|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
ABBREVIATION :
SORAME
SYNONYMS :
Pyrus americana L.
SCS PLANT CODE :
SOAM3
COMMON NAMES :
American mountain-ash
mountain ash
dogberry
small-fruited mountain ash
roundwood
missey-mossey
cormier (Quebec)
TAXONOMY :
The accepted scientific name for American mountain-ash is Sorbus
americana Marsh. [10,23,39]. There are no recognized subspecies,
varieties or forms.
American mountain-ash hybridizes naturally with black chokeberry (Pyrus
melanocarpa), producing P. xmixta Fern., and with purple chokeberry (P.
floribunda), producing P. xjackii (Rehd) Fern. [12].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet Sullivan, December 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Sullivan, Janet. 1992. Sorbus americana. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
American mountain-ash occurs in northeastern North America from
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia south to New Jersey and Pennsylvania and in
the mountains to South Carolina and Georgia, west to Minnesota and
eastern North and South Dakota [10,12,20,21].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
STATES :
CT GA IL KY ME MD MA MI MN NH
NJ NY NC ND OH PA RI SC SD TN
VT VA WI MB NB NF NS ON PE PQ
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD APIS BLRI DEWA GRSM PIRO
SHEN VOYA
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
15 Red pine
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
19 Gray birch - red maple
20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
27 Sugar maple
28 Black cherry - maple
51 White pine - chestnut oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
107 White spruce
108 Red maple
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
American mountain-ash is listed as codominant with balsam fir (Abies
balsamea) on Isle Royale, Michigan. The primary associates in the shrub
layer include American yew (Taxus canadensis), mountain maple (Acer
spicatum), and honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis). Ground layer
associates include yellow beadlily (Clintonia borealis), northern
clubmoss (Lycopodium annotium), twinflower (Linnea borealis), woodfern
(Dryopteris disjuncta), naked miterwort (Mitella nuda), alpine circaea
(Circaea alpina), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), and red
raspberry (Rubus idaeus var. strugosis) [19].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
The wood of American mountain-ash is light, soft, weak, and close
grained. The heartwood is pale brown; the sapwood is thick and lighter
in color [39]. The wood is not commercially important [21].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
American mountain-ash is a preferred browse for moose and white-tailed
deer [22,43,46,48]. Moose will eat foliage, twigs, and bark. Up to 80
percent of American mountain-ash stems were browsed by moose in control
plots adjacent to exclosures on Isle Royale [55]. Fishers, martens,
snowshoe hares, and ruffed grouse also browse American mountain-ash
[2,54].
The berries of American mountain-ash are eaten by numerous species of
birds and small mammals, including ruffed grouse, ptarmigans,
sharp-tailed grouse, blue grouse, American robins, other thrushes,
waxwings, jays, squirrels, and rodents [10,33,54].
PALATABILITY :
Aldous [2] rates American mountain-ash as one of the most palatable
foods for deer. Moose prefer American mountain-ash; it can comprise up
to 57 percent of their summer diet, depending on availability [26].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
The berries of American mountain-ash were found to have the following
nutrient values [50]:
% of dry weight
crude protein 5.44
available protein 4.25
crude fiber 8.02
ether extract 4.66
Nitrogen-free extract 78.78
lignin 9.57
cellulose 6.87
tannin 4.08
Stiles [48] found that the berries were 4.66 percent crude fat (by dry
weight), which is considered relatively low.
Twigs of American mountain-ash were analyzed by Hughes and Fahey [22]:
% of dry weight % of dry weight
in forest in clearcut
crude protein 9-12 10-20
cell solubles 62-80 68-86
cellulose 10-12 4-8
lignin 4-8 2-6
COVER VALUE :
American mountain-ash is rated fair for wildlife cover in North Dakota
[15].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
American mountain-ash is valued as an ornamental in many areas but is
not successful where there is insufficient moisture. It is not well
adapted to warmer habitats [10,15,20]. American mountain-ash is also
planted for windbreaks [20].
The berries are edible for humans but are too acidic to be eaten raw
[6]. They can be cooked with meats or made into jelly [6,21].
The fruit and inner bark of American mountain-ash have been used for
medicinal purposes [21].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
American mountain-ash is preferentially browsed by moose and
white-tailed deer. In a study of the effects of moose browsing on
American mountain-ash on Isle Royale, Michigan, a small to moderate
number of mature trees were reported on unbrowsed sites, but American
mountan-ash was nearly nonexistent on browsed sites. The number of
seedlings and saplings were similar on browsed and unbrowsed sites; the
authors stated that stump sprouting has probably sustained stem
densities on these sites [46]. In long-term moose exclosures, American
mountain-ash declined in abundance, probably due to shading by other
trees. There was an increase in abundance of American mountain-ash on
control plots adjacent to exclosures, but individuals were severely
retarded in vertical growth [43]. Krefting [26] reported that in some
areas of Isle Royale, American mountain-ash is sparse because of
browsing by moose. Stunted and severely deformed plants may survive for
more than 50 years. In general, browsing by moose may slow succession
[43].
