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

ABBREVIATION:

POPANG

SYNONYMS:

No entry

NRCS PLANT CODE: [89]

POAN3

COMMON NAMES:

narrowleaf cottonwood
mountain cottonwood

TAXONOMY:

The currently accepted scientific name of narrowleaf cottonwood is Populus angustifolia James (Salicaceae) [45,46,52,92].

Narrowleaf cottonwood hybridizes naturally with Fremont cottonwood (P. fremontii) [29], balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) [12,33,53], and eastern cottonwood (P. deltoides) [12,33].

LIFE FORM:

Tree

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

No entry

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Simonin, Kevin A. (2001, January). Populus angustifolia. 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:

Narrowleaf cottonwood occurs from southern British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan south to south-central California, Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico. It is common throughout Rocky Mountain region of western Montana, central and southern Idaho [36,46]. The Natural Resource Conservation Service's PLANTS database provides a map of narrowleaf cottonwood's distribution in the United States.

ECOSYSTEMS [30]:

FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands

STATES:

AZ	CA	CO	ID	MT
NE	NV	NM	ND	OR
SD	TX	UT	WA	WY

AB

BC

SK

MEXICO

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [9]:

4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER [55] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass-grama-buffalo grass

SAF COVER TYPES [26]:

210 Interior Douglas-fir
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [78]:

110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
302 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass
303 Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
418 Bigtooth maple
503 Arizona chaparral
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Narrowleaf cottonwood is a dominant species of Central Colorado riparian areas of upper foothills and lower montane zones [44]. It is also a principal tree species along streams of semiarid regions of southern Alberta [32]. Few narrowleaf cottonwood colonies are found east of the southern Sierra Nevada Crest [47]. Common plant associates of narrowleaf cottonwood are listed below.

Trees: In Colorado narrowleaf cottonwood is commonly found with box elder (Acer negundo), balsam poplar (P. balsamifera), Fremont cottonwood (P. fremontii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [1], ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), [1,44], Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) [43,44], and blue spruce (Picea pungens) [27]. In Arizona and New Mexico, white fir (Abies concolor), blue spruce, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) are common associates [7]. Limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Douglas-fir, eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) are common associates in Montana [40]. In Utah, water birch (Betula occidentalis), thinleaf alder (Alnus incana) [51], box elder, bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), Gambel oak, Fremont cottonwood, and Rocky Mountain juniper are common associates [68].

Shrubs:  In Colorado, Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), Saskatoon serviceberry (Almelanchier alnifolia) [1], willow (Salix spp.), water birch, thinleaf alder [1,44], red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) and mountain snowberry (S. oreophilus) are common associates of narrowleaf cottonwood [44]. In Arizona and New Mexico, thinleaf alder, Arizona alder (Alnus oblongifolia), willow, box elder, currant (Ribes spp.), and rose (Rosa spp.) are common [7]. In Montana, narrowleaf cottonwood is commonly found with red-osier dogwood, kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and Wood's rose [40]. In Utah common associates are rose, mountain snowberry, willow, and red-osier dogwood [68]. 

Graminoids:  In Colorado, narrowleaf cottonwood is commonly found with slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), nodding brome (Bromus anomalus), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and sedge (Carex spp.) [44]. In Montana, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), timothy (Phleum pratense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), bluegrass (Poa spp.), bearded wheatgrass (Elymus caninus), slender wheatgrass, other wheatgrasses (Triticeae), redtop (Agrostis gigantea), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) are common associates [40].

Forbs:  Northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), and American vetch (Vicia americana) are common associates of narrowleaf cottonwood in Colorado [44]. In Montana dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), white clover (Trifolium repens), and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) are common associates [40].

