|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
ABBREVIATION :
VACCAE
SYNONYMS :
Vaccinium arbusculum
Vaccinium caespitosum var. angustifolium
Vaccinium caespitosum var. cuneifolium
Vaccinium caespitosum var. pauludicolum
Vaccinium cespitosum
Vaccinium cespitosum var. arbuscula
Vaccinium globulare
Vaccinium nivictum
Vaccinium pauludicolum
SCS PLANT CODE :
VACA
VACAC
VACAP
COMMON NAMES :
dwarf huckleberry
dwarf blueberry
swamp blueberry
dwarf bilberry
Sierra bilberry
blueberry
huckleberry
whortleberry
dwarf grouseberry
TAXONOMY :
The Vaccinium genus is taxonomically complex [8]. Hybridization and
polyploidy make delineation of species difficult [9,10,71]. The genus
is characterized by rapid speciation among polyploids and widespread
hybridization with backcrosses [9]. Dwarf huckleberry is a particularly
difficult taxon.
Dwarf huckleberry is a member of the section Myrtillus [58] and has been
placed in the complex Caespitosae which includes a number of
low-statured Vacciniums [16]. The currently accepted scientific name of
dwarf huckleberry is Vaccinium caespitosum Michx [39]. Great variation
exists in leaf and twig morphology and a number of forms have been
described [8]. Hitchcock and others [34] note that dwarf huckleberry
has been "separated by seemingly intangible characteristics into two or
three additional taxa." Nevertheless, Kartesz [39] recognizes the
following varieties:
V. c. var. caespitosum
V. c. var. paludicola (Camp) Hulten
Intermediates between dwarf huckleberry and ovalleaf huckleberry (V.
ovalifolium) have been described [8].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, March 1990.
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. 1990. Vaccinium caespitosum. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Dwarf huckleberry grows from Labrador, westward through subarctic North
America to south-central Alaska [8,40]. It extends southward through
the Cascades into California and through the Rocky Mountains to Colorado
and New Mexico [33,40]. In eastern North America, dwarf huckleberry
grows southward through New England to New York and reaches portions of
northern Michigan and Minnesota to the west [8,61,68]. Disjunct
populations have been reported in certain mountainous areas of northern
Mexico [8].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
AK AZ CA CO ID ME MI MN MT NV
NH NM NY OR UT VT WA WI WY AB
BC LB PQ MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
GLAC YELL
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
2 Cascade Mountains
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir 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
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
18 Paper birch
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
107 White spruce
201 White spruce
202 White spruce - paper birch
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
224 Western hemlock
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
252 Paper birch
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Dwarf huckleberry occurs as an understory dominant or codominant in high
elevation spruce (Picea spp.)-fir (Abies spp.) forests throughout much
of western North America. It also grows, often in great abundance, in
some relatively moist Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesia), quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloides), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) communities.
Common understory codominants in these western forests include bog
Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium
scoparium), queencup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora), and bluejoint
reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). Dwarf huckleberry also occurs in
alpine heath communities and is codominant with species such as grouse
whortleberry, and pine dropseed (Blepharoneuron tricholepis) or other
forbs. In the lower alpine zone of the West, this shrub, along with
grouse whortleberry, commonly dominates shrubfields which develop in
areas of prolonged snow cover [38]. In the East and North, it occurs in
black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam fir (A. balsamea)-white spruce (P.
glauca), paper birch (Betula papyrifera)-balsam fir, oak-maple
(Quercus-Acer spp.), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests
[20,53]. In the East, blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) commonly dominate
the understory of many eastern hemlock, red maple (A. rubrum)-red oak
(Q. rubra), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), sugar maple (A.
saccharum), and jack pine (Pinus banksiana)-red pine (P. resinosa)
forests.
Plant associates: In the West, dwarf huckleberry commonly grows in
association with twinflower, queencup beadlily, Labrador tea, swordfern
(Polystichum spp.), huckleberries (V. membranaceum, V. globulare),
bluejoint reedgrass, elk sedge (Carex geyeri), and kinnikinnick
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) [62,74,75]. Common eastern understory
associates include maples (Acer spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),
lichens (Cladonia spp.), bog Labrador tea, wintergreen (Gaultheria
spp.), maianthemum (Maianthemum spp.), black crowberry (Empetrum
nigrum), mountain-laurel (Kalmia polifolia), and viburnum (Viburnum
spp.) [20,44,45,53].
