Eriophorum viridicarinatum


Table of Contents


INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Eriophorum viridicarinatum
 
Green-keeled cottongrass near Foot Lake, British Columbia. Photos courtesy of Curtis Bjork.

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Innes, Robin J. 2013. Eriophorum viridicarinatum. 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:
ERIVIR

COMMON NAMES:
green-keeled cottongrass
tassel cottongrass
thinleaf cottonsedge
thin-leaved cotton-grass
thinleaved cottongrass

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of green-keeled cottongrass is Eriophorum viridicarinatum (Engelm.) Fernald (Cyperaceae) [5,10,14,18,21,22,26,27,28,35,43,46,50,52].

SYNONYMS:
Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe var. viridi-carinatum Engelm. [14]
Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe var. viridi-carinatum (Engelm.) Fernald [23]
Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe var. viridicarinatum Engelm. [22]
Eriophorum viridi-carinatum (Engelm.) Fernald [3,13,23,38,45,51]
Eriophorum viridicarinatum forma viridicarinatum [47]
Eriophorum viridicarinatum forma fellowsii Fernald [46,47]

LIFE FORM:
Graminoid
INFORMATION AVAILABLE:
In June of 2013 an extensive search was done to locate information on green-keeled cottongrass (see FEIS's list of source literature), with few results. The following paragraphs provide details of the available information.

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Eriophorum viridicarinatum
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Green-keeled cottongrass is native to northern North America. It occurs from Alaska south to Washington, east to New Jersey, and north to Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been extirpated from Illinois [26].

Map courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. (2013, August 1).

States and provinces [49]:
United States: AK, CO, CT, IA, ID, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI, WY
Canada: AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT


SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Green-keeled cottongrass occurs in mesic to hydric soils [19,27]. It is common in wetlands (see Plant Communities). It is considered an obligate wetland species (occurs in wetlands >99% of the time) in every region where it occurs [33]. Green-keeled cottongrass does not grow in deep water. In fens in north-central Quebec near Schefferville, it was rarely found rooted in water that was ≥10 inches (25 cm) deep; on average, it was rooted in water that was 2.6 inches (6.7 cm) deep [9]. In southern Michigan fens, green-keeled cottongrass was absent from the submerged plant zone (the deepest water zone) and the zone of water lilies (Nymphaea spp. (water up to 5 feet (1.5 m) deep)), but it was present in the floating sedge zone. In the floating sedge zone, the sedge (Carex and Eriophorum spp.) mat was "very firm" and about 18 inches (46 cm) thick. The dominant mat-forming plants were downy-fruited sedge (C. tomentosa) and fewseed sedge (C. oligosperma). Shallower water zones were dominated by shrubs and trees [7].

Green-keeled cottongrass grows in strongly acid to moderately alkaline wetlands (pH from 5.3-8.0) [9,19,34]. In central Alberta, it was present only in strongly minerotrophic peatlands, which were pH neutral to mildly alkaline and calcium rich [25]. On the Flathead National Forest, Montana, green-keeled cottongrass occurred in highly calcareous fens [8]. In New England, it prefers limy soils [25,47]. In 8 peatland types on Duck Mountain, Manitoba, green-keeled cottongrass was most common in open shore, moderate-rich fens where peat was approximately 4 to 9 feet (1-3 m) deep. Indicator plants of this community were Blandow's helodium moss (Helodium blandowii), boreal bog sedge (C. magellanica), and purple marshlocks (Comarum palustre) [34].

Some authors noted green-keeled cottongrass's preference for areas with high light, such as open areas and clearings [12,34,51].

Throughout its range, green-keeled cottongrass occurs from 0 to 6,600 feet (2,000 m) [14,19,27,36]. In the Pacific Northwest [22], British Columbia [27], Montana [44], and Wyoming [10], it typically occurs in montane and alpine zones. In British Columbia, it occurred on slopes ranging from 0% to 55%, but it typically occurred on shallow slopes (mean: 2.3%) [27].

PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Green-keeled cottongrass occurs in marshes, wet meadows, bogs, fens, wet woodlands, and swamps (e.g., [13,14,21,23,31,35,38,45,46,47]). On the Gespé Peninsula in southeastern Quebec and in New Brunswick [12], Maine [2,12], Michigan [11,51], and Minnesota [17], green-keeled cottongrass occurred in bogs and swamps of tamarack (Larix laricina), black spruce (Picea mariana), northern whitecedar (Thuja occidentalis), and fir (Abies spp.), especially in open areas and clearings. It frequently occurred in sphagnum (Sphagnum spp.) marshes and bogs in Alaska [3], Quebec [39], and New York [6]. Authors described green-keeled cottongrass as frequent in birch (Betula spp.) and Carex spp. communities [8,17,19]. For example, in Montana, it occurred in bog birch/woollyfruit sedge (B. glandulosa/Carex lasiocarpa) shrublands and woollyfruit sedge fens [8]. It occurred in black spruce/northern bog sedge (C. gynocrates) fen forests and in creeping sedge-tufted loosestrife (C. chordorrhiza-Lysimachia thrysiflora) fens in northern Minnesota [17]. In Cheboygan County, Michigan, green-keeled cottongrass occurred in a willow-speckled alder (Salix spp.-Alnus incana subsp. rugosa) shrub bog [11]. Occasionally, green-keeled cottongrass is dominant in wetland communities. Swamp birch/sparseflower sedge (B. pumila/C. tenuiflora)-green-keeled cottongrass shrublands occurred near the bottom of the Miette River valley in Alberta [19].

GENERAL INFORMATION ON BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY, FIRE, AND MANAGEMENT

SPECIES: Eriophorum viridicarinatum
BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY:
Botanical description:
Green-keeled cottongrass is a perennial, tufted sedge with numerous basal leaves [5,10,13,21,21,23,27,44]. Leaves are 6 to 24 inches (15-61 cm) tall [5,13,21] with blades 0.08 to 0.24 inch (2-6 mm) wide [5,13,14,21,23,27,47]. Culms are 8 to 39 inches (20-100 cm) tall [13,13,14,21,27]. Culms bear 3 or more cymes composed of 3 to 30 drooping spikelets [3,5,13,14,21]. Each flower has 10 or more perianth bristles (strong, stiff, slender hairs [35]) that are 0.6 to 1.2 inch (15-30 mm) long and cottony, becoming more conspicuous as achenes mature [14,27,45]. Achenes are 0.10 to 0.14 inch (2.5-3.5 mm) long [14,21,27]. Green-keeled cottongrass has slender, spreading rhizomes [1,27] and it forms extensive colonies [1]. According to Karlin and Bliss [25], green-keeled cottongrass has a deep root system.

Raunkiaer [42] life form:
Hemicryptophyte
Geophyte
Helophyte

Seasonal development:
Location Dates
Illinois flowers: May-August [38]
New England flowers: May-August [18] or June-August [35];
fully developed bristles: 12 June-13 August but as late as 7 September [47]
Pacific Northwest flowers: June-July [22]
Throughout flowers: late May-August [13]

Regeneration:
No information was available on this topic for green-keeled cottongrass. Green-keeled cottongrass likely reproduces both by seed and vegetatively by rhizomes. The perianth bristles of Eriophorum spp. often aid in dispersal by wind and probably water (e.g., [32,40,41,53]), so green-keeled cottongrass seeds have the potential for short- or long-distance dispersal via wind and water. No information was available regarding green-keeled cottongrass seeds in seed banks. Tussock cottongrass (E. vaginatum) seeds are often abundant in seed banks and may remain viable for long periods [15,37], which may also be true of green-keeled cottongrass seeds.

FIRE ECOLOGY:
Postfire regeneration strategy [48]:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources)

Fire adaptations and plant response to fire:
Fire adaptations: As of this writing (2013), no information was available in the published literature regarding the immediate effects of fire on green-keeled cottongrass plants or seeds. Green-keeled cottongrass is likely top-killed by fire; belowground reproductive structures likely survive.