Published classifications listing narrowleaf cottonwood as an indicator or dominant are listed below:

Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and community type [1]
Classification of the riparian vegetation of the montane and subalpine zones in western Colorado [4]
Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south of the Mogollan Rim and southwestern New Mexico [7]
Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites [40]
Riparian reference area in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites [50]
Preliminary riparian community type classification for Nevada [59]
A physical and biological characterization of riparian habitat and its importance to wildlife in Wyoming [66]
Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho [68]
Plant associations (habitat types) of the forests and woodlands of Arizona and New Mexico [82]
Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico [86]
Riparian community type classification of eastern Idaho - western Wyoming [94]

---

VALUE AND USE

SPECIES: Populus angustifolia | Narrowleaf Cottonwood

---

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

WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE:

Narrowleaf cottonwood timber is strong, light weight, and resistant to impact and splitting [6], but susceptible to decay [51]. Historically, narrowleaf cottonwood was used for crates, boxes and pallets [6]. In Utah, fuelwood and fenceposts were common uses [51]. Narrowleaf cottonwood timber is also good for pulp [6,51].

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Riparian habitats are sites for many migratory and non-migratory wildlife species. Even where narrowleaf cottonwood communities do not directly benefit specific species, indirect benefits occur through maintenance of healthy streamside habitats. Narrowleaf cottonwood is an excellent bank stabilizing species [39,51], contributing to the development of stable riparian communities for use by wildlife. The clonal reproduction of established narrowleaf cottonwood stands leads to heterogeneous trunk size and spatial clumping, increasing habitat richness for wildlife [33]. Narrowleaf cottonwood and other Populus species community types in Colorado provide habitat for over 200 species of vertebrates [79].

Narrowleaf cottonwood provides good avian nesting and breeding habitat [75] for the greater pewee [15], sharp-shinned hawk [69], and bald eagle [85]. Narrowleaf cottonwood is a major food plant of beaver [57] and is most commonly harvested when greater than 1 inch (3 cm) d.b.h. [5].

PALATABILITY:

The palatability of narrowleaf cottonwood for livestock and wildlife species is rated as follows [21]:

	ND	UT	WY
Cattle	fair	----	----
Domestic sheep	fair	----	----
Horses	fair	----	----
Pronghorn	----	fair	poor
Elk	----	fair	good
Mule deer	----	fair	good
Small mammals	----	fair	good
Small nongame birds	----	fair	fair
Upland game birds	----	poor	poor
Waterfowl	----	fair	poor

Within streamside woodlands of Wyoming, narrowleaf cottonwood is relatively unpalatable to game and domestic livestock [8].

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

Nutritional value (mean %) of immature leaves of narrowleaf cottonwood is summarized below [64]:

	As feed	Dry
Dry matter	94.1	100.0
Ash	6.6	7.0
Crude fiber	13.1	13.9
Protein content	23.3	24.8
N-free extract	44.6	47.4
Ether extract	6.5	6.9
Digestible protein
Cattle	17.9	19.0
Domestic goats	18.5	19.7
Domestic sheep	18.9	20.1
Horses	17.5	18.6
Rabbits	16.8	17.8

COVER VALUE:

The degree to which narrowleaf cottonwood provides cover for wildlife species is rated as follows [21]:

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

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

No entry

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Anthropogenic modification of riparian systems may adversely affect ecosystem health. Drastic declines in the reproductive ability of cottonwoods and other native species is common. Disturbances such as irrigation diversions, reservoirs, farming, and grazing have profoundly altered natural stream ecology [20].

Dams: Dams alter annual water table fluctuations [48,58] by reducing downstream flow, altering sediment transport, decreasing organic matter transport, and decreasing sediment deposition [11,20]. These modifications to river hydrology generally have negative impacts on downstream narrowleaf cottonwood communities [11,48,72,73].

Annual spring flooding is a controlling factor behind species composition and population dynamics of narrowleaf cottonwood communities [48,60]. Annual floods usually coincide with seed dissemination [58]. Damming generally reduces the number and quality of narrowleaf cottonwood regeneration sites [48].