Dwarf huckleberry has been listed as an indicator or dominant
in the following classifications:
1. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex [1]
2. Classification of the forest vegetation of Wyoming [2]
3. A preliminary classification on the natural vegetation of Colorado [4]
4. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington [21]
5. Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific Northwest plant associations [27]
6. Riparian site types, habitat types, and community types of southwestern
Montana [28]
7. Classification and management of riparian sites in central and eastern
Montana [29]
8. Plant association and management guide: Willamette National Forest [31]
9. Preliminary forest habitat types of the Uinta Mountains, UT [32]
10. Plant associations of south Chiloquin and Klamath Ranger
Districts--Winema National Forest [36]
11. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National
Forests [42]
12. Application of a forest habitat-type classification system in Michigan and
Wisconsin [44]
13. Habitat type classification system for northern Wisconsin [45]
14. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humbolt Mountains
with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon [48]
15. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah [52]
16. Aspen community types of Utah [54]
17. Forest habitat types of Montana [62]
18. Climax vegetation of Montana based on soils and climate [67]
19. Forest habitat types of central Idaho [70]
20. Riparian classification for the Upper Salmon/Middle Fork Salmon River
drainages, Idaho [76]
21. Plant associations in the central Oregon Pumice Zone [83]
22. Forested plant associations of the Okanogan National Forests [86]
23. Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah [87]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Browse: Dwarf huckleberry browse apparently provides minimal forage for
big game and domestic livestock [17,79]. This short-statured shrub may
be buried by snow and is often unavailable during much of the winter
[22]. However, certain Douglas-fir/dwarf huckleberry habitat types of
northwestern Montana, which commonly occur on relatively warm, dry sites
where snow depths are not extreme, are preferred wintering areas for
white-tailed deer, elk, and moose [6,23,62]. Lack of hiding cover may
prevent deer from using recent clearcuts dominated by dwarf huckleberry
and other low shrubs [22].
Fruit: The sweet, attractive berries are an important food source for
many birds including the ruffed grouse, gray catbird, American robin,
and eastern bluebird [72]. The spruce grouse, ptarmigans, scarlet
tanager, bluebirds, thrushes, thrashers, titmice, blue grouse, and
towhees feed on the berries of many species of Vaccinium [51,79]. The
fruit of dwarf huckleberry is readily eaten by small mammals such as the
white-footed mouse, red fox, and fox squirrel [72,73]. Chipmunks,
skunks, the common opossum, and raccoon also consume large amounts of
huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) [51,79].
Huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) are an extremely important food source
for grizzly and black bears and both species typically adjust their
seasonal ranges to exploit this resource most effectively [50,88].
Bears generally move from low elevation riparian areas to middle
elevation berry fields as soon as huckleberries become ripe. In western
Montana, grizzly bears frequent open, midseral burns at higher
elevations during late summer or fall when berries are at their peak
ripeness [50]. The dwarf huckleberry is generally less productive than
the globe huckleberry (V. globulare) and fruit tends to be smaller.
Nevertheless, dwarf huckleberry is still considered an important grizzly
bear food [89,90]. It is reported to be a "major" grizzly food in
terrestrial spruce stands of floodplain complexes in the Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area of Montana. Bench land habitat characterized by a dwarf
huckleberry understory is extremely important to grizzly bears during
fall in parts of British Columbia [89].
Reproductive success of black bears has been correlated with the size of
huckleberry crops [50,66]. Similarly, cub survival appears to be
reduced during years of low huckleberry availability [66]. Huckleberry
crop failures increase the likelihood of bear-human encounters, as
wide-ranging, hungry bears seeking alternate food sources come into
contact with recreationists or home owners. Damage to crops and
beehives, as well as livestock losses, typically increase during poor
huckleberry years.
