|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
ABBREVIATION :
RHUTRI
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
RHTR
COMMON NAMES :
skunkbush sumac
skunkbush
quailbush
ill-scented sumac
lemonade sumac
squawbush
squawberry
skunkbrush
lemita
polecat bush
three-lobed sumac
shoneehaw
three-leaved sumac
TAXONOMY :
The fully documented species scientific name is Rhus trilobata Nutt.
Recognized varieties are as follows:
Rhus trilobata var. anisophylla Jepson
Rhus trilobata var. arenaria (Greene) Barkl.
Rhus trilobata var. pilosissima Engler.
Rhus trilobata var. quinata Jepson
Rhus trilobata var. racemulosa (Greene) Barkl.
Rhus trilobata var. serotina Greene
Rhus trilobata var. simplicifolia (Greene) Barkl.
Rhus trilobata Nutt. var. trilobata
Skunkbush sumac is a highly variable species with many ecotypes [42].
Numerous varieties with much intergradation have been described.
Skunkbush sumac probably hybridizes with several other species in the
genus Rhus.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, September 1987
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, January 1988
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. A. 1987. Rhus trilobata. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Skunkbush sumac is distributed from Alberta to Mexico and from
California eastward to Indiana, Missouri, and Arkansas [1,22]. In
Montana and several other western states, it occurs primarily east of
the Rocky Mountains [22]. General distribution of varieties is as
follows [1,21]:
var. anisophylla - Oregon and California to Arizona and New Mexico,
south into Mexico.
var. arenaria - Sand dunes of Great Lakes Region, Indiana, and Illinois.
var. pilosissima - California to Texas, Mexico.
var. quinata - Oregon and California south into Arizona and New Mexico.
var. racemulosa - Arizona and New Mexico, Mexico.
var. serotina - Missouri and Arkansas to Nebraska and Kansas, south to Texas.
var. simplicifolia - Oklahoma, Colorado and Utah, southward to Arizona
and Mexico.
var. trilobata - Pacific Northwest.
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ AR CA CO ID IL IN IA KS MI
MO MT NE NV NM ND OK OR SD TX
UT WA WY AB SK Mexico
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
AGFO ARCH BADL BAND BICA BRCA
CACH CANY CARE CHCU COLM DETO
DINO GLCA GRCA GRTE GRBA LAME
LAVO MEVE MOCA NABR ORPI PEFO
SAGU SAMO SCBL SUCR THRO TICA
WACA WUPA YELL YOSE ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplight
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - threeawn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K071 Shinnery
K081 Oak savanna
K098 Northern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Skunkbush sumac occurs as an indicator of climax in a number of plant
communities. It has been identified as a codominant with the following
species: bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis),
true, true mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium).
Skunkbush sumac is listed as a habitat type indicator in the following
publications:
Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National Forest [41]
Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana [31]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Because the fruit of skunkbush sumac persists through the fall and
winter, this species can provide a ready food source for birds and small
mammals when other foods are scarce or unavailable [34]. Birds
utilizing skunkbush sumac fruit include the prairie chicken, wild
turkey, pheasant, sage grouse, ruffed grouse, many species of quail, and
numerous songbirds [39]. Squirrels, mice, and other small mammals also
consume large quantities of the fruit [39].
Skunkbush sumac provides some browse for deer, elk, and pronghorn when
other more preferred forage is unavailable [17,31,38,39]. In most
locations, big game use tends to be heaviest during the winter when food
supplies are most limited. Skunkbush is reported to be an important
summer food for mule deer in the Missouri Breaks of Montana [38].
However, east of this area in the North Dakota Badlands, very little
mule deer use was reported for any season [38]. The foliage and twigs
of skunkbush sumac are browsed by rabbits in many areas and to a more
limited extent by porcupines in the North Dakota Badlands [38].