Recent studies [54,72,74] have focused on dam-related decreases in summer water tables. Many dams do not alter spring discharge. Dams that have no effect on spring discharge rates may not affect the production of alluvial deposits for narrowleaf cottonwood regeneration. However, seedling establishment is generally adversely affected by exposing seedlings to artificial drought [72]. Summer water table levels are a critical component of narrowleaf cottonwood establishment [54]. In Alberta narrowleaf cottonwood abundance declined from 1951 to 1994. Ground surveys conducted over 9 years (1985-1994) recorded an absence of seedlings and saplings. Declines were drought induced, through insufficient flow rates during summer months together with the abrupt reductions following high spring flow rates [74]. Narrowleaf cottonwood seedlings are not tolerant of abrupt declines in water table levels. Slow daily declines of 1.6 inches per day (4.0 cm/day) in water table levels over a 28-day period were found to stimulate root growth without causing profound decreases in shoot height. Larger declines of 4 inches per day  (10 cm/day) drastically slowed shoot height [54]. See "Other Management Considerations" within the "Management Considerations, Value and Use" section of black cottonwood for further information on the effects of watercourse damming and stream diversion on narrowleaf and other cottonwoods.

Grazing: Damage from livestock grazing (defoliation, soil compaction, or floodplain water table subsidence due to channel widening or downcutting) has decreased cottonwood (Populus spp.) populations [17]. Grazing disturbance may initiate stable communities of invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), dandelion, and white clover [44].

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

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Narrowleaf cottonwood is a native deciduous tree with a slender crown [45]. It attains heights up to 60 feet (20 m) [91]; trunks can exceed 30 inches (76 cm) in diameter [57]. The bark of narrowleaf cottonwood is smooth when young, becoming furrowed with age [,39]. Narrowleaf cottonwood is dioecious [10,11,24]. Flowers are borne in catkins, with male flowers smaller than female flowers. Seeds are very small and have cotton tufts [11].

Narrowleaf cottonwood is reported as a facultative wetland species tolerant of frequent and prolonged flooding [39]. It is not drought resistant [31] and is extremely vulnerable to drought induced xylem cavitation [88].

A life span of 100 to 200 years is not uncommon [5].

RAUNKIAER [71] LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Narrowleaf cottonwood shows both asexual and sexual regeneration. Channel narrowing and redistribution of sediment are the 2 main fluvial processes providing suitable narrowleaf cottonwood establishment sites [62].

Sexual: Pollen is wind dispersed with fertilization occurring within 24 hours of pollination. Subsequent seed maturation is temperature dependent, generally requiring 3 to 6 weeks. Seed dispersal through wind and water is aided by fluffy cottonlike hairs [11].

Narrowleaf cottonwood seeds possess a small window of viability [33], generally 2 days [57]. Seeds readily germinate when deposited in favorable environments. Successful germination and establishment is dependent upon a suite of abiotic and biotic conditions, with insolation and moisture availability the most limiting factors. Seedlings require wet alluvium in full sunlight [11,18,57].  Narrowleaf cottonwood seedlings are poor competitors in vegetated sites because lack of endosperm food reserves limits successful establishment in shaded areas [11]. Baker [3] found narrowleaf cottonwood seedlings uncommon in stands older than 45 to 60 years. Seedlings are intolerant of dry conditions [11,18] and are most vulnerable during summer drought [11,54,72] before roots reach late-season alluvial water tables [11].

Asexual: Narrowleaf cottonwood sprouts from the root crown and roots [11,33,77]. Sprouting is often linked to disturbance that scarifies stems and/or roots [33]. Narrowleaf cottonwood also sprouts from branch and root fragments when adequate sediment deposition is present [33,54]. Vegetative propagation is a dominant mode of reproduction within foothill rivers and relatively clear streams with coarse substrates [73], promoting colonization of bare gravel bars [39]. Steep gradients, coarse streambeds, and constrained channels also promote clonal regeneration [33]. 

Cloning is important in narrowleaf cottonwood gallery maintenance. Male and female trees have similar clonal abilities. In southern Alberta, Gom and Rood [33] found cloning was important to narrowleaf cottonwood population structure and expansion. Ramet spacing ranged from inches to 164 feet (50 m) depending upon mechanism of clonal propagation. Shoot sprouting produced tightly clustered clones around buried root crowns. Root suckers produced wider spacing than shoot sprouting. Beavers influenced clonal propagation, perpetuating clonal expansion and encouraging regeneration near stream channels. 