PALATABILITY :
Dwarf huckleberry browse is relatively unpalatable to most wild
ungulates and to domestic livestock [17,77]. However, berries are
highly palatable to black and grizzly bears, and to many small birds and
mammals [47]. The palatability of dwarf huckleberry has been rated as
follows [18]:
CO MT UT WY
Cattle poor poor poor poor
Sheep fair fair fair fair
Horses poor poor poor poor
Pronghorn ---- ---- poor poor
Elk ---- ---- good good
Mule deer ---- ---- good good
White-tailed deer ---- ---- ---- good
Small mammals ---- ---- good good
Small nongame birds ---- ---- good good
Upland game birds ---- ---- good good
Waterfowl ---- ---- poor poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Huckleberry foliage (Vaccinium spp.) is relatively high in carotene and
energy content [16]. Protein value of dwarf huckleberry browse is rated
as fair [18]. Fruits of dwarf huckleberry are sweet and contain high
concentrations of both mono- and di- saccharides [72]. Huckleberries
are high in vitamin C but low in fat [65]. The crude fat content of
dwarf huckleberry fruit averages approximately 3.80 percent [72].
COVER VALUE :
Because of its low growth form, dwarf huckleberry provides minimal cover
for most large mammals. However, dense thickets can serve as good cover
for smaller birds and mammals. Grand fir (Abies grandis)/dwarf
huckleberry habitat types of central Idaho reportedly offer adequate
cover for elk and white-tailed deer [70]. Cover value of dwarf
huckleberry has been rated as follows [18]:
UT WY
Pronghorn poor poor
Elk poor poor
Mule deer poor poor
White-tailed deer ---- poor
Small mammals good good
Small nongame birds fair good
Waterfowl poor poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
The dwarf huckleberry has a fibrous, spreading root system [73] and can
presumably aid in preventing soil erosion on some sites. It is rated as
having low to moderate value for short-term rehabilitation projects and
moderate value for long-term rehabilitation [18].
Species within the genus Vaccinium can be propagated from hardwood
cuttings [15]. Dwarf huckleberry can also be grown from seed which
averages 5,300,000 per pound (11,674/g) [15,73]. Seedlings grown in the
greenhouse can be transplanted onto favorable sites 6 to 7 weeks after
emergence [15]. Seed collection and storage techniques have been
examined in detail [15].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Berries of the dwarf huckleberry are edible [41,69] but of no economic
importance [11]. Fruit is delicious when fresh or in jams and jellies
[81]. Huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) were an important traditional food
source for many Native American peoples. Berries of the dwarf
huckleberry are often less abundant than those of other species and were
presumably less important than those of more productive huckleberries.
Numerous cultivars of huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) have been developed
for use as ornamentals or in garden plantings [65]. The dwarf
huckleberry can be used in landscaping and forms an attractive ground
cover [73]. It was first cultivated in 1823 [15].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Chemical control: Huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) exhibit variable
susceptibility to herbicides such as 2,4-D [7].
Recreational impacts: Studies indicate that dwarf huckleberry is
moderately resistant to trampling by recreationists. Short-term
resilience is rated as moderate [13].
Timber harvest: Dwarf huckleberry often survives clearcutting which is
followed by broadcast burns, although the shallow rhizomes may be killed
by severe scarification [37]. Studies conducted in the Swan Valley of
northwestern Montana suggest that dwarf huckleberry responds more
favorably to clearcutting than to other methods of timber harvest.
Average cover by timber harvest method was documented as follows [23]:
treatment average percent cover
untreated 12
clearcut 12
plantation 3
seed tree 10
selection 3
Impacts of timber harvest on bears: Despite good fruit production in
clearcuts, bears may avoid these sites unless sufficient hiding cover is
present. The extent to which grizzly bears use clearcuts dominated by
dwarf huckleberry and other Vacciniums depends largely on the
availability of cover. The size and shape of cutting units as well as
proximity of roads influence bear use. In northern Idaho, black bears
avoid clearcuts, but in parts of western Washington, 18- to 25-year-old
clearcuts are used, although 9- to 14-year-old cuts are generally
avoided. In a northern Montana study, bears used 10-year-old clearcuts
but did not utilize newer cuts [78]. Evidence suggests that grizzly
bears may prefer older clearcuts with sufficient cover and areas burned
by wildfires 25 to 60 years ago [50]. Berry production and grizzly bear
use has been poorly documented with respect to the dwarf huckleberry.
Most research efforts have focused on the blue huckleberry complex (V.
membranaceum-V. globulare) [see VACGLO].
