|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
ABBREVIATION :
RUBPAR
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
RUPA
RUPAP2
RUPAV
COMMON NAMES :
thimbleberry
western thimbleberry
salmonberry
mountain sorrel
white-flowering raspberry
western thimble raspberry
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of thimbleberry is Rubus
parviflorus Nutt. [72]. Many formerly recognized varieties are no
longer accepted by most taxonomists. Varieties are as follows [72,103]:
R. p. var. parviflorus
R. p. var. velutinus (Hook and Arn.) Greene
Hybrids between thimbleberry and red raspberry (R. idaeus) have been
reported, as have hybrids between thimbleberry and evergreen blackberry
(R. laciniatus) [71]. However, these hybrids are frequently sterile.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, October 1989
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. 1989. Rubus parviflorus. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Thimbleberry grows from Alaska to California and the mountains of New
Mexico, and into northern Mexico [64,133]. It extends eastward through
the Dakotas to the Great Lakes States [64,133].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES11 Spruce - fir
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
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
AK AZ CA CO ID MI MN MT NM ND
OR SD UT WA WY AB BC ON MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
APIS BAND CRLA CRMO DENA GLAC
GRCA GRTE ISRO KICA LAVO MORA
NOCA OLYM PIRO PORE REDW ROMO
SAJH SEQU TICA VOYA WHIS YELL
YOSE
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
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
K007 Red fir 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
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
K025 Alder - ash forest
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
5 Balsam fir
16 Aspen
18 Paper birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
27 Sugar maple
37 Northern white cedar
107 White spruce
201 White spruce
202 White spruce - paper birch
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
207 Red fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood - willow
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
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
237 Interior ponderosa pine
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
251 White spruce - aspen
252 Paper birch
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Thimbleberry is dominant or subdominant in a variety of forest and shrub
communities. It has been included as a codominant in published
classifications with grand fir (Abies grandis), Shasta red fir (Abies
magnifica var. shastensis), red alder (Alnus rubra), Sitka spruce (Picea
sitchensis), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), quaking aspen (Populus
tremuloides), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), salmonberry (R.
spectabilis), black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), dwarf bilberry
(Vaccinium myrtillus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), western swordfern
(Polystichum munitum), bearded wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus ssp.
subsecundum), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), brome (Bromus
spp.), pokeweed fleeceflower (Polygonum phytolaccaefolium), fireweed
(Epilobium angustifolium), fleabane (Erigeron eximus), and broadleaf
starflower (Trientalis latifolia).
Thimbleberry is listed as an indicator or dominant in the following
publications:
1. Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and
community type [2]
2. Forest vegetation on National Forests in the Rocky Mountain and
Intermountain Regions: habitat and community types [3]
3. Plant communities and environmental relationships in a portion of the
Tilmoook Burn, northwestern Oregon [6]
4. Synecological features of a natural headland prairie on the Oregon
coast [23]
5. Climax forest series of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado [26]
6. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado [27]
7. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico [35]
8. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington [39]
9. Ecoclass coding for the Pacific Northwest plant associations [49]
10. Plant association and management guide: Willamette National Forest [60]
11. A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of
Arizona and New Mexico [97]
12. Aspen community types of the Intermountain Region [101]
13. A forest habitat type classification of southern Arizona and its
relationship to forests of the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico [102]
14. Classification of quaking aspen stands in the Black Hills and Bear Lodge
Mountains [115]
15. The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession
and management [116]
16. A classification of the Cercocarpus montanus, Quercus macrocarpa,
Populus deltoides, & Pices glasuca habitat types of the Black
Hills NF [117]
Common understory associates of thimbleberry include ceanothus
(Ceanothus spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), elderberry (Sambucus
spp.), gooseberry (Ribes spp.), willow (Salix spp.), tall Oregon-grape
(Berberis aquifolium), salal (Gautheria shallon), red huckleberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), bittercherry
(Prunus emarginata), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), ninebark
(Physocarpus malvaceus), bracken, western swordfern (Polystichum
munitum), lupine (Lupinus spp.), common cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum),
and fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) [4,13,16,29].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Wildlife: Thimbleberry provides food and cover for a variety of
wildlife species.
Browse: In many areas, thimbleberry browse is reportedly of little
value to most ungulates [17,105]. However, in parts of Oregon,
thimbleberry is considered one of the most important summer browse
species of the black-tailed deer [61]. In a western Oregon study, deer
ate foliage until leaf drop in autumn, but rarely fed on the twigs
during winter [62]. Where deer winter at elevations below the range of
thimbleberry, browse becomes unavailable [62]. Thimbleberry leaves,
stems, blossoms, and fruit made up 1.82 percent of the total
black-tailed deer browse in a western Washington study [12]. In parts
of the West, thimbleberry is regarded as an outstanding mule deer food
[127]. However, in some areas deer winter at elevations below the range
of thimbleberry, and browse becomes unavailable [62]. This shrub is an
important summer moose browse in parts of northwestern Wyoming [106].
Bighorn sheep feed on the foliage of many species within the Rubus genus
[127]. Summer elk utilization in the Selway River Drainage of Idaho was
reported as follows [137]:
June 1-July 15 20 percent
July 15-September 15 50 percent
September 15-October 15 30 percent
On particularly moist, sites thimbleberry foliage occasionally grows
beyond the reach of deer and other large ungulates [61].
Numerous small rodents eat limited quantities of bark [24].
Thimbleberry leaves may represent as much as 3 percent of the annual
diet of white-footed voles in parts of Oregon. White-footed vole
utilization may be particularly heavy during the fall when thimbleberry
leaves may comprise up to 14 percent of the rodent's total diet [132].
The leaves of many species of Rubus provide food for rabbits and
mountain beaver [18,127]. The porcupine and beaver occasionally consume
the twigs, buds, and cambium of Rubus [127].
