|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
ABBREVIATION :
LONUTA
SYNONYMS :
Lonicera ebractulata Rydb.
Lonicera utahensis f. ebractulata St. John
SCS PLANT CODE :
LOUT2
COMMON NAMES :
Utah honeysuckle
red twinberry
fly honeysuckle
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of Utah honeysuckle is Lonicera
utahensis Wats. [33,84]. It is a member of the honeysuckle family
(Caprifoliaceae). There are no recognized subspecies, varieties, or
forms.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Diane S. Pavek, May 1993
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Pavek, Diane S. 1993. Lonicera utahensis. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Utah honeysuckle is distributed from southern British Columbia and
Alberta south to northern California, Arizona, and New Mexico
[39,78,81,84]. It does not occur in the Coast Ranges of Oregon or on
the east side of the Sierra Nevada [33,57].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
STATES :
AZ CA ID MT NV NM OR UT WA WY
AB BC
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
BICA CRLA GLAC GRTE NOCA OLYM
TICA YELL
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest,
K012 Douglas-fir forest,
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
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
224 Western hemlock
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Utah honeysuckle is an understory component of mature forests [69]. It
is a major or minor shrub component, depending on the phase, in grand
fir/Rocky Mountain maple (Abies grandis/Acer glabrum) habitat types in
central Idaho [71]. It may be codominant in the shrub layer at
mid-elevations with grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium) in
subalpine fir/common beargrass (Abies lasiocarpa/Xerophyllum tenax)
habitat types in Idaho [69]. At low to mid-elevations, Utah honeysuckle
is present in cool lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) habitat types. At higher elevations it occurs
in dry to moist, warm and cold Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii),
grand fir, western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and subalpine fir habitat
type series [4,11,18,29,49].
Utah honeysuckle is listed as a dominant, codominant, or minor
understory species in habitat types described in the following
publications:
(1) Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico [20]
(2) Riparian dominance types of Montana [31]
(3) Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah [48]
(4) The subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type: succession and
management [69]
(5) The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho:
succession and management [71].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Utah honeysuckle has little value as browse for livestock [81]. It is
valuable summer and fall browse for elk, but a minor browse species for
white-tailed deer [31,71,76,88]. On sites in the Garnet Range of
Mountain that had been logged within the last 50 years, radio-collared
elk used Utah honeysuckle 2 to 4 percent of the time throughout the
summer. The relative availability of Utah honeysuckle and use by the
elk did not change over the summer [15]. Moose used Utah honeysuckle in
trace amounts as summer and winter forage in Wyoming [32,34]. Moose in
north-central Idaho consumed it from October through April [62].
Grizzly bear eat Utah honeysuckle fruits summer and fall [49,65,85].
Utah honeysuckle occurs with 14 to 80 percent frequency in various types
of grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains [49]. Black
bear utilized Utah honeysuckle with 15 to 45 percent frequency during
the summer in central Idaho [71]. Ruffed grouse consumed Utah
honeysuckle during the summer in northern Idaho [36].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of Utah honeysuckle is poor to fair for sheep and poor
for cattle and horses in Utah and Montana [12,31]. Palatability of Utah
honeysuckle for moose is intermediate [32].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Utah honeysuckle has poor protein and energy value [12]. The elemental
content of 10 compounds in Utah honeysuckle leaves and stems has been
determined on plants growing in areas subjected to seven different
silvicultural treatments [70].
COVER VALUE :
In Utah and Wyoming, Utah honeysuckle provides poor cover for pronghorn,
elk, and waterfowl; poor to fair cover for mule and white-tailed deer;
and fair to good cover for small mammals and nongame and upland game
birds [12].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Utah honeysuckle is recommended for reclamation plantings in the
Intermountain region on riparian sites, such as wet meadow and forest
types [56].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Utah honeysuckle is recommended for ornamental use in gardens [41]. It
can be artificially propagated by stem cuttings [41,56].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Silviculture: Utah honeysuckle can survive light to moderate site
preparation following logging [69]. It significantly (p<0.05) increased
in cover at 5 and 11 years after logging in western hemlock/pachystima
(Tsuga heterophylla/Pachystima myrsinites) and grand fir/pachystima
habitat types in northern Idaho [86].
In a comparison of clearcuts and shelterwood cuts in northern Idaho,
Utah honeysuckle was present in areas opened up 0.25 mile or more, and
its frequency was not influenced by increased evaporation due to canopy
removal [43].
