Potentilla glandulosa



INTRODUCTORY


Photo Ben Legler


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Reeves, Sonja L. 2008. Potentilla glandulosa. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
POTGLA

NRCS PLANT CODE [71]:
POGL9
POGLA
POGLA2
POGLE
POGLG3
POGLG4
POGLG5
POGLH
POGLM
POGLN
POGLP
POGLR3

COMMON NAMES:
sticky cinquefoil
gland cinquefoil

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of sticky cinquefoil is Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. (Rosaceae) [12,13,14,22,27,28,29,35,41,74]. There are 11 recognized subspecies of sticky cinquefoil. Throughout this review, subspecies will be identified using scientific names.

Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. arizonica (Rydb.) Keck [29], Arizona cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. ashlandica (Greene) Keck, Ashland cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. ewanii Keck [22], Ewan's cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. glabrata (Rydb.) Keck [28], sticky cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. glandulosa [22,28,75], sticky cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. globosa Keck [22], sticky cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. hansenii (Greene) Keck [22,28], Hansen's cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. micropetala (Rydb.) Keck [28], smallpetal cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. nevadensis (Watson) Keck, Nevada cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. pseudorupestris (Rydb.) Keck [22,28], sticky cinquefoil
Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. reflexa (Greene) Keck [22,28,75], sticky cinquefoil

Sticky cinquefoil hybridizes with beach strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) [32].

SYNONYMS:
for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. glandulosa:

Drymocallis glandulosa (Lindl.) Rydb. [72,73]
Potentilla glandulosa var. glandulosa [20]

for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. glabrata:

Potentilla glandulosa var. intermedia (Rydb.) Hitch. [20,23,35,74]

for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. micropetala:

Potentilla glandulosa var. micropetala (Rydb.) Welsh & Johnst. [74]

for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. nevadensis:

Potentilla glandulosa var. nevadensis Watson [12,23]

for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. pseudorupestris:

Potentilla glandulosa var. pseudorupestris (Rydb.) Breit. [12,15,20,23,35]

for Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. subsp. reflexa:

Potentilla glandulosa var. reflexa [23]

LIFE FORM:
Forb

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
Information on state-level protected status of sticky cinquefoil in the United States and Canada is available at Nature Serve.


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Potentilla glandulosa
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Sticky cinquefoil occurs from Alberta and British Columbia in the north; south to California, Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Baja California; and east to South Dakota [23,27,29,75]. Distribution of subspecies of Potentilla glandulosa is as follows [23,27,75]:

P. g. subsp.arizonica - Arizona and Utah

P. g. subsp. ashlandica - California and Oregon

P. g. subsp. ewanii - California

P. g. subsp. glabrata - Alberta and British Columbia, south to Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Baja California and east to South Dakota. It does not occur in California.

P. g. subsp. glandulosa - extends from British Columbia south through Idaho, Montana, Nevada and west to the Pacific Coast also found in Baja California

P. g. subsp.globosa - California and Oregon

P. g. subsp. hansenii - California and Nevada

P. g. subsp. micropetala - Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada

P. g. subsp. nevadensis - Montana, Idaho, and Nevada west to the Pacific Coast

P. g. subsp. pseudorupestris - British Columbia and Alberta south to Utah and California

P. g. subsp. reflexa - Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Baja California

Plants Database provides a distributional map of sticky cinquefoil and its subspecies.

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Sticky cinquefoil is most commonly described as occurring in forests and woodlands throughout its range, but it also occurs in sagebrush and grassland communities [12,18,19,51,58].

Sticky cinquefoil is dominant in the Hood's sedge (Carex hoodii)-sticky cinquefoil potential vegetation type in "cold upland herb" areas of the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho [55].


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Potentilla glandulosa

Photo by Margo Bors

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available: [12,13,14,22,28,35,72,73].

Sticky cinquefoil is a highly variable perennial forb [1]. Erect stems arise 4 to 24 inches (10-60 cm) from a loosely branched caudex. The mostly basal leaves are pinnately compound and sharply serrate. Leaves and stems are glandular pubescent. Flowers are few to many in a flat-topped cyme. Fruits are glabrous achenes [1,4,12,22,35,41,53,74].

Sticky cinquefoil is generally a non-rhizomatous species [33]. However, rhizomes were described for populations occurring in New Mexico [41], the Great Plains of South Dakota and Wyoming [20], west-central Montana [35], the Intermountain West [12], and the Pacific Northwest [23].

RAUNKIAER [57] LIFE FORM:
Chamaephyte
Hemicryptophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Sticky cinquefoil regenerates from seed [9,33,34,66] and by sprouting from the caudex. Some subspecies may regenerate from rhizomes [12,20,23,35,41].

Pollination: Sticky cinquefoil is animal pollinated [52].

Breeding system: No information is available on this topic.