Grizzly habitat value of huckleberry shrubfields can be increased by
permanent or appropriate seasonal road closures, by coordinating timber
harvest dates to have minimal impact on habitat use patterns, and by
considering cumulative effects of habitat modification on adjacent
areas. Site preparation should include minimizing soil compaction,
using broadcast burns rather than piling slash to generate hot fires, or
by eliminating site preparation where possible. Grizzly use can be
favored by retaining hiding cover through treating small, irregular
patches rather than large contiguous areas and by leaving stringers of
timber in larger cuts [88].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Dwarf huckleberry is a dwarf-to-low, spreading, rhizomatous shrub
[34,71,80,81]. This often mat-forming shrub grows 2 to 20 inches (5-50
cm) in height [34,55,71,81]. Twigs are much-branched, angled, glaucous,
and glabrous to puberulent [55,81,85]. When young, twigs are green,
tannish, or reddish, but with age twigs become brown or brownish-gray
[71,81]. The shreddy bark is yellowish-green, green, or reddish
[34,73]. Roots of the dwarf huckleberry are fibrous and spreading [73]
and reach depths of 0 to 67 inches (0-170 cm) [57]. Plants are
relatively short-lived [73].
The deciduous, alternate leaves are elliptic to oblanceolate or obovate,
and widest well above midlength [40,47,60,71]. Leaves are acute or
rounded at the apex, entire, crenulate or serrulate from the tip to
middle, and 0.4 to 2 inches (1-5 cm) in length [34,73,84,85]. The upper
surface is bright green and glabrous, whereas the lower surface is
glandular and a paler, light green [30,34,81].
Flowers are urn or bell-shaped and borne singly in the axils of leaves
[41,55,60]. The small, inconspicuous, waxy flowers are pink, white, or
red [41,73,77]. Floral morphology of the dwarf huckleberry has been
considered in detail [59]. Fruit is a subglobose to globose berry which
averages 0.2 to 0.8 inch (5-8 mm) in diameter [34,55,85]. Berries are
dark blue to black with a glaucous bloom [47,71,85]. Fruit is sweet
[34] but generally not produced in abundance [80]. Berries contain
small, brown, cellular-pitted seeds [55,72].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Dwarf huckleberry reproduces both sexually and vegetatively, although
vegetative regeneration appears to be of primary importance.
Seed: Vaccinium seeds are not dormant and require no pretreatment for
germination. Seedlings first emerge within 1 month after seeds are
planted, and germination continues over a long period of time if no cold
stratification is provided. Germination capacity of dwarf huckleberry
in laboratory tests was estimated at 96 percent [15]. Berries are
sweet, nutritious, and highly attractive to mammalian dispersers.
Colorful berries are also consumed in great numbers by both year-round
resident and transient breeding birds which can effect long-distance
dispersal. The tough seeds generally pass through digestive tracts
undamaged [72].
Dwarf huckleberry seedlings are rarely observed under natural conditions
in the West. Germination may be limited to exceptional sites in
favorable, moist years. Seed stored on-site appears to contribute
little to regeneration of this species [37]. Buried seeds have been
recovered from the top 1.2 inches (3 cm) of soil in balsam fir (Abies
balsamea)-white spruce (Picea glauca) forests of Quebec, but viability
was very low (0-16 percent) [53].
Vegetative regeneration: Dwarf huckleberry is rhizomatous [55,71,80]
and plants are often capable of resprouting after the crown is removed
or damaged. However, these regenerative structures are fairly shallow
and can be damaged or eliminated by deep, duff-consuming fires or
mechanical treatments which include severe soil scarification. Twigs
are capable of regenerating at the nodes [81] and vegetative expansion
can occur even in the absence of disturbance.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Dwarf huckleberry occurs at the margins of subalpine meadows, in
mountain ravines, along riverbanks, near snowbanks, or along the shores
of ponds and bogs [55,56,68,71,74,81,84]. It commonly grows on moist
subalpine or alpine slopes and on mossy forest floors where it
frequently forms a low, nearly continuous layer [41,84,85,46]. Dwarf
huckleberry is particularly abundant on flat terraces, benches, or
basins subject to frost [13,38].
Soils: Dwarf huckleberry grows well on medium-coarse, well-drained,
granitic soils [73,79]. Most huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) require
acidic soils and can grow on infertile sites which have relatively small
amounts of many essential elements [43]. Dwarf huckleberry commonly
occurs on soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.0 [73].