Schier and Cambell [77] found the majority of root suckers occurred from suppressed buds embedded in periderm of undisturbed roots after death or injury of aboveground parts. Roots with damaged vascular cambium were most likely to sprout.

Branch fragments provide an important mode of asexual propagation. Beavers, high winds, heavy rain, hail, snow, and flooding all produce branch fragments capable of regeneration. Branches have the ability to impede stream flow and trap sediment for localized deposition, and may promote narrowleaf cottonwood establishment in areas lacking unvegetated sediment deposits [54].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Narrowleaf cottonwood is common to alluvial benches of high plains to low mountains [46]. It occurs on a wide range of soil textures [39], inhabiting loamy sand to sandy loam with high percentages of coarse fragments [44], and gravel bars [39].

Regional: Narrowleaf cottonwood is rare in California where it is restricted to mid-elevation streamsides [45]. It is common to drainages greater than 6,000 feet (1828 m) in Arizona [6]. Narrow benches, small streams, and floodplains of larger streams are common sites in central Colorado [44]. In Montana, narrowleaf cottonwood is most abundant on medium to coarse-textured, well-drained soils [39]. Mid- to high-elevation streambanks or canyon bottoms are common sites in Utah [51].

The elevational ranges for narrowleaf cottonwood in several states are listed below:

Arizona	6,200 to 7,700 feet (1,900-2,350 m) [28]
California	3,937 to 5,905 feet (1,200-1,800 m) [45]
Colorado	5,000 to 8,000 feet (1,900-2,450 m) [42]
Eastern Idaho	< 6,700 feet (2,000 m) [9]
Southern Idaho	5,000 to 6,000 feet (1,500-1,800 m) [95]
New Mexico	6,200 to 7,700 feet (1,900-2,350 m) [28]
Texas	> 3,500 feet (1,000 m) [19]
Northern Utah	5,000 to 6,000 feet (1,500-1,800 m) [95]
Southern Utah	6,200 to 8,000 feet (1,900-2,450 m) [67]
Western Wyoming	< 6,700 feet (2,000 m) [9]

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Narrowleaf cottonwood is a rapidly growing pioneer species, showing natural stand replacement adjacent to riparian systems with undisturbed hydrology. However, narrowleaf cottonwood shows slower growth rates than the majority of cottonwood species, requiring a longer time for adequate establishment  [81].

Although successional events in communities dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood are different between sites, common attributes are shared. Narrowleaf cottonwood colonizes moist, barren, newly deposited alluvium exposed to full sunlight. Shade intolerance, and lack of successful sexual regeneration under its own canopy prevent narrowleaf cottonwood communities from achieving climax status. In Montana Hansen and others [40] observed asexual sprouting within narrowleaf cottonwood communities, but sustained population maintenance was limited. They considered eventual replacement of narrowleaf cottonwood by later stages inevitable. Merigliano [62] provides a detailed outline of narrowleaf cottonwood ecology and other associated riparian species of the South Fork Snake River, Idaho. Successional trends in narrowleaf cottonwood communities are provided by Hall and Hansen [38] for southern and eastern Idaho.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Phenological development of narrowleaf cottonwood is directly related to annual hydrologic events [72]. Flowering and pollination generally coincide with springtime peaks in river flow [11]. Catkins appear before leaf emergence [57] on twigs of the previous year [23] from specialized buds of preformed inflorescences [24]. Male flowers appear earlier than females with both occurring approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to leaf initiation. Seed dispersal generally coincides with annual declines in river flow [11].

In general, flowering occurs May to June with leaf fall taking place from mid-September to October [34]. Leaf primordia are formed in the fall. New leaves continue to form throughout the growing season [24].

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Narrowleaf cottonwood can resprout from the roots, root crown, and/or healthy and fire damaged branches after fire [32]. The ability to resprout from branch fragments may also aid in postfire establishment. Fire generally increases the sediment load in streams when the majority of bank stabilizing vegetation is consumed [35]. Narrowleaf cottonwood branch fragments have the ability to trap sediment for localized deposition by impeding stream flow. Fresh, moist, barren alluvium in full sun is very important in the regeneration of narrowleaf cottonwood [11,18,57].

