• ABBREVIATION
• SYNONYMS
• NRCS PLANT CODE
• COMMON NAMES
• TAXONOMY
• LIFE FORM
• FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS
• OTHER STATUS
• AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION

ABBREVIATION:

VACMEM

SYNONYMS:

Vaccinium globulare Rybd. [72]
Vaccinium membranaceum Hook [71]

NRCS PLANT CODE [154]:

VAME

COMMON NAMES:

big huckleberry
thinleaf huckleberry
blue huckleberry

TAXONOMY:

The scientific name of big huckleberry is Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl. (Ericaceae) [37,57,73,157,160].

LIFE FORM:

Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

Big huckleberry is listed as imperiled in South Dakota [133].

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Simonin, Kevin A. (2000, May). Vaccinium membranaceum. In: Remainder of Citation

• GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
• ECOSYSTEMS
• STATES
• BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
• KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS
• SAF COVER TYPES
• SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES
• HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Big huckleberry is found in Alaska and British Columbia south through the Cascade and Olympic mountains to California and east to Ontario, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming [9,37,57,72,73,157,160]. Populations also occur in 3 counties of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan on the east side of Lake Superior [157]. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides a map of big huckleberry's distribution in the United States (http://plants.usda.gov/plants/cgi_bin/topics.cgi).

ECOSYSTEMS [53]:

FRES11 Spruce-fir
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
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES44 Alpine

STATES:

AK	CA	CO	ID	MT	MI
OR	SD	UT	WA	WY

AB

BC

ON

MB

SK

YK

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [13]:

1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
12 Colorado Plateau

KUCHLER [87] 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
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest
K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K093 Great Lakes spruce-fir forest

SAF COVER TYPES [44]:

12 Black spruce
22 White pine-hemlock
201 White spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
209 Bristlecone pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
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
237 Interior ponderosa pine
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
245 Pacific ponderosa pine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [131]:

109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
409 Tall forb
410 Alpine rangeland

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Depending upon environmental constraints/conditions, big huckleberry may occur as a dominant understory species with Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), western larch (Larix occidentalis), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), lodgepole pine (P. contorta) [6,120], and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) [120]. Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), mountain hemlock (T. mertensiana) [48], subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), noble fir (A. procera), white fir (A. concolor), western white pine (Pinus monticola), western redcedar (Thuja plicata) [161], and grand fir (A. grandis) are also dominant overstory species [46,60].

Common shrub associates include sticky flowering currant (Ribes viscosissimum), mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) [6,21], common snowberry (S. albus), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), Utah honeysuckle (Lonicera utahensis), kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) [6], fool's huckleberry (Menziesia ferruginea) [6,39], white spirea (Spirea betulifolia) [120,139], whiteveined wintergreen (Pyrola picta) [17], pink mountainheath (Phyllodoce empetriformis), Cascade azalea (Rhododendron albiflorum), Sitka mountain-ash (Sorbus sitchensis), Cascade bilberry (Vaccinium deliciosum), western moss-heather (Cassiope mertensiana), strawberryleaf raspberry (Rubus pedatus), roughfruit berry (Rubus lasiococcus) [39], little prince's pine (Chimaphila menziesii) [8], red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) [17], Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum) [43,86], Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) [117], and Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens) [8].

Common forb associates include beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) [6,17,21], Brewer's aster (Chrysopsis breweri) [6,21], pinewoods lousewort (Pedicularis semibarbata) [21], fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Sitka valerian (Valeriana sitchensis) [39], queencup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora) [17], twinflower (Linnaea borealis), lupine (Lupinus spp.) [3], Pacific trillium (Trillium ovatum), and threeleaf foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata) [17].

Pacific Northwest: Big huckleberry is well represented in subalpine habitats [11,50,110]. In mesic subalpine communities, big huckleberry is a common understory associate of Pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock [48]. Big huckleberry is an important understory component of subalpine fir forests in the eastern Olympic Mountains, Washington [47]. Within the Cascade Range of Oregon and Washington, big huckleberry frequently occurs on dry subalpine sites with beargrass [50,110].

Big huckleberry is a dominant species within fir/hemlock (Abies/Tsuga) stands in the Cascades. Other overstory associates include Pacific silver fir, noble fir, mountain hemlock, Douglas-fir, western white pine, and western redcedar [161]. Within fir/hemlock understory communities in the Cascades of southern Washington, big huckleberry is often codominant with beargrass [50].

Big huckleberry is associated with cool western hemlock zones in the Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon. It occupies a dominant understory status in the coldest, driest portions of the western hemlock zone (usually above 2,800 feet (853 m). When overstories are dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, common associates include prince's pine and Oregon-grape [63].

Stewart [146] compared understory composition of Douglas-fir and western hemlock stands in the west-central Cascade Range. Both stands were found on a southeast aspect at 3,740 feet (1,140 m) with a 15% slope. Fire history, mean tree age, and mean tree height were similar. Differences were in the frequency of canopy gaps: Douglas-fir at 9.3% and western hemlock at 1.3%. Big huckleberry was more frequent and possessed greater coverage (p<0.05) in Douglas-fir stands:

	western hemlock	Douglas-fir
Frequency (%)	18	44
Cover (%)	< 1	3.3

Rocky Mountain Region: Big huckleberry is a dominant shrub in subalpine fir forests of northern Utah. Subalpine fir/big huckleberry habitat types are also described for south-central and southwestern Montana, eastern Idaho, and western Wyoming [98].

In Montana big huckleberry is a major undergrowth component in pole-stage or older stands of Douglas-fir and subalpine fir [6]. Big huckleberry is an understory component of mountain hemlock communities in western Montana, where it occurs in association with beargrass, grouse whortleberry, and fool's huckleberry [58].

In west-central Idaho, big huckleberry is an important shrub in the ponderosa pine phase of climax Douglas-fir/ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) habitats between 3,100 and 6,400 feet (945-1,951 m), and at 4,500 to 6,800 feet (1,371- 2,073 m) in the Rocky Mountain maple phase of  Douglas-fir/Rocky Mountain maple habitats  [143].

Big huckleberry is a frequently occurring understory species within the grand fir mosaic of northern Idaho [46]. It is uncommon in grand fir/Douglas-fir stands in Montana and Idaho below 3,937 feet (1,200 m), but common at higher elevations. Above 3,937 feet (1,200 m) big huckleberry is a major understory species in grand fir/western redcedar stands; it is almost unrepresented below 3,937 feet (1,200 m) where western redcedar is dominant. Big huckleberry is common in intermediate-aged stands of subalpine fir and limber pine on open slopes between 5,577 and 6,562 feet (1,700-2,000 m) and within mature stands on mesic sites [60].

In general, big huckleberry is dominant to grouse whortleberry in lower-elevation subalpine fir habitats. At mid- and higher elevations, big huckleberry is generally subordinate to grouse whortleberry, although representation is sometimes about equal [93].

Published classifications listing big huckleberry as an indicator or dominant species are listed below:

Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex [3]
Preliminary plant associations of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Province [7]
Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province [8]
Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest [17]
Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a second approximation [26]
Classification of montane forest community types in Cedar River Drainage of western Washington, USA [33]
Subalpine plant communities of western North Cascades, Washington [38]
The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park [49]
Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington [48]
Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington [62]
Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Mount Hood [64]
Plant association and management guide: Willamette National Forest [69]
Forested plant associations of the Olympic National Forest [70]
Plant associations of the Walloma-Snake Province: Walloma-Whitman National Forest[91]
Forest habitat types of Montana [120]
Climax vegetation of Montana based on soils and climate [126]
Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming [140]
The grand fir/blue huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management [141]
Forest habitat types of central Idaho [144]
Plant association and management guide for the grand fir zone, Gifford Pinchot National Forest [152]

• IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
• PALATABILITY
• NUTRITIONAL VALUE
• COVER VALUE
• VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
• OTHER USES AND VALUES
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Big game:  Big huckleberry is a good food source for grizzly bears and black bears [31,97,159]. It is a key food for bears in Montana [114]. Bears feed on the berries, leaves, stems [4], and roots [81]. Big huckleberry is the dominant huckleberry species consumed by grizzly and black bears of Glacier National Park, Montana [81] and a major shrub food item of bears in Yellowstone National Park [85]. Bears may begin feeding upon big huckleberry berries in mid-July at lower elevations (3,000 to 3,937 feet (900-1,200 m)) of Glacier National Park [159].