Fruit: Thimbleberry fruit represents an important dietary item for many
birds and mammals [17,105]. Fruit is eaten by black and grizzly bears
[116,138], and numerous smaller mammals. The coyote, common opossum,
Townsend chipmunk, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, pika, red squirrel,
golden-mantled ground squirrel, skunks, squirrels, and chipmunks also
eat the fruit of Rubus. "Berries" of species within the Rubus genus are
eaten by many birds, including the ruffed grouse, blue grouse,
sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, California quail, greater
prairie chicken, gray (Hungarian) partridge, American robin, thrushes,
thrashers, towhees, northern bobwhite, gray catbird, band-tailed pigeon,
northern cardinal, yellow-breasted chat, pine grosbeak, and brown
thrasher [18,127].
Livestock: Thimbleberry is of relatively little value as livestock
forage [68,105,127]. It is occasionally eaten by domestic sheep,
particularly in the Southwest, but is rarely used by cattle [24].
PALATABILITY :
Palatability of thimbleberry browse to most large ungulates is
described as "fair" or "intermediate" [28,137]. Palatability of
thimbleberry browse to elk in Idaho appears to be somewhat greater in
late summer than earlier in the season [137].
Thimbleberry fruit is highly palatable to many birds and mammals.
However, limited evidence suggests that palatability may vary
geographically [130].
The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for
thimbleberry is rated as follows [28,113,116]:
CA CO MT UT WY ID
Cattle useless fair poor poor ---- low
Domestic sheep poor fair fair fair ---- moderate
Horses useless fair fair poor ---- ----
Pronghorn ---- ---- ---- poor poor ----
Bighorn ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Elk ---- ---- poor fair fair summer-high
winter-low
Moose ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mule deer ---- ---- poor fair fair ----
White-tailed deer ---- fair poor ---- ---- ----
Small mammals ---- ---- ---- good good ----
Small nongame birds ---- ---- ---- good good ----
Upland game birds ---- ---- ---- good fair ----
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- poor poor ----
Domestic goats fair-poor ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Deer fair-poor ---- ---- ---- ----summer-mod.
winter-low
Black bear ---- ---- ---- ---- ----spring,fall-low
summer-mod.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Thimbleberry is rated as poor in energy and protein value [28]. Crude
protein value of the foliage varies both seasonally and annually.
Protein levels are generally highest during the spring and summer and
then decline markedly in winter [32,108]. Specific values of foliage
protein taken from plants in Oregon Coast Ranges are documented below
[108]:
crude protein - percent
date grazed plots ungrazed plots
October 8.1 7.8
March 22.5 25.2
October 9.0 8.2
In Oregon seasonal protein values varied from 8.58 percent in June to
4.25 percent in December [32].
COVER VALUE :
Thimbleberry provides important cover for a variety of wildlife species.
Dense thickets of thimbleberry form good nesting habitat for many small
birds [18]. During summer, deer frequently bed down during the hottest
part of the day in dense, cool stands of thimbleberry growing beneath a
red alder canopy [61,62]. Coastal brushfields dominated by thimbleberry
or salmonberry serve as favorable habitat for small mammals, such as
deer mice, chipmunks, voles, shrews, hares, and mountain beaver [67].
Species within the Rubus genus provide cover for rabbits, red squirrel,
pika, black bear, and beaver [127]. Subalpine fir (Abies
lasiocarpa)/thimbleberry habitat types of the Southwest offer good
thermal protection for big game during the hot summer months [35]. The
degree to which thimbleberry provides environmental protection during
one or more seasons is rated as follows [28]:
UT WY
Pronghorn poor poor
Elk poor poor
White-tailed deer ---- poor
Small mammals good fair
Small nongame birds good fair
Upland game birds ---- fair
Waterfowl poor poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Thimbleberry reportedly has only low to moderate value in preventing
soil erosion [28], although it has shown good potential for revegetating
many types of disturbed sites. It has the ability to form clumps which
expand greatly once established [8]. Thimbleberry has proven useful in
rehabilitation projects in Yosemite National Park, the coastal mountains
and foothills of California, and on roadcuts in the northern Rocky
Mountains of Idaho and Montana [8,68]. This shrub exhibited good
survival (73 percent) as long as 4 years after plantings were made in
western Montana and northern Idaho [68]. Initial propagation is
reportedly more difficult than for other species within the Rubus genus
[8]. Seed may be difficult to obtain commercially [34].
Thimbleberry may be propagated vegetatively by planting stem cuttings or
rhizome fragments [15]. Best results have been obtained from starting
dormant rhizome segments [8]. Several cultivars are now commercially
available [8].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The fruits of thimbleberry are edible, although palatability tends to be
greater towards the eastern portion of this plant's range where rainfall
is greater [130]. "Berries" make excellent jelly but are too seedy for
jam [128]. Approximately 0.27 quart (250 ml) of fruit can be harvested
within 10 minutes [87]. Young shoots may be eaten as greens and leaves
have been used in making teas [75].
Thimbleberry was traditionally used by indigenous peoples throughout its
range. The fruit was eaten fresh in summer and dried for winter use.
The bark was boiled and made into soap, and leaves were used to make a
medicinal tea. Leaves were powdered and applied to burns to minimize
scarring [55].
Thimbleberry is occasionally planted as an ornamental because of its
attractive fragrant flowers and colorful fall foliage [71,130]. Several
cultivars have been developed, including `Golden' and `Colonel' [8].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Timber harvest: Thimbleberry often assumes prominence on recent
clearcuts in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests of the
Northwest [13,36,96]. Thimbleberry can establish as early as the first
growing season after clearcutting [139]. In some areas it dominates the
understory within 5 years after logging and slash disposal [96].
Thimbleberry is also an initial increaser after logging in western
redcedar (Thuja plicata)-western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forests of
northern Idaho [100,135] and in grand fir forests of northwestern
Montana [5]. Evidence suggests that thimbleberry is often most favored
by relatively severe treatments. Cover is up to ten times greater on
plots with little overstory than on sites where the tree cover is 55
percent or more [100]. Species such as thimbleberry and salmonberry
compete vigorously with Douglas-fir, western hemock (Tsuga heterophylla)
and Sitka spruce seedlings in parts of the Northwest [4,55,84,111,112],
and conifer regeneration may be significantly impaired in some areas.
Thimbleberry may compete with conifer seedlings for water during summer
dry periods in parts of British Columbia, [15].