Natural regeneration of six conifer species was compared under various
silvicultural methods and site prepartations in three different habitat
types in west-central Idaho. Utah honeysuckle provided light or
efficient cover for Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and
grand fir seedlings; and moderate or very efficient cover under which
western larch (Larix occidentalis), lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce
seedlings established well [24,71].
A salvage cut was done following a Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreak in
Douglas-fir and grand fir forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington. Utah honeysuckle was considered an important facilitative
shrub; regeneration of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and Engelmann spruce was
abundant [68].
Other Uses: Regression equations have been developed for predicting
Utah honeysuckle aboveground biomass based on stem diameter and/or shrub
height [9,64]. Other equations predict Utah honeysuckle development
following various silvicultural treatments [37,45]. Regression
equations were developed for shrub production following logging; Utah
honeysuckle had no significant (p>0.05) relationships between biomass,
twig production, and cover with the environment or habitat type
overstory characteristics [38]. Regression equations also allow the
prediction of understory production for maintenance of wildlife
populations [77].
Utilization studies and clipping projects in northern Idaho have
estimated forage production of Utah honeysuckle. Intense clipping
levels caused decreased vitality over time [21]. However, Utah
honeysuckle can withstand up to 60 percent removal of the annual growth
of twigs if clipped in the fall [22].
Control: Herbicide treatments are not always needed in Utah honeysuckle
management. Utah honeysuckle is one of the shorter shrubs in the
understory of the cedar-hemlock zone in northern Idaho. After logging,
container-grown Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine transplants soon were
taller (0.9 foot [0.27 m]) than Utah honeysuckle (0.5 foot [0.15 m])
[56].
Where control is required for site preparation and conifer release,
various herbicides have been successfully used on Utah honeysuckle.
Utah honeysuckle had more than 50 percent damage 2 years after treatment
with glyphosate. Aerial broadcast application of 2,4-D caused 58
percent top-kill by year 2. After this, Utah honeysuckle recovered in
two out of three treatments [5]. Herbicides must reduce shrub cover by
50 percent, or shrubs may recover within 1 or 2 years [54]. Herbicide
selection and application seasons and rates have been discussed in
detail [50,52,53,55,61].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Utah honeysuckle is a native deciduous shrub that grows 3.2 to 6.6 feet
(1-2 m) tall [13,31,84]. It may form clumps. Branches are slender and
spreading [81]. Fruit is a small, several-seeded berry [33,39].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Chamaephyte
Hemicryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Utah honeysuckle sprouts from the root crown [19]. It begins sexual
reproduction at 5 to 10 years [37]. Fleshy fruits are dispersed by
birds, rodents, and bears [69]. The seeds of Lonicera species require
stratification before germinating [41]. Utah honeysuckle seeds are
short lived [40]. In a seedbank study in the Blue Mountains of Oregon,
Utah honeysuckle was present at 4 percent frequency in a grand
fir/pachystima habitat type where some trees were 150 years old. No
seedlings of Utah honeysuckle emerged from soil samples [75].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Utah honeysuckle is found on moist, open or wooded slopes and canyons
[33,59]. It also occurs on glaciofluvial flats or stream valley plains
[35,79]. It occurs from 2,240 to 11,000 feet (683-3,353 m) in elevation
[35,39,78,81,84].
In northern Idaho, Utah honeysuckle was associated with soils of
intermediate depth, 14 to 20 inches (35.6-50.8 cm) [58,69]. There was
no difference in the amount of Utah honeysuckle cover on northern and
southern exposure; it was common on northwestern to eastern exposures
[4,58]. Soil textures may be fine sandy loams to loamy sands
[35,60,68].
Utah honeysuckle occurs in a continental climate that is influenced by
maritime air masses or is semiarid [1]. Precipitation ranges from 28.3
to 45.3 inches (719-1,150 mm) [16,35,79].