Big huckleberry is an important species for white-tailed deer in grand fir and western redcedar forests of northern Idaho, with greatest use occurring in the fall [83]. It  is a minor component in the summer diet of western Montana elk [42]. Elk feed on big huckleberry when leaves are young and tender [163]. Big huckleberry also provides browse for moose in north-central Idaho [121].

Avian:  Although not preferred, big huckleberry provides a fall food source for blue grouse in Oregon [28]. It is an important food source for ruffed grouse [74].

PALATABILITY:

Overall palatability of big huckleberry has been rated as follows [35,84,96,141,163]:

	ID	MT	eastern OR	WA	WY
Cattle	----	poor	----	----	----
Domestic sheep	good	fair	good	good	----
Horses	----	poor	----	----	----
Pronghorn	----	----	----	----	poor
Elk	fair to good	----	----	good	----
Mule deer	good	fair	----	----	good
White-tailed deer	good	----	----	----	good
Small mammals	----	----	----	----	good
Small nongame birds	----	----	----	----	good
Upland game birds	-----	----	----	----	good
Waterfowl	----	----	----	----	poor
Grizzly bear	----	good	----	----	good
Black bear	good	good	good	good	good

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

Nutritional value of big huckleberry has been rated as follows for Wyoming [84]:

Elk	good
Mule deer	good
White-tailed deer	good
Antelope	poor
Upland game bird	good
Waterfowl	poor
Small non-game bird	good
Small mammals	good

Light-intensity (litter temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit (66 °C) at 1.9 inches (5 cm)) slash burning, after clearcutting in a subalpine fir/queencup beadlily habitat type composed largely of Douglas-fir and western larch, had no significant effect (p> 0.05) on big huckleberry nutritional value [134].

COVER VALUE:

Big huckleberry provides hiding or resting cover for several wildlife species. Dense thickets provide good cover for many smaller birds and mammals. Cover value of big huckleberry has been rated as follows for Wyoming [84]:

Pronghorn	poor
Elk	fair
Mule deer	fair
White-tailed deer	fair
Small mammals	good
Small nongame birds	good
Upland game birds	good
Waterfowl	poor

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

The Wind River Nursery in Carson, Washington, provides the following suggestions for successful big huckleberry propagation. Initial planting is recommended in flats with subsequent transplanting of germinants to individual pots. Flats should be covered with glass or plexiglass to reduce soil moisture loss and placed in a cool location (large refrigerator or unheated greenhouse) to provide cool-moist stratification. After stratification, flats should be transferred directly to a heated greenhouse for germination. Seedlings should be hand transplanted to pots [67].

Propagation method	Seed collection	Seed extraction	Stratification	Seed planting	Seedling container	Seedling media	Other treatment
Seed	Summer	Mash fruit with water, separate	Short/cool	Tray	10-15 cm pot	Perlite/vermiculite/peatmoss or Perlite/vermiculite/barkdust	Inoculation with mycorrhizae

 

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

Big huckleberry is historically an important food item in the diet of many Pacific Northwest Native Americans [75,79,90,115].

Big huckleberry may hybridize with Vaccinium cultivars, producing drought-resistant cultivars that are adapted to the West Coast [30].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Silviculture: Postlogging treatments are the most influential variables on big huckleberry productivity [96]. Initial decreases of big huckleberry in logged areas are common.

Big huckleberry decreases after clearcutting without site preparation or slash treatment, clear cutting followed by broadcast burning, and clear cutting with mechanical scarification (dozer piling and burning) within Douglas-fir/ninebark, Douglas-fir/big huckleberry, subalpine fir/beargrass, and subalpine fir/fool's huckleberry habitat types of western Montana [6].

Douglas-fir forests: Within the Douglas-fir/big huckleberry habitat type, strong decreases in big huckleberry occur after disturbance. Big huckleberry was drastically reduced after overstory removal in the Douglas-fir/big huckleberry habitat type of west-central Montana. [6].

Subalpine fir forests: Moderate decreases in big huckleberry after clearcutting without site preparation or slash treatment occur in the big huckleberry phase of subalpine-fir/beargrass habitat types. Strong decreases in big huckleberry occur after clearcutting followed by broadcast burning or stand-replacing wildfire. Stand-replacing wildfires without clearcutting have the quickest recovery. Within the subalpine-fir/fool's huckleberry habitat type, little or no decrease occurred after clearcutting without site preparation or slash treatment and light to moderate broadcast burning [6].

Depending upon moisture regimes, clearcut logging that leaves the understory intact could decrease the productivity of big huckleberry fields. Removal of forest cover on dry, south-facing slopes exposes big huckleberry to sun, wind, frost, and winter desiccation. Big huckleberry showed a greater tolerance of overstory removal, clearcutting, and wildfire within subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type in north-west Montana than in subalpine fir/beargrass in dry west-central Montana [6].

Plant species composition was evaluated in a moist Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest at 5,184 to 5,988 feet (1,580-1,825 m) with a 40% slope and a northeast aspect on silty loam soil (pH 4.2-6.1) in southeastern British Columbia. The area was logged during summer using conventional ground skidding. Two years later a broadcast burn was implemented on 27 August. Engelmann spruce seedlings were planted in the area during September at 648 trees/acre (1,600 trees/ha). Five years later, big huckleberry had greater frequency of occurrence within slash-burned areas than in the sidecast (the filled edge of the skid trail), mid-trail, and cutbank areas of skid trails [118]:

	Slash burn	Sidecast	Mid-trail	Cutbank
Frequency (%)	60	20	16	8
Cover (%)	11.5	1.6	2.3	0.4

Big huckleberry was slow to develop even in slash-burn areas, showing 3% coverage at 3 postburn years, 6.7% coverage at 4 postburn years, and 11.5% coverage at 5 postburn years [118].

Soil scarification through mechanical means (bulldozing) does not promote big huckleberry growth [127].

Laursen [89] provides detailed models for predicting height and cover of big huckleberry following management disturbance. Model equations were generated following observations in the Douglas-fir to mountain hemlock zones throughout northern Idaho, eastern Washington, and western Montana.

Martin [96] provides specific management recommendations for big huckleberry within subalpine fir/beargrass-big huckleberry habitat types; subalpine fir/queencup beadlily-menziesia habitat types; subalpine fir/queencup beadlily-beargrass habitat types and subalpine fir/menziesia habitat types.

Coates [22] provides a general description of big huckleberry response to a variety of silvicutural treatments in British Columbia:

Treatment	Big huckleberry response
Overstory removal	Berry production increases, with population numbers increasing slowly.
Manual cutting	Sprouting and suckering occurs but recovery is slow and may take 3 to 7 years to regain pretreatment levels. Increases in number and density of stems are common.
Mechanical site prep	Likely to reduce frequency and cover for several years.
Chemical treatments	Tolerant to very tolerant to glyphosate; 2,4-D as early foliar spray kills aerial parts with sprouting occurring the following season.

Recreation Management:  Cole and Trull [25] evaluated big huckleberry response to recreational disturbance (human trampling) on the east slopes of the North Cascades of Washington. Big huckleberry was not tolerant of trampling. Decreases in vigor occurred after trampling, with little recovery the following growing season. Results from trampling experiments (a 1-way walk at a natural gait by a 154-lb (70 kg) trampler in lug-soled boots) in subalpine-fir stands at  5,741 feet (1,750 m) are summarized below:

Number of passes	Cover (%): after trampling	Cover (%): after 1 year recovery
25	93	69
75	54	46
200	6	44
500	0	40
700	--	--

Similar results of low resistance and low recovery potential to summer trampling were seen in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana, at 4,200 to 4,400 feet (1,260-1,320 m) [24].