Conifer regeneration: Although competing with conifer seedlings in some
areas, light to moderate thimbleberry cover may also provide "safe"
microsites for developing seedlings on some disturbed sites [15,42,116].
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii),
lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and grand fir regenerate well under
thimbleberry in grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple or grand fir/blue
huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) habitat types of central Idaho
[42]. Natural regeneration of western larch (Larix occidentalis) is
generally good on sites with thimbleberry [116].
Chemical control: Thimbleberry is reported to be moderately susceptible
to herbicides [44,125]. Herbicides such as picloram + 2,4-D,
glyphosate, and 2,4,5-T have proven effective in controlling
thimbleberry [15,16,44,90,91,94]. Late foliar application of 2,4,5-T
can be particularly useful in releasing Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce
(Picea sitchensis) seedlings [44]. Guidelines detailing the relative
effectiveness of various herbicides on thimbleberry and the proper
method of application are available [16,43,44,90,91,92,93,94,95,118,119,125].
Recreational impacts: Thimbleberry reportedly exhibits relatively low
resistance to trampling in recreational use studies but has high short-
and long-term resilience [14].
Browsing: Thimbleberry typically decreases in response to heavy domestic
sheep use [101].
Mechanical removal: Thimbleberry generally resprouts rapidly following
mechanical removal and can attain pretreatment height and cover within
1 year after cutting [15].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Thimbleberry is a low, scrambling or erect, unarmed deciduous shrub
which grows from 1.6 to 8.2 feet (0.5-2.5 m) in height
[15,17,45,103,133]. The perennial stems are few, erect, and simple
[75,128].
The perennial stems, or canes, typically live for 2 to 3 years [15].
Sterile first-year stems, known as primocanes, develop from buds at or
below the ground surface and generally bear only leaves. During the
second year, lateral branches, or floricanes, develop in the axils of
the primocanes produce flowers and fruit [45]. Growth is rapid under
favorable growing conditions. Plants may reach heights of 6.6 to 8.2
feet (2 to 2.5 m) within 10 years. Maximum rates of height growth often
occur during the second and third years after establishment [15].
Twigs are greenish and finely hairy [128]. Grayish bark becomes flaky
or shreddy with age [103]. Large, simple, palmately-lobed leaves are
green above but pale beneath [133]. Leaves are unequally serrate [103]
and turn brilliant orange to maroon in fall [8]. Showy white or,
rarely, pink flowers occur in clusters of two to seven [133]. Loosely
cymose, perfect flowers are borne in a flat-topped terminal panicle or
corymb [45,64]. The fruit of thimbleberry is made up of a "thimblelike"
aggregate of numerous hairy, red or scarlet drupelets [45,103,128,133].
These drupelets are nearly dry at maturity and fall apart readily when
picked [133].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Thimbleberry reproduces through seed but also regenerates vegetatively,
even in the absence of disturbance. It is capable of forming dense
thickets through vegetative sprouting [112]. Establishment from seed
appears to be the primary mode of colonization in newly disturbed areas
[15]. Abundant seedling establishment typically occurs during the first
year after disturbance [78].
Vegetative regeneration: Thimbleberry, a strongly rhizomatous shrub
[52,105,131], is also capable of vigorous sprouting from rootcrowns
[105] and roots [17,118]. A single thimbleberry seedling can spread and
occupy a relatively large area as rhizomes develop and spread [80].
Most local expansion of this shrub is attributable to rhizome sprouting
[123].
Seed: Most species within the genus Rubus produce good seed crops
nearly every year [11]. However, thimbleberry seed production can be
limited at higher elevations. Thimbleberry fruits, or "berries," are
made up of an aggregate of numerous small red drupelets [128,133] which
fall to the ground when ripe [15]. Fruit is almost dry at maturity and
readily breaks apart when picked [133]. Seed averages 0.8 inches (2
mm) in length [80].
Germination: Thimbleberry seeds have a hard, impermeable endocarp and
dormant embryo [80]. Consequently, germination is often slow [105].
Seed has exhibited moderate viability in germination tests, with maximum
germination estimated at 62 percent [15]. Specific germination
requirements have not been documented for thimbleberry, but both warm
and cold stratification are probably required [105]. Most Rubus seeds
require, as a minimum, warm stratification at 68 to 86 degrees F (20 to
30 degrees C) for 90 days, followed by cold stratification at 36 to 41
degrees F (2 to 5 degrees C) for an additional 90 days. These
conditions are frequently encountered naturally as seeds mature in
summer and remain in the soil throughout the cold winter months.
Laboratory tests indicate that exposure to sulfuric acid solutions or
sodium hyperchlorite prior to cold stratification can enhance
germination [11]. Allelopathic compounds produced by bracken (Pteridium
aquilinum) can apparently inhibit germination and subsequent growth of
thimbleberry [15].
Seedbanking: Thimbleberry seed is noted for its ability to remain
viable for long periods of time [105,116]. Seedbanking is believed to
represent an important postdisturbance regenerative strategy in this
species [77,80,98,116]. Kramer [80] observed buried thimbleberry seed
in 50 percent of all plots examined in several Douglas-fir and grand fir
habitat types of central Idaho. Kramer and Johnson [82] observed
maximum seed densities of 17.6 per foot square (189/m sq) in central
Idaho. Approximately 91 percent of the thimbleberry seed was found
buried at a depth of 0 to 2 inches (0-5 cm), with 9 percent at 2 to 4
inches (5-10 cm) [82]. Kramer [80] found that 22 percent of all seeds
were buried at depths of 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm). Approximately 14
percent of all buried seed was viable, although the total number of
viable seeds from lower soil layers (2 to 4 inches [5-10 cm]) was less
than one half of that of the more shallowly buried seed [80].
Seed dispersal: Thimbleberry seed is readily dispersed by birds and
mammals [1,52,80]. Groups of seedlings occasionally germinate from
rodent caches. However, small mammals generally play only a local role
in thimbleberry seed dispersal [98]. Birds often effect wider dispersal
[15]. Gravity may also aid in seed dispersal [105].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Thimbleberry occurs in a variety of moist-to-dry and wooded-to-open
sites [64]. It commonly grows on open, wooded hillsides, in subalpine
meadows, along streambanks and canyons, on borders, and roadsides, and
on dry exposed sites at higher elevations [17,39,45,60,128,130].
