|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
ABBREVIATION :
CORCAN
SYNONYMS :
Chamaepericlymenum canadensis
SCS PLANT CODE :
COCA13
COMMON NAMES :
bunchberry
bunchberry dogwood
dwarf dogwood
Canadian bunchberry
dogwood bunchberry
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of bunchberry is Cornus
canadensis L.
The discussion of how closely related forms in the Cornaceae should be
recognized has gone on for years and is summarized by Eyde [17,18] and
Ferguson [20,21]. Two main groups within Cornus are red-line dogwoods,
with showy bracts below the flowers and red fruit, and blue-line
dogwoods, without bracts and blue or white fruit [18]. Some authorities
have made the dwarf red-line dogwoods into a separate genus called
Chamaepericlymenum Hill (other names given this genus include Mesomora,
Cornella, and Arctocrania) [20,77]. Most authorities consider these few
species to be species of Cornus [17,18,20,21,27,34,49,66,77].
Bunchberry hybridizes with Lapland cornel (Cornus suecica) where their
range overlaps in Alaska, Labrador, and Greenland [66,96].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub, Forb
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
M. F. Crane, September 1989
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Crane, M. F. 1989. Cornus canadensis. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Bunchberry grows from Greenland and Labrador west to Alaska and south in
the mountains to New Mexico and Kentucky. It is also found in
northeastern Asia [96]. It grows on the northern Great Plains in
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and eastern Colorado [35]. Bunchberry
grows south to Mendocino County in northern California [65]. South of
the northernmost states its distribution is sporadic [21].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
STATES :
AK CA CO CT DE ID IL KY ME MA
MI MN MT NE NH NY ND OR PA RI
SD VT WA WI AB BC MB NB NF NS
ON PE PQ SK
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD APIS CRLA CUVA DENA GLBA
GLAC GRTE INDU ISRO LACL MORA
MOSA NOCA OLYM PIRO ROMO SHEN
SLBE VOYA WICA WRST YELL YUCH
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
15 Black Hills Uplift
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
15 Red pine
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
30 Red spruce - yellow birch
31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
37 Northern white cedar
60 Beech - sugar maple
107 White spruce
108 Red maple
201 White spruce
202 White spruce - paper birch
204 Black spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
226 Coastal true fir - hemlock
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
232 Redwood
252 Paper birch
253 Black spruce - white spruce
254 Black spruce - paper birch
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Bunchberry is classified as a mesophytic species which indicates moist
forest types [79]. In west-central Alberta lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta)-white spruce (Picea glauca) forests, bunchberry consistently
dominated the forb group in all forest types [54]. In British Columbia,
it is ubiquitous and thus a poor indicator [74]. Published
classification schemes listing bunchberry as an indicator species or as
a community dominant are presented below.
Forest community types of west-central Alberta in relation to selected
environmental factors [12]
Classification, description, and dynamics of plant communities after
fire in the taiga of interior Alaska [25]
Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific Northwest plant associations [38]
Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone:
Mt. Hood National Forest [41]
Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver zone, Mt.
Hood and Willamette National Forests [47]
Plant association management guide: Willamette National Forest [48]
Ecosystem classification and interpretation of the sub-boreal spruce
zone, Prince Rupert Forest Region, British Columbia [74]
Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone:
Gifford Pinchot National Forest [92]
Associated species: In moist northern forests bunchberry grows with a
typical group of herbs called the Cornus-Linnaea synusia, which include
twinflower (Linnaea borealis), greenish flowered wintergreen (Pyrola
virens), dwarf red blackberry (Rubus pubescens), starflower (Trientalis
borealis), and kidney-leaved violet (Viola renifolia) [79]. Other
species commonly found with bunchberry include sweetscented bedstraw
(Galium triflorum), coltsfoot (Petasites palmatus), Canada mayflower,
starflower, goldthread (Coptis groenlandica), prince's pine (Chimaphila
umbellata), wild sarsaparilla, pink lady's-slipper (Cypripedium acaule),
twinflower, bluebead lily (Clintonia borealis), Indian cucumber-root
(Medeola virginiana), mountain wood-sorrel (Oxalis montana), sidebells
pyrola (Pyrola secunda), and painted trillium (Trillium undulatum)
[7,79]. In Nova Scotia it is associated with Schreber's moss
(Pleurozium schreberi) following logging [97].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
In Alaska, bunchberry is one of the two most important forage plants for
mule deer and black-tailed deer [42] and is used throughout the growing
season [96]. Moose also use bunchberry during the growing season
[10,91]. Bunchberry (C. canadensis and C. suecica) made up 15 percent
of the summer diet of a tame moose on a Newfoundland island [10].