Seed production: Sticky cinquefoil produces "numerous seeds" [74], but studies quantifying seed production are lacking.

Seed dispersal: Sticky cinquefoil has no long-distance dispersal method. Most seeds fall directly beneath the parent plant [33].

Seed banking: Sticky cinquefoil stores seed in the soil [9,33,34,66]. The length of time soil-stored seed remains viable is unknown, but Kramer [33] states that the ability to survive for "long periods" as buried seed is critical for early-seral, non-rhizomatous species such as sticky cinquefoil.

Sticky cinquefoil seed was common in soil samples taken from Douglas-fir/ninebark (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus), grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple (Abies grandis/Acer glabrum), and grand fir/thinleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) habitat types in west-central Idaho. The highest concentration of viable seeds was found in the top 2 inches (5 cm) of soil, but viable seeds were also recovered from the 2- to 4-inch (5-10 cm) depth [33,34]. Sticky cinquefoil germinated from the 0- to 0.8-inch (0-2 cm) layer of a soil sample taken from a mixed conifer stand in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. It was not present in the aboveground vegetation [69].

Sticky cinquefoil seeds germinated from burned and unburned soil samples collected from different community types within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem [9]. See Discussion and Qualification of Fire Effect for further information.

Germination: Sticky cinquefoil seeds are stimulated to germinate by warm temperatures, and germination may be enhanced by a stratification period [4,17,49,64,66]. Sticky cinquefoil germinates on bare soil in full sun and often germinates profusely following scarification resulting from either mechanical treatments or heavy livestock use [64,66]. In a greenhouse, fresh, untreated sticky cinquefoil seeds germinated 9 days after being sown [49].

Germination of sticky cinquefoil seeds was enhanced by 1 month of stratification at 4 C under wet conditions. Germination tests were conducted on sticky cinquefoil seeds collected in early August in southeastern Montana. Stratification promoted germination of seeds 6 to 12 months old. A 1-month stratification was sufficient, and no improvement resulted from a longer stratification period. Germination improved with seed age for unstratified samples [17]:

Germination of sticky cinquefoil seeds with different length of storage, stratification, temperature, and light treatments [17]
Storage conditions Seed age (months) Stratification Temperature (C) Light (hours) Percent germination Days to 50% germination
20 C dry 8 1 month/4 C wet 20/5* 14 92 4
20 C dry 6 1 month/4 C wet 20 14 89 4
20 C dry 12 1 month/4 C wet 30/20 14 86 2
20 C dry 12 none 20/5 14 49 16
20 C dry 3 none 20 none 8 24
*Cooler temperatures are during the dark period

Sticky cinquefoil seeds collected from subalpine rangelands in Utah and Montana and scarified with sulfuric acid exhibited 73% germination under alternating temperatures of 63/54 F (17/12 C). Germination rate increased to 87% under alternating temperatures of 90/72 F (32/22 C) [45].

Seedling establishment/growth: No information is available on this topic.

Vegetative regeneration: Some subspecies of sticky cinquefoil have rhizomes [12,20,23,35,41]. However, no descriptions of vegetative regeneration in sticky cinquefoil were found in available literature.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
In coastal British Columbia, sticky cinquefoil occurs on and is an indicator of "moderately dry" to fresh, nitrogen-medium soils in temperate, cool semiarid, and mesothermal climates. Occurrence of sticky cinquefoil increases with increasing temperatures and distance from the coast and decreases with increasing latitude [31]. The following table provides site descriptions for some areas where sticky cinquefoil occurs.