In certain locations, livestock use skunkbush sumac to some degree, but
it is not a preferred species [17]. Skunkbush sumac is most palatable
to livestock in Colorado and the Southwest [39,42]. Domestic goats
consume fairly large amounts of skunkbush sumac in some areas [9]. It
is described as "well-used" by horses in parts of Colorado [38].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability and degree of use shown by livestock and and wildlife
species for skunkbush sumac in several western states has been rated as
follows [12]:
CO MT ND UT WY
Cattle Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair
Sheep Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair
Horses Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair
Pronghorn ---- Fair Poor Fair Fair
Elk Poor Poor ---- Poor Poor
Mule deer Poor Good Good Fair Fair
White-tailed deer ---- Poor Poor ---- Fair
Small mammals ---- Good ---- Good Good
Small nongame birds ---- Good Good Good Fair
Upland game birds ---- Good Good Good Fair
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- Poor Poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Skunkbush sumac is rated fair in energy value and poor in protein value
[12]. The fruits are reported to provide a good source of vitamin A
during the winter [39].
COVER VALUE :
Skunkbush sumac often forms dense thickets that provide good hiding
cover for many small birds and mammals. This species also furnishes
excellent nesting sites for many species of songbirds. The degree to
which skunkbush sumac provides environmental protection during one or
more seasons for wildlife species has been rated follows [12]:
CO MT ND UT WY
Pronghorn ---- Fair Fair Good Poor
Elk ---- Poor ---- Fair Fair
Mule deer ---- Fair Good Good Good
White-tailed deer ---- ---- Fair ---- Good
Small mammals Good Good ---- Good Fair
Small nongame birds Good Good Good Good Fair
Upland game birds ---- Good Good Good Fair
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- Poor Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Skunkbush sumac has low potential for short-term revegetation but high
to moderate potential for long-term revegetation [12]. This
low-maintenance species may have value for erosion control [24,37,39]
and dune stabilization [25]. Skunkbush sumac has been used for roadside
plantings in disturbed areas [42].
Var. trilobata has been successfully transplanted onto phosphate mine
spoils in Idaho [29]. 'Bighorn,' a cultivar from Wyoming, has been
widely planted on pinyon-juniper sites and is reported to have good
rehabilitation potential for many parts of the Southwest [17].
Skunkbush sumac has been successfully transplanted in aspen (Populus
tremuloides)- maple (Acer spp.), pinyon-juniper, and mountain-brush
zones [28,34,35].
Skunkbush sumac can be readily propagated from root cuttings and
transplanted onto disturbed sites [6]. Properly treated seed can be
planted in the fall without stratification or in the spring if the seed
is treated and then stratified before planting [39]. However, fall and
winter plantings produce the best results [42]. The presence of seeded
grasses has reduced the survival of skunkbush sumac at some sites [14].
Smooth sumac exhibits a moderate growth rate [34] and generally takes 10
to 20 years to reach maturity [27].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Skunkbush sumac, first cultivated in 1877, has been used as an
ornamental and for windbreaks and shelterbelts [6,17]. It has been
widely planted at recreation sites and rest areas [17]. Skunkbush sumac
is relatively unpalatable and has been planted in some locations as a
deterrent to grazing animals [42].
Native Americans valued the skunkbush sumac and made use of the fruit,
twigs, leaves, and shoots. The fruits were used in foods and medicines,
and in the preparation of lemonadelike beverages [40]. Pliable young
stems were woven into durable baskets, and the leaves were smoked by the
Comanches [1]. Skunkbush sumac was also used in making dyes for
clothing [1].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
The morphologically and ecologically diverse skunkbush sumac exhibits
variable responses to grazing. It is generally reported to be tolerant
of heavy grazing [27,42]. Mueggler and Stewart [31] reported that in
Montana, continued livestock overgrazing can cause skunkbush sumac to
increase, while winter overuse by big game often causes it to decrease.
Although skunkbush sumac is generally tolerant of drought,
water-stressed seedlings may be stunted for several years and sometimes
fail to recover [27]. Seedlings are intolerant of crowding, even under
optimal conditions, and competition with other species can be
detrimental to the growth of young seedlings [27].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Skunkbush sumac is a native, perennial, cool-season shrub which grows 2
to 8 feet (0.5-2.5 m) in height [40]. Height as well as growth form
varies by geographic location: skunkbush sumac is more branched and
compact in the Southwest and taller in the north [17]. The growth form
of this thicket-forming shrub [39] may be rounded, moundlike, or upright
[21,42]. Crown diameter is often greater than the height of the plant
and may reach up to 30 feet (9.2 m) [35,42]. Many ecotypes are known to
occur. Varieties are distinguished by morphological characteristics
such as growth form, height, leaf shape and size, fruit shape and
pubescence.
Branches are alternate and have been described as "ill-scented" [40].