Spruce and sharp-tailed grouse use the fruit and buds, and the Ipswich
sparrow, veery thrush, Philadelphia vireo, and warbling vireo eat the
fruit [57]. Alaskan populations of northern red-backed voles rely
heavily on the fruit production of bunchberry and other shrubs in all
seasons, but especially in winter [98]. Mice may also use the fruit and
disperse the seeds [89].
PALATABILITY :
In palatability trials with captive black-tailed deer in southeastern
Alaska, deer preferred leaves from bunchberry plants growing in a forest
over leaves from plants growing in a clearcut [42]. The degree of use
shown by livestock and wildlife species for blue elderberry in Wyoming
is rated as follows [15]:
WY
Pronghorn poor
Elk good
Mule deer good
White-tailed deer good
Small mammals good
Small nongame birds good
Upland game birds good
Waterfowl fair
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
The nutrient content of bunchberry leaves varies seasonally,
geographically, and by site. In southeastern Alaska, bunchberry leaves
had higher values for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, copper, zinc, and
iron in May than in July and October. Laboratory analysis showed that
May samples were more digestible than the later samples. Values for
calcium, magnesium, and sodium varied seasonally in the opposite
direction [95].
Leaves of bunchberry plants collected in a forest had 1.9 to 2.5 times
more digestible protein than those collected in an adjacent clearcut,
with an average crude protein content 27 percent higher for forest
leaves than for clearcut leaves [78]. Plants growing in the understory
allocate carbon primarily for growth and maintenance; those in the open
had higher concentrations of carbohydrates, tannins, and other phenolics
[42]. Mean values from this southeastern Alaska study of bunchberry
plants from three clearcuts and two forest sites are summarized below
[42,95].
Stand Age (years)
5 (burn) 5 11 80 450
Neutral and acidic
phenolics (counts/mg) 21,067 20,541 9,094 1,733 3,277
Astrigency
(mg/g tannic acid eq.) 8.38 8.46 6.5 4.87 4.67
Total nonstructural
carbohydrates (%) 9.4 10.6 10.1 5.1 5.7
Total nitrogen (%) 2.44 2.27 2.27 2.61 2.58
Total phosphorus (%) 0.36 0.38 0.44 0.44 0.36
Potassium (%) 1.44 1.29 1.40 1.83 1.55
Calcium (%) 2.40 2.70 2.50 2.71 2.40
Magnesium (%) 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.46
Sodium (%) 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.01
Copper (p/m) 6.45 6.44 5.89 7.44 6.00
Zinc (p/m) 24.26 22.91 24.3 27.87 23.10
Iron (p/m) 147.89 94.00 134.44 103,44 99.00
IVDMD % 63.0 65.8 60.6 64.7 59.7
Nutrient composition for bunchberry has been determined for different
regions [43,85]:
se Alaska New England Wisc. Canada
Nitrogen (%) 2.01 1.79 1.52 ----
Phosphorus (%) 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.19
Potassium (%) 1.04 1.35 1.14 0.38
Calcium (%) 2.58 3.09 0.85 0.98
Magnesium (%) 0.49 0.45 0.68 0.27
Copper (p/m) 5.2 5 2 ----
Magnesium (p/m) 211.6 529 149 101
Iron (p/m) 75.3 101 117 68
Zinc (p/m) 86.6 46 30 ----
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Bunchberry is cultivated as an ornamental groundcover because of its
showy flowers and fruits and attractive fall coloring [49,96].
Occasional plants with reddish or purplish bracts are considered to be
separate forms by horticulturists [49]. Bunchberry fruit can be used
for jelly and pies [96]. The fruit can also be eaten fresh and was used
by native people [40,56].
In a field study of the effects of acid rain, bunchberry was found to
neutralize acid rain better than Canada mayflower (Maianthenum
canadense), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), or mountain maple
(Acer spicatum). It has many trichomes rich in calcium present on its
leaf surfaces that may be largely responsible for neutralizing the acid.