Thimbleberry is often well represented in areas of snow creep, such as
in avalanche chutes or on steep slopes [29,48]. It is particularly
common on cool moist sites and predominates on north aspects throughout
much of northern Idaho [69]. Thimbleberry frequently occurs as
scattered individuals, but in some areas occurs in dense contiguous
patches [15].
This moderately shade-tolerant shrub [76,116] is occasionally found at
low light levels but is typically most abundant at 60 to 100 percent of
full sunlight in Oregon forests [116]. In some areas, thimbleberry can
survive within the understory of forests receiving only 3.5 percent of
full sunlight [15]. Although it persists in closed stands, it is
typically most abundant on disturbed sites within the forest canopy,
such as cutover or windthrown areas [16,30,80,87,100].
Soil: Species within the genus Rubus grow well on a variety of barren
infertile soil types [11]. These shrubs tolerate a wide range of soil
temperature and pH but do require adequate soil moisture for good growth
[18]. Thimbleberry grows well on dry, rocky soil and deep well-drained
loam [29,68]. Growth of thimbleberry is reported as "good" on loam or
clay-loam, "fair-to-good" on sandy loams, but only "fair to poor" on
gravel, sand, or clay [28]. Thimbleberry grows well on soils derived
from a variety of parent materials [15].
Elevation: Thimbleberry grows across a wide elevational gradient from
sea level to subalpine zones [55,64]. Generalized elevational ranges by
state are as follows [28,73,103,133]:
from 8,000 to 9,500 feet (2,438 to 2,896 m) in AZ
< 8,000 feet (2,438 m) in CA
from 7,000 to 10,000 feet (2,134 to 3,048 m) in CO
3,500 to 8,000 feet (1,067 to 2,438 m) in MT
4,691 to 9,004 feet (1,435-2,745 m) in UT
6,700 to 7,900 feet (2,042-2,408 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Thimbleberry is a persistent seral species which frequently dominates
the understory during the first several decades after disturbance
[89,116,123]. It readily invades disturbed sites through rhizomes or
seedling establishment [15]. Thimbleberry quickly established on
mudflows and other harsh microsites after the eruption of Mount St.
Helens [54]. This shrub is an important seral species in many
cedar-hemlock, western hemlock, grand fir, Douglas-fir, redwood, and
other coniferous forests of the West [25,39,59,116,140]. This shrub
generally occurs in greatest abundance in seral stands throughout its
range [59] but can persist in trace amounts in many climax forests
[13,80,135]. In many mature forest stands, thimbleberry may be
restricted to disturbed sites such as clearings or areas of windthrow
[30]. On certain disturbed sites perpetuated by snow creep,
thimbleberry is functionally both a pioneer and climax species [29].
Thimbleberry is a nitrogen-demanding species and in some areas, begins
to decline within 2 to 5 years after timber harvesting as soil nutrient
levels decrease [79]. Plant vigor and canopy cover generally decline as
tree cover increases [69,100].
Douglas-fir: Thimbleberry is an important seral species in Douglas-fir
forests of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions
[25,51,52,53]. During the first few years after disturbance, weedy
annual colonizers become dominant but are soon replaced by perennial
invaders such as thimbleberry [51]. This shrub reaches peak abundance
more than 10 years after disturbance in Douglas-fir forests of Oregon's
western Cascades [52]. However, it reportedly becomes dominant as soon
as 5 years after logging and slash disposal in northwestern Douglas-fir
forests [96] and assumes prominence during the first 3 years after
disturbance in northwestern Montana [21].
Grand fir: Thimbleberry is also a major seral species in grand fir
habitat types of Idaho where it quickly increases following reduction of
the overstory [116,139]. This shrub remained dominant in grand
fir/pachistima (Pachistima myrsinites) stands which had been clearcut
and burned 12 years earlier [139]. In northern Idaho it is particularly
abundant after timber harvest on sites which were severely burned by
wildfires 40 to 60 years earlier and frequently persists for relatively
long periods of time. Consequently, some researchers note that the
relative successional amplitude of thimbleberry in grand fir types of
northern Idaho is uncertain [116]. In some grand fir-Sitka
spruce-Douglas-fir forests of northern California, thimbleberry is
abundant 5 to 10 years after disturbance. Thimbleberry is overtopped at
approximately 30 years in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)-grand fir
forests but generally persists in reduced abundance [140].
Cedar-hemlock: Thimbleberry occurs in cedar-hemlock communities from
newly disturbed sites to stands of 400 years or older [47] but is much
more prevalent in younger stands [47]. In cedar-hemlock forests of
northern Idaho, thimbleberry is an initial increaser after logging but
begins to decrease by approximately 25 years after disturbance [135].
It has reached maximum cover in western redcedar/queencup beadlily
(Clintonia uniflora) habitat types by 3 to 5 years after fire [98].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Phenological development of thimbleberry varies according to elevation
and weather conditions [15]. It generally leafs out in mid to late
spring. However, buds may become active by late February in parts of
Oregon and Washington [119]. Leaves begin to fall in late summer to
autumn [114]. Leaf fall may be early in dry years. In Oregon, leaves
were shed by late August in particularly dry years [61]. Phenological
development of thimbleberry foliage in the northern Rocky Mountains is
detailed below [114]:
leaf buds leaves full leaves start leaves begin leaves
burst grown to color to fall fallen
earliest April 5 May 12 August 1 August 21 August 28
latest June 3 July 20 Sept. 30 October 1 October 23
Similar phenological development has been reported from the central
coast of British Columbia [15]. Generalized fruiting and flowering
dates by location are as follows [15,28,73,87,104,128]:
location flowering dates fruiting dates
AK June - July August - September
AZ July - September ----
BC ---- early June to September
CA March - August ----
CO June - August August - later
Great Plains May - July ----
MT June - August ----
n ID, w MT May - August late June - September
UT May - July ----
WY June - August ----
In northern Idaho and western Montana, seed dispersal generally begins
in July or August [114].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Thimbleberry is resistant to and generally enhanced by fire [56,57,131].