Fine slender stems spread from the woody branches [44]. The compound,
alternate leaves are green above but pale below and are unpleasantly
aromatic when crushed [40]. Leaflets grow in groups of three and are
waxy, and soft-textured [21,42]. The leaves turn a bright red or orange
in the fall.
Numerous small, yellowish-green to cream-colored flowers are borne on
spikelike panicles near the tips of branches [21,40]. The fruit is a
small, red or reddish-orange drupe containing a single nutlet [6,40,44].
The fruit is highly acidic [1]. Honeybees and other insects promote
cross-pollination of sumac flowers [5].
Skunkbush sumac has a moderate growth rate [34]; growth is most rapid
during the first 3 to 5 years [27]. Growth rates are strongly
influenced by soils and other site characteristics. Longevity of this
species is not known; healthy rhizomes have been aged at more than 30
years [38]. Windbreak plantings have remained healthy and vigorous for
more than 20 years.
The roots of skunkbush sumac are deep and extensively branched. The
woody rhizomes are shallow and spreading [44]. Rhizomes may extend
underground connecting shrubs more than 30 feet (9.2 m) apart [38].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: Skunkbush sumac produces some seed nearly every year [6]. The
number of flowers that produce fruit is relatively low. It was
estimated that only 5 to 15 percent of skunkbush sumac flowers in a
North Dakota shrub community actually produced fruit [38]. In this
study, the successful flower-to-fruit ratio ranged from 0 to 27.4
percent, with branches from 6 to 10 years of age producing the most
viable fruit [38]. Similar documetation for other areas is lacking.
Germination of skunkbush sumac seed is variable. Many researchers
report poor or erratic germination [5,27,29], while others report fairly
good results [35,39,42]. Ecotypic variability probably accounts for at
least some of the differences in germination response noted.
Seeds are usually dispersed by birds and mammals. Roadside
establishment is frequently attributable to germination of seed in
caches of mice and squirrels [42].
Vegetative: Skunkbush sumac has spreading woody rhizomes and sprouts
readily from both the root and crown after disturbance [44].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Skunkbush sumac occurs in a variety of habitats including dry rocky
slopes, along streams and canyon bottoms, waste places, pastures,
roadsides, and on sand dunes [30,40]. It also grows as a secondary
species in plains sandhills where it often forms dense thickets [44].
Var. arenaria grows primarily on sand dunes of the Great Lakes region
[1].
Skunkbush sumac is drought resistant; it is intolerant of flooding and
high water tables [44]. It typically grows where maximum annual
precipitation ranges from 10 to 20 inches (254-510 mm) [44]. Skunkbush
sumac grows well in sun or partial shade [43,44].
Skunkbush sumac is tolerant of a wide range of soils from nearly bare
rock to sand and heavy clay [24]. It grows well on medium to coarsely
textured, moist to dry, acidic to slightly alkaline soils [24,34,43].
Skunkbush sumac can continue to grow even when partially covered by sand
or when roots are exposed by wind. Growth is optimal in fairly deep
soil [43]. Skunkbush sumac grows well on depleted soils [39].
Elevational ranges are as follows [12]:
from 4,500 to 7,000 feet (1,373-2,135 m) in Arizona
3,500 to 9,000 feet (1,068-2,745 m) in Colorado
1,900 to 4,800 feet (580-1,464 m) in Montana
1,900 to 7,200 feet (580-2,196 m) in Utah
4,400 to 7,700 feet (1,342-2,349 m) in Wyoming
Skunkbush sumac grows well in the mountain-brush and pinyon-juniper
zones, and in the central grassland and Rocky Mountain chaparral [35].
In streambottoms, sumac commonly grows in association with alders (Alnus
spp.), serviceberries (Amelanchier spp.), and chokecherries (Prunus
spp.) [39]. Common plant associates in pinyon-juniper woodlands
include pinyon (Pinus edulis), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma),
rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), broom snakeweed
(Gutierrezia sarothrae), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis), and galleta (Hilaria jamesii) [45]. Skunkbush
sumac also occurs with the mountain-mahoganies (Cercocarpus spp.), big
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), silver sagebrush (A. cana),
buffaloberries (Shepherdia spp.), shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla
fruticosa), and many perennial grasses [44]. Skunkbush sumac sometimes
grows in nearly pure stands [39].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Skunkbush sumac is a climax indicator in a number of shrub and grassland
communities. It readily sprouts after fire or other disturbance and is
also a prominent species in many early seral communities.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
In many areas, annual growth of skunkbush sumac begins in April or May.