Site descriptions for sticky cinquefoil

State, Region or Province Subspecies Site Characteristics
Arizona P. g. subsp.arizonica wet places, 5,000 to 8,000 feet [29]
California ...* near coastline to 12,000 feet [10,22]
P. g. subsp. ashlandica moist places, 3,000 to 8,500 feet
P. g. subsp. ewanii edges of seeps and small waterways, 6,200 to 7,900 feet
P. g. subsp. glandulosa generally shady or cleared slopes below 3,900 feet
P. g. subsp. globosa dry rocky slopes, 4,600 to 8,200 feet
P. g. subsp. hansenii moist meadows, 3,900 to 7,200 feet
P. g. subsp. nevadensis moist, often rocky places, 5,900 to 12,000 feet
P. g. subsp. pseudorupestris rocky areas, 7,900 to 12,000 feet
P. g. subsp. reflexa moist or shaded places, 1,600 to 8,500 feet [22]
P. g. subsp. reflexa scarce along seep in upper Heryford Canyon; north flank of Sawmill Mountain in the Liebre Mountains [5]
Idaho P. g. subsp. pseudorupestris dry subalpine ridges, Kane Lake Cirque in the Pioneer Mountains [50]
Montana P. g. subsp. pseudorupestris common in dry habitats such as rock outcrops and talus slopes, from foothills to timberline in the west-central part of the state
P. g. subsp. glabrata sandy or gravelly, deep soils; often in partial shade; from canyons up to the lower subalpine zone of the Bitterroot Mountains [35]
... montane forests/subalpine meadows in the Pryor Mountains [43]
Nevada ... moist meadows, open slopes, woods, and rocky places along mountain streambanks, valley sagebrush, and yellow pine zones [28]
P. g. subsp. nevadensis frequent on open slopes in mountain brush and aspen zones in the Ruby and East Humboldt mountains
P. g. subsp. pseudorupestris occasionally found on open slopes in mountain brush and aspen zones in the Ruby and East Humboldt mountains [39]
New Mexico ... wet meadows, 7,000 to 9,000 feet [41]
South Dakota ... rocky places and slopes in the Black Hills [13]
Utah P. g. subsp. micropetala sagebrush, mountain brush, upwards to alpine meadows, 4,700 to 9,800 feet
P. g. subsp. glabrata mountain brush, pine, aspen, and spruce-fir communities, often in meadows at 6,200 to 10,000 feet [74]
Washington ... dry, rocky slopes in Mount Rainier National Park [63]
Great Plains P. g. subsp. glabrata common on hillsides and rocky, open woods [20]
Baja California P. g. subsp. glandulosa open coastal hills and rocky mesas
P. g. subsp. reflexa mountain meadows and hillsides [75]
British Columbia ... non-forested communities and open-canopy forests on water-shedding sites [31]
*subspecies not given

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Sticky cinquefoil is an early-seral, shade-intolerant species [33,65,66] that establishes and/or increases following fire, logging, and grazing [7,8,19,44,77]. Sticky cinquefoil is not a common component of mature forest vegetation [33]. However, it can persist on old fields for several decades after abandonment [26].

Sticky cinquefoil was prominent the 1st and 2nd year following logging on ponderosa pine-pinegrass-elk sedge (Pinus ponderosa-Calamagrostis rubescens-Carex geyeri) sites in eastern Oregon. It was not abundant prior to logging [19]. Sticky cinquefoil increased in the first 5 years after clearcutting in a northern Sierra Nevada stand dominated by Pacific ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa var. ponderosa) on the Challenge Experimental Forest. It was not stated whether it was present in the stand before logging [44]:

Sticky cinquefoil abundance after clearcutting in a forest dominated by Pacific ponderosa pine [44]
Years after clearcutting 1 5
Frequency (%) 5 13
Cover (ft/acre) <1.0 83

Sticky cinquefoil occurred in Douglas-fir/ninebark communities in northern Idaho that had a history of disturbance since 1900, including various combinations of burning, logging, and grazing. The greatest cover and frequency (0.6 and 3.7%, respectively) occurred in areas that were both logged and grazed. Sticky cinquefoil was not reported on sites with no record of disturbance since 1900 [7,8]. In a northwestern Montana subalpine fir/queencup beadlily (Abies lasiocarpa/Clintonia uniflora) habitat type, sticky cinquefoil occurred with an average of 0.5% cover and 6% frequency on "old burns" (35-70 years old) and an average of 0.5% cover and 39% frequency on clearcut sites (15-35 years old) where slash was mechanically piled and burned. It was not observed on clearcut sites where slash was broadcast burned or not treated, and it was not found on undisturbed sites [77].

Sticky cinquefoil was most strongly associated with untreated stands in the stem exclusion stage of development in northeastern Oregon ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests. Sticky cinquefoil frequency was 55% in the stem exclusion stage. Sticky cinquefoil also occurred in stands that were thinned, burned, or thinned and then burned. Six years after thinning and four years after burning, sticky cinquefoil frequency was 26% to 33% on treated sites [76].

Sticky cinquefoil was present in initial communities and continued to increase for at least 62 years after farm lands were abandoned near Woodland Park, Colorado. Frequency was 40%, 55%, and 81% after 5, 10, and 62 years of abandonment, respectively. All sites were dominated by forbs and grasses with a small shrub component [26].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Flowering dates for sticky cinquefoil
State or Region Subspecies, if given Anthesis period
California ... April to June [24]
P. g. subsp. ewanii June to July [70]
Idaho ... May to July [53]
New Mexico ... May to July [41]
Blue Mountains Ecoregion ... May to July [1]
Great Plains P. g. subsp. glabrata June to August [20]
Pacific Northwest ... May to July [23]
Baja California P. g. subsp. glandulosa May to July
P. g. subsp. reflexa April to June [75]

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Potentilla glandulosa
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: The highly variable morphology of sticky cinquefoil suggests that postfire regeneration methods may also be variable. Sticky cinquefoil may sprout from the caudex after fire [68]. Some sticky cinquefoil subspecies have short to well-developed rhizomes [12,20,23,35,41], while others are nonrhizomatous [33], suggesting the likelihood of variable responses to fire.

