is attained on
relatively xeric exposures, usually beneath a very sparse (<50 percent)
primary canopy of Douglas-fir [18,30]. Sites occur between 1,500 to
2,590 feet (460-790 m) and include steep upper slopes and ridgetops of
low elevation mountains [14,30]. On undisturbed, old-growth sites,
giant chinquapin develops a very dense understory and typically grows as
a small tree or multistemmed, arborescent shrub [22]; average d.b.h.
ranges from 6 to 12 inches (15-30 cm) [30]. Soils are generally rocky,
well-drained, poorly developed, and derived largely from pyroclastic
tuffs and breccias [14,28,30]. Soil depth is highly variable [14,24].
Within this region, predominance of giant chinquapin is indicative of
infertile, droughty soils [2,29,71].
Shrubby forms: Giant chinquapin is quite tolerant of cold and snow and
inhabits comparatively high elevations in the southern Cascades where it
occurs as a shrub beneath mixed conifer, white fir, and Shasta red fir
canopies. Shrubby forms grow on buttes, escarpments, and ridgetops at
elevations between 3,000 and 5,900 feet (915-1,800 m) [18,36,65]. Soils
are often composed of pumice with lava or ash till [65]. Giant
chinquapin shrubs also occur as a common component of broad sclerophyll,
chaparrallike communities throughout the range of the species, occupying
warm exposures with dry or summer-heated soils [9,20,25,51,55,62].
Essentially pure stands of giant chinquapin frequently occur on dry
sites in the Siskiyou Mountains [22]. Shrubby forms are often
associated with soils that exhibit hydrophobic tendencies [36].
Common associates in forested communities include Douglas-fir, redwood,
western hemlock, white fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine
(P. lambertina), Shasta red fir, tanoak, madrone, canyon live oak,
Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), California laurel (Umbellularia
californica), Pacific rhododendron, California hazel (Corylus cornuta
var. californica), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Pacific yew (Taxus
brevifolia), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), oceanspray, Oregon
grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), beargrass,
twinflower, prince's pine (Chimaphila spp.), western swordfern
(Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Brushfield
associates often include tanoak, madrone, snowbrush, squawcarpet (C.
prostratus), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), and snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus).
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Giant chinquapin, a long-lived, moderately shade-tolerant species, is
associated with redwood, mixed evergreen, white fir, western hemlock,
mixed conifer and Shasta red fir climax communities [18,56,63]. Capable
of surviving disturbances which kill aboveground stems, giant chinquapin
can also become a component of early seral situations [18]. Giant
chinquapin is able to establish beneath a full or partial canopy of
either hardwoods or conifers on coastal redwood and mixed-evergreen
sites where year-round and long-lasting moisture regimes prevail
[40,63]. Since seedling establishment appears to occur with or without
fire, resulting giant chinquapin populations are frequently all-aged
when occurring on more mesic locales [40,63]. Within western hemlock
forests giant chinquapin maintains itself beneath comparatively
thin-canopied stands of conifers [24,30,31,42]. Giant chinquapin often
persists as a depauperate shrub beneath mature conifer overstories when
growing under less than optimal conditions on mixed conifer, Shasta red
fir, and white fir sites [1] and is usually maintained by fire in these
communities. Following release, giant chinquapin increases dramatically
and is a common component of chaparrallike brushfields dominated by
evergreen shrubs [8,17,20,70]. With repeated fire, many of these
brushfields have become semipermanent communities [18]. Under more
normal fire regimes, giant chinquapin coverage gradually decreases as
the conifer canopy closes [36,65].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Giant chinquapin blooms from June to February in the southern portion of
its range [51]. In the Pacific Northwest, plants bloom from April to
June [32]. The distinctive, chestnutlike burs typically ripen from
August through September of their second season [41].
Phenological development of giant chinquapin on the Nash Crater Lava
Flows in Linn County, Oregon, during the 1949 growing season is
presented below [53]:
Phenological stage Date observed
floral inactivity May through the 4th week of July
in bud 3rd week of July
flowering first two weeks in August
flowering and fruiting last two weeks in August
fruiting first three weeks in September
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Following fires which kill aerial stems, giant chinquapin resprouts via
dormant buds located on an underground regenerative organ known as a
burl [27,40,55,66]. Burls serve as a source of stored carbohydrates and
aggregations of dormant buds, enabling giant chinquapin to rapidly
occupy the initial postburn environment [38,47]. Burl development also
enhances survival after repeated burning [2,55]. On favorable growth
sites within redwood and mixed-evergreen forests, tree forms attain
large diameters and develop thick bark which may enable them to survive
light underburns [40]. During a good seed crop year, surviving stems
may act as seed trees. Sticky bur fruits may be transported to the burn
site in the fur of mammals [66].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/root sucker
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Crown residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Giant chinquapin is a fire-sensitive species; aboveground portions are
extremely susceptible to fire mortality [2,10]. Thin bark provides
little insulation from radiant heat, which usually kills the cambium
around the base of the stem [48]. As a result, low-intensity ground
fires readily top-kill giant chinquapin seedlings and saplings [36].