The role of fire in riparian plant community dynamics is closely related to geology and hydrology. Fire alters erosion processes with the magnitude and scale of effects directly related to the size and severity of fire, the topographical components of the stream system, and the size of stream, in conjunction with the amount, intensity, and timing of postfire precipitation. Streamside soils are highly erodible when the majority of vegetation and duff has been removed by fire. Large amounts of precipitation and other hydrologic events that occur soon after fire may result in drastic channel alteration. However, newly deposited alluvium and changes in channel morphology usually increase habitat complexity [35]. In general, fire-induced channel alterations occur most readily during the first 10 postfire years.

Hungerford and others [49] view the role of fire, in what they refer to as wetland systems, as being closely related to adequate ignition sources, the frequency and duration of favorable fire weather, and annual hydrology. Susceptibility to burning increases when annual dry periods are consistent, especially with the accumulation of dead biomass. Fine dead fuels can burn intensely during periods of low humidity, even when the underlying soil is saturated. Upland ecosystems often dictate the frequency of ignitions [49].

The following table provides some fire regime intervals for communities adjacent to narrowleaf cottonwood:

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
maple-beech-birch	Acer-Fagus-Betula	> 1000
sagebrush steppe	Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata	20-70 [13]
basin big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata	12-43 [76]
mountain big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana	5-15 [93]
Wyoming big sagebrush	Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis	10-70 (40)** [90,93]
desert grasslands	Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica	5-100
plains grasslands	Bouteloua spp.	< 35
Rocky Mountain juniper	Juniperus scopulorum	< 35
wheatgrass plains grasslands	Pascopyrum smithii	< 35
blue spruce*	Picea pungens	35-200
pinyon-juniper	Pinus-Juniperus spp.	< 35
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine*	Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum	2-10 [13]
quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains)	Populus tremuloides	7-120 [13,37,61]
mountain grasslands	Pseudoroegneria spicata	3-40 (10)**
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir*	Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca	25-100 [2]
elm-ash-cottonwood	Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp.	< 35 to 200 [13]

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

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [80]:

Tree with adventitious bud/root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)

• 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:

Fire will partially or completely kill narrowleaf cottonwood depending upon severity. Mature narrowleaf cottonwood possesses thick-furrowed bark; however, the bark does not always provide adequate insulation, leaving trunks vulnerable to heat-induced xylem cavitation and scarring. Even low-severity fires may wound trees, resulting in either complete or partially killed crowns [32]. Due to limited root systems, narrowleaf cottonwood seedlings and saplings on well-drained alluvial bars are very susceptible to severe fires [41].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

No entry

Narrowleaf cottonwood resprouts from roots,  healthy and fire damaged branches, and root crowns  [32]. Postfire sprouting generally occurs after light- to moderate-severity fire in pole sized and recently mature stands [41].

The ability to produce postfire sprouts is greatly affected by stand age and location of the water table. Sprouting potential decreases proportionally as mature trees age. High water tables aid in the sprouting ability and subsequent sprout survival [38]. See "Plant Response to Fire" in the "Fire Effects" section of the FEIS summary of  black cottonwood for further information on sprouting response of narrowleaf and other cottonwoods.

Gom and Rood [32] observed copious sprouting 5 months after a severe April wildfire along the Oldman River near Lethbridge, Alberta. Newly emerged sprouts were observed by 2 postfire months. Buried root crowns of stems less than 3.9 inches (10 cm) diameter were found to produce new adventitious sprouts even when completely burned,  sometimes to several centimeters below the soil surface. Copious sprouting may occur from buried roots of live trunks with all severities of damage [32]. No evaluations of natural postfire establishment through seed are currently available. 

Due to decreased probability of postfire sprouting by older mature tress, prescribed fires in narrowleaf cottonwood stands are not recommended past pole and early maturation stages of development [38]. Livestock grazing should be excluded for at least five years after fire, with wildlife browsing monitored [40].