Sticky cinquefoil is known to store seeds in the soil [9,33,34,66], and seeds have germinated from burned and heated soil samples [9] (see Discussion and Qualification of Fire Effect). Therefore, it may establish from soil-stored seed after fire.

Fire regimes: Sticky cinquefoil occurs in a wide variety of habitat types which experience widely different fire frequencies and severities. The fire regime for the Hood's sedge-sticky cinquefoil potential vegetation type in cold upland herb areas of the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho is categorized as having stand-replacement fires with fire-return intervals ranging from 35 to over 100 years [55]. The fire regime for the lower montane zone in the Northeastern Plateaus bioregion of California, where sticky cinquefoil is common after fire, is characterized as having low- to moderate-severity surface fires with "short" to "short-medium" fire-return intervals for individual ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forests [59]. Cool and moist alpine and subalpine grasslands and meadows of the Pacific Northwest, where sticky cinquefoil can occur, have average fire-return intervals of about 350 years. When fires do occur they are generally stand replacing [36].

The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to sticky cinquefoil.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which sticky cinquefoil may occur. For each community, fire regime characteristics are taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [38]. These vegetation models were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion as documented in the PDF file linked from the name of each Potential Natural Vegetation Group listed below. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest California Southwest Great Basin Northern Rockies
Pacific Northwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northwest Grassland
Idaho fescue grasslands Replacement 76% 40    
Mixed 24% 125    
Alpine and subalpine meadows and grasslands Replacement 68% 350 200 500
Mixed 32% 750 500 >1,000
Northwest Shrubland
Low sagebrush Replacement 41% 180    
Mixed 59% 125    
Mountain big sagebrush (cool sagebrush) Replacement 100% 20 10 40
Northwest Woodland
Western juniper (pumice) Replacement 33% >1,000    
Mixed 67% 500    
Pine savannah (ultramafic) Replacement 7% 200 100 300
Surface or low 93% 15 10 20
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Subalpine woodland Replacement 21% 300 200 400
Mixed 79% 80 35 120
Northwest Forested
Douglas-fir (Willamette Valley foothills) Replacement 18% 150 100 400
Mixed 29% 90 40 150
Surface or low 53% 50 20 80
Ponderosa pine (xeric) Replacement 37% 130    
Mixed 48% 100    
Surface or low 16% 300    
Dry ponderosa pine (mesic) Replacement 5% 125    
Mixed 13% 50    
Surface or low 82% 8    
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (dry mesic) Replacement 25% 300 250 500
Mixed 75% 100 50 150
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (wet mesic) Replacement 71% 400    
Mixed 29% >1,000    
Mixed conifer (southwestern Oregon) Replacement 4% 400    
Mixed 29% 50    
Surface or low 67% 22    
California mixed evergreen (northern California) Replacement 6% 150 100 200
Mixed 29% 33 15 50
Surface or low 64% 15 5 30
Mountain hemlock Replacement 93% 750 500 >1,000
Mixed 7% >1,000    
Lodgepole pine (pumice soils) Replacement 78% 125 65 200
Mixed 22% 450 45 85
Subalpine fir Replacement 81% 185 150 300
Mixed 19% 800 500 >1,000
Mixed conifer (eastside dry) Replacement 14% 115 70 200
Mixed 21% 75 70 175
Surface or low 64% 25 20 25
Mixed conifer (eastside mesic) Replacement 35% 200    
Mixed 47% 150    
Surface or low 18% 400    
Red fir Replacement 20% 400 150 400
Mixed 80% 100 80 130
Spruce-fir Replacement 84% 135 80 270
Mixed 16% 700 285 >1,000
California
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
California Grassland
Alpine meadows and barrens Replacement 100% 200 200 400
California Shrubland
Saltbush Replacement 70% 100 60 200
Mixed 30% 235 10  
Montane chaparral Replacement 34% 95    
Mixed 66% 50    
California Woodland
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
California Forested
Mixed conifer (North Slopes) Replacement 5% 250    
Mixed 7% 200    
Surface or low 88% 15 10 40
Mixed conifer (South Slopes) Replacement 4% 200    
Mixed 16% 50    
Surface or low 80% 10    
Aspen with conifer Replacement 24% 155 50 300
Mixed 15% 240    
Surface or low 61% 60    
Jeffrey pine Replacement 9% 250    
Mixed 17% 130    
Surface or low 74% 30    
Interior white fir (northeastern California) Replacement 47% 145    
Mixed 32% 210    
Surface or low 21% 325    
Red fir-white fir Replacement 13% 200 125 500
Mixed 36% 70    
Surface or low 51% 50 15 50
Red fir-western white pine Replacement 16% 250    
Mixed 65% 60 25 80
Surface or low 19% 200    
Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (cold wet upper montane) Replacement 23% 150 37 764
Mixed 70% 50    
Surface or low 7% 500    
Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (dry subalpine) Replacement 11% 250 31 500
Mixed 45% 60 31 350
Surface or low 45% 60 9 350
Southwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Southwest Grassland
Montane and subalpine grasslands with shrubs or trees Replacement 30% 70 10 100
Surface or low 70% 30    
Southwest Shrubland
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Southwest Forested
Riparian forest with conifers Replacement 100% 435 300 550
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (southern Rockies) Replacement 15% 460    
Mixed 43% 160    
Surface or low 43% 160    
Southwest mixed conifer (warm, dry with aspen) Replacement 7% 300    
Mixed 13% 150 80 200
Surface or low 80% 25 2 70
Southwest mixed conifer (cool, moist with aspen) Replacement 29% 200 80 200
Mixed 35% 165 35  
Surface or low 36% 160 10  
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Lodgepole pine (Central Rocky Mountains, infrequent fire) Replacement 82% 300 250 500
Surface or low 18% >1,000 >1,000 >1,000
Spruce-fir Replacement 96% 210 150  
Mixed 4% >1,000 35 >1,000
Great Basin
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Great Basin Grassland
Great Basin grassland Replacement 33% 75 40 110
Mixed 67% 37 20 54
Mountain meadow (mesic to dry) Replacement 66% 31 15 45
Mixed 34% 59 30 90
Great Basin Shrubland
Mountain big sagebrush Replacement 100% 48 15 100
Mountain big sagebrush with conifers Replacement 100% 49 15 100
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Montane chaparral Replacement 37% 93    
Mixed 63% 54    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Mountain shrubland with trees Replacement 22% 105 100 200
Mixed 78% 29 25 100
Black and low sagebrushes Replacement 33% 243 100  
Mixed 67% 119 75 140
Black and low sagebrushes with trees Replacement 37% 227 150 290
Mixed 63% 136 50 190
Great Basin Woodland
Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodland Replacement 20% 333 100 >1,000
Mixed 31% 217 100 >1,000
Surface or low 49% 135 100  
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Great Basin Forested
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
Great Basin Douglas-fir (dry) Replacement 12% 90   600
Mixed 14% 76 45  
Surface or low 75% 14 10 50
Aspen with conifer (low to midelevation) Replacement 53% 61 20  
Mixed 24% 137 10  
Surface or low 23% 143 10  
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) Replacement 28% 170 80 400
Mixed 72% 65 50 250
Aspen with conifer (high elevation) Replacement 47% 76 40  
Mixed 18% 196 10  
Surface or low 35% 100 10  
Spruce-fir-pine (subalpine) Replacement 98% 217 75 300
Mixed 2% >1,000    
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Northern Rockies
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northern Rockies Shrubland
Low sagebrush shrubland Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Mountain big sagebrush steppe and shrubland Replacement 100% 70 30 200
Northern Rockies Forested
Ponderosa pine (Northern Great Plains) Replacement 5% 300    
Mixed 20% 75    
Surface or low 75% 20 10 40
Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies) Replacement 4% 300 100 >1,000
Mixed 19% 60 50 200
Surface or low 77% 15 3 30
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, low elevation) Replacement 7% 300 200 400
Mixed 21% 100 50 400
Surface or low 71% 30 5 50
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, high elevation) Replacement 12% 300    
Mixed 18% 200    
Surface or low 71% 50    
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
Douglas-fir (xeric interior) Replacement 12% 165 100 300
Mixed 19% 100 30 100
Surface or low 69% 28 15 40
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) Replacement 28% 170 80 400
Mixed 72% 65 50 250
Douglas-fir (cold) Replacement 31% 145 75 250
Mixed 69% 65 35 150
Grand fir-Douglas-fir-western larch mix Replacement 29% 150 100 200
Mixed 71% 60 3 75
Western larch-lodgepole pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 33% 200 50 250
Mixed 67% 100 20 140
Grand fir-lodgepole pine-larch-Douglas-fir Replacement 31% 220 50 250
Mixed 69% 100 35 150
Whitebark pine-lodgepole pine (upper subalpine, Northern and Central Rockies) Replacement 38% 360    
Mixed 62% 225    
Lower subalpine lodgepole pine Replacement 73% 170 50 200
Mixed 27% 450 40 500
Lower subalpine (Wyoming and Central Rockies) Replacement 100% 175 30 300
Upper subalpine spruce-fir (Central Rockies) Replacement 100% 300 100 600
*Fire Severities:
Replacement=Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.
Mixed=Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects
Surface or low=Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area. [21,37].