Elevation: Dwarf huckleberry extends through the subalpine zone to well
above treeline [33]. In eastern North America, it typically occurs at
higher elevations [68]. Generalized elevational ranges by state are as
follows [18,55,81,85]:
to 3,800 feet (1,200 m) in AK
from 7,000 to 12,000 feet (2,134-3,660 m) in CA
8,000 to 12,000 feet (2,438-3,660 m) in CO
3,500 to 10,000 feet (1,067-3,048 m) in MT
7,300 to 10,363 feet (2,225-3,420 m) in UT
8,500 to 10,600 feet (2,591-3,233 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Dwarf huckleberry occurs in climax Douglas-fir or spruce-fir forests
throughout much of the West [54,67]. However, it is also considered an
important seral shrub in many areas of western North America [26]. An
extensive network of shallow rhizomes enables this shrub to rapidly
reestablish after most light to moderate disturbances.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Dwarf huckleberry flowers in late spring or summer with fruit maturation
beginning immediately after flowering [72,79]. Fruit ripens in mid to
late summer or fall, and seed dispersal occurs from July to September
[72,73]. Leaves drop in early autumn [40]. However, specific
phenological development varies annually according to weather
conditions. Seasonal development in various geographic locations has
been documented as follows [18,53,55,60,68,81]:
location flowering fruiting
AK late May-mid July August
CA June-July -----
CO July -----
n ID May-July -----
New England June 1-June 27 -----
PQ June-July July-September
UT June -----
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Patches of dwarf huckleberry commonly develop after fire in lodgepole
pine and fir-spruce communities of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky
Mountains [30,46]. This shrub is also a prominent constituent of
postfire communities in black spruce forests of eastern Canada [20].
The widespread representation of dwarf huckleberry in many postfire
communities suggests that it is capable of surviving many, if not most,
fires. Dwarf huckleberry has shallow rhizomes [55] and can presumably
resprout after fires of light or moderate severity [37]. Berries are
well adapted to animal dispersal and can be transported long distances
[37,72]. Very limited seedling establishment from off-site sources may
occur in favorable years, but vegetative regeneration appears to be of
primary importance in the postfire reestablishment of most Vacciniums.
Martin [50] notes that "the role of fire in establishing new populations
of western Vacciniums or in maintaining existing ones, is not
well-documented."
Many sites occupied by dwarf huckleberry burn infrequently. Areas such
as wet meadows, bog and pond margins, and areas below timberline which
are too rocky to support trees are unlikely to experience fires at
frequent intervals. However, fire is an important influence in many
forested communities. Fire-free intervals have been estimated at 20
years in Douglas-fir/dwarf huckleberry forests in the Swan Valley of
northwestern Montana and at 28 years in the Bitterroot Mountains of
western Montana. Fire-free intervals of 17 years have been suggested
for spruce/queencup beadlily-dwarf huckleberry habitat types of western
Montana [22].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Underground portions of dwarf huckleberry can survive most light to
moderate fires. However, rhizomes are relatively shallow and may be
killed by hot duff-reducing fires [37].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Seedling establishment: Seedbanking does not appear to be an important
postfire regenerative strategy of dwarf huckleberry. Although seeds
were observed within the top 1.2 inches (3 cm) of soil in paper
birch-balsam fir-white spruce forests of Quebec, viability was low and
few seedlings could be expected to develop from seed stored on-site
[53]. Seeds of dwarf huckleberry are dispersed considerable distances
by birds and mammals [37,72]. Seeds are generally unharmed by digestive
processes and can germinate on favorable sites during moist years.
Vegetative regeneration: Shallow rhizomes may enable dwarf huckleberry
to sprout and quickly reoccupy a site after most light to moderate fires
[37]. After severe treatments in which rhizomes are eliminated,
reestablishment most likely proceeds slowly through seedling
establishment or clonal expansion at the burn's periphery. Following
small, patchy fires, such as those occurring after lighting strikes on
high elevation sites with discontinous fuels, reestablishment would
presumably occur through rhizomatous spreading from the perimeter of the
burn.