Berry Production: Several abiotic and biotic factors determine the extent of big huckleberry fruiting. Greater berry production occurs in soils high in organic matter. Soil moisture availability affect the quality and quantity of berry production within a growing season [135]. 

Pruning can significantly (p < 0.05) increase vegetative production of big huckleberry through increased lateral bud development. Bud elongation usually begins within a few weeks of stem clipping, with buds nearest to point of stem removal developing first. Pruning date has no direct effect upon the amount of lateral bud break if conducted before early July. Pruning after July may suppress lateral bud swelling and elongation through the initiation of fall dormancy. Mid-June and early July pruning produced significantly less (p<0.05) lateral bud growth than earlier pruning [105]:

Treatment date	Mean # lateral shoots developing	Mean shoot growth (mm)
19 May	2.97	92.67
1 June	2.63	59.20
15 June	2.70	19.67
8 July	2.20	17.93
4 August	1.47	3.07
Control	0.30	2.43

Berry production usually decreases with increased forest overstory [108]. In Montana, aspect has the greatest effect upon berry production. Fruit productivity decreases from optimum northwest aspects to north, northeast, then from east to west. Canopy cover is inversely related to berry production; however, south or west aspects show no inverse relation. On south and west aspects, canopy removal may decrease big huckleberry due to subsequent moisture stress [96].

According to Martin [96], berry production is generally delayed at least 5 years on disturbed sites. Berry production increases 15 to 20 years after wildfire on mesic north or east aspects and 5 to 10 years after fire when sites are clearcut and broadcast burned.

Although coverage of big huckleberry may have a positive response to fire disturbance, berry production is usually delayed. Overstory removal with minimal huckleberry disturbance is recommended to increase berry production. Frilling (2,4-D applied to frills cut in trees) and girdling are 2 methods that effectively remove an overstory with minimal disturbance [111]. Fields of big huckleberry, productive for huckleberry picking, have developed after fires within some areas of mountain hemlock-subalpine fir forests in Washington and Oregon [92].

Herbicide application (2,4-D) along with cut and burn treatments were evaluated to monitor effect on big huckleberry berry production within a Pacific silver fir forest zone of Oregon. Frill treatments, herbicide 2,4-D and water applied to stem incisions, were carried out on overstory trees larger than 1.97 inches (5 cm) d.b.h. in July. Spraying of 2,4-D in late July on all vegetation below 3 meters was also implemented. The cut and burn treatment consisted of overstory removal followed by an August broadcast slash burn which killed, but did not consume, shoots. Berry production (kg/ha) at 5 and 7 post-treatment years is summarized below [108]:

Treatment	5 post-treatment years	7 post-treatment years
Frill	200.1	122.6
Cut and burn	76.7	51.7
Spray	57.2	38.5
Control	108	29.9

Girdling is suggested as a non-chemical approach to achieve results produced by the frill treatment [108].

Indirect application of herbicides may have a profound negative effect on big huckleberry, producing high mortality. Glyphosate may provide minor control of big huckleberry [99]. Top-kill and prevention of subsequent sprouts maybe obtained through the use of 2,4-D [102] and triclopyr [100,102]. Miller [101] provides a summary of herbicide control within the inland Northwest.

Within subalpine fir/big huckleberry habitats of northern Utah, berry production is increased when the relative amount of direct sunlight received is increased [98]. Overstory shading has no effect on berry sweetness [110].

Stark and Baker [135] provide information on the ecology and culture of big huckleberry for cultivation or intensive field management.

• GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM
• REGENERATION PROCESSES
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• SUCCESSIONAL STATUS
• SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Big huckleberry is a native, rhizomatous, frost-tolerant [17] shrub. Stems range from 12 to 47 inches (30-120 cm) in height [61,71,104,160]. Leaves are alternate, elliptic to oblong [76], and small, ranging from 0.7 to 2.75 inches (1.8-7 cm) long [71,160]. Roots may penetrate up to 39.4 inches (100 cm) of soil. Rhizomes are usually found within the 3.15 to 11.8 inch (8-30 cm) range of a soil profile [107]. Largent and others [88] observed a minor occurrence of mycorrhizal symbiosis.

RAUNKIAER [123] LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte
Geophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Big huckleberry reproduces from seed and by vegetative production from adventitious buds on rhizomes [77,137] and root crowns [1]. Reproduction through seed is rare under natural conditions. Populations are usually maintained through lateral expansion of vegetative clones [77,137].

Seed:  Flowers are pollinated by bees [76,96] with each stem node having the capacity to produce 1 berry [29]. New seedlings usually require 3 growing seasons to flower [111]. A typical berry carries 42 seeds. Mean germination is around 42% [137].

Fruit production is not halted during dry summers. Fructification may occur after 4 to 6 months void of rain [30]. In the Cascades of southern Washington, individual stems are capable of producing fruit for 14 years [29]. Although berries are moderately tolerant of moisture deficits, successful germination and subsequent establishment is extremely reduced or eliminated by water stress. Cool spring temperatures also negatively affect seed germination [137].

Postdisturbance seedling establishment is not heavily relied upon. The number of seedlings emerging from soil blocks collected from a western hemlock/Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum)/dwarf Oregon-grape community was monitored after experimental disturbance. Big huckleberry showed no regeneration from seed after burning and mechanical mixing of soil layers [77].

Big huckleberry offers a relatively minor contribution to soil seed banks. Viable seed most often occurs within the 1st 1.97 inches (5cm) of soil. Kramer and Johnson [86] evaluated the soil seed banks of Douglas-fir/ninebark, grand-fir/Rocky Mountain maple, and grand-fir/big huckleberry habitat types in central Idaho. The constancy (%) of viable, buried, big huckleberry seed is summarized below:

Douglas-fir/ninebark	Grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple	Grand fir/big huckleberry
6	31	25

Vegetative:  Big huckleberry possesses an extensive system of rhizomes [61,104], with adventitious buds distributed evenly across the length of the rhizome [104]. Vegetative production is highly relied upon for regeneration after disturbance [77]. Fruit productivity is more sensitive to solar radiation than vegetative production [29].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Big huckleberry has wide ecological amplitude [106], occupying moist, moderately deep, well-drained soils [61,117]. It is found on moderate slopes or benches, rocky hillsides, and avalanche chutes [62,95,119,145]. Big huckleberry is rarely found in valley bottoms [79]. As an understory species, big huckleberry can grow beneath a partially closed forest canopy (in partial shade), or in sunny openings [51,61]. Big huckleberry has greatest potential on cool mesic sites with minimal overstory [29].

Soils: Big huckleberry prefers acid soils with a pH around 5.5 [109]. Clay and silt content are usually low (under 40%) with fine, loamy texture [135]. Relatively low concentrations of essential elements are required to sustain growth. Mesic and drier sites are preferred, although big huckleberry may inhabit soils with a wide range of available moisture [61].

In Montana, Goldin And Nimlos [55] evaluated big huckleberry presence in the Garnet Mountains in relation to soil physical properties. Big huckleberry preferred quartzite and granitic soils to limestone-derived soils with similar pH and gravel content. Quartzite soils resulted in the greatest coverage of big huckleberry compared to granite and limestone derived soils:

	Relative Cover (%)
Quartzite	16
Limestone	1
Granite	9

	Quartzite	Limestone	Granite
Average organic horizon thickness (cm)	4.0	2.3	4.0
Soil texture	loam	silty loam	sandy loam
Gravel content	very gravelly	gravelly to very gravelly	slightly gravelly
pH	5.7-6.9	6.5-8.0	5.5-6.5
Calcareousness	none at surface, slight to strong at depth	slight to strong on surface, strong at depth	none

Within sites, big huckleberry grew under Douglas-fir on limestone, limber pine on quartzite, and subalpine fir on granite.

Aspect/Slope: Big huckleberry prefers northern aspects [89] although populations may exist on all aspects [96]. Martin [96] observed that big huckleberry preferred moderate to steep slopes (25-40%). Gentle slopes allowed greater competition from other plant species.