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [67]:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Caudex or an herbaceous root crown, growing points in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Potentilla glandulosa
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Although none of the available literature describes immediate effects of fire on sticky cinquefoil, it is likely top-killed by fire, while underground perennating tissues are likely to survive. High-severity fire may kill soil-stored seed.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
A seed bank study was conducted on soil samples from burned and unburned Douglas-fir/snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)/pinegrass, and Idaho fescue/bearded wheatgrass (Festuca idahoensis/Elymus caninus) community types within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Soil samples from unburned study plots were separated; some were left untreated and some were oven heated for 1 hour at 122, 212, or 302 F (50, 100, 150 C). All soil samples were then placed in the greenhouse to allow buried seed to germinate. Sticky cinquefoil germinants grew from burned and unburned, unheated soils. They also grew from soils heated to 122 and 212 F (50 and 100 C). Sticky cinquefoil germinants did not emerge from soil samples heated to 302 F (150 C) [9], suggesting that high-severity fire may kill sticky cinquefoil seeds on the soil surface or shallowly buried.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Sticky cinquefoil commonly occurs after fire [6,7,8,59,68,77]. It likely sprouts from the caudex after fire and may also establish from soil-stored seed (see Seed banking).

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Sticky cinquefoil typically survives and may increase after fire.

Sticky cinquefoil persists after fire, although cover and frequency may decrease after high-severity burns. Mean frequency and cover of sticky cinquefoil were not significantly different (P<0.10) among unburned, low-intensity burned, and high-intensity burned treatments after selective logging and broadcast burning in a Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type in northern Idaho. Mean frequency (and cover), averaged over 3 postfire years were: 5.6% (0.4%), 5.1% (0.4%), 0.6% (0%) on unburned, low-intensity burned, and high-intensity burned sites, respectively. A complete summary of this study is provided in the Research Project Summary by Armour and others 1984 [2,3]. Similar results were reported after thinning and burning treatments in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests in northeastern Oregon. Sticky cinquefoil was most strongly associated with untreated control plots, with 55% frequency and 0.5% average cover. It had similar frequency and cover among burn-only plots (33% frequency, 0.5% cover), thin-only plots (26% frequency, 1.2% cover), and thinned and burned plots (27% frequency, 0.4% cover). Burning was conducted in late fall and was of low severity. Measurements were taken 4 years after burning. For further information on the effects of thinning and burning treatments on sticky cinquefoil and 48 other species, see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [76] study.

Sticky cinquefoil may be more abundant on burned sites in later postfire years. A chronosequence study conducted in the Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) zone in Utah revealed that Potentilla glandulosa subsp. glabrata cover and frequency were slightly lower on sites burned the previous year versus unburned sites. On sites burned 2, 9, and 18 years prior, cover and frequency were slightly higher than on unburned sites [46]. Sticky cinquefoil occurred on burned sites in a Douglas-fir/ninebark community in northern Idaho that had a history of disturbance since 1900; it was not reported on undisturbed sites [7,8]. In a northwestern Montana subalpine fir/queencup beadlily habitat type, sticky cinquefoil occurred with an average of 0.5% canopy cover and 6% frequency on wildfire study sites that were classified as "old burns" (35-70 years old) and an average of 0.5% canopy cover and 39% frequency on clearcut sites (15-35 years old) where slash was mechanically piled and burned. It was not observed on clearcut sites where slash was broadcast burned or not treated, and not found on undisturbed sites [77].

Sticky cinquefoil frequency increased slightly on control, thin-only, thin and burn, and burn-only treatments conducted in ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests in the Lubrecht Experimental Forest, Montana, 2 years after burning and 3 years after thinning. The smallest increase was in the control while the largest increase was on the thinned and burned sites. Percent cover was low on all sites. Burning was executed in the spring, and fires were categorized as low- to moderate-severity [48]. For a more detailed summary of this study, see Metlen and others 2006.

Sticky cinquefoil was present in prefire vegetation and not found in the first postfire year after a late summer, high-severity prescribed fire in a Douglas-fir stand in south-central Idaho. It was present in the second postfire year [40], suggesting that it may have established via delayed germination from the soil seed bank or from off-site seed sources.

Lyon's Research Paper (Lyon 1971) provides further information on prescribed fire use and postfire response of plant species including sticky cinquefoil.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
As of this writing (2008) there is no published information specific to the use of fire to manage sticky cinquefoil. The above studies suggest that sticky cinquefoil would persist after most fires. Further research may be warranted if conservation of sticky cinquefoil is of concern.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Potentilla glandulosa
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Livestock forage value of sticky cinquefoil ranges from poor to fair for domestic sheep and is poor for cattle and horses [19,25]. However, domestic sheep and cattle utilized sticky cinquefoil in grand fir/mountain maple and Douglas-fir/white spirea (Spiraea betulifolia) habitat types in central Idaho [64,65]. Sticky cinquefoil is considered an increaser in livestock grazed areas of the West [56,61].

Throughout western North America, sticky cinquefoil is utilized by mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and Rocky Mountain goats [25,30,44,54,56,60,62,64,65].