Postfire reestablishment: Light fires may favor dwarf huckleberry by
reducing competitors, increasing nutrient availability, and opening the
canopy so that greater amounts of light reaches low shrubs.
Reestablishment is rapid where rhizomes are capable of resprouting.
Postfire cover can greatly exceed preburn levels [20]. In parts of the
central Rockies, light fires in high elevation spruce-fir forests create
a ground cover made up primarily of dwarf huckleberry and a "few hardy
herbaceous ... relics" [46].
Postfire increases in dwarf huckleberry have also been reported in
eastern North America. After fire in a black spruce community in
Labrador, frequency of dwarf huckleberry was 44.4 percent in unburned
stands compared with 63.1 percent in burned stands [20].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Postharvest treatment: Dwarf huckleberry can often survive broadcast
burns which follow timber harvest [37]. However, shallow rhizomes can
be seriously damaged by hot burns which occur in piled slash or where
fuel loading is heavy.
Wildlife: Evidence suggests that fire suppression may have an adverse
impact on bear habitat [78,88]. Once productive seral berry fields are
currently being invaded by conifers. Logging treatments which include
severe soil scarification or slash fires may also result in decreased
berry availability. Even where timber harvest favors berry production,
lack of cover in early years can limit bear use. However, wildfires
often create diverse habitat mosaics which include elements of hiding
cover which favors bear use. Succession proceeds slowly on high
elevation berry fields, particularly on south slopes, and fires often
generate shrubfields that remain productive for long periods of time
[88].
Prescribed fire: Prescribed fires, particularly those carried out
during the spring, may increase berry production for bears and other
animals. Little research has been conducted on dwarf huckleberry,
although the use of prescribed fire has been evaluated with respect to
blue huckleberries (Vaccinium globulare, Vaccinium membranaceum). [see
VACGLO]. Light or moderate burns, conducted when the soil is somewhat
moist, may be most effective in promoting western huckleberries [50].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Vaccinium caespitosum | Dwarf Huckleberry
REFERENCES :
1. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades
National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65:
1520-1530. [6327]
2. Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Classification of the forest vegetation of
Wyoming. Res. Note RM-466. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 10 p. [304]
3. Anderson, J. P. 1959. Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 543 p. [9928]
4. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural
vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]
5. 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]
6. Berner, Kevin L.; Fiedler, Carl E.; Pletscher, Daniel H. 1988.
White-tailed deer winter habitat use in western Montana second-growth
forests. Res. Rep. No. 2. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Montana
Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 7 p. [6917]
7. Bovey, Rodney W. 1977. Response of selected woody plants in the United
States to herbicides. Agric. Handb. 493. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 101 p. [8899]
8. Camp, W. H. 1942. A survey of the American species of Vaccinium,
subgenus Euvaccinium. Brittonia. 4: 205-247. [6950]
9. Camp, W. H. 1942. On the structure of populations in the genus
Vaccinium. Brittonia. 4(2): 189-204. [9512]
10. Camp, W. H. 1945. The North American blueberries with notes on other
groups of Vacciniaceae. Brittonia. 5(3): 203-275. [9515]
11. Chandler, F. B.; Hyland, Fay. 1941. Botanical and economic distribution
of Vaccinium L. in Maine. Proceedings of the American Society for
Horticultural Science. 38: 430-433. [9665]
12. Clary, Warren P. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: spruce-fir
forests. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds.
Overstory-understory relationships in Western forests. Western Regional
Research Publication No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University
Experiment Station: 9-12. [3310]
13. 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]
14. Cooper, Stephen V.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Roberts, David W. 1991. (Rev.)
Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a second approximation. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-236. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station. 143 p. [14792]
15. Crossley, John A. 1974. Vaccinium L. Blueberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S.,
ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 840-843.
[7774]
16. Dahlgreen, Matthew Craig. 1984. Observations on the ecology of Vaccinium
membranaceum Dougl. on the southeast slope of the Washington Cascades.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 120 p. Thesis. [2131]
17. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
18. 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]
19. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
20. Foster, David R. 1985. Vegetation development following fire in Picea
mariana (black spruce) - Pleurozium forests of south-eastern Labrador,
Canada. Journal of Ecology. 73: 517-534. [7222]
21. 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]
22. Freedman, June D. 1983. The historical relationship between fire and
plant succession within the Swan Valley white-tailed deer winter range,
western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 139 p.