Elevation:  Ranges by geographic area are as follows:

California	3,609 to 7,217 feet (1,100-2,200 m)  [71]
Montana	3,000 to 9,650 feet (914-2,930 m)
Oregon and Washington	3,000 feet (914 m) to high mountains [135]
Utah	8,202 to 10,318 feet (2,500-3,145 m) [160]

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Big huckleberry may occur in early- to late-seral stages [29,66,96]. It generally shows greatest productivity within sites that experienced disturbance about 50 years previously [96]. Hamilton and Yearsley [66] describe big huckleberry as a "fairly shade-tolerant" species.

Fields dominated by big huckleberry are seral. Decline of big huckleberry as forests move toward climax status is inevitable, especially in areas of crown closure [29]. Without disturbance, big huckleberry gradually decreases in dominance, crowded out by trees [106].

Early seral:  In spruce-fir forests big huckleberry may have a significant presence within 1 to 5 postdisturbance years [19]. Response varies greatly with intensity of disturbance. In a spruce-fir forest in Idaho, big huckleberry was not a dominant shrub until 40 to 79 years after clearcutting. It shared understory dominance with wild ginger (Asarum caudatum) in sites undisturbed for 80 years or longer [130].

Habeck [59] observed big huckleberry as a common understory component of pioneer and seral communities within western redcedar-western hemlock habitats of Glacier National Park, Montana. Big huckleberry is also an early seral species in western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho [147].

In grand fir habitats of north-central Idaho, big huckleberry may occupy an important role in early seral stages at high elevations on north slopes [165]. As stands move toward maturity, big huckleberry decreases as a major understory species of developing grand fir/Douglas-fir stands above 3,937 feet (1,200 m) in the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness of Montana and Idaho [60]. Big huckleberry is well represented throughout all seral stages in grand fir/big huckleberry habitat types. Steele [139] presents a detailed model of succession in the grand-fir/big huckleberry habitat type.

In subalpine prairies of the Mount Hood area, Oregon, big huckleberry is an early seral species [115]. Big huckleberry is greater in frequency and coverage in open stands of mountain hemlock and Pacific silver fir associations and decreases as stands close [39]

Late seral:  Big huckleberry is a widespread understory dominant in late seral and climax communities in subalpine forests [57]. Within Montana, northern Idaho, and eastern Washington habitat types, big huckleberry generally shows slow postdisturbance recovery, increasing toward a peak at 20 to 30 postdisturbance years [89].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Leaf primordia are initiated prior to spring bud break [56]. Throughout big huckleberry's range in Montana, flowering begins the 1st week of June. Total floret development requires 4 months (mid-July to October) [56]. With an 80-day field growing season, Gough [56] observed vegetative and reproductive development at 6,562 feet (2,000 m) in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness of Montana. Shoot growth from vegetative buds on stems began in mid-May. Buds on plants where the soil was still frozen showed no bud break. Vegetative buds on shoots greater than 0.08-inch (2 mm) diameter swell before buds on thinner, less vigorous shoots. Shoot elongation occurred until mid- to late June. Seasonal shoot growth was generally completed within a 4-week period.

Drew [41] mapped the phenology of big huckleberry within the western redcedar/western hemlock zone of Idaho. Onset of leaf fall was directly related to limitations in soil moisture availability. Bud burst occurred from early to mid-April, followed by leafing out (beginning of May) and stem elongation (May-beginning of July). Leaf fall was initiated in mid-August [41].

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Fire adaptations: Foliage of big huckleberry is of low flammability. Plants are consumed by fire only when adequate fuels are present to dry and preheat stems and foliage [104]. Big huckleberry usually survives low-severity fire; top-kill results from higher-severity fires. Seed is not an important postfire recolonization method and is rarely found in postfire areas [104]. Top-killed plants typically sprout from rhizomes and the root crown [27,104,136]. 

The clonal habit of big huckleberry favors variation among populations. Plants subjected to regular fire intervals may be better suited to surviving fire than individuals developed under fire suppression [29]. 

Fire ecology: Historically, burning big huckleberry patches was a regular activity of Native Americans in the subalpine zone of the Cascade and Coast ranges. To enhance production, fires were set in autumn after berry harvest. Fires reduced invasion of shrubs and trees [14]. 

Big huckleberry is a seral component in many forest habitat types. Some big huckleberry fields in the Pacific Northwest are considered a product of uncontrolled wildfires occurring before effective fire suppression [109].

Western Montana: Cool habitats dominated by lodgepole pine, with big huckleberry as a plentiful understory species, experienced high-severity, stand-replacing fire at return intervals of 150 to 250 years in past centuries [52]. Lower subalpine stands in the Bitterroot National Forest, including stands in the Douglas-fir/big huckleberry habitat type, beargrass phase, showed mean intervals between surface fires ranging from 17 to 28 years, with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 67 years. At lower elevations, on montane slopes including stands in the Douglas-fir/big huckleberry habitat type, mean fire return intervals ranged from 7 to 19 years with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 48 years [52]. About 60% of mature subalpine fir/beargrass stands in western Montana show evidence of surface fire [5].

Northern Idaho: Dry, lower subalpine fir habitat types where big huckleberry occurs show historic intervals between low- to moderate-severity fires averaging 35 years. Stand-replacing fires occurred at average intervals of greater than 217 years. Severe fires occurred at intervals of 60 to 70 years in cold, dry grand fir habitats where big huckleberry was a dominant species [132].

Mixed-conifer forests of the grand fir series within the Elkhorn Mountains of Oregon showed historic fire return intervals of 50 to 200 years on sites where big huckleberry is the dominant understory species [2]. The Douglas-fir forests of the eastern Cascade Range show longer fire return intervals and higher fire intensities where big huckleberry is present than where big huckleberry does not occur [162].

The following table provides some fire regime intervals where big huckleberry is found:

Community or Ecosystem	Dominant Species	Fire Return Interval Range (years)
silver fir-Douglas-fir	Abies amabilis-Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii	> 200
grand fir	Abies grandis	35-200
western larch	Larix occidentalis	25-100
Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir	Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa	35 to > 200
whitebark pine*	Pinus albicaulis	50-200
Sierra lodgepole pine*	Pinus contorta var. murrayana	35-200
Pacific ponderosa pine*	Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa	1-47
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine*	Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum	2-10
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir*	Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca	25-100 [18]
coastal Douglas-fir*	Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii	40-240 [13,18,125]
California mixed evergreen	Pseudotsuga menziesii var. m.-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus m.	< 35
western redcedar-western hemlock	Thuja plicata-Tsuga heterophylla	> 200
western hemlock-Sitka spruce	Tsuga heterophylla-Picea sitchensis	> 200
mountain hemlock*	Tsuga mertensiana	35 to > 200 [18]

*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [149]:

Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil

• IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT
• PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE
• FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Big huckleberry foliage is of low flammability. Individuals may survive low-severity fires [104] with top-kill occurring on more intense fires [27,104,136].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Big huckleberry is adapted to sprout after fire and is efficient in storing nutrients released from burning [136]. Big huckleberry resprouts after fire from shallow and deep rhizomes [27,104] or root crown [1]. Heat penetration into soil layers where rhizomes occur will affect big huckleberry's ability to produce vegetative sprouts after fire [104].

In preferred habitats, big huckleberry generally survives low to moderately severe fires. Big huckleberry attains preburn coverage within 3 to 7 years [16,22]. High-severity fires may result in moderate to high big huckleberry mortality [36] or greatly reduced sprouting [68]. Moderate to severe fires on coarse-textured soil or areas with a thin organic layer may kill underground rhizomes, resulting in heavy mortality [22,127]. Strong decreases occur after severe broadcast burning or wildfire, with recovery generally occurring within 15 to 20 years [6]. Overall, low-severity burns result in heavy sprouting from rhizomes [36].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

Low- to moderate-severity fire: Big huckleberry showed good vegetative response in lightly burned areas of western larch/Douglas-fir forests in western Montana. The same result was seen in moderate fires top-killing the majority of  shrubs and consuming up to half of the litter [138].