American mountain-ash cannot withstand more than light use, and
productivity will decline under heavy browsing [2,26]. The availability
of American mountain-ash as food for white-tailed deer is often limited
due to excessive browsing. Small plants are locally abundant, and are
kept small by constant browsing [2]. White-tailed deer have eliminated
American mountain-ash in some areas of Pennsylvania and New York [3].
American mountain-ash is rated as having good survival on exposed
cut-over areas [52].
In a study to obtain release of conifers after logging disturbance,
herbicide treatments (including 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, triclopyr and
glyphosate) reduced the amount of cover of hardwoods, including American
mountain-ash, from 46 percent to 14 percent, with a concomitant increase
in growth of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.). The authors of
this study believe that this type of treatment approximately 5 to 7
years after logging is economical and safe and will help maintain
even-aged spruce-fir regeneration for 60-year rotations. With this type
of management, over 30 percent of all age classes can remain in highly
desirable browse condition (browse species including American
mountain-ash) for most of the year [35].
American mountain-ash seeds can be sown unstratified in early fall or
winter. Sowing in July or August for germination the following spring
is also satisfactory, since a warb treatment prior to chilling is
beneficial. Seedlings are quite hardy and not readily susceptible to
insects or disease. Unprotected seedlings may be nipped by deer [20].
Soil requirements for cultivation include a pH of 4.7 to 6.0, a minimum
of 1.7 percent organic matter and a minimum of 7 percent silt and clay
particles with ground water at 1.5 to 2.5 feet (0.5-0.8 m), and 15
percent silt and clay particles with ground water at 2.5 or more feet
(0.8 m or more) [52].
American mountain-ash is listed as a favored food for gypsy moth larvae
during all larval stages. It may be subject to severe defoliation at
high levels of infestation [16].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
American mountain-ash is a native, smooth-barked, deciduous shrub or
small tree 10 to 30 feet (3-9 m) tall, with an average d.b.h. of 4 to 10
inches (10-25 cm). It has a short trunk; slender, spreading branches;
and a narrow, open round-topped crown. In closed canopies it tends to
have a longer trunk, with the lower portions branch-free [10,12,21]. It
tends to be slow growing and short-lived. The roots are fibrous [39].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual reproduction: There are approximately 388,000 seeds per pound
(352,000/kg) [48]. The seeds are largely dispersed by birds. In
studies to determine the amount of time the seeds are retained in the
gut of various birds, the maximum time between ingestion and defecation
was 30 minutes, indicating that the distance of dispersal is probably
not great but could be on the order of a few hundred feet to a few miles
[48]. The seeds require 60 or more days of cold stratification at 33 to
41 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6-5 deg C) [20]. American mountain-ash
reproduces well over a wide range of forest stand and site conditions on
Isle Royale, Michigan. The greatest amount of reproduction occurred in
birch (Betula spp.)-fir-spruce cover types [19].
Seedling numbers from 400 to 2,920 per acre (1,000-7,300/ha) were
reported on Isle Royale and adjacent islands in Minnesota. The number
of saplings ranged from 40 to 1,064 per acre (100-2,660/ha), while the
number of adults ranged from 2 to 3 per acre (4-6/ha) (browsed sites)
and from 18 to 149 per acre (45 to 373/ha) (unbrowsed sites) [46].
Asexual reproduction: American mountain-ash will sprout from the stump
when top-killed [7,8,9].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
American mountain-ash prefers moist habitats from the borders of swamps
to rocky hillsides. It is commmon in openings or in woods, scattered on
uplands along edges of woods, roadsides, and under semiopen stands
[10,28]. It will grow well in a stunted form on relatively dry soils
[21].