Dissertation. [6486]
23. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and
white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern
Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects
on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319]
24. 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]
25. Habeck, James R. 1973. A phytosociological analysis of forests, fuels
and fire in the Moose Creek Drainage, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Publication No. RI-73-022. University of Montana--U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 114 p. [10063]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. Hansen, Paul; Chadde, Steve; Pfister, Robert; [and others]. 1988.
Riparian site types, habitat types, and community types of southwestern
Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry,
Montana Riparian Association. 140 p. [5883]
29. Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1989.
Classification and management of riparian sites in central and eastern
Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry,
Montana Riparian Association. 368 p. Draft Version 1. [8934]
30. Hayes, Doris W.; Garrison, George A. 1960. Key to important woody plants
of eastern Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 148. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 227 p. [1109]
31. 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]
32. Henderson, Jan A.; Mauk, Ronald L.; Anderson, Donald L.; [and others].
1977. Preliminary forest habitat types of the Uinta Mountains, UT.
Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department of Forestry and Outdoor
Recreation. 94 p. [1126]
33. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
34. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular
plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through
Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.
[1170]
35. Holmgren, Arthur H.; Reveal, James L. 1966. Checklist of the vascular
plants of the Intermountain Region. Res. Pap. INT-32. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 160 p. [1184]
36. Hopkins, William E. 1979. Plant associations of south Chiloquin and
Klamath Ranger Districts-- Winema National Forest. R6-Ecol-79-005.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. 96 p. [7339]
37. Hungerford, Roger D. 1986. Vegetation response to stand cultural
operations on small stem lodgepole pine stands in Montana. In: Weed
control for forest productivity in the interior West; 1985 February 5-7;
Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative
Extension: 63-71. [5896]
38. Johnston, Barry C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential
plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and
Kansas. 4th ed. R2-ECOL-87-2. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 429 p. [3519]
39. 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]
40. Keeler, Harriet L. 1969. Vacciniaceae--huckleberry family. In: Our
northern shrubs and how to identify them. New York: Dover Publications,
Inc.: 315-342. [9272]
41. Kelly, George W. 1970. A guide to the woody plants of Colorado. Boulder,
CO: Pruett Publishing Co. 180 p. [6379]
42. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison
and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final Report Contract No. 28-K2-234.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]
43. Korcak, Ronald F. 1988. Nutrition of blueberry and other calcifuges.
Horticultural Reviews. 10: 183-227. [9612]
44. Kotar, J. 1986. Application of forest habitat-type classification system
in Michigan and Wisconsin. In: Site classification in relation to forest
management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1985 August 27-29; Sault Ste.
Marie, ON. COJFRC Symposium Proceedings O-P-14. [Place of publication
unknown]: Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre: 47-52.
[12904]
45. Kotar, John; Kovack, Joseph; Locey, Craig. 1989. Habitat classification
system for northern Wisconsin. In: Ferguson, Dennis E.; Morgan,
Penelope; Johnson, Frederic D., eds. 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: 304-306.
[6962]
46. Langenheim, Jean H. 1962. Vegetation and environmental patterns in the
Crested Butte area, Gunnison County, Colorado. Ecological Monographs.
32(2): 249-285. [1399]
47. Lee, Lyndon C.; Pfister, Robert D. 1978. A training manual for Montana
forest habitat types. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of
Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 142 p.
[1434]
48. Lewis, Mont E. 1971. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East
Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon. Elko, NV:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Humboldt
National Forest. 62 p. [1450]
49. 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]
50. Martin, Patricia A. E. 1979. Productivity and taxonomy of the Vaccinium
globulare, V. membranaceum complex in western Montana. Missoula, MT:
University of Montana. 136 p. Thesis. [9130]
51. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
52. Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types
of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 89 p. [1553]
53. Morin, Hubert; Payette, Serge. 1988. Buried seed populations in the
montane, subalpine, and alpine belts of Mont Jacques-Cartier, Quebec.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 101-107. [6376]
54. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1986. Aspen community
types of Utah. Res. Pap. INT-362. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 69 p.