A comparison of postfire big huckleberry sprouting was made after spring (May-June) and fall (September-October) fires at the Lubrecht Experimental Forest of western Montana. The number of stems present before burns was closely related to the number of stems present after fire. Spring burns produced lower mortality of adventitious buds on rhizomes than did fall burns. Moist duff and soil present during spring burns served as a heat shield. Spring burns causing rhizome mortality occurred only in areas with duff and soil of low moisture content. Results summarizing the average stem number/meter² on 9 sites are presented below [104].

Spring Fires:

Before Fire (1973)	1974 (yr 1)	1975 (yr 2)	1973-1974 change in stem # (%)	1973-1975 change in stem # (%)
49.54	61.62	66.23	24.38	33.69
28.15	39.65	50.58	40.85	79.68
23.08	28.77	39.08	24.65	69.32
45.77	62.85	83.27	37.3	81.93
43.08	46.65	53.85	8.29	25.00
3.35	35.50	23.08	959.7	589.96
18.54	32.15	40.69	73.41	119.47
27.38	39.00	47.58	42.44	73.78
30.19	35.46	39.88	17.46	32.10

Fall Fires:

Before Fire (1973)	1974	1975	1973-1974 change in stem # (%)	1973-1975 change in stem # (%)
16.85	5.69	14.35	-66.23	-14.84
33.19	29.85	33.81	-10.06	1.87
18.73	37.54	46.62	100.43	148.91
34.65	38.08	47.35	9.90	36.65
97.96	92.96	117.54	-5.10	19.99
26.08	26.31	49.73	0.88	90.68
16.42	23.88	31.58	45.43	92.33
12.42	4.54	11.46	-63.45	-7.73
15.73	38.00	42.31	141.58	168.98

Moderate to high-severity fire: Doyle and others [40] evaluated plant species richness 17 years after the July 17, 1974, Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Big huckleberry dominated (30-36% coverage) the understory of an unburned area adjacent to the burn. Big huckleberry showed greatly reduced coverage (approximately 7%) in moderately burned areas and almost no coverage in severely burned areas. In another study, populations were greatly reduced the 1st growing season following a severe fire in the Payette River drainage near Lowman, Idaho [142].

Big huckleberry showed no postfire reestablishment through seed after the Sundance fire of 1967, a severe burn in northern Idaho [148].

In general, big huckleberry is slow to recover from moderate- to high-severity fire. After stand-replacing fire in upland Douglas-fir/big huckleberry sites in Pattee Canyon, west-central Montana, big huckleberry showed "slow" recovery. In severely burned ravines, big huckleberry sprouted from rhizomes at depths of 3.5 to 6 inches (9 to 15 cm). Before effective fire exclusion began in the early 1900s, fire return intervals in the area averaged 15.8 years [27]. Vegetation recovery for big huckleberry after an August wildfire in Sleeping Child Creek, Bitterroot Valley, Montana was slow; density and crown volume showed little recovery after 4 postburn years [94]:

	Before burn	1	2	3	4
Plants/1,000 feet2	113	--	2.2	18.4	28.3
	Before burn	1	2	3	4
Crown volume feet3/1,000 feet2	96.9	--	1.2	2.5	5.4

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

In most areas, fire exclusion reduces big huckleberry populations over time. In Washington, a big huckleberry field of 8,000 acres (3,238 ha) within an old burn has diminished to 2,500 acres (1,012 ha), replaced by trees and brush after 40 years of fire exclusion [105]. Repeated low-severity burns may control competing vegetation, enhancing big huckleberry vigor [107]. Franklin and Dyrness [48] attribute the occurrence of widespread big huckleberry fields within the southern Washington Cascades to large and repeated wildfires.

The Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en people of northwestern British Columbia used fire to manage big huckleberry fields. Fires were usually set in early fall, late August, and September. Late fall burns were specifically chosen to reduce fire severity and spread because fall frontal storm systems were likely to bring precipitation. Elder women decided burning time and scheduled fires during times they felt were prior to rainfall. Intervals between burns varied [79]. In the Cascades, where big huckleberry is a seral postfire dominant, Sahaptin and Chinook Native Americans started fires in the fall (at the end of huckleberry season) after winter rains began [51].

In habitat types were big huckleberry is dominant, fires conducted when the duff is relatively moist and not completely consumed result in heavy sprouting from rhizomes [36,115,124]. Low-severity burning may stimulate lateral bud growth and assist in the eradication of parasites [115]. Burning that consumes large amounts of duff is most harmful to big huckleberry regeneration [104]. Quantity of heat released by fire and relative amounts of duff and soil moisture are controlling factors in big huckleberry postfire recovery [103].

In western Montana, spring burning is recommended to increase big huckleberry density within the Douglas-fir/western larch habitat type, except when lower duff and soil are dry [104]. In moist Douglas-fir habitat types of Montana, where ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine are seral components, low-severity burning in the early spring stimulates big huckleberry, increasing shoot density [150]. In the Lolo National Forest, low- and moderate-severity surface fires increase density and nutrient content of big huckleberry in moist Douglas-fir and cool, dry Douglas-fir habitat types [32]. In the Douglas-fir/big huckleberry habitat type, spring fires and moderate amounts of shade may enhance production of big huckleberry [15].

In the grand fir series of the eastern Cascade Range, 2 consecutive fires in short intervals favored big huckleberry over grand fir, and big huckleberry shared dominance with lodgepole pine after intense fires on moist sites [1]. Due to low flammability of big huckleberry foliage, dense stands of big huckleberry may not burn if fuels are limited [104]. Density of big huckleberry may be increased by low severity surface fires in subalpine fir/big huckleberry habitat type in northern Utah [98].

In sub-boreal spruce zones of British Columbia, postfire sprouting of big huckleberry occurs almost exclusively through rhizomes. Postfire recovery is slow in the first 10 years postfire [66]. Likewise, in mesic and drier sites of the sub-boreal spruce zone in Canada, big huckleberry recovers slowly after fire [65].

• 1st CASE STUDY:
Understory burn - western Montana

• 2nd CASE STUDY:
Sawtooth Huckleberry Field: Competing species removal

1st CASE STUDY:

• REFERENCES
• SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION
• STUDY LOCATION
• PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY
• TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE
• SITE DESCRIPTION
• FIRE DESCRIPTION
• FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES
• FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

CASE NAME:

Understory burn - western Montana

REFERENCES:

Miller, Melanie. 1976 [103]
Miller, Melanie. 1977 [104]

FIRE CASE STUDY AUTHORSHIP:

Tirmenstein, D. 1990.

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:

Spring (May 11 to June 29, 1973)/low
Autumn (September 11 to October 11 1973)/low

STUDY LOCATION:

The study site is located approximately 35 miles (56 km) northeast of Missoula, Montana, in the Lubrecht Experimental Forest.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:

Most of the study area was identified as a Douglas-fir/big huckleberry-kinnikinnick (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Vaccinium membranaceum-Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) habitat type, although several plots were transitional to a Douglas-fir/beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)-kinnikinnick habitat type stocked by Douglas-fir, western larch (Larix occidentalis), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and scattered ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa). Common shrubs included white spirea (Spirea betulifolia), and fool's huckleberry (Menziesia ferruginea).