Populus angustifolia: References

1. Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and community type. Res. Note RM-478. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [9092]

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

3. Baker, William L. 1988. Size-class structure of contiguous riparian woodlands along a Rocky Mountain river. Physical Geography. 9(1): 1-14. [9269]

4. Baker, William L. 1989. Classification of the riparian vegetation of the montane and subalpine zones in western Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(2): 214-228. [7985]

5. Baker, William L. 1990. Climatic and hydrologic effects on the regeneration of Populus angustifolia James along the Animas River, Colorado. Journal of Biogeography. 17(1): 59-73. [13236]

6. Barger, Roland L.; Ffolliott, Peter L. 1971. Prospects for cottonwood utilization in Arizona. Progressive Agriculture in Arizona. 23(3): 14-16. [8921]

7. Bassett, R.; Larson, M.; Moir, W. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim and southwestern New Mexico. 2nd edition. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. [Pages unknown]. [20308]

8. 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]

9. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

10. Bottorff, Richard L. 1974. Cottonwood habitat for birds in Colorado. American Birds. 28(6): 975-979. [6309]

11. Braatne, Jeffrey H.; Rood, Stewart B.; Heilman, Paul E. 1996. Life history, ecology, and conservation of riparian cottonwoods in North America. In: Steller, R. F., ed. Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, NRC Research Press: 57-85. [29693]

12. Brayshaw, T. Christopher. 1976. Catkin bearing plants of British Columbia. Occas. Pap. No. 18. Victoria, BC: The British Columbia Provincial Museum. 176 p. [6170]

13. 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]

14. Carlson, Jack R.; Conaway, Gary L.; Gibbs, Jacy L.; Hoag, J. Chris. 1992. Design criteria for revegetation in riparian zones of the Intermountain area. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 145-150. [19109]

15. Chace, Jameson F.; McKinney, Shawn T.; Cruz, Alexander. 2000. Nest-site characteristics and nesting success of the greater pewee in Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(2): 169-275. [35930]

16. Chambers, Jeanne C.; Sidle, Roy C. 1991. Fate of heavy metals in an abandoned lead-zinc tailings pond: I. Vegetation. Journal of Environmental Quality. 20(4): 745-751. [34948]

17. Clary, Warren P.; Shaw, Nancy L.; Dudley, Jonathan G.; [and others]. 1996. Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. Res. Pap. INT-RP-492. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 32 p. [27300]

18. Cooper, David J.; Merritt, David M.; Andersen, Douglas C.; Chimner, Rodney A. 1999. Factors controlling the establishment of Fremont cottonwood seedlings on the Upper Green River, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 15(5): 419-440. [35952]

19. Correll, Donovan S.; Johnston, Marshall C. 1970. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Renner, TX: Texas Research Foundation. 1881 p. [4003]

20. Dahms, Cathy W.; Geils, Brian W., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 97 p. [28047]

21. 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]

22. Durkin, Paula; Muldavin, Esteban; Bradley, Mike; Carr, Stacey E. 1996. A preliminary riparian/wetland vegetation community classification of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande watersheds in New Mexico. In: Shaw, Douglas W.; Finch, Deborah M., technical coordinators. Desired future conditions for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together: Proceedings; 1995 September 18-22; Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 44-57. [26192]

23. Eckenwalder, James E. 1992. Salicaceae: Willow family. Part one: Populus. In: A new flora for Arizona in preparation. In: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 26(1): 29-33. [21485]

24. Eckenwalder, James E. 1996. Systematics and evolution of Populus. In: Stettler, R. F.; Bradshaw, H. D., Jr.; Heilman, P. E.; Hinckley, T. M., eds. Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, NRC Research Press: 7-32. [28505]

25. Ernst, Stephen G.; Fechner, Gilbert H. 1981. Variation in rooting and juvenile growth phenology of narrowleaf cottonwood in Colorado. In: Proceedings, 2nd north central tree improvement conference; [Date unknown]; [Location unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 111-118. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [34938]

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

27. Fechner, Gilbert H. 1985. Silvical characteristics of blue spruce. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-117. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p. [7478]

28. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206]