In areas of rigorous fire suppression, thimbleberry fruit production and
plant vigor has declined [87]. This species is well-adapted to
vigorously invade many types of burned sites through rhizomes or seed
[53,100,136]. Rhizome sprouting is an important postfire strategy which
enables rapid reestablishment and spread [22,89,105,123]. Thimbleberry,
a seed banker [77,80,82], also reestablishes through viable seed stored
in the soil or duff [22]. Birds and mammals add to seedling
establishment by transporting seed to the site [22,74].
Thimbleberry typically becomes abundant within the first few years after
fire and remains prominent during the early postfire decades
[22,98,123]. Hamilton and Yearsley [57] note that thimbleberry "may be
well-adapted to the high nutrient availability and low competition from
other species found immediately after burning, but is less successful
once other species have reestablished." This fire-adapted species
typically declines as the overstory develops in postfire communities.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Thimbleberry is described as resistant to fire [57,131]. Although often
top-killed, underground rhizomes generally survive. High severity fires
which damage belowground regenerative structures may be most damaging to
rhizomes [98]. The aerial portions of relatively few plants actually
survive fire, except for those on unusual microsites [52]. Most seed
stored on-site is probably unharmed by fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Thimbleberry cover and vigor is generally enhanced by fire [20,57,100].
Vegetative response: Thimbleberry is capable of rapid, vigorous
postfire spread through an extensive network of often deeply-buried
rhizomes [22,74,116]. Sprouting through surviving rootcrowns is also
possible, although rhizome sprouting probably represents the primary
mode of postfire regeneration [105]. Multiple sprouts often replace the
single stems observed in preburn communities [20].
Limited evidence suggests that sprouting of rhizomes is favored by fires
of low intensity and severity [20,98]. Hot fires presumably offer
greater potential for damaging underground regenerative structures. In
western redcedar habitat types of northern Idaho, thimbleberry cover was
estimated at 10.9 percent 2 years after low severity fire. However,
following a high severity fire, thimbleberry cover reached only 4.9
percent [98].
Seedling establishment: Seed banking is an important postfire
regenerative strategy in thimbleberry, a prolific seed producer [57].
Birds and mammals also transport some viable seed to burned sites
[22,74]. Some seedlings have been observed to germinate from rodent
caches present on-site [99]. Thimbleberry seed is stimulated by fire
[52,120] and subsequently germinates in great numbers [116,120].
Researchers have observed up to 7.5 times more seedlings on plots which
have been burned than on adjacent untreated plots [120]. Most seedling
establishment occurs immediately after fire [57].
Some researchers have suggested that fires of high severity and
intensity can expose mineral soil, which serves as a favorable seedbed
for thimbleberry [98,105]. However, Morgan and Neuenschwander [99]
observed greatest seedling establishment on low severity burns where
duff reduction was incomplete. The capacity to regenerate through seed
may be reduced by extremely hot, duff-reducing burns [99,127].
Rate of postfire recovery: Both sprouting [56] and seedling
establishment occur soon after fire. Growth is rapid and some plants
occasionally bear fruit during the first postfire year [22].
Thimbleberry generally reaches greatest abundance during the first years
after fire and decreases as the overstory canopy closes [57]. Dwindling
soil nutrients may also contribute to its decline [79]. On coastal
sites in British Columbia, thimbleberry typically attains greatest
height growth during the first few years after fire and remains abundant
for approximately 5 years [57]. Rhizome sprouting may produce dense
cover up to 3 feet (1 m) tall within 3 years after disturbance on some
particularly moist sites [15]. Thimbleberry reportedly dominates the
understory of many Northwestern Douglas-fir forests within just five
years after logging and slash disposal [96]. In Douglas-fir forests of
western Montana, thimbleberry was well-represented on many sites during
the first 2 to 3 years after fire [21,74]. Maximum cover values have
been observed within three to 5 years after fire in western redcedar
habitat types of Idaho [98]. In many areas, this shrub remains widely
distributed during the first several decades after fire [123]. Dense
early growth of aggressive species such as fireweed can slow
thimbleberry establishment and growth [121].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Rate of postfire recovery may be significantly related to fire severity
and intensity. However, contradictory findings have been reported.
Hooker and Tisdale [66] observed rapid growth rates on severely burned
sites (0.25 inch/day [0.6 cm/day]) but slower growth on less severely
burned plots [66]. Slower growth may be expected where cover (and thus
increased intraspecific competition) is greatest, and these results do
not necessarily indicate that actual cover was greatest on these
severely burned plots. Other research has suggested that thimbleberry
cover develops most rapidily after fires of low intensity [15].
Some researchers suggest that, in general, rhizome sprouting may be
favored by fires of low intensity and severity, whereas seedling
establishment may be more effectively promoted by fires of relatively
high severity [98,105]. However, researchers in northern Idaho have
occasionally observed greater seedling establishment after fires of low
severity [99].
Factors other than fire severity and intensity can also contribute to
the rate of postfire recovery. Differences in the season of burn, plant
density and vigor in the preburn community, site differences, and
climatic factors all contribute to postfire recovery. Fire severity and
intensity are not consistently defined in the literature, which
compounds the problems of interpreting plant response. The rate of
postfire recovery is significantly related to climatic and topoedaphic
factors. In coastal Oregon, 8,760 thimbleberry seedlings per acre
(21,382/ha) were present 1 year after fire on north aspects where 4,450
seedlings per acre (10,988/ha) had been observed prior to the fire. On
south aspects, increases were even more dramatic, with 10,988 seedlings
per acre (24,640/ha) counted 1 year after fire where none had been
observed prior to the fire [120].