Larger trees with thicker bark frequently survive light underburning on
favorable growth sites within redwood and mixed-evergreen forests
[40,63]. Although bole injuries usually result following initial
burning, fire scars tend to heal over rapidly in young, vigorous trees
[2,40]. Occasionally, large diameter trees survive repeated burning;
these trees commonly exhibit catface-scars and rotten cores [40].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Limited information on the fire ecology of giant chinquapin on mixed
evergreen sites indicates that trees greater than 14 inches (35 cm)
d.b.h. are generally more tolerant of ground fires than similarly sized
hardwoods such as bigtooth maple (Acer macrophyllum) and tanoak [40].
On sites where the last major fire occurred 75 to 80 years prior to
observation, almost all giant chinquapins over 18 inches (45 cm) d.b.h.
exhibited fully or partially healed fire scars. Only the largest
diameter trees, those ranging between 36 and 49 inches (91 and 122 cm)
d.b.h., showed evidence of repeated burning. Fire-scarred giant
chinquapins occupying more mesic situations were usually single stemmed
[40].
Giant chinquapin appears more susceptible to fire mortality when it
occurs beneath a mature conifer overstory [46]. Plants suffering
competition are under increased stress and are less able to survive
fires than when they grow in a more open environment. Although all
giant chinquapins resprouted following an initial, light-intensity
underburn on a mixed-conifer site in central Oregon, 50 percent died
after a reburn which consumed a high percentage of duff [46]. (See Fire
Case Study for more details.)
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Giant chinquapin initiates a rapid postburn recovery by sprouting from
adventitious buds located on a burl at the soil surface [22,54]. Since
burls are aggregations of buds, newly resprouted giant chinquapin
individuals occur as "sprout clumps" and are characterized by large
numbers of sprouts [38,48]. Sprouts are quite tolerant of direct
sunlight and develop well in the newly opened postburn environment
[18,49,58]. Fifty years following fire on a xeric mixed-evergreen site,
giant chinquapin individuals averaged two to three stems per clump with
an average d.b.h. of 11.2 inches (28 cm); largest stems of sprout origin
measured nearly 80 feet (24 m) tall and 18.4 inches (46 cm) d.b.h. [40].
Although abundance is initially reduced following burning, giant
chinquapin is a residual species which rapidly regains preburn levels if
fires are not too severe [13,26]. Preburn canopy coverage and density
are usually regained within 2 to 5 years on mixed-conifer sites in the
southern Oregon Cascades [36,65]. Recovery potential does not appear
significantly affected by early spring versus fall burning [65].
Sprouting vigor can, however, be greatly reduced when plants are
subjected to high duff consumption underburns [46]. (See Fire Case Study
for more information.)
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Western hemlock communities: Giant chinquapin grows as a small tree or
aborescent shrub on undisturbed western hemlock sites in western Oregon
[36]. As a result, few stems survive fire to provide seed for postburn
seedling establishment. Off-site seed may be transported by animals
[66].
Studies of early secondary succession on western hemlock sites in the
central western Cascades of Oregon indicate that giant chinquapin
exhibits only minor long-term changes in abundance following clearcut
logging and burning [12,13,26]. Whereas patterns of giant chinquapin
abundance varied between sampled watersheds, trends over a 20 year
period showed a gradual, continuous increase in cover once preburn
levels were regained (usually within 4 years). Constancy remained
relatively stable or increased slightly. Giant chinquapin was a
relatively minor component of the predisturbance vegetation on both
sites.
Trends in giant chinquapin cover at various intervals following
clearcutting, broadcast burning (medium intensity, fall burn), and
planting with Douglas-fir are presented below [57]. Sites support the
western hemlock/Pacific rhododendron/salal habitat type which is
associated with warm and moderately dry environments at low to mid
elevations in the western Cascades of Oregon.
