SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Zlatnik, Elena. 1999. Amelanchier utahensis. 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/ [].


ABBREVIATION:

AMEUTA

SYNONYMS:

No entry

NRCS PLANT CODE:

AMUT
AMUTC
AMUTU

COMMON NAMES:

Utah serviceberry

TAXONOMY:

The fully documented scientific name of Utah serviceberry is Amelanchier utahensis Koehne (Rosaceae) [18,23,46]. Taxonomy in the Amelanchier genus has historically been disputed, with A. utahensis occasionally considered to be a variety or subspecies of Saskatoon serviceberry (A. alnifolia ) [4,31,46,47]. There are 2 subspecies of Utah serviceberry:  A. utahensis ssp. covillei (Standley) Clokey [18,23,24] and A. utahensis ssp. utahensis Koehne [23].

Utah serviceberry hybridizes with Saskatoon serviceberry [4,33].

LIFE FORM:

Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

No entry




DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Utah serviceberry occurs from Washington to Baja California, east to Montana, Colorado, and Texas [18,19,34].

ECOSYSTEMS:

FRES21   Ponderosa pine
FRES28   Western hardwoods
FRES29   Sagebrush
FRES34   Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35   Pinyon-juniper

STATES:

AZ   CA   CO   ID   MT   NM   NV   OR   UT   WA   WY

Mexico

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:

  2  Cascade Mountains
  3  Southern Pacific Border
  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

KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K010   Ponderosa shrub forest
K011   Western ponderosa forest
K019   Arizona pine forest
K022   Great Basin pine forest
K023   Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024   Juniper steppe woodlands
K026   Oregon oakwoods
K030   California oakwoods
K031   Oak-juniper woodlands
K032   Transition between K031 and K037
K037   Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K055   Sagebrush steppe

SAF COVER TYPES:

217   Aspen
220   Rocky Mountain juniper
237   Interior ponderosa pine
238   Western juniper
239   Pinyon-juniper
240   Arizona cypress
241   Western live oak
247   Jeffrey pine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:

107   Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
109   Ponderosa pine shrubland
209   Montane shrubland
411   Aspen woodland
412   Juniper-pinyon woodland
413   Gambel oak
415   Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
416   True mountain-mahogany
419   Bittercherry
421   Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
504   Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
509   Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Utah serviceberry is associated with a variety of shrubs and trees including sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), pinyon pines (Pinus spp.), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), junipers (Juniperus spp.), and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii).

In the Ruby Mountains of Nevada, Utah serviceberry appears in the singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla)-Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) community type with big sagebrush (A. tridentata), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula ssp. arbuscula), black sagebrush (A. nova), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), phlox (Phlox longifolia and P. hoodii), Beckwith milkvetch (Astragalus beckwithii), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), desert Indian paintbrush (Castilleja chromosa), low pussytoes (Antennaria dimorpha), bastard toadflax (Comandra pallida), Holboell rockcress (Arabis holboelii), thickstem wild cabbage (Caulanthus crassicaulis) plains prickly-pear (Opuntia polyacantha) tapertip onion (Allium acuminatum), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), snowberry (Symphocarpos spp.), and greeen rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) [27].

In the Colorado pinyon (Pinus edulis)-Utah juniper types in southeastern Utah, Utah serviceberry appears with Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia mexicana var. stansburiana), ephedra (Ephedra spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.), big sagebrush, skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), single-leaf ash (Fraxinus anomala), round-leaved buffaloberry (Shepherdia rotundifolia), fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), plains prickly-pear, yellow cryptantha (Cryptantha flava), hairy telegraphplant (Heterotheca villosa), pinnate princesplume (Stanleya pinnata), and cryptogams [32].

In southwestern Utah, Utah serviceberry is associated with Gambel oak and curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) [5].

In Arizona, Utah serviceberry occurs in ponderosa pine habitat types with Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), bottlebrush squirreltail, dropseed (Sporobolus spp.), asters (Aster spp.), milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), buckwheat, geraniums (Geranium spp.), deervetch (Lotus spp.), lupine (Lupinus spp.), senecio (Senecio spp.), Fendler ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), mountain-mahogany, and Gambel oak [43].