Sticky cinquefoil has greater importance for small mammals. It is a preferred food for the western harvest mouse, deer mouse, cactus mouse, California mouse, Pacific kangaroo rat, and little pocket mouse in California coastal sage scrub communities [47]. In Idaho, sticky cinquefoil has some importance as forage for the Idaho ground squirrel [16].

Palatability/nutritional value: General palatability of sticky cinquefoil ranges from fair to poor [61]. Its flowering tops are considered most palatable. Leaves and stems are less palatable because of an acrid taste, presumably caused by tannic acids [25].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Sticky cinquefoil is used as a reclamation species in the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest [42]. In the reclamation of open-pit coal mines in southeastern Montana, sticky cinquefoil established best when seeds were planted in the fall and over-wintered in the soil [17].

OTHER USES:
No information is available on this topic.

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Sticky cinquefoil is considered a weed species in ponderosa pine ranges used for cattle grazing in Colorado [11].


Potentilla glandulosa: REFERENCES


1. Aitken, Marti; Parks, Katherine Gray. 2004. Guide to the common Potentilla species of the Blue Mountains ecoregion. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-603. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 50 p. [49296]
2. Armour, Charles D.; Bunting, Stephen C.; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1984. Fire intensity effects on the understory in ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Range Management. 37(1): 44-48. [6618]
3. Armour, Charles D.; Bunting, Stephen C.; Neuenschwander, Leon F. [n.d.]. The effect of fire intensity on understory vegetational development. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17 p. [30855]
4. Belcher, Earl. 1985. Handbook on seeds of browse-shrubs and forbs. Tech. Publ. R8-TP8. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 246 p. In cooperation with: Association of Official Seed Analysts. [43463]
5. Boyd, Steve. 1999. Vascular flora of the Liebre Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, California. Aliso. 18(2): 93-139. [40639]
6. Busse, Matt D.; Simon, Steve A.; Riegel, Gregg M. 2000. Tree-growth and understory responses to low-severity prescribed burning in thinned Pinus ponderosa forests of central Oregon. Forest Science. 46(2): 258-268. [42058]
7. Cholewa, Anita F. 1977. Successional relationships of vegetational composition to logging, burning, and grazing in the Douglas-fir/Physocarpus habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 65 p. plus appendices. Thesis. [29853]
8. Cholewa, Anita F.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1983. Secondary succession in the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus association. Northwest Science. 57(4): 273-282. [11402]
9. Clark, David Lee. 1991. The effect of fire on Yellowstone ecosystem seed banks. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 115 p. Thesis. [36504]
10. Clausen, Jens; Keck, David D.; Hiesey, William M. 1941. Regional differentiation in plant species. The American Naturalist. 75(758): 231-250. [68495]
11. Costello, David F.; Schwan, H. E. 1946. Conditions and trends on ponderosa pine ranges in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [21469]
12. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]
13. Dorn, Robert D. 1977. Flora of the Black Hills. Cheyenne, WY: Robert D. Dorn and Jane L. Dorn. 377 p. [820]
14. Dorn, Robert D. 1984. Vascular plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 276 p. [819]
15. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]
16. Dyni, Elizabeth J.; Yensen, Eric. 1996. Dietary similarity of sympatric Idaho and Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus brunneus and S. columbianus). Northwest Science. 70(2): 99-108. [67752]
17. Eddleman, Lee E. 1977. Indigenous plants of southeastern Montana. I. Viability and suitability for reclamation in the Fort Union Basin. Special Publication 4. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 122 p. [42440]
18. Ellison, Lincoln. 1949. Establishment of vegetation on depleted subalpine range as influenced by microenvironment. Ecological Monographs. 19(2): 95-121. [66941]
19. Garrison, G. A. 1960. Recovery of ponderosa pine range in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington by seventh year after logging. In: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters annual meeting: 137-139. [16881]
20. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
21. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2005. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.2, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). Variously paginated [+ appendices]. Available: http://www.frcc.gov/docs/1.2.2.2/Complete_Guidebook_V1.2.pdf [2007, May 23]. [66734]
22. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
23. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion; Thompson, J. W. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]
24. Huffman, Margaret. 2003. Suggestions for L.A. butterfly gardeners, [Online]. Los Angeles, CA: North American Butterfly Association, Los Angeles Chapter (Producer). Available: http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabala/Gardens.htm [2003, February 14]. [43456]
25. Johnson, James R.; Nichols, James T. 1970. Plants of South Dakota grasslands: A photographic study. Bull. 566. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 163 p. [18483]
26. Johnson, W. M. 1945. Natural revegetation of abandoned crop land in the ponderosa pine zone of the Pike's Peak region in Colorado. Ecology. 26(4): 363-374. [56118]
27. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
28. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
29. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
30. Keay, Jeffrey A. 1977. Relationship of habitat use patterns and forage preferences of white-tailed and mule deer to post-fire vegetation, upper Selway River. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 76 p. Thesis. [1316]
31. Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. 288 p. [10703]
32. Knobloch, Irving W. 1972. Intergeneric hybridization in flowering plants. Taxon. 21(1): 97-103. [68501]
33. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375]