Common associated species not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence
are white spirea (Spiraea betulifolia), ninebark (Physocarpus
malvaceus), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), Sitka alder (Alnus
viridis ssp. sinuata), thinleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum),
pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), queencup beadlily (Clintonia
uniflora), and sweetscented bedstraw (Galium triflorum) [4,31,34,47].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Utah honeysuckle is an important shrub in late seral to climax
communities in mesic coniferous forests [25,71]. It can tolerate
moderate to dense shade and is common beneath relatively closed canopies
[58,69]. Utah honeysuckle was a common understory plant in stands aged
60 to 325 years in the cedar-hemlock/spruce-fir ecotone in Glacier
National Park, Montana [27]. It had similar frequencies (average of 2.4
percent) in stands aged approximately 50 and 400 years [26]. Seedlings
may establish in an early successional stage [37]. Utah honeysuckle
comes in after the herb stage following disturbance in the western white
pine (Pinus monticola) zone in northern Idaho [44]. Under closed
canopies of Douglas-fir-lodgepole pine/northern twinflower (Linnaea
borealis) community types of western Montana, Utah honeysuckle was
sparsely distributed with 3 percent mean cover [30]. In the Swan
Valley, Montana, it was present at 33 percent frequency in immature
(less than 90 years old) grand fir forests and at 67 percent frequency
in old-growth (150 or more years old) stands [1]. Beneath the climax
cedar-hemlock canopy, no Utah honeysuckle occurred. Under the almost
closed canopies (3 to 5 percent of full sunlight) of Douglas-fir and
western white pine seral stands, Utah honeysuckle was present at 10 to
40 percent frequency [35]. In central Idaho, Utah honeysuckle may be
either a major or minor seral species in different phases of grand
fir/Rocky Mountain maple habitat types [71]. Utah honeysuckle was one
of the dominant shrubs in mid-successional stages (11 to 79 years)
following clearcutting of spruce-fir forest [67].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Utah honeysuckle leaves expand in late March to early May [14,66].
Flowers bloom April through June [14,59,66]. Fruits mature from June to
September [14,36,81]. Leaves drop in the fall [14,66].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Fire often injures Utah honeysuckle, and results in temporary reductions
in cover and frequency [10,19,31]. Utah honeysuckle sprouts from the
root crown after top-kill by fire [8,11,18,31].
For some of the communities that Utah honeysuckle occurs in, such as
grand fir/queencup beadlily in northwestern Montana or mixed-conifer
subalpine forests of the southern and central Rocky Mountains, fire-free
intervals or stand-destroying fires occur on average every 150 years
[2,10].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire top-kills Utah honeysuckle. Surviving plants will sprout from the
root crown. Regrowth is slow [37].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Utah honeysuckle is a decreaser following fire in the cedar-hemlock zone
of the Rocky Mountains [87]. A site in southeastern British Columbia
was logged, burned, and planted with Engelmann spruce. The burning
inhibited Utah honeysuckle growth compared to unburned sites after 3
years [83]. Fire in Douglas-fir zone in Montana and Idaho eliminated
Utah honeysuckle from study areas. Before burning, Utah honeysuckle was
present at 2.9 plants per 1,000 square feet (2.9 plants/92.9 sq m). One
to four years following the fire, no Utah honeysuckle plants were
recorded [47]. In Douglas-fir-western larch forests of Montana, cover
of Utah honeysuckle was 1 to 2 percent on several sites. Following
clearcuts and prescribed burns, cover was 0 to 3 percent by postfire
year 2 and 6 percent by postfire year 8. At one site, it was not
present until postfire year 5 and had 1 percent cover [72].
In spruce-fir forests of Montana, Utah honeysuckle neither increased nor
decreased following fire [82]. In Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming,
mean frequency (27 percent) and cover (9 percent) of Utah honeysuckle
were higher on unburned spruce-fir sites than on burned sites (differing
ages and severities). On a 1-year-old moderate-severity burn, frequency
was 5 percent; on a 1-year-old severely burned site frequency was 3
percent; and on a 43-year-old severely burned site frequency was 2
percent [6].
There was no difference in frequency (52-67 percent) of Utah honeysuckle
in closed stands compared to logged sites and sites logged with slash
piled and then burned. However, a single broadcast burn on logged sites
reduced honeysuckle frequency to 35 to 40 percent, and multiple
broadcast burns on logged sites reduced it to 25 percent [58,89].
In a 19-year-old clearcut with no postcut treatment in west-central
Montana, Utah honeysuckle biomass was 0.064 pounds per 10.8 square feet
(29 g/sq m). In a 10 year-old stand that had been clearcut and
broadcast burned, Utah honeysuckle biomass was 0.01 pounds per 10.8
square feet (4 g/sq m) [64].