Green-keeled cottongrass exhibits some characteristics that probably allow it to survive or establish after fire. It has rhizomes, so it seems likely that rhizomes below the soil sprout after fire. The seeds have potential for short- to long-distance dispersal via wind and water. It is unclear whether green-keeled cottongrass establishes from the seed bank after fire, and it is unclear whether its seed would survive fire. If green-keeled cottongrass is similar to tussock cottongrass, then it is likely to establish from both on- and off-site seed sources after fire. See the FEIS review of tussock cottongrass for more information.

Plant response to fire: A couple of studies documented green-keeled cottongrass occurring in areas burned by fire [16,20], but to date (2013), a lack of details about fire characteristics, pre- and postfire vegetation, and green-keeled cottongrass response limit inferences that can be made from these studies. The limited information available suggests that green-keeled cottongrass may be common in postfire seral communities, so fire may facilitate green-keeled cottongrass establishment and/or spread. However, it is not clear whether green-keeled cottongrass increases after fire. Gates [16] described an early postfire seral stage of the leatherleaf-spruce (Chamaedaphne calyculata-Picea spp.) association as the green-keeled cottongrass stage. This stage occurred during at least the 2nd postfire year after a severe wildfire in Mud Lake Bog in northern, lower Michigan [16]. In Itasca County, Minnesota, the herbaceous stage of the "spruce swamp burn succession" was characterized as a green-keeled cottongrass-arctic cottongrass-fireweed (E. callitrix-Chamerion angustifolium) association. However, the author stated that this stage was not very "pronounced" and was succeeded "very rapidly" by the leatherleaf-bog Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum) shrub stage. The shrub stage was then followed by the black spruce-tamarack-northern whitecedar swamp stage [20]. This suggested that green-keeled cottongrass might not dominate very long as postfire succession proceeds. However, green-keeled cottongrass occurred in a tamarack swamp 25 years after fire in Cheboygan County, Michigan [11]. No information was available on green-keeled cottongrass density or cover.

Green-keeled cottongrass may benefit from fire that opens the canopy. In Crystal Fen, northeastern Maine, a railroad was constructed through the fen complex in 1893, and fire frequency in the fen was increased by cinder-producing steam locomotives. "Few if any" fires occurred during the 100 years prior to railroad construction. A drainage ditch was excavated in 1937, 44 years later, that lowered the water table. When the steam locomotives were replaced by oil-burning engines around 1950, a major source of ignition at the site was removed and fire frequency was reduced. Aerial photos during 43 years (1938-1981) indicated that open areas of the fen were reduced by half. The number of shrubs and trees, especially conifers, increased on the fen, particularly since fire frequency was reduced. In 1981, green-keeled cottongrass was most common at the ecotone between the open and recently closed portions of the fen [24]. Thus, green-keeled cottongrass likely decreased as fire frequency decreased and trees and shrubs encroached into the fen.

Fuels: As of this writing (2013), no information was available regarding the fuel characteristics of green-keeled cottongrass.

Fire regimes: Green-keeled cottongrass occurs in wetland communities, which may have short to long fire-return intervals. The Fire Regime Table summarizes characteristics of fire regimes for vegetation communities in which green-keeled cottongrass may occur. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes.

LEGAL STATUS AND MANAGEMENT:
Federal legal status:
None

Other status:
Information on state- and province-level protection status of plants in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe.

Other management:
Green-keeled cottongrass is an obligate wetland species. As such, it is presumably dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regimes of the wetlands within which it is found. Hydrologic alteration was considered the greatest threat to this species in Washington. Grazing was thought to have minimal impact at a few sites [1]. Further research is needed on all aspects of green-keeled cottongrass.

APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE

SPECIES: Eriophorum viridicarinatum
The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to green-keeled cottongrass habitats. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which green-keeled cottongrass may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [30], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest Northern and Central Rockies Northern Great Plains
Great Lakes Northeast
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)
Pacific Northwest Grassland
Marsh Replacement 74% 7    
Mixed 26% 20    
Northern and Central 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 and Central Rockies Shrubland
Riparian (Wyoming) Mixed 100% 100 25 500
Northern Great Plains
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northern Plains Woodland
Great Plains floodplain Replacement 100% 500    
Northern Great Plains wooded draws and ravines Replacement 38% 45 30 100
Mixed 18% 94    
Surface or low 43% 40 10  
Great Lakes
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Great Lakes Forested
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-prone ecosystem) Replacement 45% 120 90 220
Mixed 55% 100    
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-resistant ecosystem) Replacement 36% 540 220 >1,000
Mixed 64% 300    
Great Lakes floodplain forest Mixed 7% 833    
Surface or low 93% 61    
Northeast
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northeast Grassland
Northern coastal marsh Replacement 97% 7 2 50
Mixed 3% 265 20  
*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 [4,29].

REFERENCES:


1. [Washington Natural Heritage Program]. 2000. Eriophorum viridicarinatum (Engelm.) Fern, [Online]. In: Field guide to the rare plants of Washington. In: Washington Natural Heritage Program. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (Producers). Available: www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/pdf/ervi.pdf [2013, June 20]. [86984]
2. Allard, H. A.; Leonard, E. C. 1945. Plants collected in the Lake Matagamon region, Piscataquis and Penobscot counties, Maine. Castanea. 10(1): 13-30. [86986]
3. Anderson, J. P. 1959. Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 543 p. [9928]
4. Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0, [Online]. In: Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.frcc.gov/ [2013, May 13]. [85876]
5. Booth, W. E. 1950. Flora of Montana. Part I: Conifers and monocots. Bozeman, MT: The Research Foundation at Montana State College. 232 p. [48662]
6. Burnham, Stewart H. 1919. The sedges of the Lake George flora. Torreya. 19(7): 125-136. [86987]
7. Burns, George Plumer. 1911. A botanical survey of the Huron River Valley. VIII. Edaphic conditions of peat bogs of southern Michigan. Botanical Gazette. 52(2): 105-125. [86978]
8. Chadde, Steve W.; Shelly, J. Stephen; Bursik, Robert J.; Moseley, Robert K.; Evenden, Angela G.; Mantas, Maria; Rabe, Fred; Heidel, Bonnie. 1998. Peatlands on National Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains: ecology and conservation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 75 p. [29130]
9. Dabros, Anna. 2004. Distribution patterns of sedges in subarctic fens: ecological and phylogenetic perspectives. Montreal, QC: McGill University. 117 p. Dissertation. [86980]
10. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]
11. Dutro, Ruth; Cohoe, Edith. 1938. An ecological study of Wolf's Bog, Cheboygan County, Michigan. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 41(4): 87-95. [80285]
12. Fernald, M. L. 1919. Lithological factors limiting the ranges of Pinus banksiana and Thuja occidentalis. Rhodora. 21: 41-67. [504]
13. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p. (Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny Series; vol. 2). [14935]
14. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2013. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]
15. Gartner, Barbara L.; Chapin, F. Stuart, III; Shaver, Gaius R. 1983. Demographic patterns of seedling establishment and growth of native graminoids in an Alaskan tundra disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20(3): 965-980. [18037]
16. Gates, Frank C. 1942. The bogs of northern Lower Michigan. Ecological Monographs. 12(3): 213-254. [10728]
17. Glaser, Paul H.; Janssens, Jan A.; Siegel, Donald I. 1990. The response of vegetation to chemical and hydrological gradients in the Lost River peatland, northern Minnesota. Journal of Ecology. 78(4): 1021-1048. [14341]
18. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
19. Gould, Alice Joyce. 2007. A habitat-based approach to rare vascular plant conservation in the northern Rocky Mountains of Alberta. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta. 336 p. Dissertation. [86982]
20. Grant, Martin L. 1929. The burn succession in Itasca County, Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 63 p. Thesis. [36527]
21. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
22. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 914 p. [1169]
23. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]