Mean cover (%)
undisturbed old-growth 1.40
interval since disturbance
2 years 0.09
5 years 0.05
10 years 0.22
15 years 2.52
20 years 0.63
30 years 0.56
40 years 3.85
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Broadcast burning: Where conifer regeneration is a primary management
concern, broadcast burning is generally an ineffective site preparation
tool following clearcutting in conifer-hardwood stands. Even though
burning delays the recovery of giant chinquapin for approximately one
growing season, removal of logging debris promotes sprouting by exposing
basal buds to solar heating and permits sprouts to grow unimpeded [47].
Following logging and burning of mixed-evergreen sites in the Siskiyou
Mountains and the southern Cascades, giant chinquapin is often a
component of seral brushfields. Sites especially prone to the rapid
development of a dense giant chinquapin cover are drier sites within
mixed-conifer communities where predisturbance giant chinquapin
densities are relatively high. Densities are likely to be increased on
dry, nutrient-poor soils where giant chinquapin seedlings become
increasingly competitive [47].
On mixed-conifer sites where depauperate plants are able to persist
beneath dense conifer overstories, giant chinquapin is frequently an
inconspicuous component of the preburn vegetation. Large initial
increases in postburn cover can be expected from residual plants
[36,64].
Preharvest burning: Giant chinquapin sprouting may be more effectively
controlled by preharvest underburning [46]. Although all top-killed
plants sprouted following an intial underburn, 50 percent of these
plants were killed by a second burn, and the sprouting vigor of
surviving plants was severely reduced [46].
FIRE CASE STUDIES
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
CASE NAME :
Pringle Falls, Oregon - preharvest underburn
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 (Pinus ponderosa)/bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata)-snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus)/needlegrass (Stipa spp.)
habitat-community type as described by Volland [76]. The upper unit is
identified as a mixed conifer-ceanothus-sedge (Carex spp.) community
type. Ponderosa pine was the most common overstory species with basal
area ranging from 100 to 140 square feet per acre (23-32 sq m/ha). Some
white fir (Abies concolor) saplings and seedlings were also present on
the upper plot. Common shrubs included snowbrush ceanothus, giant
chinquapin, bitterbrush, and greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos
patula). Needlegrass and sedges were also present.
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
Presumed dormant for both burns.
SITE DESCRIPTION :
Elevation: upper plot - 5,000 feet (1,525 m)
lower plot - 4,550 feet (1,390 m)
Annual precipitation: 30 inches (76 cm), mostly in the form of snow.
Aspect: east
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
The burn site received 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of precipitation a week
before the initial burn. The first prescribed fire was a moderate burn
designed to reduce flash fuel loadings and create a verticle separation
of fuels. Consequently, fuel consumption was low. The reburn took
place 3 years later during a dry fall and was conducted under low duff
moisture conditions. Approximately 70 percent of the litter and duff,
and 57 percent of the 1000-hour fuels were consumed during the second
burn.
Fuel and weather conditions during both burns is presented below:
Initial burn Reburn
Burn date September 27, 1976 October 2, 1979
Weather Degrees F 56 - 71 56 - 67
(Degrees C) (13 - 22) (13 - 19)
Relative humidity % 37 - 61 38 - 54
Wind mph 0 - 8 0 - 5
(km/hr) (0 - 13) (0 - 8)
Fuel moisture content %
new litter 12 - 15 7 - 20
old litter 10 - 30 11 - 20
duff 26 - 65 14 - 21
1 hr TL* 1 --- 11 - 13
10 hr TL dead --- 11 - 13
100 hr TL dead --- 12
1000 hr TL dead --- 13 - 23
0 - 1/4 inch dia. --- 75 - 114
live
1/4 - 1 inch dia. --- 75
live
Shrub foliage --- 95 - 129
* Timelag fuel classes are used to indicate the time for a fuel
theoretically to lose 63.2 percent of its original moisture. Diameter
size class ranges for each timlag class are listed below:
Diameter (cm) (in) Timelag class (hrs)
0 - 0.76 0 - 0.25 1
0.76 - 2.53 0.25 - 1.0 10
2.53 - 7.63 1.0 - 3.0 100
7.63 - 20.32 3.0 - 8.0 1000
Burns produced the following fuel consumption:
Before Before After
initial burn reburn reburn
tons/acre (tonnes/hectare)
Litter and duff 13.4 (30.0) 14.6 (32.6) 4.4 (9.8)
Time lag class (hrs)
1 1.7 (3.7) 0.4 (1.0) 0.6 (1.3)
10 --- --- ---
100 --- 2.8 (6.2) 3.0 (6.8)
1000 --- 7.4 (16.6) 3.2 (7.2)
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
All four understory giant chinquapin were top-killed by the initial,
low-severity underburn and all sprouted. Following the second
underburn, 50 percent of giant chinquapins died, and the sprouting
potential of surviving plants was severely reduced. Resprouted plants
dominated areas from 16 to 26 feet (5-8 m) in diameter prior to the
reburn; afterwards surviving giant chinquapins produced only two or
three sprouts per plant, each occupying a site approximately 10 inches
(1/4 m) in diameter.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
Giant chinquapin can be effectively controlled by preharvest
underburning when it occurrs on mixed-evergreen sites in central Oregon.