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:

Not reported

SITE DESCRIPTION:

Elevation	4,800 feet (1,460 m)
Aspect	northwest to northeast
Slope	15 to 45%
Soils	sandy, thin, and poorly developed

FIRE DESCRIPTION:

Drip torches were used to ignite strip headfires at 16-foot (5-m) intervals. Dead and down woody fuel loadings averaged 6 to 51 tons per acre (1.4-11.4 kg/m²). Fuel and burning conditions were:

	Spring	Fall
Prefire Fuel Weight (kg/m2):
0-1/4 inch (0-0.635 cm)	0.7	0.10
1/4-1 inch (0.635-2.54 cm)	0.14	0.15
1-3 inch (2.54-7.62 cm)	0.43	0.57
rotten, > 3 inch (7.62 cm)	5.84	4.10
sound, > 3 inch	1.11	0.65
total, > 3 inch	6.95	4.75
Prefire duff depth (cm)	7.59	5.57
Prefire dead fuel depth (cm)	16.59	16.15
Prefire herbaceous vegetation weight (kg/m2)	0.09	0.07
Burning Conditions:
Windspeed (mph)	2.56	2.64
Slope (average %)	35	37
Fuel moisture (%)
0-1/4 inch (0-0.635 cm)	10.74	20.38
1/4-1 inch (0.635-2.54 cm)	11.46	23.24
Soil moisture content (%)	29.09	12.51
Relative humidity (%)	37.44	39.45
Understory foliage moisture (%)	259.00	128.31
Ambient air temperature (°F)	68.56	59.91
Fuel reduction weight (kg/m2)
0-1/4 inch (0-0.635 cm)	0.02	0.04
1/4-1 inch (0.635-2.54 cm)	0.06	0.08
0-1 inch (0-2.54 cm)	0.09	0.12
1-3 inch (2.54-7.62 cm)	0.08	0.28
Total > 3 inch (7.62 cm)	4.38	3.36
Total fuel reduction	4.63	3.88
Mean duff reduction (cm)	1.74	3.85
Duff reduction (%)	24.41	53.41
Heat release (kcal/sec/m2)	103.07	71.68
Average mineral soil temperature    (°F)	143.56	232.73
Average duff surface temperature    (°F)	252.4	359.27
Average temperature (°F) at 2.5 (cm) below duff surface	191.00	320.27
Average temperature (°F) at 5.0 (cm) below duff surface	163.89	299.27
Average temperature (°F) at 7.5 (cm) below duff surface	141.78	263.91

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:

The fire was patchy, and dense big huckleberry stands in forest openings did not burn due to lack of fuels. At the end of the first growing season, big huckleberry stem numbers exceeded prefire levels on all plots. On 33% of the spring-burned plots, big huckleberry stem numbers increased 80 to 120%. On one plot, increases of 900% were noted, although 33% died by the following year.

On fall-burned plots, postburn year 1 stem numbers exceeded prefire levels on only 55% of the plots. The majority of plants sprouted during the 1st growing season, although some additional sprouting occurred during the 2nd year. These later sprouting plants presumably originated from deeper rhizomes. On parts of some fall-burned plots, plant density increased but elsewhere all rhizomes were killed.

Sprouting was primarily related to depth of heat penetration rather than to specific phenological development. Sprouting was common on fall-burned plots where heat penetration was slight. Maximum soil temperatures were recorded on microsites with high fuel concentrations and/or low soil moisture. High soil moisture tended to limit rhizome heating. Influence of moisture level on big huckleberry regeneration was as follows:

	Promote big huckleberry regeneration	Inhibit big huckleberry regeneration
lower duff moisture content	> 100%	< 70%
soil moisture content	> 30%	< 19%
large fuel moisture	high	low

Stem densities were also significantly related to the number of stems present prior to the burn.

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Fire treatment most beneficial to big huckleberry results in damage to senescent stems but does little damage to rhizomes. These conditions are often met by spring burns that occur when soil and duff are still somewhat moist. Spring burning can increase the density of big huckleberry in Douglas-fir-western larch forests. For optimal increases, burning should not be attempted when the lower duff and soil are dry.

Fall burns generally produce greater heat penetration than spring burns and probability of mortality is increased. Fall burns can effectively reduce big huckleberry, particularly where duff reduction is complete.

2nd CASE STUDY:

• REFERENCE
• SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION
• STUDY LOCATION
• PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY
• TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE
• SITE DESCRIPTION
• FIRE DESCRIPTION
• FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES
• FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

CASE NAME:

Sawtooth Huckleberry Field: Competing species removal

REFERENCE:

Minore, Don; Smart A. W.; Dubrasich, M. E. 1979 [111]

FIRE CASE STUDY AUTHORSHIP:

Simonin, Kevin. 2000.

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:

Cut and Burn:  Autumn/low
Burn:  Autumn/low

STUDY LOCATION:

Experimental plots were established 13 miles west of Mount Adams, Washington.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:

The prefire vegetation community consisted of a big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) dominated understory followed in dominance by beargrass, lupine (Lupinus spp.) and a minor grass component. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western white pine (P. monticola), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) made up the invading forest canopy. Forest canopy trees were immature, short and poorly formed, often showing considerable snow damage. Within cut and burn treatments all invading tree species were felled by chainsaw in the 2nd week of August. Lodgepole pine dominated the overstory canopy in the burned treatment followed by western white pine, mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, willow (Salix spp.), Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir:

	lodgepole pine	w. white pine	mountain hemlock	subalpine fir	willow	Engelmann spruce	Douglas-fir	Total overstory
Average overstory cover	11.8	2.6	1.7	1.3	1.0	0.4	0.3	19.1

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:

Not reported

SITE DESCRIPTION:

Experimental treatments occurred at 4,000 feet (1,219 m) on a gently sloping, west by southwest aspect. Soils were shallow and low in nutrients, with a gravelly coarse texture. Specific soil properties are summarized below:

Property	0-15 (cm)	16-30 (cm)	31-46 (cm)
pH	5.6	5.6	5.8
CEC* (meq/100 g)	13.19	13.10	11.66
N (%)	0.11	0.07	0.05
P (ppm)	14.00	6.00	3.00
K (ppm)	28.40	16.40	11.20
Ca (meq/100 g)	1.04	0.70	0.39
Mg (meq/100 g)	0.08	0.07	0.05
Na (meq/100 g)	0.02	0.02	0.03
Boron (ppm)	0.22	0.22	0.20
Acetate extractable Fe (ppm)	42.00	53.00	168.00

^* CEC (cation exchange capacity)

FIRE DESCRIPTION:

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:

Cut and Burn: Big huckleberry leaves were consumed with stems blackened but not consumed.

Burn:  Big huckleberry leaves were consumed with a few stems surviving.

Berry production (kg/ha) was severely reduced on both cut and burn, and burn treatments:

	Preburn (1972)	19731	1974	1975	19772
Cut and burn	--	0	0	0.27	0.15
Burn	83.01	0	0.03	1.81	4.90
Control	99.30	0	132.15	137.53	35.06

¹ Destroyed by spring frost
² Majority of berries destroyed by severe August hailstorm

Average overstory cover for 4 postburn growing seasons:

	Big huckleberry	Lodgepole pine 1,2	Western white pine 1,2	Total competing species 3
Preburn (1972):
Cut and Burn	--	--	--	--
Burn	18.4	9.7	2.7	65.6
Control	22.1	9.3	4.9	58.8
1973:
Cut and Burn	4.1	0	0	36.5
Burn	5.7	0.2	0.1	38.9
Control	18.2 *	7.3	4.1	53.5
1974:
Cut and Burn	8.8	0	0	42.9
Burn	15.1	0.6	0	40.7
Control	22.5 *	6.6	3.0	47.2
1975:
Cut and Burn	6.7	0	0	23.3
Burn	18.1	0.6	0.1	33.1
Control	22.6 *	8.1	3.8	44.1
1977:
Cut and Burn	11.6	0.1	0	54.5
Burn	18.8	0.7	0.1	59.4
Control	24.4	5.5	2.4	57.2

¹ Major overstory tree species, original reference documents the coverage data for all plant species present.
² Represents coverage above 3.28 feet (1 m); below was recorded within total competing species coverage.
³ Includes standing trees, tree regeneration, shrubs and herbs
* p<0.05 between control and treatments 

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Fire treatments most beneficial to big huckleberry occur during relatively moist conditions. Damage to rhizomes is reduced when soil and duff are relatively moist. Burning may increase the density of big huckleberry when conditions conducive to low heat transfer throughout the soil are present.