24. Jacobson, George L., Jr.; Almquist-Jacobson, Heather; Winne, J. Chris. 1991. Conservation of rare plant habitat: insights from the recent history of vegetation and fire at Crystal Fen, northern Maine, USA. Biological Conservation. 57(3): 287-314. [16533]
25. Karlin, E. F.; Bliss, L. C. 1984. Variation in substrate chemistry along microtopographical and water-chemistry gradients in peatlands. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62(1): 142-153. [86983]
26. Kartesz, J. T.; The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2013. North American plant atlas, [Online]. Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America Program (Producer). Available: http://bonap.org/. [Maps generated from Kartesz, J. T. 2010. Floristic synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). [In press]]. [84789]
27. Klinkenberg, Brian, ed. 2010. E-Flora BC: Electronic atlas of the plants of British Columbia, [Online]. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Department of Geography, Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis (Producer). Available: www.eflora.bc.ca [2012, January 3]. [54933]
28. Knobel, Edward; Faust, Mildred E. 1980. Field guide to the grasses, sedges and rushes of the United States. 2d rev. ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 83 p. [14744]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Larson, Gary E. 1993. Aquatic and wetland vascular plants of the Northern Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 681 p. Available online: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/vascplnt/index.htm [2011, June 29]. [22534]
32. Leck, M. A.; Schutz, W. 2005. Regeneration of Cyperaceae, with particular reference to seed ecology and seed banks. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 7(2): 95-133. [61210]
33. Lichvar, Robert W.; Kartesz, John T. 2012. North American Digital Flora: National wetland plant list, version 3.0, [Online]. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America Program (Producers). Available: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/ [2013, April 19]. [84896]
34. Locky, David Alexander. 2005. Boreal plains peatlands: characterization, plant diversity, biogeography, and impacts from logging. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta. 173 p. Dissertation. [86981]
35. Magee, Dennis W.; Ahles, Harry E. 2007. Flora of the Northeast: A manual of the vascular flora of New England and adjacent New York. 2nd ed. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. 1214 p. [74293]
36. Maguire, Bassett. 1939. Distribution notes concerning plants of Glacier National Park, Montana-- II. Rhodora. 41: 504-508. [12969]
37. McGraw, J. B.; Vavrek, M. C.; Bennington, C. C. 1991. Ecological genetic variation in seed banks. I. Establishment of a time transect. Journal of Ecology. 79(3): 617-625. [20205]
38. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. [Revised edition]. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]
39. Pendea, I. Florin. 2011. Mid to late Holocene coastal landscape change in eastern James Bay. Montreal, QC: McGill University. 145 p. Thesis. [86988]
40. Phillips, Marie E. 1954. Eriophorum angustifolium Roth. Journal of Ecology. 42(2): 612-622. [86995]
41. Racine, Charles H. 1981. Tundra fire effects on soils and three plant communities along a hill-slope gradient in the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Arctic. 34(1): 71-84. [7233]
42. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
43. Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. 1986 wetland plant list, Montana. St. Petersburg, FL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. 26 p. [8381]
44. Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Alaska (Region A). Biological Report 88(26.11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. In cooperation with: National and Regional Interagency Review Panels. 86 p. [9328]
45. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]
46. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Part 2: Pteridophyta, Gymnospermae, Monocotyledoneae. National Museum of Natural Sciences: Publications in Botany, No. 7(2). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 545 p. [75494]
47. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2nd ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
48. 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, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
50. 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]
51. Voss, Edward G. 1972. Michigan flora. Part I: Gymnosperms and monocots. Bulletin 55. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 488 p. [11471]
52. Weakley, Alan S. 2010. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic states. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Herbarium; North Carolina Botanical Garden. Working draft of 8 March, 2010 on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 994 p. [81740]
53. Wein, Ross W. 1973. Eriophorum vaginatum L. Journal of Ecology. 61(2): 601-615. [86994]

FEIS Home Page