Hess and Wasser [17], have described a Quercus gambelii-Prunus virginiana (common chokecherry)/Amelanchier utahensis/Pachystima myrsinites (boxleaf myrtle) habitat type for the White River-Arapaho National Forest of Colorado.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Utah serviceberry is a very important species for mule deer in the Great Basin [1]. Porcupines, desert bighorn sheep, and cattle also use Utah serviceberry [15]. The plant provides good browse for domestic sheep, domestic goats and mule deer [8,24]. In the spring, Utah serviceberry provides fair forage for cattle and good to excellent browse for domestic sheep and goats [15]. Utah serviceberry provides good forage late in winter and in early spring, because it leafs out and blooms earlier than associated species.

Utah serviceberry fruit is preferred by many birds [8]. It can be an important winter food for birds since berries stay on the shrub throughout the winter [33]. In Nevada, sage grouse eat the fruit of Utah serviceberry [15].

PALATABILITY:

Utah serviceberry is highly palatable to birds, small mammals, livestock and other animals throughout its range [16,24,33,34]. It is a preferred food of elk in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho [27].

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

In-vitro nutritional value of Utah serviceberry leaves for mule deer in June and August in Arizona is as follows [43]:
Protein (%) Acid-detergent fiber (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%) Digestible dry matter (%)
June leaves 13 20 1.44 0.25 54
August leaves 11 26 1.75 .35 50

 

COVER VALUE:

No entry

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Utah serviceberry has been used to revegetate big game winter range [3,13,33,37] and for surface stabilization [20]. The plant probably cannot be established from rooted cuttings [13]. It grows slowly from seed and therefore transplanting may be more successful than seeding for revegetation projects [29,33]. However, some authors claim successful transplantation is difficult [41].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

Utah serviceberry fruits were used by Native Americans and early European explorers in North America for food [24,34] and medicine [8,21].

Utah serviceberry has been used as an ornamental plant, due to its pink or white flowers in the spring and purplish fruit in the fall [34].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Utah serviceberry is a host for cedar-apple fungus [24,46]. Incidence of the fungus in Utah is highest at low elevations, on steep slopes, fine textured soils, and northern exposures [22].

Utah serviceberry is browsing tolerant [33].




BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Utah serviceberry is a many-branched, deciduous native shrub that grows from 2 to 15 feet (1-4 m) tall [20,21,30,33,41]. The plant can spread up to 15 feet (4.5 m) across [20].

The roots of Utah serviceberry are deep and spreading. Once the plant is established, Utah serviceberry tolerates drought well [20,41].

Utah serviceberry shares many ecological and botanical characteristics with Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), on which much more researched has been conducted. Please refer to the FEIS summary for that plant for further information.

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Utah serviceberry reproduces from seeds or by sprouting from the root crown. In some years, Utah serviceberry is a prolific seed producer. The berries persist on tree unless removed by animals [33].

Utah serviceberry seeds require stratification to germinate. Only 1% of seed germinated after 30 days of constant 43° Fahrenheit (6 °C) temperature in 1 laboratory trial. By 75 days, 51% had germinated, and 95% germinated by 150 days [29]. Following uncontrolled storage in Utah, more than 96% of Utah serviceberry seeds germinated after 7 years of storage. Germination percentage dropped significantly at 10 years, to 90%, and then decreased to 0% after 25 years [38,39]. Utah serviceberry grows slowly from seed [41]. Annual growth was measured at Ephraim Canyon, Utah, to determine species appropriate for rapid site stabilization. Utah serviceberry seedlings grew at the following rate (in total inches of height reached each year):

 
1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1965
Utah serviceberry 1 3 19 26 26 26 26 26 30

Utah serviceberry seedlings grow most actively in the fall if moisture is available [29].

 

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Utah serviceberry grows on dry, open, rocky slopes, [8,18,21,24]. Precipitation in Utah serviceberry sites is low, with mean annual totals from 15 to 21 inches (380-535 mm) spread throughout the year [6,41].

Utah serviceberry grows best on coarse to medium well-drained soils, with a pH of 6.5 to 7.5 [41]. It requires excellent drainage and moderate summer precipitation [18]. Utah serviceberry is not salt tolerant [20].

In Texas, Utah serviceberry grows on limestone slopes, in canyons, on rocks, and frequently under conifers, [34]. Utah serviceberry grows well on southwest exposures [13]. In Utah, the older, taller, and densest stands occur at high-elevation sites with moist northern slopes and deep soils [22].