[1714]
55. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
56. Neiland, Bonita J. 1971. The forest-bog complex of southeast Alaska.
Vegetatio. 22: 1-64. [8383]
57. Nimlos, Thomas J.; Van Meter, Wayne P.; Daniels, Lewis A. 1968. Rooting
patterns of forest understory species as determined by radioiodine
absorption. Ecology. 49(6): 1145-1151. [4120]
58. Odell, A. E.; Vander Kloet, S. P.; Newell, R. E. 1989. Stem anatomy of
Vaccinium section Cyanococcus and related taxa. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 67(8): 2328-2334. [8944]
59. Palser, Barbara F. 1961. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales.
V. Organography and vascular anatomy in several United States species of
the Vacciniaceae. Botanical Gazette. 123(2): 79-111. [9032]
60. Patterson, Patricia A.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Tonn, Jonalea. 1985. Field
guide to forest plants of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-180.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 246 p. [1839]
61. Parminter, John. 1984. Fire-ecological relationships for the
biogeoclimatic zones of the northern portion of the Mackenzie Timber
Supply Area. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Northern Mackenzie
Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry
of Forests. 102 p. [9206]
62. Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby,
Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 174 p. [1878]
63. Pojar, J.; Trowbridge, R.; Coates, D. 1984. Ecosystem classification and
interpretation of the sub-boreal spruce zone, Prince Rupert Forest
Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No. 17. Victoria, BC:
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 319 p. [6929]
64. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
65. Reich, Lee. 1988. Backyard blues. Organic Gardening. 35(6): 28-34.
[9179]
66. Rogers, Lynn. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival,
growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Transactions, North
American Wildlife Conference. 41: 431-438. [8951]
67. Ross, Robert L.; Hunter, Harold E. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana
based on soils and climate. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service. 64 p. [2028]
68. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed.
Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L.
Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
69. Smith, D. W. 1962. Ecological studies of Vaccinium species in Alberta.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 42: 82-90. [7004]
70. Steele, Robert; Pfister, Robert D.; Ryker, Russell A.; Kittams, Jay A.
1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 138 p. [2231]
71. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Abbreviated key to western Montana Vacciniums.
Unpublished paper on file at: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service,Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [10487]
72. 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]
73. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's
mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative
Extension Service. 135 p. [49]
74. Thompson, Larry S.; Kuijt, Job. 1976. Montane and subalpine plants of
the Sweetgrass Hills, Montana and their relation to early postglacial
environments on the northern Great Plains. Canadian Field-Naturalist.
90(4): 432-448. [7894]
75. Tisdale, E. W.; McLean, A. 1957. The douglas-fir zone of southern
interior British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 27(3): 247-266.
[8866]
76. Tuhy, Joel S.; Jensen, Sherman. 1982. Riparian classification for the
Upper Salmon/Middle Fork Salmon River drainages, Idaho. Smithfield, UT:
White Horse Associates. Final Report, Contract with U.S.S. Forest
Service, Region 4. 153 p. [8380]
77. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
78. Unsworth, James W.; Beecham, John J.; Irby, Lynn R. 1989. Female black
bear habitat use in west-central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management.
53(3): 668-673. [8407]
79. 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]
80. Vander Kloet, S. P. 1983. Seed and seedling characters in Vaccinium
Myrtillus. Naturaliste Canadien. 110: 285-292. [10592]
81. 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]
82. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon
Pumice Zone. Rt-ECOL-104-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 138 p. [7341]
83. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Ecological classification of lodgepole pine in
the United States. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.;
Arnott, James T.; Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole
pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May
8-10; Spokane, WA; 1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 63-75. [9441]
84. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO:
Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
85. 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]
86. Williams, Clinton K.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1983. Forested plant
associations of the Okanogan National Forest. R6-Ecol-132b. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region. 116 p. [2566]
87. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Mauk, Ronald L. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat
types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 89 p. [2684]
88. 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]
89. Mace, Richard D. 1986. Analysis of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob
Marshall Wilderness, Montana. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E,
compilers. Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 -
May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 136-149.
[10814]
90. Mace, Richard D.; Bissell, Gael N. 1986. Grizzly bear food resources in
the flood plains and avalanche chutes of the Bob Marshall Wilderness,
Montana. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers.
Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 - May 2;
Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 78-91.
[10812]
91. 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]
92. 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]
93. 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: Vaccinium caespitosum
| Dwarf Huckleberry
|
 |