29. Floate, Kevin D.; Kearsley, Michael J. C.; Whitham, Thomas G. 1993. Elevated herbivory in plant hybrid zones: Chrysomela confluens, Populus and phenological sinks. Ecology. 74(7): 2056-2065. [34983]

30. 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]

31. George, Ernest J. 1953. Tree and shrub species for the Northern Great Plains. Circular No. 912. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [4566]

32. Gom, Lori A.; Rood, Stewart B. 1999. Fire induces clonal sprouting of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(11): 1604-1616. [35953]

33. Gom, Lori A.; Rood, Stewart B. 1999. Patterns of clonal occurrence in a mature cottonwood grove along the Oldman River, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(8): 1095-1105. [33063]

34. Gom, Lori A.; Rood, Stewart B. 1999. The discrimination of cottonwood clones in a mature grove along the Oldman River in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(8): 1084-1094. [33062]

35. Gresswell, Robert E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128(2): 192-221. [31018]

36. Griffin, James R.; Critchfield, William B. 1972. The distribution of forest trees in California. Res. Pap. PSW-82. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 118 p. [1041]

37. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [3862]

38. Hall, James B.; Hansen, Paul L. 1997. A preliminary riparian habitat type classification system for the Bureau of Land Management Districts in southern and eastern Idaho. Tech. Bull. No. 97-11. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Riparian and Wetland Research Program. 381 p. [28173]

39. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]

40. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]

41. Hansen, Paul; Boggs, Keith; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in central and eastern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian Association. 279 p. [12477]

42. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]

43. Herman, F. R. 1958. Silvical characteristics of Rocky Mountain juniper. Station Paper No. 29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [16920]

44. Hess, Karl; Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-266. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1141]

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

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

47. Holstein, Glen. 1984. California riparian forests: deciduous islands in an evergreen sea. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 2-22. [5830]

48. Hughes, F. M. R. 1994. Environmental change, disturbance and regeneration in semi-arid floodplain forests. In: Millington, A. C.; Pye, K., eds. Environmental change in drylands: biogeographical and geomorphological perspectives. [Place of publication unknown]: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 321-345. [26800]

49. Hungerford, Roger D.; Frandsen, William H.; Ryan, Kevin C. 1995. Ignition and burning characteristics of organic soils. In: Cerulean, Susan I.; Engstrom, R. Todd, eds. Fire in wetlands: a management perspective: Proceedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1993 November 3-6; Tallahassee, FL. No. 19. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 78-91. [25776]

50. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 141 p. [29900]

51. Johnson, Carl M. 1970. Common native trees of Utah. Special Report 22. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. [9785]

52. 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]

53. Keim, Paul; Paige, Ken N.; Whitham, Thomas G.; Lark, Karl G. 1989. Genetic analysis of an interspecific hybrid swarm of Populus: occurrence of unidirectional introgression. Genetics. 123(3): 557-565. [34933]

54. Kranjcec, Julie; Mahoney, John M.; Rood, Stewart B. 1998. The responses of three riparian cottonwood species to water table decline. Forest Ecology and Management. 110: 77-87. [35957]

55. 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]

56. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [1387]

57. Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p. [1401]

58. Manci, Karen M. 1989. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary. Biol. Rep.89(20). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 60 p. [11757]

59. Manning, Mary E.; Padgett, Wayne G. 1989. Preliminary riparian community type classification for Nevada. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 135 p. Preliminary draft. [11531]

60. McCord, V. Alexander S. 1996. Flood history reconstruction in Frijoles Canyon using flood-scarred trees. In: Allen, Craig D., ed. Fire effects in southwestern forests: Proceedings, 2nd La Mesa fire symposium; 1994 March 29-31; Los Alamos, NM. RM-GTR-286. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 114-122. [27286]

61. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [26669]

62. Minckley, W. L.; Brown, David E. 1982. Wetlands. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 223-287. [8898]

63. Myers, Charles C.; Buchman, Roland G. 1984. Manager's handbook for elm-ash-cottonwood in the North Central States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-98. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 11 p. [8919]

64. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 p. [1731]