Vaccinium membranaceum: References

1. Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment). [23656]

2. Agee, James K. 1996. Fire in the Blue Mountains: a history, ecology, and research agenda. In: Jaindl, R. G.; Quigley, T. M., eds. Search for a solution: sustaining the land, people and economy of the Blue Mountains. Washington, DC: American Forests: 119-145. [28827]

3. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. [6327]

4. Almack, Jon. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements in the Selkirk Mountains, northern Idaho. 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: 150-157. [10815]

5. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990]

6. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p. [349]

7. Atzet, Thomas; McCrimmon, Lisa A. 1990. Preliminary plant associations of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Province. Grants Pass, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 330 p. [12977]

8. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p. [9351]

9. 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]

10. Barmore, William J., Jr.; Taylor, Dale; Hayden, Peter. 1976. Ecological effects and biotic succession following the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p. [16109]

11. Barrett, Stephen W.; Arno, Stephen F. 1999. Indian fires in the Northern Rockies: Ethnohistory and ecology. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 50-64. [35568]

12. Beetle, Alan A. 1962. Range survey in Teton County, Wyoming: Part 2. Utilization and condition classes. Bull. 400. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 38 p. [418]

13. 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]

14. Boyd, Robert. 1999. Introduction. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 1-30. [35565]

15. Bradley, Anne F.; Fischer, William C.; Noste, Nonan V. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. [19558]

16. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18212]

17. Brockway, Dale G.; Topik, Christopher; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Emmingham, William H. 1985. Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-130a. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 122 p. [525]

18. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [33874]

19. Burke, Constance J. 1979. Historic fires in the central western Cascades, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 130 p. M.S. thesis. [6407]

20. Butler, David R. 1979. Snow avalanche path terrain and vegetation, Glacier National Park, Montana. Arctic and Alpine Research. 11(1): 17-32. [8388]

21. 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]

22. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Land Management Handbook Number 9. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 88 p. [17453]

23. Cole, David N. 1982. Vegetation of two drainages in Eagle Cap Wilderness, Wallowa Mountains, Oregon. Res. Pap. INT-288. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p. [658]

24. 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]

25. Cole, David N.; Trull, Susan J. 1992. Quantifying vegetation response to recreational disturbance in the North Cascades, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 66(4): 229-236. [19965]

26. 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]

27. 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. [710]

28. Crawford, John A.; Van Dyke, Walt; Meyers, S. Mark; Haensly, Thomas F. 1986. Fall diet of blue grouse in Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 123-127. [14176]

29. 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]

30. Darrow, George M. 1960. Blueberry breeding, past, present, future. American Horticultural Magazine. 39(1): 14-33. [9126]

31. Davis, Dan; Butterfield, Bart. 1991. The Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area: A report to the Bitterroot Technical Review Team. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; 56 p. [30041]

32. Davis, Kathleen M.; Clayton, Bruce D.; Fischer, William C. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. INT-79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 77 p. [5296]

33. del Moral, Roger; Long, James N. 1977. Classification of montane forest community types in the Cedar River drainage of western Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 7: 217-225. [8778]

34. del Moral, Roger; Watson, Alan F. 1978. Gradient structure of forest vegetation in the central Washington Cascades. Vegetatio. 38(1): 29-48. [8800]

35. 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]

36. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626]

37. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]

38. Douglas, George W. 1972. Subalpine plant communities of the western North Cascades, Washington. Arctic and Alpine Research. 4(2): 147-166. [9960]

39. 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]

40. Doyle, Kathleen M.; Knight, Dennis H.; Taylor, Dale L.; [and others]. 1998. Seventeen years of forest succession following the Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 8(1): 45-55. [29072]

41. Drew, Larry Albert. 1967. Comparative phenology of seral shrub communities in the cedar/hemlock zone. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 108 p. Thesis. [9654]

42. Edge, W. Daniel; Marcum, C. Les; Olson-Edge, Sally L. 1988. Summer forage and feeding site selection by elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 573-577. [6778]

43. Elzinga, Caryl L.; Shearer, Raymond C. 1997. Vegetation structure in old-growth stands in the Coram Research Natural Area in northwestern Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-364. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [27446]

44. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

45. Ferguson, Dennis E.; Boyd, Raymond J. 1988. Bracken fern inhibition of conifer regeneration in northern Idaho. Res. Paper 388. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. [2834]

46. Ferguson, Dennis E.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1996. Classification of grand fir mosaic habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-337. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 p. [26902]

47. Fonda, R. W.; Bliss, L. C. 1969. Forest vegetation of the montane and subalpine zones, Olympic Mountains, Washington. Ecological Monographs. 39(3): 271-301. [12909]

48. 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]

49. Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; [and others]. 1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park. Scientific Monograph Series No 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 194 p. [12393]

50. Franklin, Jerry Forest. 1966. Vegetation and soils in the subalpine forests of the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 132 p. Thesis. [10392]

51. French, David. 1999. Aboriginal control of huckleberry yield in the Northwest. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 31-49. [35566]

52. Gabriel, Herman W., III. 1976. Wilderness ecology: the Danaher Creek Drainage, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 224 p. Dissertation. [12534]

53. 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]

54. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1994. Natural regeneration in two central Idaho grand fir habitat types. Res. Pap. INT-472. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 18 p. [25500]

55. Goldin, A.; Nimlos, T. J. 1977. Vegetation patterns on limestone and acid parent materials in the Garnet Mountains of western Montana. Northwest Science. 51(3): 149-160. [10675]

56. Gough, R. E. 1998. Vegetative and reproductive development of the Montana blue huckleberry (Vaccinium globulare Rydb.). Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology. 73(5): 606-611. [34978]

57. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]

58. Habeck, James R. 1967. Mountain hemlock communities in western Montana. Northwest Science. 41(4): 169-177. [7258]

59. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]

60. Habeck, James R. 1976. Forests, fuels, and fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 305-353. [8185]

61. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18034]

62. Hall, Frederick C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. R6-Area Guide 3-1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 82 p. [1059]

63. Halverson, Nancy M.; Emmingham, William H. 1982. Reforestation in the Cascades Pacific silver fir zone: A survey of sites and management experiences on the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests. R-6 Regional Area Guide R6-ECOL-091-1982. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 37 p. [12491]

64. Halverson, Nancy M.; Topik, Christopher; Van Vickle, Robert. 1986. Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Mt. Hood National Forest. R6-ECOL-232A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 111 p. [1068]

65. 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]

66. 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]

67. Harrington, Constance A.; McGrath, James M.; Kraft, Joseph M. 1999. Propagating native species: experience at the Wind River Nursery. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 61-64. [30058]

68. Hawkes, B. C.; Feller, M. C.; Meehan, D. 1990. Site preparation: fire. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 131-149. [10712]

69. 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]

70. Henderson, Jan A.; Peter, David H.; Lesher, Robin D.; Shaw, David C. 1989. Forested plant associations of the Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP 001-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 502 p. [23405]

71. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

72. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]

73. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]

74. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]

75. Hunn, Eugene S. 1981. On the relative contribution of men and women to subsistence among hunter-gatherers of the Columbia Plateau: a comparison with Ethnographic Atlas summaries. Journal of Ethnobiology. 1(1): 124-134. [35981]

76. Hunn, Eugene S.; Norton, Helen H. 1984. Impact of Mt. St. Helens ashfall on fruit yields of mountain huckleberry, Vaccinium membranaceum, important Native American food. Economic Botany. 38(1): 121-127. [9501]

77. Ingersoll, Cheryl A.; Wilson, Mark V. 1990. Buried propagules in an old-growth forest and their response to experimental disturbances. Canadian Journal of Botany. 68: 1156-1162. [11767]

78. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p. [9600]

79. Johnson, Leslie Main. 1999. Aboriginal burning for vegetation management in northwest British Columbia. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 238-254. [35576]

80. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

81. Kendall, Katherine C. 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress Report. West Glacier, Montana: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National Park Biosphere Preserve, Science Center. 42 p. [19361]

82. Kessell, Stephen R.; Potter, Meredith W. 1980. A quantitative succession model for nine Montana forest communities. Environmental Management. 4(3): 227-240. [1336]

83. Kingery, James L.; Mosley, Jeffrey C.; Bordwell, Kirsten C. 1996. Dietary overlap among cattle and cervids in northern Idaho forests. Journal of Range Management. 49(1): 8-15. [26611]