Although plants usually survive light underburns, plant mortality is
increased following high duff consumption reburns. Sprouting vigor of
surviving giant chinquapins is greatly reduced.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Chrysolepis chrysophylla | Giant Chinquapin
REFERENCES :
1. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle,
WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
2. Evans, Raymond A.; Holbo, H. Richard; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Young,
James A. 1970. Functional environment of downy brome communities in
relation to weed control and revegetation. Weed Science. 18: 154-162.
[6258]
3. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of
the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p. [9351]
4. Bailey, Arthur Wesley. 1966. Forest associations and secondary
succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University. 166 p. Thesis. [5786]
5. 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]
6. Bovey, Rodney W. 1977. Response of selected woody plants in the United
States to herbicides. Agric. Handb. 493. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 101 p. [8899]
7. 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]
8. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.
Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.
145 p. [6716]
9. 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]
10. Dale, Virginia H.; Hemstrom, Miles; Franklin, Jerry. 1986. Modeling the
long-term effects of disturbances on forest succession, Olympic
Peninsula, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16: 56-57.
[4785]
11. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Dyrness, C. T.; Franklin, J. F.; Moir, W. H. 1974. A preliminary
classification of forest communities in the central portion of the
western Cascades in Oregon. Bulletin No. 4. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 123 p.
[8480]
15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
16. Fiddler, Gary O.; McDonald, Philip M. 1984. Alternatives to herbicides
in vegetation management: a study. In: Proceedings of the 5th forest
vegetation management conference; [Date of conference unknown];
Sacramento, CA. Redding, CA: The Conference: 115-126. [6231]
17. Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. Vegetation of the Douglas-fir region. 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: 93-112. [8207]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush problems in southwestern Oregon. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 53 p. [8596]
21. Gratkowski, H. 1974. Brushfield reclamation and type conversion. In:
Cramer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest residues managment
in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-24.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Station: I-1 to
I-31. [6418]
22. Gratkowski, H. 1978. Herbicides for shrub and weed control in western
Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-77. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 48 p. [6539]
23. Gratkowski, H. J.; Philbrick, J. R. 1965. Repeated aerial spraying and
burning to control sclerophyllous brush. Journal of Forestry. 63(12):
919-923. [8797]
24. Grier, Charles C.; Logan, Robert S. 1977. Old-growth Pseudotsuga
menziesii communties of a western Oregon watershed: biomass distribution
and production budgets. Ecological Monographs. 47: 373-400. [8762]
25. Griffin, James R.; Critchfield, William B. 1972. The distribution of
forest trees in California. Res. Pap. PSW-82. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 118 p. [1041]
26. Halpern, Charles B. 1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance
and resilience of forest communities. Ecology. 69(6): 1703-1715. [6390]
27. Halpern, C. B. 1989. Early successional patterns of forest species:
interactions of life history traits and disturbance. Ecology. 70(3):
704-720. [6829]
28. Halverson, Nancy M., compiler. 1986. Major indicator shrubs and herbs on
National Forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington.
R6-TM-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region. 180 p. [3233]
29. Halverson, Nancy M.; Topik, Christopher; Van Vickle, Robert. 1986. Plant
association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Mt. Hood
National Forest. R6-ECOL-232A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 111 p. [1068]
30. Hawk, Glenn M. 1979. Vegetation mapping and community description of a
small western Cascade watershed. Northwest Science. 53(3): 200-212.