There is as well a continuing reduction in hydrogen ions that may be the
result of an ion-exchange process [32].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Bunchberry's slender and shallow rhizomes make it vulnerable to soil
disturbance. Consequently, it is most important in early succession
where there has been little soil disturbance from logging [5]. In
northern Idaho, bunchberry increases in frequency following logging
without fire and with piling and burning. It increases slightly
following broadcast burns [64]. Bunchberry appears to increase its
cover following logging without burning in Ontario red pine (Pinus
resinosa) and eastern white pine (P. strobus) forests [86]. Following
various logging treatments in northwestern Montana, bunchberry decreased
in presence but increased in cover when compared with untreated stands
[29,30].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Bunchberry is a low, rhizomatous subshrub with erect, mostly herbaceous
stems 2 to 8 inches (5-20 cm) tall [49,96]. There is a terminal whorl
of four to seven true leaves. The small white flowers are borne in
clusters above four white or pinkish bracts which makes the entire
inflorescence resemble a single flower [55]. The coral-red fruits look
like berries but are actually drupes [49,96].
Bunchberry has a clonal habit which allows it to maintain itself under a
canopy. In Alaska, clones are often roughly circular, but rhizomes
ramble across the forest floor and over or through decaying logs [90].
The rhizomes have annual increments of wood [18]. The longest living
rhizome found in one study was 172 inches (436 cm), and its age was
estimated at 36 years exclusive of early growth, which was already dead
[90]. In British Columbia, bunchberry rhizomes generally grow between 2
and 5 inches (5-13 cm) below the surface of the mineral soil [60].
However, another British Columbia study found bunchberry rhizomes in the
organic layer [69,70,71,21,73]. In Alaska, the "thread-like" rhizomes
were found 1 to 3 inches (2-8 cm) below the forest floor [90]. In New
Brunswick bunchberry rhizomes were found in mineral soil at a mean depth
of 3.1 inches (8 cm) with a range of 1.6 to 5.1 inches (4-13 cm) [24].
Tappeiner and Alaback [90] describe bunchberries growing in old growth
forests with canopy openings, young stands with dense canopies, and open
clearcuts:
Old stand Young stand Clear-cut
mean range mean range mean range
Size of clone 64 in (30-172) 6 in (1-14) 122 in (87-274)
(rhizome length) 165 cm (77-436) 15 cm (3-35) 309 cm (220-696)
Height 3.5 in (3-6) 1.6 in (0.4-4) 4 in (2-5)
9 cm (8-14) 4 cm (1-10) 10 cm (5-12)
Annual growth
of rhizomes 4.7 in (0-12) 1.2 in (0.4-2) 24 in (7-45)
9 cm (3-22) 3 cm (1-5) 131 cm (42-230)
Nodes/clone 9 (3-22) 1 (1-3) 62 (18-114)
Nodes/m of
rhizome 6 (3-11) ----- 20 (16-27)
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Chamaephyte
Geophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Bunchberry appears to be self-sterile and is dependent on pollinators
such as bumblebees, solitary bees, beeflies, and syrphid flies [7,18].
The flowers have one petal with an awnlike extension that initiates the
explosive release of pollen [18]. Results of one study show low (21.5%)
fruit-set after controlled cross-pollination, and significantly lower
(10.7%) fruit-set after open pollination. In the same study, other
factors also affected reproductive success. Buds did not open, fruit
development did not occur, and developing fruit aborted, suggesting that
fruit-set is resource limited. Possible limiting factors include low
light levels and nutrient-poor soils [7]. Seeds of bunchberry are
dispersed by birds and mammals [62]. The seeds of bunchberry are much
smaller than those of other dogwoods, which may be an adaptation to seed
dispersal by mice and/or mouse predation [89].
Bunchberry seeds have dormant embryos and need cold stratification.
Details of treatment are given in Brinkman [9]. Normally seed of
bunchberry germinates over a 3-year period, with most of the seed
germinating in either the first or second year. Further study of
bunchberry germination found good (61-87%) germination in the laboratory
and good germination (72-85%) in packets placed on the soil surface, but
germination was poor (1-8%) in fine mesh packets placed 0.4 inches (1
cm) under the forest floor. Seed placed beneath the forest floor that
did not germinate within 1 year, did germinate in the laboratory. Low
light levels may have caused the low germination rates, although other
factors such as low temperature were not ruled out [90].