84. Klebenow, Donald A. 1965. A montane forest winter deer habitat in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29(1): 27-33. [8430]

85. Knight, Richard R; Blanchard, Bonnie M. 1983. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Study Team: 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 45 p. [20703]

86. 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]

87. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

88. Largent, David L.; Sugihara, Neil; Wishner, Carl. 1980. Occurrence of mycorrhizae on ericaceous and pyrolaceous plants in northern California. Canadian Journal of Botany. 58: 2274-2279. [35868]

89. 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]

90. 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]

91. Lillybridge, Terry R.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Williams, Clinton K.; Smith, Bradley G. 1995. Field guide for forested plant associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 335 p. In cooperation with: Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National Forest. [29851]

92. Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; [and others]. 1981. Effects of fire on flora: A state-of-knowledge review: Proceedings of the national fire effects workshop; 1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p. [1475]

93. Lyon, L. Jack. 1976. Vegetal development on the Sleeping Child burn in western Montana, 1961 to 1973. Res. Pap. INT-184. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [138]

94. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1966. Two forest fires: and some specific implications in big-game management. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 46: 181-193. [17169]

95. 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]

96. 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]

97. Martinka, C. J. 1976. Fire and elk in Glacier National Park. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 377-389. [7523]

98. 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]

99. 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]

100. 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]

101. 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]

102. 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]

103. Miller, Melanie. 1976. Shrub sprouting response to fire in a Douglas-fir/western larch ecosystem. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 124 p. Thesis. [8945]

104. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]

105. Miller, Melanie. 1978. Effect of growing season on sprouting of blue huckleberry. Res. Note INT-240. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [6333]

106. Minore, Don. 1972. The wild huckleberries of Oregon and Washington -- a dwindling resource. PNW-143. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [8952]

107. Minore, Don. 1975. Observations on the rhizomes and roots of Vaccinium membranaceum. Res. Note PNW-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [4879]

108. Minore, Don. 1984. Vaccinium membranaceum berry production seven years after treatment to reduce overstory tree canopies. Northwest Science. 58(3): 208-212. [34955]

109. Minore, Don; Dubrasich, Michael E. 1978. Big huckleberry abundance as related to environment and associated vegetation near Mount Adams, Washington. Research Note PNW-322. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [1661]

110. Minore, Don; Smart, Alan W. 1975. Sweetness of huckleberries near Mount Adams, Washington. PNW-248. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [12489]

111. Minore, Don; Smart, Alan W.; Dubrasich, Michael E. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 50 p. [6336]

112. Neiland, Bonita J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn area of northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 39(4): 660-671. [8879]

113. Nelson, Eric A. 1974. Greenhouse and field fertilization of thin-leaved huckleberry. Res. Note PNW-236. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p. [35980]

114. Noble, William. 1985. Shepherdia canadensis: its ecology, distribution, and utilization by the grizzly bear. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT: 28 p. [14917]

115. Norton, Helen H.; Boyd, Robert; Hunn, Eugene. 1999. The Klikitat Trail of south-central Washington: A reconstruction of seasonally used resource sites. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 65-93. [35569]

116. Ogilve, R. T. 1990. Distribution and ecology of whitebark pine in western Canada. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 54-60. [11675]

117. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 391-420. [6273]

118. Oswald, E. T.; Brown, B. N. 1993. Vegetation development on skid trails and burned sites in southeastern British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle. 69(1): 75-80. [20566]

119. Patten, Robin S.; Knight, Dennis H. 1994. Snow avalanches and vegetation pattern in Cascade Canyon, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 26(1): 35-41. [23684]

120. 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]

121. Pierce, John D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to browse availability in north-central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62(12): 2404-2409. [12493]

122. Pojar, Jim; MacKinnon, Andy, eds. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 526 p. [25159]

123. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

124. Reichert, Chris. 1989. Silviculture in grizzly bear habitat. In: Silviculture for all resources: Proceedings of the national silviculture workshop; 1987 May 11-14; Sacramento, CA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 48-60. [6398]

125. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. [33881]

126. 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]

127. Ruediger, William; Mealey, Stephen. 1978. Coordination guidelines for timber harvesting in grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 44 p. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [19354]

128. Schoonmaker, Peter; McKee, Arthur. 1988. Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Forest Science. 34(4): 960-979. [6214]

129. Schwartz, John E., II; Mitchell, Glen E. 1945. The Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 295-319. [8878]

130. Scrivner, Jerry H.; Smith, H. Duane. 1984. Relative abundance of small mammals in four successional stages of spruce-fir forest in Idaho. Northwest Science. 58(3): 171-175. [14881]

131. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

132. Smith, Jane Kapler; Fischer, William C. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 142 p. [27992]

133. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Natural Heritage Program. (2000) Rare, threatened, and endangered plants, [Online]. Available: http://www.state.sd.us/gfp/Diversity/RarePlant.htm [2000, June 30]. [35589]

134. Stark, N. 1980. Light burning and the nutrient value of forage. Res. Note INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. [2223]

135. Stark, N.; Baker, Stephen. 1992. The ecology and culture of Montana huckleberries: A guide for growers and researchers. Miscellaneous Publication 52. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 87 p. [17878]

136. Stark, Nellie M. 1977. Fire and nutrient cycling in a Douglas-fir/larch forest. Ecology. 58: 16-30. [8618]

137. Stark, Nellie M. 1989. The ecology of Vaccinium globulare: seedling establishment and nutrition. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 164-168. [5946]

138. Steele, Robert W.; Stark, Nellie. 1977. Understory burning in larch/Douglas-fir forests as a management tool. Western Wildlands. 4(1): 25-29. [18761]

139. Steele, Robert. 1984. An approach to classifying seral vegetation within habitat types. Northwest Science. 58(1): 29-39. [2227]

140. Steele, Robert; Cooper, Stephen V.; Ondov, David M.; [and others]. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p. [2230]

141. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1987. The grand fir/blue huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-228. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 66 p. [8133]

142. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1991. Monitoring the effects of postfire grass seeding on the Lowman Burn. Unpublished first year progress report. 4 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17154]

143. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1995. Major Douglas-fir habitat types of central Idaho: a summary of succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p. [29363]

144. 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]

145. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]

146. Stewart, G. H. 1988. The influence of canopy cover on understory development in forests of the western Cascade Range, Oregon, USA. Vegetatio. 76: 79-88. [6631]

147. 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]

148. 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]

149. 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. 10 p. [20090]

150. Stiger, Everett M. 1980. Level I fire management analysis: The fire situation: Lewis and Clark National Forest: Phase I. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena National Forest. 31 p. [21209]

151. Thilenius, John Frederick. 1960. Forage utilization by cattle and white-tailed deer on a northern Idaho forest range. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [5910]

152. Topik, Christopher. 1989. Plant association and management guide for the grand fir zone, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-TP-006-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 110 p. [11361]

153. Turner, Nancy Chapman; Bell, Marcus A. M. 1973. The ethnobotany of the southern Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia. Economic Botany. 27: 257-310. [21015]

154. 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]

155. 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]

156. Vogl, Richard J.; Ryder, Calvin. 1969. Effects of slash burning on conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Science. 43(3): 135-147. [8546]

157. Voss, Edward G. 1996. Michigan flora. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae--Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. 622 p. [30401]

158. Waring, R. H. 1969. Forest plants of the eastern Siskiyous: their environment and vegetational distribution. Northwest Science. 43(1): 1-17. [9047]

159. Welch, Christy A.; Keay, Jeffrey; Kendall, Katherine C.; Robbins, Charles T. 1997. Constraints on frugivory by bears. Ecology. 78(4): 1105-1119. [27896]

160. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

161. Williams, Carroll B.; Dyrness, C. T. 1967. Some characteristics of forest floors and soils under true fir-hemlock stands in the Cascade Range. PNW-37. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p. [8181]

162. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]

163. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bulletin No. 9. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. [6831]

164. 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]

165. 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]

Related categories for SPECIES: Vaccinium membranaceum | Big Huckleberry