Utah serviceberry occurs at the following elevations [8,18,21,24,34,41]:

AZ from 2,000 to 7,000 feet (606-2100 m)
CA from 3,000 to 7,000 feet (900-2100 m)
CO from 5,000 to 9,500 feet (1520-2890 m)
MT from 3,500 to 4,100 feet (1065-1250 m)
TX from 5,400 to 8,000 feet (1636-2424 m)
UT from 3,000 to 9,000 feet (900-2750 m)
WY from 7,000 to 8,800 feet (2130-2680 m)
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Utah serviceberry is a seral species [7,44] and is not shade tolerant [41]. In northwestern Colorado, small Utah snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilis) individuals are often found growing under large Utah serviceberry plants [45].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Utah serviceberry flowers from April to June [4,41]. Seeds mature after August 25 in Utah [33].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Utah serviceberry sprouts from the root crown following fire [7,8,9,13,28]. Soil moisture is important to aid sprouting [28].

Utah serviceberry occurs Rocky Mountain and Utah juniper woodlands, for which mean fire intervals are estimated to be from 10 to 30 years. Recovery of shrubs following fire in these communities takes approximately 25 years [9].

Presettlement mean fire intervals in ponderosa pine/Gambel oak habitat types of western Colorado, in which Utah serviceberry appears, are estimated to be from 2.7 to 25 years [9].

In a Colorado pinyon-Utah juniper habitat type, Utah serviceberry had recovered to 10% cover and 20% frequency 30 years following a stand-replacing fire. In the same area, 90 years following fire, Utah serviceberry has only a 2% frequency in the community [11].

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:

Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Aboveground parts of Utah serviceberry may be killed or consumed under fire conditions with sufficient flame lengths. Utah serviceberry may be slightly harmed by fire, depending on moisture conditions [9], but is generally considered to be fire tolerant [33].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Utah serviceberry sprouts from the root crown in response to fire [7,8,9,13,28].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

The literature does not report high fire-caused mortality for Utah serviceberry. If fire exclusion leads to increased shade, Utah serviceberry is likely to decrease.

Heavy litter accumulations may increase the likelihood of fire-caused mortality in Utah serviceberry [10].



FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:

Zlatnik, Elena, compiler. 1999. Response of Utah serviceberry to severe prescribed fire in Nevada. In: Amelanchier utahensis. 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/ [ ].

REFERENCE:

 Zschaechner, Greg A. 1985. Studying rangeland fire effects: a case study in Nevada. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office: 66-84. [48].


SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:

Horse Haven 1 was burned in late August, 1980. Horse Haven 2 burned in early October, 1980.

STUDY LOCATION:

These fires took place in eastern Nevada, 16 miles northwest of Ely, Nevada.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:

The study site featured big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula ssp. arbuscula), mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpus oreophilis), green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), rubber rabbitbrush (C. nauseosus), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), bluegrass (Poa spp.), needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), bluebunch wheatgrass (Psuedoroegneria spicata), basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), and a few forbs. The Horse Haven stand was estimated to be 35 years old.

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:

Utah serviceberry plants at Horse Haven 1 were in the fruiting stage.

SITE DESCRIPTION:

The Horse Haven site is 40 acres with a southwest aspect. Slope is 12% and elevation is 7,500 feet. Precipitation is approximately 9.4 inches/year.

FIRE DESCRIPTION:

Fire conditions were as follows:
Site Burn date Time Air temp (F) Relative humidity (%) Wind speed (mph) Live fuel moisture (%) Dead fuel moisture (%) Fuel depth (inches) Fuel loading (lb/ac) Soil moisture (%)
Horse Haven-1 8/29/80 1400 89 14 8 92 4 28 3.03 7
Horse Haven-2 10/8/80 1300 74 16 3 77 5 35 3.50 --
 

Flame lengths at Horse Haven 1 were 5 to 15 feet and rate of spread was 100 to 500 ft/min . Fireline intensity and heat per unit areas were 190 to 2020 BTU/ft/sec and 170 to 745 BTU/ft2, respectively.

At Horse Haven 2, fire behavior was erratic.

 

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:

At Horse Haven 1, 6 plants were tagged before the burn, all between 3.3 and 6.6 feet tall. One growing season following the August fire, 5 of the 6 plants were resprouting. The plant that died had 2.5 times more litter accumulated at its base than the other plants, prior to the fire. By 1984, 4 of the remaining 5 plants were growing vigorously and had reached 54% of their original height. The 5th seemed stressed and dying. At Horse Haven 2, the October burn, 2 Utah serviceberry plants were tagged. One plant was not burned at all. The other did burn but resprouted, and by 1984 it was 13 inches in height.

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Utah serviceberry plants sprouted following both August and October burns, but the sample size is too small to draw conclusions about seasonal fire effects.