Mean frequency of thimbleberry by burn age and severity was documented
as follows after fire in a western redcedar/queencup beadlily habitat
type of northern Idaho [98]:
fire severity years
1 2 3 4 5 15
low 83 80 80 59 56 98
high 61 76 78 75 53 100
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Timber harvest: Thimbleberry typically increases dramatically after
timber harvest and subsequent slash burns [44,86]. In many areas, it
may provide formidable competition for regenerating conifer seedlings
[57]. Mueggler [100] reports that thimbleberry often assumes dominance
on broadcast burns in western redcedar and western hemlock habitat types
of northern Idaho [100]. Response may be rapid. Maximum cover values
were reached within 5 years after fire in western hemlock and western
redcedar habitat types of northern Idaho [122]. This shrub can
establish as early as the first growing season after clearcutting and
broadcast burns in grand fir/pachistima habitat types of north-central
Idaho. More serious disturbance may enhance the growth and recovery of
thimbleberry more than lighter disturbance. In the Intermountain West,
Laursen [86] reported greater increases in ground cover in stands that
were clearcut and burned than in unburned shelterwood or selection cuts.
Maximum cover was typically reached within 20 to 25 years after
clearcutting and burning [86]. Thimbleberry commonly assumes importance
soon after timber harvest and slash burning in Douglas-fir forests of
the Oregon Cascades. Frequency of occurrence by years after treatment
was documented as follows [136]:
site # 1 4 5 (years)
1 15 32 36
2 4 14 14
Wildlife: Fire generally benefits animals that eat the fruits of Rubus
[83].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rubus parviflorus | Thimbleberry
REFERENCES :
1. Alaback, Paul B.; Herman, F. R. 1988. Long-term response of understory
vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga forests. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research. 18: 1522-1530. [6227]
2. Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation of
Colorado by habitat type and community type. Res. Note RM-478. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [9092]
3. Alexander, Robert R. 1988. Forest vegetation on National Forests in the
Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions: habitat and community types.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 47 p. [5903]
4. Allen, Hollis Howard. 1969. The inter-relationship of salmonberry and
Douglas-fir in cutover areas. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 56
p. Thesis. [7140]
5. 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]
6. Bailey, Arthur W.; Poulton, Charles E. 1968. Plant communities and
environmental interrelationships in a portion of the Tillamook Burn,
northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 49(1): 1-13. [6232]
7. Barclay-Estrup, P. 1987. A new shrub for Ontario: mountain bilberry,
Vaccinium membranaceum, in Pukaskwa National Park. Canadian
Field-Naturalist. 101(4): 526-531. [6233]
8. Barry, W. James. 1988. Some uses of riparian species in the landscape
and for revegetation. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds.
Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987
April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin -
Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 164-168.
[4111]
9. 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]
10. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1988. The hardwoods of California's timberlands,
woodlands, and savannas. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-148. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 148 p. [5291]
11. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rubus L. blackberry, raspberry. In:
Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 738-743. [7743]
12. Brown, Ellsworth R. 1961. The black-tailed deer of western Washington.
Biological Bulletin No. 13. [Place of publication unknown]: Washington
State Game Commission. 124 p. [8843]
13. Cholewa, Anita F.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1983. Secondary succession in
the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Phyaocarpus malvaceus association. Northwest
Science. 57(4): 273-282. [11402]
14. Cole, David N. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of trampled montane
grassland and forests in Montana. Res. Pap. INT-389. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 37 p. [3622]
15. Comeau, Philip G.; Watts, Susan B.; Caza, Caroline L.; [and others].
1989. Autecology, biology, competetive status and response to treatment
of seven southern interior weed species. FRDA Report 093; ISSN 0835
0572. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 46 p.
[9471]
16. Conard, Susan G.; Emmingham, W. H. 1983. Herbicides for shrub control on
forest sites in northeastern Oregon and northern Idaho. Special
Publication 5. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of
Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory. 7 p. [3579]
17. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated
ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]
18. Core, Earl L. 1974. Brambles. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M.,
compilers. Shrubs and vines for Northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NE-9. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:
16-19. [8923]
19. Crane, M. B. 1940. Reproductive versatility in Rubus. I. Morphology and
inheritance. Journal of Genetics. 40: 109-118. [8443]
20. 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]
21. Crane, M. F.; Habeck, J. R. 1982. Vegetative responses after a severe
wildfire on a Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. 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: 133-138.
[18539]
22. Crane, M. F.; Habeck, James R.; Fischer, William C. 1983. Early postfire
revegetation in a western Montana Douglas-fir forest. Res. Pap. INT-319.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. plus chart. [710]
23. Davidson, Eric Duncan. 1967. Synecological features of a natural
headland prairie on the Oregon coast. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University. 78 p. M.S. thesis. [8901]
24. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
25. DeByle, Norbert V. 1981. Clearcutting and fire in the larch/Douglas-fir
forests of western Montana--a multifaceted research summary. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p. [7270]
26. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A. 1983. Climax forest series of
northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel,
Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern
habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 45-53.
[779]
27. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank,
Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New
Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [781]
28. 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]
29. Douglas, George Wayne. 1970. A vegetation study in the subalpine zone of
the western North Cascades, Washington. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington. 293 p. Thesis. [8560]
30. Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Early stages of plant succession following logging
and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon. Ecology. 54(1): 57-69.
[7345]
31. Dyrness, C. T.; Franklin, J. F.; Moir, W. H. 1974. A preliminary
classification of forest communities in the central portion of the
western Cascades in Oregon. Bulletin No. 4. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 123 p.
[8480]
32. Einarsen, Arthur S. 1946. Crude protein determination of deer food as an
applied management technique. Transactions, 11th North American Wildlife
Conference. 11: 309-312. [17031]
33. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
34. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings
in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy,
compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and
wildlife habitats; Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin
Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 136-149. [915]
35. 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]
36. Fonda, R. W. 1979. Fire resilient forests of Douglas-fir in Olympic
National Park: a hypothesis. In: Linn, Robert M., ed. Proceedings, 1st
conference on scientific research in the National Parks, Vol. 2; 1976
November 9-12; New Orleans, LA. NPS Transactions and Proceedings No. 5.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service:
1239-1242. [6698]
37. Franklin, Jerry F. 1981. Vegetation and habitats. In: Maser, Chris;
Mate, Bruce R.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T., compilers. Natural
history of Oregon Coast mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 17-34. [6219]
38. Franklin, Jerry F.; DeBell, Dean S. 1973. Effects of various harvesting
methods on forest regeneration. In: Hermann, Richard K.; Lavender, Denis
P., eds. Even-age management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1972 August 1;
[Location of conference unknown]. Paper 848. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University, School of Forestry: 29-57. [16239]
39. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
40. 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]
41. Garman, E. H. 1929. Natural reproduction following fires in central
British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle. 5: 28-44. [20224]
42. 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]
43. Gratkowski, H. 1971. Midsummer foliage sprays on salmonberry and
thimbleberry. PNW-171. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5
p. [6540]
44. Gratkowski, H. 1978. Herbicides for shrub and weed control in western
Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-77. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 48 p. [6539]
45. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
46. Habeck, James R. 1963. The composition of several climax forest
communities in the Lake McDonald area of Glacier National Park.
Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences. 23: 37-44. [6532]
47. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park
cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]
48. 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]
49. 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]
50. Hallman, Richard; Larson, John E. 1982. Developing equipment for spot
site preparation: A progress report. 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: 5-13. [18526]
51. Halpern, Charles B. 1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance
and resilience of forest communities. Ecology. 69(6): 1703-1715. [6390]
52. Halpern, C. B. 1989. Early successional patterns of forest species:
interactions of life history traits and disturbance. Ecology. 70(3):
704-720. [6829]
53. Halpern, Charles B.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1989. Understory development in
Pseudotsuga forests: multiple paths of succession. In: Ferguson, Dennis
E.; Morgan, Penelope; Johnson, Frederic D., compilers. Proceedings--land
classifications based on vegetation: applications for resource
management; 1987 November 17-19; Moscow, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-257.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station: 293-297. [6961]
54. 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]
55. 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]
56. Hamilton, Evelyn H. 1988. Impacts of prescribed burning on
soil-vegetation relationships in the sub-boreal spruce zone. In: Feller,
M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. Wildlife and range prescribed burning
workshop proceedings; 1987 October 27-28; Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC:
The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry: 171-184.
[3110]
57. Hamilton, Evelyn H.; Yearsley, H. Karen. 1988. Vegetation development
after clearcutting and site preparation in the SBS zone. Economic and
Regional Development Agreement: FRDA Report 018. Victoria, BC: Canadian
Forestry Service, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of
Forests and Lands. 66 p. [8760]
58. Hansen, H. L.; Krefting, L. W.; Kurmis, V. 1973. The forest of Isle
Royale in relation to fire history and wildlife. Tech. Bull. 294;
Forestry Series 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
Agricultural Experiment Station. 44 p. [8120]
59. Haeussler, S.; Pojar, J.; Geisler, B. M.; [and others]. 1985. A guide to
the interior cedar-hemlock zone, northwestern transitional subzone
(ICHg), in the Prince Rupert Forest Region, British Columbia. Land
Management Report Number 26; ISSN 0702-9861. Victoria, BC: British
Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 263 p. [6930]
60. 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]
61. Hines, William W. 1973. Black-tailed deer populations and Douglas-fir
reforestation in the Tillamook Burn, Oregon. Game Research Report Number
3. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration, Project W-51-R, Final Report.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Game Commission. 59 p. [8431]
62. Hines, William W.; Land, Charles E. 1974. Black-tailed deer and
Douglas-fir regeneration in the Coast Range of Oregon. In: Black, Hugh
C., ed. Wildlife and forest management in the Pacific Northwest:
Proceedings of a symposium; 1973 September 11-12; Corvallis, OR.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry, Forest
Research Laboratory: 121-132. [7999]
63. 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]
64. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
65. Hogdon, A. R.; Steele, Frederic. 1966. Rubus subgenus Eubatus in New
England: a conspectus. Rhodora. 68: 474-513. [6213]
66. Hooker, Larry L.; Tisdale, E. W. 1974. Effects of prescribed burning on
a seral brush community in northern Idaho. Station Paper No. 14. Moscow,
ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.
11 p. [4131]
67. Hooven, Edward F.; Black, Hugh C. 1978. Prescribed burning aids
reforestation of Oregon Coast Range brushlands. Research Paper 38.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry. 14 p.
[4132]
68. Hungerford, Roger D. 1984. Native shrubs: suitability for revegetating
road cuts in northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. INT-331. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [1220]
69. 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]
70. Janke, Robert A.; McKaig, Dennis; Raymond, Randall. 1978. Comparison of
presettlement and modern upland boreal forests on Isle Royal National
Park. Forest Science. 24(1): 115-121. [7243]
71. Jennings, D. L.; Ingram, Ruth. 1983. Hybrids of Rubus parviflorus
(Nutt.) with raspberry and blackberry, and the inheritance of
spinelessness derived from this species. Crop Research. 23(2): 95-101.
[7029]
72. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of
the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II--thesaurus. 2nd ed.
Portland, OR: Timber Press. 816 p. [23878]
73. 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]
74. Keller, Marilyn Crane. 1980. Post-fire recovery within ravine forest
communities of Pattee Canyon, Missoula, Montana. Missoula, MT:
University of Montana. 136 p. Thesis. [6725]
75. Keep, Elizabeth. 1968. Incompatibility in Rubus with special reference
to R. idaeus L. Canadian Journal of Genetic Cytology. 10: 253-262.
[6654]
76. Kellman, M. C. 1969. Plant species interrelationships in a secondary
succession in coastal British Columbia. Syesis. 2: 201-212. [6589]
77. Kellman, M. C. 1970. The viable seed content of some forest soil in
coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 48: 1383-1385.
[6469]
78. Kelpsas, B. R. 1978. Comparative effects of chemical, fire, and machine
site preparation in an Oregon coastal brushfield. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University. 97 p. Thesis. [6986]
79. Klinka, K.; Scagel, A. M.; Courtin, P. J. 1985. Vegetation relationships
among some seral ecosystems in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian
Journal of Forestry. 15: 561-569. [5985]
80. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in
central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375]
81. Krefting, Laurtis W. 1974. The ecology of the Isle Royale Moose with
special reference to the habitat. Tech. Bull. 297, Forestry Series 15.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment
Station. 75 p. [8678]
82. Kramer, Neal B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of
three habitat types in central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65:
1961-1966. [3961]
83. Kramp, Betty A.; Patton, David R.; Brady, Ward W. 1983. The effects of
fire on wildlife habitat and species. RUN WILD: Wildlife/ habitat
relationships. Albuerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southwestern Region, Wildlife Unit Technical Report. 29 p.