In a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, Utah honeysuckle was present in
the postfire community by year 2. It remained constant for about 8
years and then increased for another 10 years. Herbicides were applied
at postfire year 6. Utah honeysuckle sharply decreased for 1 year;
after this, it steadily increased [46]. Based on growth curves
developed from lodgepole pine understory, projections were made about
Utah honeysuckle response following a clearcut and broadcast burn. The
model assumed that all aboveground vegetation and duff were consumed,
and 30 percent of the area was exposed mineral soil. Surviving Utah
honeysuckle were projected to have spacing similar to prefire
communities but with less cover. Height of Utah honeysuckle was
expected to be 2 feet (0.61 m) at year 5 and about 3 feet (0.91 m) at
year 20 [37].
One year following a severe fire in northern Idaho, Utah honeysuckle was
present on six out of 21 sites. On two sites, it achieved 3.28 square
feet per 0.004 acre (1 sq m/0.01 ha) cover at postfire years 6 to 11.
It was not an important species on the other sites [73].
Repeated fires in the cedar-hemlock zone of the northern Rocky Mountains
will maintain the seral shrub stage, of which Utah honeysuckle is a
component, for about 50 years [87].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
In grand fir/pachystima habitat types in Idaho, Utah honeysuckle fuel
loadings were 5 to 141 pounds per acre (2.3-64 kg/ha) [28]. Although it
was suggested that overstory removal would increase Utah honeysuckle
fuel loading, there was no significant (p>0.05) difference in Utah
honeysuckle cover following a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus
ponderosae) epidemic that killed the lodgepole pine overstory [3].
Overall fuel loads are about 20 tons per acre (4.5 kg/sq m) in the moist
lower subalpine habitat types in which Utah honeysuckle occurs [19].
Utah honeysuckle stem diameters range from 0.12 to 0.67 inch (0.3-1.7
cm) [9].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis | Utah Honeysuckle
REFERENCES :
1. Antos, J. A.; Habeck, J. R. 1981. Successional development in Abies
grandis (Dougl.) Forbes forests in the Swan Valley, western Montana.
Northwest Science. 55(1): 26-39. [12445]
2. Antos, Joseph A.; Shearer, Raymond C. 1980. Vegetation development on
disturbed grand fir sites, Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. Res. Pap.
INT-251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [7269]
3. Armour, Charles David. 1982. Fuel and vegetation succession in response
to mountain pine beetle epidemics in northwestern Montana. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho. 47 p. Thesis. [16488]
4. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest
succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p. [349]
5. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important
wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of
Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. [12148]
6. Barmore, William J., Jr.; Taylor, Dale; Hayden, Peter. 1976. Ecological
effects and biotic succession following the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire
in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975.
Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p.
[16109]
7. 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]
8. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1991. Fire
ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 128 p. [18211]
9. Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 153-358. [10107]
10. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest
habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file
with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292]
11. Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest
habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 85 p. [5297]
12. 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]
13. Dorn, R. D. 1977. Manual of the vascular plants of Wyoming. New York:
Garland Publ. 2 vols. [21082]
14. Wagonfehr, Bob. 1987. Chaparral and the Tonto land management plan. In:
Wagner, Michael R., ed. Challenges and opportunities in chaparral
management: Proceedings of the Southwestern Society of American
Foresters annual fall meeting; 1986 November 12-14; Prescott, AZ. SAF
Publication No. SAF 87.10. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona State
University and the San Francisco Peaks Chapter of the Society of
American Foresters: 14. [5654]
15. Edge, W. Daniel; Marcum, C. Les; Olson-Edge, Sally L. 1988. Summer
forage and feeding site selection by elk. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 52(4): 573-577. [6778]
16. Edgerton, Paul J. 1987. Influence of ungulates on the development of the
shrub understory of an upper slope mixed conifer forest. 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: 162-167.
[7411]
17. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.
1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206]
21. Garrison, George A. 1953. Effects of clipping on some range shrubs.
Journal of Range Management. 6(5): 309-317. [995]
22. Garrison, George A. 1972. Carbohydrate reserves and response to use. In:
McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland
shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971
July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 271-278. [997]
23. 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]
24. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1987. Occurrence of conifer seedlings and their
microenvironments on disturbed sites in central Idaho. Res. Pap.