Growth begins in May in the North Dakota Badlands, slows during April,
and is completed by early July [38]. Flowers of skunkbush sumac develop
early in the spring prior to leaf emergence [21]. Fruit generally
ripens from August to October [39]. In Utah, berries mature from June
20 to October 10 [35]. Fruit persists throughout the winter [39,40].
Leaves generally fall after the first frost [9].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Skunkbush sumac generally sprouts vigorously from the root crown and
rhizomes following fire [10,13,44,47]. Crown width and overall coverage
often increase in response to fire [3,9]. Skunkbush sumac may have the
ability to delay sprouting for up to a year following fire [38]. This
adaptation may significantly enhance survival in some harsh
environments.
Although vegetative reproduction is the primary mode of reestablishment
after fire, skunkbush sumac may also reproduce through seed. Evidence
suggests that some species of Rhus are effective seedbankers, with seed
stored in the humus layer [33]. These seeds germinate when fire creates
conditions favorable for growth [33]. It is not known if skunkbush
sumac is a seedbank species. Postfire recovery time of skunkbush sumac
has not been well documented.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Skunkbush sumac is rarely killed by fire even when all aboveground
vegetation is removed [27]. The presence of woody rhizomes, and its
propensity for sprouting, minimize the effect of fire on skunkbush sumac
[44].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Skunkbush sumac sprouts vigorously from rhizomes or from the root crown
when aboveground vegetation is consumed by fire [10,13,42,44,47].
Overlying soil apparently protects these reproductive structures from
most fires.
Postfire recovery time has not been well documented for this species.
However, only 2 years after a fire in an Arizona chaparral community,
the number of sprouts was five times the number of original branches
[38]. This suggests that skunkbush sumac may have the ability to
recover quickly following most fires.
Little documentation exists on potential differences in response
according to season of burn or fire severity. Few published accounts
note response by season, although researchers have reported increases in
skunkbush sumac after mid to late spring burns in South Dakota [9,46].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Skunkbush sumac typically increases after fire. Gartner and Thompson
[18] reported the following percent composition and frequency of
skunkbush sumac on burned and unburned sites in the Black Hills of South
Dakota:
1970 1970 1971
composition (%) frequency (%) frequency (%)
control burn control burn control burn
0.0 2.2 0 2 2 2
Cover of skunkbush sumac typically increases after fire, although
average plant size is reduced for a time. In a Black Hills ponderosa
pine forest, average heights and crown widths were significantly less
after prescribed burns. Results were as follows {3]:
1979-Preburn 1980 1981
Control Burn Control Burn Control Burn
------------------------------------------------------
Total # of Plants 48 19 57 23 65 23
Mean max. height 28.2 cm 39.9 cm 28.6 cm 17.9 cm 30.6 cm 25.4 cm
Mean max. crown width 31.0 cm 33.2 cm 31.5 cm 17.7 cm 30.6 cm 25.4 cm
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhus trilobata | Skunkbush Sumac
REFERENCES :
1. Barkley, Fred Alexander. 1937. A monographic study of Rhus and its
immediate allies in North and Central America, including the West
Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 24(3): 265-498. [392]
2. 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]
3. Bock, Jane H.; Bock, Carl E. [n.d.]. Some effects of fire on vegetation
and wildlife in ponderosa pine forests of the southern Black Hills.
Final Report. Contracts CX-1200-9-B034, CX-1200-0-B018, CX-1200-1-B022;
Grant No. RM-80-105 GR. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. 58 p. [479]
4. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of
the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94.
[495]
5. Boyd, Ivan L. 1943. Germination tests on four species of sumac.
Transactions, Kansas Academy of Science. 46: 5-86. [501]
6. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. 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: 715-719. [6921]
7. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire.
In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983
February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management:
61-68. [521]
8. Brown, Ray W. 1971. Distribution of plant communities in southeastern
Montana badlands. American Midland Naturalist. 85(2): 458-477. [546]
9. Cable, Dwight R. 1957. Recovery of chaparral following burning and
seeding in central Arizona. Res. Note. No. 28. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [6342]
10. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona
chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
11. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
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. Dwyer, Don D.; Pieper, Rex D. 1967. Fire effects on blue
grama--pinyon-juniper rangeland in New Mexico. Journal of Range
Management. 20: 359-362. [833]
14. Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Butterfield, Richard I. 1980.