 



REFERENCES

SPECIES: Amelanchier utahensis

1. Austin, Dennis D.; Urness, Philip J. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on mule deer diet and area selection. Journal of Range Management. 39(1): 18-21; 1986. [364]

2. 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]

3. Blaisdell, James P. 1972. Needs and opportunities for shrub research in the western United States. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium: Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 409-413. [22769]

4. Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; McArthur, E. Durant; [and others]. 1975. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. I. Rose family. Res. Pap. INT-169. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [472]

5. Bowns, James E. 1985. Rehabilitation and management of Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) dominated ranges in southwestern Utah. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 3rd Utah shrub ecology workshop; 1983 August 30-31; Provo, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 29-32. [3083]

6. Brown, David E. 1982. Great Basin montane scrubland. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 83-84. [8890]

7. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]

8. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]

9. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292]

10. DeByle, N. V. 1975. Influence of utilization standards and post-harvest residue treatments in lodgepole pine. In: Forest residues utilization research and development program. Progress Rep. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 102-104. [6756]

11. Erdman, James Allen. 1969. Pinyon-juniper succession after fires on residual soils of the Mesa Verde, Colorado. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 81 p. Dissertation. [11437]

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

13. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats; Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 136-149. [915]

14. 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]

15. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada. No. 49: Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops Research Division. 170 p. [6729]

16. Haufler, Jonathan B.; Nagy, Julius G. 1984. Summer food habits of a small mammal community in the pinyon-juniper ecosystem. The Great Basin Naturalist. 44(1): 145-150. [23856]

17. Hess, Karl; Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Grassland, shrubland, and forestland habitat types of the White River-Arapaho National Forest. Final Report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 335 p. [1142]

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

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

20. Institute for Land Rehabilitation. 1979. Selection, propagation, and field establishment of native plant species on disturbed arid lands. Bulletin 500. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 49 p. [1237]

21. 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]

22. Johnson, W. M. 1958. Reinvasion of big sagebrush following chemical control. Journal of Range Management. 11: 169-172. [127]

23. 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]

24. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]

25. 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]

26. 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]

27. McCulloch, Clay Y., Jr. 1955. Utilization of winter browse on wilderness big game range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 19(2): 206-215. [7933]

28. Mitchell, Jerry M. 1984. Fire management action plan: Zion National Park, Utah. Record of Decision. 73 p. Report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17278]

29. Monsen, Stephen B.; Christensen, Donald R. 1975. Woody plants for rehabilitating rangelands in the Intermountain Region. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings--symposium and workshop; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, UT. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University: 72-119. [1680]

30. Monsen, Stephen B.; Davis, James N. 1985. Progress in the improvement of selected western North American rosaceous shrubs. In: Carlson, Jack R.; McArthur, E. Durant, chairmen. Range plant improvement in western North America: Proceedings of a symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985 February 14; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 93-101. [1681]

31. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]

32. Northcutt, Bennett Earl. 1978. The plant ecology of Butler Wash, southeastern Utah. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 135 p. Thesis. [8846]

33. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968. Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]

34. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]

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

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

37. Stevens, Richard. 1983. Species adapted for seeding mountain brush, big, black, and low sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper communities. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 78-82. [2240]

38. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R. 1994. Rangeland species germination through 25 and up to 40 years of warehouse storage. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G, compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 257-265. [24292]

39. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Davis, James N. 1981. Viability of seed from thirty-two shrub and forb species through fifteen years of warehouse storage. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 274-277. [2244]

40. 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]

41. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 135 p. [49]

42. 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]

43. Urness, P. J.; Neff, D. J.; Watkins, R. K. 1975. Nutritive value of mule deer forages on ponderosa pine summer range in Arizona. Res. Note RM-304. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [15854]

44. Welden, Charles W.; Slauson, William L.; Ward, Richard T. 1988. Competition and abiotic stress among trees and shrubs in northwest Colorado. Ecology. 69(5): 1566-1577. [5614]

45. Welden, Charles W.; Slauson, William L.; Ward, Richard T. 1988. Competition and abiotic stress among trees and shrubs in northwest Colorado. Ecology. 69(5): 1566-1577. [5614]

46. 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]

47. Williams, Stephen E.; Aldon, Earl F. 1976. Endomycorrhizal (vesicular arbuscular) associations of some arid zone shrubs. The Southwestern Naturalist. 20(4): 437-444. [5517]

48. Zschaechner, Greg A. 1985. Studying rangeland fire effects: a case study in Nevada. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office: 66-84. [2692]



FEIS Home Page