Most American mountain-ash in the White Mountains of New England occurs
from 2,310 to 4,290 feet (700-1,300 m), decreasing in abundance at the
higher elevations [30,42]. Soils in this area are youthful, shallow,
and infertile; the climate is cool, windy, and humid [42]. In the
Adirondack Mountains of New York, American mountain-ash rarely occurs
below 3,135 feet (950 m) and is generally found on well-drained to
imperfectly drained Spodsols or Inceptisols [10,28,31]. In the boreal
forests of Ontario, density of American mountain-ash was highest on
sites with scattered mature or semimature coniferous and deciduous
species and lowest on conifer sites with relatively closed canopies or
on sites that had been logged and then planted [34].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
American mountain-ash is shade intolerant [28]. American mountain-ash
is listed as a subordinate species in advanced old-field succession
community types [45]. In a study of secondary succession in
high-elevation spruce-fir forests, American mountain-ash had an average
of 152 stems per acre (382/ha) and an average d.b.h. of 1.5 inches (3.9
cm) (smaller than average), with a moderate amount of reproduction (1
seedling per 25 sq m plot). This density is higher than usually found
in mature canopies, which is on the order of 4 to 20 stems per acre (10
to 50/ha) in red spruce (Picea rubens)-balsam fir (Abies balsamea)
[1,29]. It therefore appears to be more abundant in early seral
communities, but it is present at low densities in old-growth stages of
spruce-fir communities [13,44,45].
Seven years after logging, browse species (including American
mountain-ash) were 3 to 8 times more abundant on logged sites than on
undisturbed control plots [35]. In Tennessee, American mountain-ash
increased in biomass as the canopy cover of Fraser fir (Abies fraseri)
decreased with fir mortality [5].
Cooper [9] noted that American mountain-ash was part of an early seral
community in rock crevices on the shores of Isle Royale, Michigan,
establishing with or shortly after shrubs. In 17 years, the stunted
shrubs of American mountain-ash in these rocky clefts had grown to a
height of 6 feet (1.8 m) [9].
The number of American mountain-ash twigs almost doubled over 3 years
following clearcutting. Most of the twigs were on stems that survived
the logging [22].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
American mountain-ash flowers from May to July; fruit ripens in August.
The berries remain on the tree and are available to birds all winter
[10,12].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
American mountain-ash is not well adapted to survive fire; it is small,
has thin bark, and occurs largely in areas that do not burnt at frequent
intervals [47,53]. It will, however, sprout from the stump if
top-killed by fire [9].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/root sucker
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
While no direct documentation on the immediate effect of fire on
American mountain-ash was available, it is reasonable to presume that it
is readily top-killed by fire due to its thin bark and small stature.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
On Isle Royale, Michigan, American mountain-ash was found sprouting from
the stumps 5 years after a wildfire [9].
Ohmann and Grigal [37] reported a steady increase in the size of
individual American mountain-ash stems but no increase in the number of
individuals in the first 5 years after wildfire in Minnesota.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
In red spruce stands that are logged and burned (either by prescribed
fire or wildfire), hardwoods, because they sprout from the stumps, tend
to overtake the spruce regeneration. American mountain-ash was found to
have a density of 80 stems per acre (200/ha) on a site that had been cut
then burned twice (8 and 10 years before the study). The large amount
of residue occurring when red spruce stands are logged increases the
risk of severe fires that can reduce spruce regeneration [24].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Sorbus americana | American Mountain-Ash
REFERENCES :
1. Adams, Harold S.; Stephenson, Steven L. 1989. Old-growth red spruce
communities in the mid-Appalachians. Vegetatio. 85: 45-56. [11409]
2. Aldous, Shaler E. 1952. Deer browse clipping study in the Lake States
Region. Journal of Wildlife Management. 16(4): 401-409. [6826]
3. Bennett, Arthur L.; Armstrong, Malcolm M. 1981. Insurance silviculture
in the black cherry - maple type. Journal of Forestry. 79(3): 146-149,
154. [12518]
4. Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America.
Philadelphia, PA: The Blakiston Co. 596 p. [19637]
5. Busing, Richard T.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Eagar, Christopher C.;
Pauley, Eric F. 1988. Two decades of change in a Great Smoky Mountains
spruce-fir forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 115(1): 25-31.
[4491]
6. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the
Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
7. Cooper, William S. 1913. The climax forest of Isle Royale, Lake
Superior, and its development. I. Botanical Gazette. 55(1): 1-44.
[11537]
8. Cooper, William S. 1913. The climax forest of Isle Royale, Lake
Superior, and its development. II. Botanical Gazette. 55(2): 115-140.