[8677]
31. Hemstrom, Miles; Adams, Virginia Dale. 1982. Modeling long-term forest
succession in the Pacific Northwest. In: Forest succession and stand
development research in the Northwest: Proceedings of the symposium;
1981 March 26; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,
Forest Research Laboratory: 14-23. [10555]
32. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1964. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest. Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 597 p. [1166]
33. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
34. Hjelmquist, H. 1960. Notes on some names and combinations within the
Amentiferae. Botaniska Notiser. 113(4): 373-380. [7536]
35. Hobbs, Stephen D.; Radosevich, Steven R. 1987. Nonchemical control of
evergreen hardwood competiton in new conifer plantations. In: Plumb,
Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of
the symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood
resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 114-121. [5365]
36. 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]
37. Hubbard, R. L. 1974. Castanopsis (D.Don) Spach chinkapin. 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: 276-277. [7573]
38. James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function
and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical
Review. 50(3): 225-266. [5590]
39. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
40. Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 1988. The role of Chrysolepis chrysophylla (Fagaceae)
in the Pseudotsuga hardwood forest of the Klamath Mountains of
California. Madrono. 35(4): 285-308. [6449]
41. Krochmal, Arnold; Krochmal, Connie. 1982. Uncultivated nuts of the
United States. Agriculture Information Bulletin 450. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 89 p. [1377]
42. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
43. 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]
44. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
45. 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]
46. Martin, Robert E. 1982. Shrub control by burning before timber harvest.
In: Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Symposium
proceedings. Pullman, WA: Washington State University: 35-40. [4136]
47. Parker, Kathleen C. 1991. Topography, substrate, and vegetation patterns
in the northern Sonoran Desert. Journal of Biogeography. 18: 151-163.
[14979]
48. McDonald, Philip M.; Minore, Don; Atzet, Tom. 1983. Southwestern
Oregon--northern California hardwoods. In: Burns, Russel M., compiler.
Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States.
Agric. Handb. 445. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
29-32. [7142]
49. McIntire, Patrick W. 1984. Fungus consumption by the Siskiyou chipmunk
within a variously treated forest. Ecology. 65(1): 137-146. [8456]
50. Minore, Don. 1979. Comparative autecological characteristics of
northwestern tree species--a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-87.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 72 p. [1659]
51. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
52. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
53. Roach, A. W. 1952. Phytosociology of the Nash Crater lava flows, Linn
County, Oregon. Ecological Monographs. 22: 169-193. [8759]
54. Roof, J. B. 1969. Some brief acquaintances with chinquapins. Four
Seasons. 3(1): 16-19. [7535]
55. Roof, J. B. 1970. Some brief acquaintances with chinquapins-II. Four
Seasons. 3(2): 15-19. [8094]
56. Sawyer, John O.; Thornburgh, Dale A.; Griffin, James R. 1977. Mixed
evergreen forest. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 359-381.
[7218]
57. 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]
58. Steen, Harold K. 1966. Vegetation following slash fires in one western
Oregon locality. Northwest Science. 40(3): 113-120. [5671]
59. Stewart, R. E. 1978. Origin and development of vegetation after spraying
and burning in a coastal Oregon clearcut. Res. Note PNW-317. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [6541]
60. 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]
61. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California.
In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of
southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No.
2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
62. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
63. Veirs, Stephen D., Jr. 1982. Coast redwood forest: stand dynamics,
successional status, and the role of fire. In: Means, Joseph E., ed.
Forest succession and stand development research in the Northwest:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1981 March 26; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis,
OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 119-141.
[4778]
64. 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]
65. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon
Pumice Zone. Rt-ECOL-104-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 138 p. [7341]
66. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific
Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management
and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]
67. Waring, R. H. 1969. Forest plants of the eastern Siskiyous: their
environment and vegetational distribution. Northwest Science. 43(1):
1-17. [9047]
68. Warren, L. E. 1980. Control of tanoak and associated species with cut
surface treatments of GARLON 3A herbicide. Down to Earth. 36(2): 8-13.
[7525]
69. Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and
California. Ecological Monographs. 30(3): 279-338. [6836]
70. 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]
71. Zobel, Donald B.; McKee, Arthur; Hawk, Glenn M.; Dyrness, C. T. 1976.
Relationships of environment to composition, structure, and diversity of
forest communities of the central western Cascades of Oregon. Ecological
Monographs. 46: 135-156. [8767]
72. Washington Natural Heritage Program, compiler. 1994. Endangered,
threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Olympia, WA:
Department of Natural Resources. 52 p. [25413]
Index
Related categories for Species: Chrysolepis chrysophylla
| Giant Chinquapin
|
 |