Revegetation of untreated acid spoils Leviathan mine, Alpine County,
California. California Geology. 32(1): 8-10. [895]
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. 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]
17. Hassell, Wendall G. 1982. New plant materials for reclamation. In:
Aldon, Earl F.; Oaks, Wendall R., eds. Reclamation of mined lands in the
Southwest: a symposium: Proceedings; 1982 October 20-22; Albuquerque,
NM. Albuquerque, NM: Soil Conservation Society of America, New Mexico
Chapter: 108-112. [1104]
18. Gartner, F. Robert; Thompson, Wesley W. 1973. Fire in the Black Hills
forest-grass ecotone. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology
conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. No. 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall
Timbers Research Station: 37-68. [1002]
19. Hayes, Doris W.; Garrison, George A. 1960. Key to important woody plants
of eastern Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 148. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 227 p. [1109]
20. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six
hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45.
[1120]
21. 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]
22. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
23. Holmgren, Arthur H.; Reveal, James L. 1966. Checklist of the vascular
plants of the Intermountain Region. Res. Pap. INT-32. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 160 p. [1184]
24. Johnson, A. G.; Foote, L. E.; Smithberg, M. H. 1966. Smooth sumac seed
germination. Plant Propagator. 12(3): 5-8. [1271]
25. Kozlowski, T. T. 1972. Physiology of water stress. In: McKell, Cyrus M.;
Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their
biology and utilization: An international symposium: Proceedings; 1971
July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 229-244. [12443]
26. 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]
27. Monsen, Stephen B. 1987. Shrub selections for pinyon-juniper plantings.
In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper
conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station: 316-329. [4925]
28. Monsen, Stephen B.; Christensen, Donald R. 1975. Woody plants for
rehabilitating rangelands in the Intermountain Region. In: Stutz, Howard
C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings--symposium and workshop; 1975
November 5-7; Provo, UT. Provo, UT: Brigham Young Univeristy: 72-119.
[1680]
29. Monsen, Stephen B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1985. Factors influencing
establishment of seeded broadleaf herbs and shrubs following fire. In:
Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: a symposium:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State
Office: 112-124. [1682]
30. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
31. Mueggler, W. F.; Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat
types of western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-66. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 154 p. [1717]
32. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United
States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
772 p. [1731]
33. Olmsted, Norwood W.; Curtis, James D. 1947. Seeds of the forest floor.
Ecology. 28(1): 49-52. [9904]
34. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area
sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of
the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]
35. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.
Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah
Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
36. Ferguson, Dennis E.; Boyd, Raymond J. 1988. Bracken fern inhibition of
conifer regeneration in northern Idaho. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p.
[2834]
37. Robinette, W. Leslie. 1972. Browse and cover for wildlife. In: McKell,
Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland
shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium:
Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station: 69-76. [9713]
38. Sanford, Richard Charles. 1970. Skunk bush (Rhus trilobata Nutt.) in the
North Dakota Badlands: ecology, phytosociology, browse production, and
utilization. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 165 p.
Dissertation. [272]
39. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation.
Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 90 p. [2221]
40. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North
American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press. 465 p. [2270]
41. Tweit, Susan J.; Houston, Kent E. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat
types of the Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest. 143 p. [2377]
42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 1976. Some important native shrubs of the
west. Ogden, UT. 16 p. [2388]
43. Vories, Kimery C. 1981. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of
the art. Volume I. Shrubs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-103. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 80 p. [3426]
44. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful
in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 347 p.
[15400]
45. Wilkins, Scott D.; Klopatek, Jeffrey M. 1987. Plant water relations in
ecotonal areas of pinyon-juniper. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler.
Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 412-417. [10942]
46. Worcester, Lynda Lou. 1979. Effects of prescribed burning at different
fuel moisture levels on vegetation and soils of grasslands in Wind Cave
National Park. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 101 p.
Thesis. [2602]
47. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The
role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant
communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Statio. 48 p. [2625]
Index
Related categories for Species: Rhus trilobata
| Skunkbush Sumac
|
 |