A light requirement for germination could be useful to a species that
stores seed in the soil. Soil-stored seed of bunchberry has been found
in Alberta [31], in Minnesota [4], in Maine [68], and in Quebec [62]. A
postfire test of buried seed germination in a northern Saskatchewan
white spruce, jack pine (Pinus banksiana), aspen (Populus tremuloides),
and balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) forest found bunchberry seedlings
comprised 5.2 percent of the total sample [6].
Early growth and clonal development are slow and survival is low (13
percent by the fourth year). After 3 years, seedlings averaged 1 inch
(25 mm) in height, and by 4 years no rhizomes had been produced [90].
The establishment of new bunchberry plants from seed is low due to low
fruit set [46], low germination and survival rates, and slow early
growth. Although some new seedlings are established, bunchberry is a
clonal perennial that relies heavily on vegetative regeneration to
maintain itself and spread. It responds vigorously to disturbance [90].
By September 1980 following the May 18 eruption of Mount St. Helens,
bunchberry had sprouted from rhizomes in previously clearcut areas,
blowdown, and scorched sites [61]. It was growing on ripped up tree
roots where pieces of rhizomes had survived [39].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Bunchberry prefers moist, well-drained sites [26]. It is considered a
facultative wetland plant, which is sometimes found in wetlands but is
usually found on uplands [76]. It is considered to be indicative of
very moist sites [51] and of moist soils with moderately good drainage
[79]. In southeastern Alaska where bunchberry's range overlaps with
that of Lapland cornel, bunchberry is consistently a forest species,
while Lapland cornel is found in bogs. Hybrids between them are found
on intermediate sites [66]. In Wisconsin, bunchberry is primarily a
boreal forest plant, although it is frequent in open bogs and occurs in
dry forest types as well [13]. It is also found on high levees and can
tolerate poorly drained forest sites [5]. The limitations on
bunchberry's range to the south may be due to its preference for cool,
acidic soils and its inability to survive in soils warmer than 65
degrees F (18 degrees C) in the summer [99].
Soils: In northern Idaho, bunchberry grows more abundantly on soils
relatively low in organic matter (2-5.5%) and on granitic rather than
quartzite soils [64]. It prefers a pH of 7.0 to 7.9, although it grows
on soils with pH from 3.0 to 7.9 [51]. A perhaps more common view of
bunchberry is that it is an "acid loving" species [14]. In peatlands of
the boreal forest it is classified as very eutrophic, although it grows
on a wide range of sites [51]. In rich swamp forest it is an indicator
of minerotrophic water with pH 5.8-7.0, calcium 10-25 p/m, and calcium +
magnesium 13-30 p/m [45].
Elevation: Elevational ranges in some western states are as
follows [15]:
Minimum Maximum
feet meters feet meters
Colorado 5,700 1,737 11,000 3,353
Montana 3,200 975 6,600 2,012
Wyoming 4,600 1,402 9,000 2,743
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
In Alaskan Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests, bunchberry had 11.3
percent cover under gaps and only 0.87 percent cover under the forest
canopy. In comparison with other understory species it is more shade
tolerant than salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and less shade tolerant
than fernleaf goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), Alaska blueberry
(Vaccinium alaskaense), and red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) [5].
A shade frame study in Manitoba found little difference in frequency of
bunchberry growing in different shade frames, but cover increased
extremely rapidly in plots with 0 percent shade and more rapidly in
plots with 25 percent shade than those with 50 to 100 percent shade
[50].
During secondary succession on disturbed Sitka spruce-western hemlock
forest sites in Alaska, bunchberry may become a dominant species on
moist microsites within the first 3 years. It then continues to be a
dominant understory plant until around 40 years when the pole-sized,
overstory canopy becomes dense and continuous. As the overstory
matures, the canopy opens and becomes stratified. At around 150 years,
bunchberry biomass may increase sharply and continue to rise as the
old-growth stage is reached [5].