INT-383. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 12 p. [3554]
25. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1991. Natural regeneration microsites for
Douglas-fir in central Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James
E., compilers. Interior Douglas-fir: The species and its management:
Symposium proceedings; 1991 February 27 - March 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman,
WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 247-254.
[18299]
26. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park
cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]
27. Lauer, Jerry L. 1976. Reconnaissance survey of bighorn sheep populations
and habitats. Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest,
Idaho. Misc. Publ. 2. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife
and Range Experiment Station. 9 p. [1416]
28. Habeck, James R. 1973. A phytosociological analysis of forests, fuels
and fire in the Moose Creek Drainage, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Publication No. RI-73-022. University of Montana--U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 114 p. [10063]
29. Habeck, James R. 1976. Forests, fuels, and fire in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness, Idaho. In: Proceedings Montana Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
Conference and Fire and Land Management Symposium; [Date of conference
unknown]; Tallahassee, FL. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers
Research Station: 305-353. [8185]
30. Hann, Wendel John. 1982. A taxonomy for classification of seral
vegetation of selected habitat types in western Montana. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho. 235 p. Dissertation. [1073]
31. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian
dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University
of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
32. Harry, G. Bryan. 1957. Winter food habits of moose in Jackson Hole,
Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21(1): 53-57. [8429]
33. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular
plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through
Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.
[1170]
34. Lindsey, Gerald D. 1975. The influence of animals on lodgepole pine
regeneration. In: Baumgartner, David M., ed. Management of lodgepole
pine ecosystems: Symposium proceedings; 1973 October 9-11; Pullman, WA.
Vol. 1. PUllman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension
Service: 457-470. [7842]
35. Huberman, M. A. 1935. The role of western white pine in forest
succession in northern Idaho. Ecology. 16(2): 137-151. [12447]
36. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat
improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference.
[Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]
37. Hungerford, Roger D. 1986. Vegetation response to stand cultural
operations on small stem lodgepole pine stands in Montana. In: Weed
control for forest productivity in the interior West; 1985 February 5-7;
Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative
Extension: 63-71. [5896]
38. Irwin, Larry L.; Peek, James M. 1979. Shrub production and biomass
trends following five logging treatments within the cedar-hemlock zone
of northern Idaho. Forest Science. 25(3): 415-426. [16511]
39. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
40. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in
central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375]
41. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
42. 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]
43. Larsen, J. A. 1924. Some factors affecting reproduction after logging in
northern Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Research. 28(11): 1149-1157.
[12934]
44. Larsen, J. A. 1929. Fires and forest succession in the Bitterroot
Mountains of northern Idaho. Ecology. 10: 67-76. [6990]
45. Laursen, Steven B. 1984. Predicting shrub community composition and
structure following management disturbance in forest ecosystems of the
Intermountain West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 261 p.
Dissertation. [6717]
46. Lyon, L. Jack. 1984. The Sleeping Child Burn--21 years of postfire
change. Res. Pap. INT-330. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p.
[6328]
47. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1966. Two forest fires: and some
specific implications in big-game management. In: Proceedings, annual
conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commisssioners: 46:
181-193. [17169]
48. Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types
of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 89 p. [1553]
49. Mealey, Stephen P.; Jonkel, Charles J.; Demarchi, Ray. 1977. Habitat
criteria for grizzly bear management. In: Peterie, T., ed. Proceedings,
13th international congress of game biologists; 1977 March 11-15;
Atlanta, GA. No. 13. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher
unknown]. 276-289. [17030]
50. Miller, Daniel L. 1982. Herbicides: guidelines for use and site
preparation prescriptions in the Inland Northwest. In: Baumgartner,
David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep
terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA.
Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 55-62.
[18532]
51. Miller, Daniel L. 1986. Conifer release in the Inland
Northwest--effects. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Breuer,
David W.; Miller, Daniel L., compilers and eds. Weed control for forest
productivity in the Interior West: Symposium proceedings; 1985 February
5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative
Extension: 17-24. [1646]
52. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd, Frank A. 1982. How to write a herbicide
prescription for shrub control. Forestry Technical Paper TP-82-6.
Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation, Wood Products, Western Division. 12
p. [3390]
53. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd, Frank A. 1983. Shrub control in the Inland
Northwest--a summary of herbicide test results. Forestry Research Note
RN-83-4. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 49 p. [7861]
54. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd; Frank A.; Pope, W. W. 1983. Effects of Garlon
4, 2, 4-D, and Velpar herbicides on north Idaho shrubs. Forest Res. Note
RN-83-7. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 5 p. [3582]
55. Miller, Daniel L.; Pope, W. W. 1982. The effects of Garlon 3A and Garlon
4 on north Idaho conifers and shrubs. Forestry Technical Paper TP-82-3.
Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 11 p. [3583]
56. Monsen, Stephen B. 1983. Plants for revegetation of riparian sites
within the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy,
compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and
wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin
Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 83-89. [9652]
57. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
58. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the
cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35:
165-185. [4016]
59. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
60. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem
(Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings,
annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1974 October 8-10;
Misssoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 391-420. [6273]
61. Otchere-Boateng, J.; Herring, L. J. 1990. Site preparation: chemical.
In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds.
Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University of
British Columbia Press: 164-178. [10714]
62. Pierce, John D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to
browse availability in north-central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Zoology.
62(12): 2404-2409. [12493]
63. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
64. Richardson, Nancy. 1980. Species-specific aboveground shrub biomass in
seral communities in three habitat types in west central Montana. Final
Report. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 57 p. [7309]
65. Ruediger, William; Mealey, Stephen. 1978. Coordination guidelines for
timber harvesting in grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana.
[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 44 p. On file at:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [19354]
66. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest
flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082]
67. Scrivner, Jerry H.; Smith, H. Duane. 1981. Pocket gophers (Thomomys
talpoides) in successional stages of spruce-fir forest in Idaho. Great
Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 362-367. [7900]
68. Seidel, K. W.; Head, S. Conrade. 1983. Regeneration in mixed conifer
partial cuttings in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.
PNW-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [8216]
69. Simpson, Michael L. 1990. The subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type:
Succession and management. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 134 p.
Thesis. [13464]
70. Stark, N. 1983. The nutrient content of Rocky Mountain vegetation: a
handbook for estimating nutrients lost through harvest and burning.
Misc. Publ. 14. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry,
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 81 p. [8617]
71. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1992. The grand fir/mountain
maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station. 90 p. [17791]
72. Stickney, Peter F. 1980. Data base for post-fire succession, first 6 to
9 years, in Montana larch-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-62. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 133 p. [6583]
73. Stickney, Peter F. 1985. Data base for early postfire succession on the
Sundance Burn, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-189. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 121 p. [7223]
74. 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]
75. Strickler, Gerald S.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1976. Emergent seedlings from
coniferous litter and soil in eastern Oregon. Ecology. 57: 801-807.
[2039]
76. Thilenius, John Frederick. 1960. Forage utilization by cattle and
white-tailed deer on a northern Idaho forest range. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [5910]
77. Thill, Ronald E.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Patton, David R. 1983. Deer and
elk forage production in Arizona mixed conifer forests. Res. Pap.
RM-248. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p.
[14381]
78. Tidestrom, I.; Kittell, T. 1941. A flora of Arizona and New Mexico.
Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 897 p.
[18145]
79. Turner, David P.; Franz, Eldon H. 1986. The influence of canopy
dominants on understory vegetation patterns in an old-growth
cedar-hemlock forest. American Midland Naturalist. 116(2): 387-393.
[7469]
80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
81. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
82. Vogl, Richard J.; Ryder, Calvin. 1969. Effects of slash burning on
conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Science.
43(3): 135-147. [8546]
83. Watts, Sue, editor. 1989. FRDA Report 088. UBC INFORMS* Newsletter.
3(1). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Faculty of
Forestry, Forest Sciences Department.23 p. [9474]
84. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
85. Willard, E. Earl; Herman, Margaret. 1977. Grizzly bear and its habitat.
Final Report, Cooperative Agreement between U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1 and University of Montana, Montana
Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 28 p. [15115]
86. Wittinger, W. T.; Pengelly, W. L.; Irwin, L. L.; Peek, J. M. 1977. A
20-year record of shrub succession in logged areas in the cedar- hemlock
zone of northern Idaho. Northwest Science. 51(3): 161-171. [6828]
87. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
88. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range
habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bull. No. 9. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. [6831]
89. Zager, Peter Edward. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on
grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University
of Montana. 131 p. Dissertation. [5032]
Index
Related categories for Species: Lonicera utahensis
| Utah Honeysuckle
|
 |