34. 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]
35. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
36. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Potential Natural Vegetation Group R#ALME--Alpine and subalpine meadows and grasslands: Description, [Online]. In: Rapid assessment reference condition models. In: LANDFIRE. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/zip/PNW/RALME.pdf [70403]
37. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
38. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
39. Lewis, Mont E. 1971. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon. Elko, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Humboldt National Forest. 62 p. [1450]
40. Lyon, L. Jack. 1966. Initial vegetal development following prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-29. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [1494]
41. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
42. McArthur, E. Durant; Young, Stanford A. 1999. Development of native seed supplies to support restoration of pinyon-juniper sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 327-330. [30591]
43. McCarthy, Judith Colleen. 1996. A floristic survey of the Pryor Mountains, Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 93 p. Thesis. [46912]
44. McDonald, Philip M. 1999. Diversity, density, and development of early vegetation in a small clear-cut environment. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-239. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 22 p. [36204]
45. McDonough, Walter T. 1969. Effective treatments for the induction of germination in mountain rangeland species. Northwest Science. 43(1): 18-22. [69687]
46. McKell, Cyrus M. 1950. A study of plant succession in the oak brush (Quercus gambelii) zone after fire. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. 79 p. Thesis. [1608]
47. Meserve, Peter L. 1976. Food relationships of a rodent fauna in a California coastal sage scrub community. Journal of Mammalogy. 57(2): 300-319. [63395]
48. Metlen, Kerry L.; Dodson, Erich K.; Fiedler, Carl E. 2006. Research Project Summary--Vegetation response to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. [64679]
49. Mirov, N. T.; Kraebel, C. J. 1937. Collecting and propagating the seeds of California wild plants. Res. Note No. 18. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. [9787]
50. Moseley, Robert K.; Bernatas, Susan. 1992. Vascular flora of Kane Lake cirque, Pioneer Mountains, Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(4): 335-343. [20212]
51. Oosting, H. J.; Billings, W. D. 1943. The red fir forest of the Sierra Nevada: Abietum magnificae. Ecological Monographs. 13(3): 260-273. [11521]
52. Ostler, W. Kent; Harper, K. T. 1978. Floral ecology in relation to plant species diversity in the Wasatch Mountains of Utah and Idaho. Ecology. 59(4): 848-861. [62227]
53. Patterson, Patricia A.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Tonn, Jonalea. 1985. Field guide to forest plants of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-180. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 246 p. [1839]
54. Pickford, G. D.; Reid, Elbert H. 1943. Competition of elk and domestic livestock for summer range forage. Journal of Wildlife Management. 7(3): 328-332. [68502]
55. Powell, David C.; Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Crowe, Elizabeth A.; Wells, Aaron; Swanson, David K. 2007. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-709. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p. [69013]
56. Ratliff, Raymond D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [20378]
57. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
58. Reid, Elbert H.; Strickler, Gerald S.; Hall, Wade B. 1980. Green fescue grassland: 40 years of secondary succession. Res. Pap. PNW-274. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p. [11394]
59. Riegel, Gregg M.; Miller, Richard F.; Skinner, Carl N.; Smith, Sydney E. 2006. Northeastern Plateaus bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 225-263. [65541]
60. Saunders, Jack K., Jr. 1955. Food habits and range use of the Rocky Mountain goat in the Crazy Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 19(4): 429-437. [484]
61. Shanafelt, Bonita Joy. 2000. Effects of control measures on diffuse knapweed, plant diversity, and transitory soil seed-banks in eastern Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences. 89 p. Thesis. [38405]
62. Singer, Francis J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2): 437-444. [4074]
63. St. John, Harold; Warren, Fred A. 1937. The plants of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 18(6): 952-985. [62707]
64. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1992. The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 90 p. [17791]
65. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1994. The Douglas-fir/white spirea habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-305. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 81 p. [23481]
66. 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. [26587]
67. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
68. Stickney, Peter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 2000. Data base for early postfire succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-61-CD, [CD-ROM]. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [43743]
69. Strickler, Gerald S.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1976. Emergent seedlings from coniferous litter and soil in eastern Oregon. Ecology. 57: 801-807. [2039]
70. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Potentilla glandulosa ssp. ewanii. San Diego, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5, Cleveland National Forest. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/docs/species-plants.pdf [2008, April 30]. [70191]
71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
72. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
73. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]
74. 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]
75. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1025 p. [21993]
76. Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. [64992]
77. Zager, Peter Edward. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 131 p. Dissertation. [5032]

FEIS Home Page