[11538]
9. Cooper, William S. 1928. Seventeen years of successional change upon
Isle Royale, Lake Superior. Ecology. 9(1): 1-5. [7297]
10. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
13. Fitzgerald, Brian T.; Raynal, Dudley J. 1991. Population dynamics and
growth of balsam fir on Whiteface Mountain, New York. Bulletin of the
Torrey Botanical Club. 118(3): 255-264. [16764]
14. 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]
15. Brown, David E. 1979. Southwestern wetlands - their classification and
characteristics. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical
coordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands & other riparian ecosystems: Proc. of the symposium; 1978
December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 269-282. [4366]
16. Gottschalk, Kurt W. 1988. Gypsy moth and regenerating Appalachian
hardwood stands. In: Smith, H. Clay; Perkey, Arlyn W.; Kidd, William E.,
Jr., eds. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands:
Workshop proceedings; 1988 May 24-26; Morgantown, WV. SAF Publ. 88-03.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Books: 241-254. [13950]
17. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
18. Hannah, Peter R. 1991. Regeneration of northern hardwoods in the
Northeast with the shelterwood method. Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry. 8(3): 99-104. [5351]
19. 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]
20. Harris, A. S.; Stein, William I. 1974. Sorbus L. Mountain-ash. In:
Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 780-784. [7757]
21. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
22. Hughes, Jeffery W.; Fahey, Timothy J. 1991. Availability, quality, and
selection of browse by white-tailed deer after clearcutting. Forest
Science. 37(1): 261-270. [14269]
23. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
24. Korstian, Clarence F. 1937. Perpetuation of spruce on cut-over and
burned lands in the higher Southern Appalachian Mountains. Ecological
Monographs. 7(1): 125-167. [11233]
25. Krefting, Laurits W. 1951. What is the future of the Islae Royle moose
herd?. Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference. 16:
461-470. [17043]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological
perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19377]
29. Leak, W. B. 1975. Age distribution in virgin red spruce and northern
hardwoods. Ecology. 56: 1451-1454. [8690]
30. Leak, William B.; Graber, Raymond E. 1974. Forest vegetation related to
elevation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. NE-299. Upper Darby,
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 7 p. [8758]
31. Leopold, Donald J.; Reschke, Carol; Smith, Daniel S. 1988. Old-growth
forests of Adirondack Park, New York. Natural Areas Journal. 8(3):
166-189. [13998]
32. 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]
33. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
34. McNicol, J. G.; Gilbert, F. F. 1980. Late winter use of upland cutovers
by moose. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(2): 363-371. [4348]
35. Newton, Michael; Cole, Elizabeth C.; Lautenschlager, R. A.; [and
others]. 1989. Browse availability after conifer release in Maine's
spruce-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 643-649.
[8401]
36. Ohmann, Lewis F.; Cushwa, Charles T.; Lake, Roger E.; [and others].
1973. Wilderness ecology: the upland plant communities, woody browse
production, and small mammals of two adj. 33-year-old wildfire areas in
northeastern Minnesota. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-7. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 30 p. [6862]
37. Ohmann, Lewis F.; Grigal, David F. 1966. Some individual plant biomass
values from northeastern Minnesota. NC-227. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 2 p. [8151]
38. Oosting, H. J.; Billings, W. D. 1951. A comparison of virgin spruce-fir
forest in the northern and southern Appalachian system. Ecology. 32(1):
84-103. [11236]
39. Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa
State College Press. 371 p. [1913]
40. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
41. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
42. Reiners, William A,; Lang, Gerald E. 1979. Vegetational patterns and
processes in the balsam fir zone, White Mountains, New Hampshire.
Ecology. 60(2): 403-417. [14869]
43. Risenhoover, Kenneth L.; Maass, Steven A. 1987. The influence of moose
on the composition and structure of Isle Royale forests. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 17: 357-364. [8230]
44. Saunders, Paul R.; Smathers, Garrett A.; Ramseur, George S. 1983.
Secondary succession of a spruce-fir burn in the Plott Balsam Mountains,
North Carolina. Castanea. 48(1): 41-47. [8658]
45. Smith, David W.; Suffling, R.; Stevens, Denis; Dai, Tony S. 1975. Plant
community age as a measure of sensitivity of ecosystems to disturbance.
Journal of Environmental Management. 3: 271-285. [10050]
46. Snyder, J. D.; Janke, R. A. 1976. Impact of moose browsing on
boreal-type forests of Isle Royale National Park. American Midland
Naturalist. 95(1): 79-92. [8119]
47. Sprugel, Douglas G. 1976. Dynamic structure of wave-regenerated Abies
balsamea forests in the north-eastern United States. Journal of Ecology.
64: 889-911. [14866]
48. Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed
dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous
forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688. [6508]
49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
50. Wendel, G. W. 1990. Prunus pensylvanica L. f. pin cherry. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of
North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 587-593. [13971]
51. Wendel, G. W. 1990. Prunus pensylvanica L. f. pin cherry. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of
North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 587-593. [13971]
52. Wilde, S. A. 1946. Soil-fertility standards for game food plants.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(2): 77-81. [8865]
53. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
54. 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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Sorbus americana
| American Mountain-Ash
|
 |