On Alaskan white spruce sites, bunchberry is a common species by the
mixed hardwood-spruce stage (55-90 years). By this time tree stands
have thinned out sufficiently to allow light to reach the understory
[16]. Another report on Alaskan white spruce shows bunchberry
increasing to a peak in the tall shrub-sapling stage (3-30 years),
decreasing as trees become dense (26-45 years), then increasing in the
hardwood stage (45-150 years), and remaining constant or decreasing
slightly into the spruce stage (150-300 years). The pattern on Alaskan
black spruce (Picea mariana) sites is very similar, although
bunchberry's cover reaches a peak in the mixed hardwood-spruce stage
(55-90 years) [25]. A study of Michigan red maple (Acer rubrum)-eastern
white pine forests initially dominated by bigtooth aspen (Populus
grandidentata), found bunchberry had its greatest frequency at 50 years
[81]. In northwestern Montana red cedar (Thuja plicata)-western hemlock
forests, bunchberry frequency is higher early in succession and
decreases sharply in the climax forest [36,37].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Phenology for bunchberry in various areas is as follows
[15,46,62,65,82]:
Flowering Fruit Ripening Fruit Dispersal
California May-July
Colorado June-July August
Montana June-July August
North Dakota June-July August
New Brunswick June-early July mid July-August Aug.-October
New England mid May-July
2nd flowering mid Aug.-Sept.
Newfoundland June-July late August late Aug.-Oct.
Quebec May-July Late July-Oct.
Wyoming June August
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Bunchberry is classed as moderately susceptible to fire-kill [22,23,59].
Its rhizomes can survive all but severe fires that remove the duff and
heat the upper soil for an extended period [22,23]. The rhizomes may
survive hotter fires in moist microsites such as depressions [Cooper
1928]. Rowe [80] considers it a late successional sprouter which is
adapted to short, intermediate, and long fire cycles. Whether rhizomes
are growing in the organic layers or in mineral soil is important to
fire survival, and this varies both on a site [90] and between sites
[24,59,69,70,71,72,72,90]. While most postfire reports on bunchberry
indicate it sprouts from rhizomes, bunchberry also has soil-stored seed,
which may germinate following fire [6].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Aboveground plant parts are killed by fire. The underground rhizomes can
survive all but severe fires that remove the duff and heat the upper
soil for an extended period [22,23,59].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Postfire frequency of bunchberry is usually similar to prefire
frequency, with only a slight decrease or increase [83]. By 3 to 5
years after fire in Maine and in black spruce forests of southeastern
Labrador, the frequency of bunchberry decreased slightly, but rapid
growth led to a dramatic increase in cover and flower production
[28,87]. After logging in Alaskan western hemlock and Sitka spruce,
bunchberry had higher cover in burned plots than in unburned plots [44].
Bunchberry usually responds to fire by rhizome sprouting rather than by
seedling establishment from buried seed [63]. Following spring fire and
less severe summer fires bunchberry readily sprouts from rhizomes, but
it does not do as well after severe fires that remove organic horizons
down to mineral soil [1,67]. Bunchberry increased its cover by the
second postfire year after logging and prescribed burning in Minnesota
jack pine stands [2]. However, following a severe fire, bunchberry
cover will decrease sharply at first and then increase slowly.
Bunchberry may also disappear after severe fire [3]. The timing of the
fire is important. Following light spring and summer prescribed burns
in New Brunswick mixed forests, density of bunchberry had increased over
prefire density within 3-4 months. Recovery was slower following light
fall burns [24].
A survey of burns following logging in Nova Scotia gave the following
results for bunchberry [58]:
Age of Burn Severity of Burn Density Cover Frequency
1 year severe 1.5 ----- 5.3
2 years light 27.0 ----- 50.0
6 years light 1.4 ----- 20.0
9 years unknown 0.2 ----- 12.0
10 years unknown ----- 0.3 5.7
22 years light ----- 0.55 50.0
29 years light ----- ----- ----
40 years light ----- 1.0 76.0
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Cornus canadensis | Bunchberry
REFERENCES :
1. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1959. Some effects of fire on forest reproduction
in northeastern Minnesota. Journal of Forestry. 57: 194-200. [208]
2. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1966. Small mammals and reforestation following
prescribed burning. Journal of Forestry. 64: 614-618. [206]
3. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1970. Some effects of prescribed burning on jack
pine reproduction in northeastern Minnesota. Misc. Rep. 94, Forestry
Series 5-1970. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 14 p. [7285]
4. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1979. Buried seed in the forest floor of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minnesota Forestry Research Note No. 271.