[152]
84. Krygier, James T.; Ruth, Robert H. 1961. Effects of herbicides on
salmonberry and on Sitka spruce and western hemlock seedlings. Weeds.
9(3): 416-422. [6608]
85. 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]
86. 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]
87. 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]
88. Lunan, James S.; Habeck, James R. 1973. The effects of fire exclusion on
ponderosa pine communities in Glacier National Park, Montana. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 3(4): 574-579. [6312]
89. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
90. Miller, Daniel L. 1981. The effects of Roundup herbicide on northern
Idaho conifers and shrub species. Forestry Technical Paper TP-81-2.
Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 13 p. [3581]
91. 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]
92. 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]
93. 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]
94. Miller, Daniel L.; Robinson, Vernon S. 1983. The influence of spray
altitude on shrub control. Forestry Research Note RN-83-1. Lewiston, ID:
Potlach Corporation, Wood Products, Western Division. 6 p. [3399]
95. 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]
96. Mitchell, John E. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: Douglas-fir
forests. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds.
Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional
Res. Publ. No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University Experiment
Station: 27-34. [3314]
97. Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir
and mixed conifer habitat types of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap.
RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p.
[1677]
98. Morgan, Penelope; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1988. Shrub response to high
and low severity burns following clearcutting in northern Idaho. Western
Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(1): 5-9. [3895]
99. 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]
100. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the
cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35:
165-185. [4016]
101. Mueggler, Walter F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain
Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-250. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 135 p.
[5902]
102. Muldavin, Esteban H.; DeVelice, Robert L. 1987. A forest habitat type
classification of southern Arizona and its relationship to forests of
the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Gonzales
Vicente, Carlos E.; Moir, William H., technical coordinators. Strategies
for classification and management of native vegetation for food
production in arid zones: Proceedings; 1987 October 12-16; Tucson, AZ.
Gen, Tech. Rep. RM-150. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 24-31. [2728]
103. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
104. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
105. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry
forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 22 p. [255]
106. Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North
America. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 101: 195-215. [7420]
107. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
108. Rhodes, B. D.; Sharrow, S. H. 1983. Effect of sheep grazing on big game
habitat in Oregon's Coast Range. In: 1983 Progress report--research in
rangeland management. Special Report 682. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station: In cooperation with: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. [3610]
109. Roberts, Catherine Anne. 1975. Initial plant succession after brown and
burn site preparation on an alder-dominated brushfield in the Oregon
Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 90 p. Thesis.
[9786]
110. Rundel, Philip W.; Parsons, David J.; Gordon, Donald T. 1977. Montane
and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. In:
Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of
California. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 559-599. [4235]
111. Ruth, Robert H. 1956. Plantation survival and growth in two brush-threat
areas in coastal Oregon. Res. Pap. 17. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 14 p. [6722]
112. Ruth, Robert H. 1974. Regeneration and growth of west-side mixed
conifers. In: Camer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest
residues in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-24. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Station: K-1 to
K-21. [6381]
113. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range
brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment
Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]
114. 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]
115. Severson, Kieth E.; Thilenius, John F. 1976. Classification of quaking
aspen stands in the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains. Res. Pap.
RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p.
[2111]
116. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. The grand fir/mountain
maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 148 p. Review draft. [8435]
117. Steinauer, Gerald A. 1981. A classification of the Cercocarpus montanus,
Quercus macrocarpa, Populus deltoides, & Picea glauca habitat types of
the Black Hills NF. Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota. 95 p.
Thesis. [86]
118. Stewart, R. E. 1974. Repeated spraying to control four coastal brush
species. Res. Note PNW-238. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 5 p. [5636]
119. Stewart, R. E.. 1974. Budbreak sprays for site preparation and release
of six coastal brush species. PNW-176. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 20 p. [8970]
120. Stewart, R. E. 1978. Origin and development of vegetation after spraying
and burning in a coastal Oregon clearcut. Res. Note PNW-317. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [6541]
121. Stickney, Peter F. 1981. Vegetative recovery and development. In:
DeByle, Norbert V., ed. Clearcutting and fire in the larch/Douglas-fir
forests of western Montana--a multifaceted research summary. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 33-40. [7609]
122. 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]
123. Stickney, Peter F. 1986. First decade plant succession following the
Sundance Forest Fire, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-197. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 26 p. [2255]
124. Stout, Jack; Farris, Allen L.; Wright, Vernon L. 1971. Small mammal
populations of an area in northern Idaho severely burned in 1967.
Northwest Science. 45(4): 219-226. [8519]
125. Strothmann, R. O.; Roy, Douglass F. 1984. Regeneration of Douglas-fir in
the Klamath Mountains Region, California and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-81. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p. [5640]
126. 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]
127. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
128. 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]
129. Veirs, Stephen D., Jr. 1982. Coast redwood forest: stand dynamics,
successional status, and the role of fire. In: Means, Joseph E., ed.
Forest succession and stand development research in the Northwest:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1981 March 26; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis,
OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 119-141.
[4778]
130. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
131. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific
Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management
and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]
132. Voth, Elver H.; Maser, Chris; Johnson, Murray L. 1983. Food habits of
Arborimus albipes, the white-footed vole, in Oregon. Northwest Science.
57(1): 1-7. [9122]
133. 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]
134. Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and
California. Ecological Monographs. 30(3): 279-338. [6836]
135. 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]
136. Yerkes, Vern P. 1960. Occurrence of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation
after clear cutting old-growth Douglas-fir. Res. Pap. PNW-34. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [8937]
137. 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]
138. 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]
139. Zamora, Benjamin Abel. 1975. Secondary succession on broadcast-burned
clearcuts of the Abies grandis - Pachistima myrsinites habitat type in
northcentral Idaho. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 127 p.
Dissertation. [5154]
140. Zinke, Paul J. 1977. The redwood forest and associated north coast
forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 679-698.
[7212]
141. 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]
142. 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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Rubus parviflorus
| Thimbleberry
|
 |