65. Oldemeyer, J. L. 1974. Nutritive value of moose forage. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 101: 217-226. [13118]

66. Olson, R. A.; Gerhart, W. A. 1982. A physical and biological characterization of riparian habitat and its importance to wildlife in Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 188 p. [6755]

67. Padgett, W. G.; Youngblood, A. P. 1986. Riparian community type classification of southern Utah. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ecology and Classification Program. 57 p. [Preliminary draft]. [5899]

68. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. [11360]

69. Platt, Joseph B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. The Condor. 78(1): 102-103. [23781]

70. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]

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

72. Rood, Stewart B.; Heinze-Milne, Sig. 1989. Abrupt downstream forest decline following river damming in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67(6): 1744-1749. [34956]

73. Rood, Stewart B.; Mahoney, John M. 1993. River damming and riparian cottonwoods: management opportunities and problems. In: Tellman, Barbara; Cortner, Hanna J.; Wallace, Mary G.; [and others], technical coordinators. Riparian mgmt: common threads & shared interests: A western regional conference on river mgmt. strategies: Proceedings; 1993 February 4-6; Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-226. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 134-143. [22186]

74. Rood, Stewart B.; Mahoney, John M.; Reid, David E.; Zilm, Leslie. 1995. Instream flows and the decline of riparian cottonwoods along the St. Mary River, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 73: 1250-1260. [25942]

75. Saab, Victoria A. 1992. Small land birds breeding in cottonwood riparian forests of southeastern Idaho. Northwest Environmental Journal. 8(1): 226-228. [23438]

76. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579]

77. Schier, George A.; Campbell, Robert B. 1976. Differences among Populus species in ability to form adventitious shoots and roots. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 253-261. [3919]

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

79. Snyder, Warren D.; Miller, Gary C. 1992. Changes in riparian vegetation along the Colorado River and Rio Grande, Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(4): 357-363. [20138]

80. 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]

81. Stromberg, J. C. 1993. Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forests: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences. 27(1): 97-110. [29724]

82. Stuever, Mary C.; Hayden, John S. 1996. Plant associations (habitat types) of the forests and woodlands of Arizona and New Mexico. Final report submitted to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Contract R3-95-27. Placitas, NM: Seldom Seen Expeditions, Inc. 520 p. [28868]

83. Swenson, E. A. 1988. Progress in the understanding of how to reestablish native riparian plants in New Mexico. In: Mutz, K. M.; Cooper, D. J.; Scott, M. L.; Miller, L. K., tech. coords. Restoration, creation and management of wetland and riparian ecosystems in the American West: Proceedings; [Date unknown]; [Location unknown]. Denver, CO: Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain Chapter: 144-150. [36362]

84. Swenson, E. A.; Mullins, C. L. 1985. Revegetating riparian trees in southwestern floodplains. In: Johnson, R. R.; [and others]. Ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 135-138. [36526]

85. Swenson, Jon E.; Alt, Kurt L.; Eng, Robert L. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs No. 95. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 46 p. [10513]

86. Szaro, Robert C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants. 9(3-4): 70-138. [604]

87. Szaro, Robert C. 1990. Southwestern riparian plant communities: site characteristics, tree species distributions, and size-class structures. Forest Ecology and Management. 33/34: 315-334. [10031]

88. Tyree, Melvin T.; Kolb, Kimberley J.; Rood, Stewart B.; Patino, Sandra. 1994. Vulnerability to drought-induced cavitation of riparian cottonwoods in Alberta: a possible factor in the decline of the ecosystem? Tree Physiology. 14: 455-466. [23686]

89. 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]

90. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco Area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]

91. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

92. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]

93. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]

94. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Padgett, Wayne G.; Winward, Alma H. 1985. Riparian community type classification of eastern Idaho - western Wyoming. R4-Ecol-85-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p. [2686]

95. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Padgett, Wayne G.; Winward, Alma H. 1985. Riparian community type classification of northern Utah and adjacent Idaho. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ecology and Classification Program. 104 p. [Preliminary draft]. [3054]

Related categories for SPECIES: Populus angustifolia | Narrowleaf Cottonwood