St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Forestry. 4 p. [3459]
5. Alaback, Paul B. 1984. Plant succession following logging in the Sitka
spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-173. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [7849]
6. Archibold, O. W. 1979. Buried viable propagules as a factor in postfire
regeneration in northern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Botany. 57:
54-58. [5934]
7. Barrett, Spencer C.; Helenurm, Kaius. 1987. The reproductive biology of
boreal forest herbs. I. Breeding systems and pollination. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 65: 2036-2046. [6624]
8. 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]
9. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Cornus L. dogwood. 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: 336-342. [7593]
10. Butler, C. E. 1986. Summer food utilization and observations of a tame
moose Alces alces. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 100: 85-88. [8871]
11. Cooper, William S. 1928. Seventeen years of successional change upon
Isle Royale, Lake Superior. Ecology. 9(1): 1-5. [7297]
12. Corns, I. G. W. 1983. Forest community types of west-central Alberta in
relation to selected environmental factors. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research. 13: 995-1010. [691]
13. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p. [7116]
14. Davis, Anthony M. 1979. Wetland succession, fire and the pollen record:
a Midwestern example. American Midland Naturalist. 102(1): 86-94.
[7311]
15. 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]
16. Dyrness, C. T.; Viereck, L. A.; Van Cleve, K. 1986. Fire in taiga
communities of interior Alaska. In: Forest ecosystems in the Alaskan
taiga. New York: Springer-Verlag: 74-86. [3881]
17. Eyde, R. H. 1987. The case for keeping Cornus in the broad Linnaean
sense. Systematic Botany. 12(4): 505-518. [8926]
18. Eyde, Richard H. 1988. Comprehending Cornus: puzzles and progress in the
systematics of the dogwoods. Botanical Review. 54(3): 233-351. [6144]
19. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
20. Ferguson, I. K. 1966. Notes on the nomenclature of Cornus. Journal of
the Arnold Arboretum. 47: 100-105. [7614]
21. Ferguson, I. K. 1966. The Cornaceae in the southeastern United States.
Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 47: 106-116. [7616]
22. Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western
Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 95 p. [633]
23. Fischer, William C.; Clayton, Bruce D. 1983. Fire ecology of Montana
forest habitat types east of the Continental Divide. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-141. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 83 p. [923]
24. Flinn, Marguerite A.; Wein, Ross W. 1977. Depth of underground plant
organs and theoretical survival during fire. Canadian Journal of Botany.
55: 2550-2554. [6362]
25. Foote, M. Joan. 1983. Classification, description, and dynamics of plant
communities after fire in the taiga of interior Alaska. Res. Pap.
PNW-307. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 108 p. [7080]
26. Forsythe, Warren Louis. 1975. Site influence on the post-fire
composition of a Rocky Mountain forest. Missoula, MT: University of
Montana. 173 p. Dissertation. [6723]
27. Fosberg, F. R. 1942. Cornus sericea L. (C. stolonifera Michx.). Bulletin
of the Torrey Botanical Club. 69(8): 583-589. [7613]
28. Foster, David R. 1985. Vegetation development following fire in Picea
mariana (black spruce) - Pleurozium forests of south-eastern Labrador,
Canada. Journal of Ecology. 73: 517-534. [7222]
29. Freedman, June D. 1983. The historical relationship between fire and
plant succession within the Swan Valley white-tailed deer winter range,
western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 139 p.
Dissertation. [6486]
30. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and
white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern
Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects
on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319]
31. Fyles, James W. 1989. Seed bank populations in upland coniferous forests
in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 274-278. [6388]
32. Gaber, B. A.;Hutchinson, T. C. 1988. The neutralization of acid rain by
the leaves of four boreal forest species. Canadian Journal of Botany.
66(9): 1877-1882. [8872]
33. 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]
34. Gleason, H. A.; Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Princeton, NJ: D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc. 810 p. [7065]
35. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
36. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park
cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]
37. Habeck, James R. 1970. Fire ecology investigations in Glacier National
Park: Historical considerations and current observations. Missoula, MT:
University of Montana, Department of Botany. 80 p. [6712]
38. Hall, Frederick C. 1984. Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific
Northwest plant associations. R6 Ecol 173-1984. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 83
p. [7650]
39. Halpern, Charles B.; Harmon, Mark E. 1983. Early plant succession on the
Muddy River mudflow, Mount St. Helens, Washington. American Midland
Naturalist. 110(1): 97-106. [8870]
40. 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]
41. 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]
42. Hanley, Thomas A.; Cates, Rex G.; Van Horne, Beatrice; McKendrick, Jay
D. 1987. Forest stand-age related differences in apparent nutritional
quality of forage for deer in southeastern Alaska. In: Provenza,
Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9;
Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 9-17.
[7395]
43. Hanley, Thomas A.; McKendrick, Jay D. 1983. Seasonal changes in chemical
composition and nutritive values of native forages in a spruce-hemlock
forests, southeastern Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-312. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [8770]
44. Harris, A. S. 1966. Effects of slash burning on conifer regeneration in
southeast Alaska. Research Note NOR-18. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.
[7304]
45. Heinselman, M. L. 1970. Landscape evolution, peatland types and the
environment in the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota.
Ecological Monographs. 40(2): 235-261. [8378]
46. Helenurm, Kaius; Barrett, Spencer C. H. 1987. The reproductive biology
of boreal forest herbs. II. Phenology of flowering and fruiting.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 2047-2056. [6623]
47. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Emmingham, W. H.; Halverson, Nancy M.; [and others].
1982. Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir
zone, Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests. R6-Ecol 100-1982a.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. 104 p. [5784]
48. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Logan, Sheila E.; Pavlat, Warren. 1987. Plant
association and management guide: Willamette National Forest. R6-Ecol
257-B-86. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region. 312 p. [13402]
49. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1961. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]
50. Hoefs, M. E. G.; Shay, Jennifer M. 1981. The effects of shade on shoot
growth of Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. after fire pruning in
southeastern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany. 59: 166-174. [4977]
51. Jeglum, John K. 1971. Plant indicators of pH and water level in
peatlands at Candle Lake, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Botany. 49:
1661-1676. [7450]
52. 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]
53. 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]
54. La Roi, George H.; Strong, Wayne L.; Pluth, Donald J. 1988. Understory
plant community classifications as predictors of forest site quality for
lodgepole pine and white spruce in west-central Alberta. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 18: 875-887. [5414]
55. Lee, Lyndon C.; Pfister, Robert D. 1978. A training manual for Montana
forest habitat types. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of
Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 142 p.
[1434]
56. Lepofsky, Dana; Turner, Nancy J.; Kuhnlein, Harriet V. 1985. Determining
the availability of traditional wild plant foods: an example of Nuxalk
foods, Bella Coola, British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 16:
223-241. [7002]
57. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
58. Martin, J. Lynton. 1956. An ecological survey of burned-over forest land
in southwestern Nova Scotia. Forestry Chronicle. 32: 313-336. [8932]
59. McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced
by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122. [1621]
60. McLean, Alastair. 1970. Plant communities of the Similkameen Valley,
British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 40(4): 403-424. [1620]
61. Means, Joseph E.; McKee, W. Arthur; Moir, William H.; Franklin, Jerry F.
1982. Natural revegetation of the northeastern portion of the devestated
area. In: Keller, S. A, C.; ed. Mount St. Helens: one year later:
Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 May 17-18; Cheney, WA. Cheney, WA:
Eastern Washington University Press: 93-103. [5977]
62. Morin, Hubert; Payette, Serge. 1988. Buried seed populations in the
montane, subalpine, and alpine belts of Mont Jacques-Cartier, Quebec.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 101-107. [6376]
63. Morris, William G. 1958. Influence of slash burning on regeneration,
other plant cover, and fire hazard in the Douglas-fir region (A progress
report). Res. Pap. PNW-29. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
49 p. [4803]
64. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the
cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35:
165-185. [4016]
65. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
66. Neiland, Bonita J. 1971. The forest-bog complex of southeast Alaska.
Vegetatio. 22: 1-64. [8383]
67. Ohmann, Lewis F.; Grigal, David F. 1981. Contrasting vegetation
responses following two forest fires in northeastern Minnesota. American
Midland Naturalist. 106(1): 54-64. [8285]
68. Olmsted, Norwood W.; Curtis, James D. 1947. Seeds of the forest floor.
Ecology. 28(1): 49-52. [9904]
69. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones of the Cassiar Timber Supply Area: summary report.
In: Northern Fire Ecology Project, Cassiar Timber Supply Area. Victoria,
BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 64 p. [9201]
70. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones of the Cassiar Timber Supply Area. In: Northern
Fire Ecology Project, Cassiar Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province
of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 172 p. [9202]
71. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones and subzones of the Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area:
summary report. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Fort Nelson Timber
Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of
Forests. 53 p. [9203]
72. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones and subzones of the Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area.
In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area.
Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 122 p.
[1821]
73. Parminter, John. 1984. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones of the northern portion of the Mackenzie Timber
Supply Area. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Northern Mackenzie
Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry
of Forests. 102 p. [9206]
74. Pojar, J.; Trowbridge, R.; Coates, D. 1984. Ecosystem classification and
interpretation of the sub-boreal spruce zone, Prince Rupert Forest
Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No. 17. Victoria, BC:
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 319 p. [6929]
75. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
76. Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. 1986 wetland plant list, Montana. St.
Petersburg, FL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetlands Inventory. 26 p. [8381]
77. Rickett, H. W. 1945. Cornaceae. North American Flora. 28B: 299-317.
[7612]
78. Robbins, C. T.; Hanley, T. A.; Hagerman, A. E.; [and others]. 1987. Role
of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in protein
availability. Ecology. 68(1): 98-107. [5974]
79. Rowe, J. S. 1956. Uses of undergrowth plant species in forestry.
Ecology. 37(3): 461-473. [8862]
80. Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and
species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role
of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John
Wiley & Sons: 135-154. [2038]
81. Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest
succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist.
20(1): 3-14. [5022]
82. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed.
Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L.
Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
83. Shaw, Charles Hugh. 1916. The vegetation of the Selkirks. Botanical
Gazette. 61: 477-494. [3246]
84. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
85. Siccama, T. G.; Bormann, F. H.; Likens, G. E. 1970. The Hubbard Brook
ecosystem study: productivity, nutrients and phytosociology of the
herbaceous layer. Ecological Monographs. 40(4): 389-402. [8875]
86. Sidhu, S. S. 1973. Early effects of burning and logging in pine-mixed
woods. I. Frequency and biomass of minor vegetation. Inf. Rep. PS-X-46.
Chalk River, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Petawawa Forest Experiment
Station. 47 p. [7901]
87. Skutch, Alexander F. 1929. Early stages of plant succession following
forest fires. Ecology. 10(2): 177-190. [21349]
88. 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]
89. Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed
dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous
forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688. [6508]
90. Tappeiner, J. C.; Alaback, P. B. 1989. Early establishment and
vegetative growth of understory species in the western hemlock-Sitka
spruce forests of southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67(2):
318-326. [8931]
91. Timmermann, H. R.; McNicol, J. G. 1988. Moose habitat needs. Forestry
and wildlife management in the boreal forest--an Ontario workshop; 1987
December 7-9; Thunder Bay, ON. In: The Forestry Chronicle. 1988 June:
238-245. [5118]
92. Topik, Christopher; Halverson, Nancy M.; Brockway, Dale G. 1986. Plant
association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Gifford
Pichot National Forest. R6-ECOL-230A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 132 p. [2351]
93. 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]
94. 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]
95. Van Horne, B.; Hanley, T. A.; Cates, R. G.; McKencrick, J. D.; Horner,
J. D. 1988. Influence of seral stage and season on leaf chemistry of
southeastern Alaska deer forage. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
18(1): 90-99. [8873]
96. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and
shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. [6884]
97. Wall, R. E. 1982. Secondary succession on recently cut-over forest land
in Nova Scotia. Information Report M-X-133. Fredericton, NB: Department
of the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service, Maritimes Forest Research
Centre. 19 p. [7302]
98. Jones, Eric N. 1990. Effects of forage availability on home range and
population density of Microtus pennsylvanicus. Journal of Mammalogy.
71(3): 382-389. [23790]
99. Wherry, E. T. 1934. Temperature relations of the bunchberry, Cornus
canadensis L. Ecology. 15(4): 440-443. [8929]
100. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
Index
Related categories for Species: Cornus canadensis
| Bunchberry
|
 |
