SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Anderson, Michelle D. 2001. Dasiphora floribunda. 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:
DASFLO

SYNONYMS:
Dasiphora fruticosa L. Rydb. [58,78,90,192]
Pentaphylloides floribunda (Pursh) Löve [78,87,103,187,191,192]
Pentaphylloides fruticosa (L.) O. Schwarz [187]
Potentilla floribunda Pursh [58,74,78,192]
Potentilla fruticosa L. [58,73,74,78,87,90,103,121,166,171,187,192]
Potentilla fruticosa L. ssp. floribunda (Pursh) Elkington [87,187]
Potentilla fruticosa var. tenuifolia Lehm. [87]

NRCS PLANT CODE [183,184]:
DAFL3

COMMON NAMES:
shrubby cinquefoil
bush cinquefoil

TAXONOMY:
The currently accepted scientific name of shrubby cinquefoil is Dasiphora floribunda (Pursh) Kartesz (Rosaceae) [88].

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
No entry


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Shrubby cinquefoil is widely distributed throughout the northern hemisphere. It is found in Europe, Asia, and North America [148]. In North America, shrubby cinquefoil ranges from Alaska and the Northwest Territories east through Canada to Labrador, Newfoundland, and Greenland. Shrubby cinquefoil's distribution extends south to California, Arizona, New Mexico, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey [35,84,148,189,190]. The PLANTS database provides a map of shrubby cinquefoil's distribution in the United States.

ECOSYSTEMS [57]:
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES44 Alpine

STATES:
AK AZ CA CO CT DE ID IL
IN IA ME MD MA MI MN MT
NV NH NJ NM NY ND OH OR
PA RI SD UT VT WA WV WI
WY

AB BC LB MB NB NF
NT NS ON PQ SK YK

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [10]:
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER [100] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest
K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir-hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest
K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K031 Oak-juniper woodland
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K047 Fescue-oatgrass
K050 Fescue-wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K069 Bluestem-grama prairie
K070 Sandsage-bluestem prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K086 Juniper-oak savanna
K093 Great Lakes spruce-fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce-fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K100 Oak-hickory forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods-fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods-spruce forest

SAF COVER TYPES [48]:
1 Jack pine
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce-tamarack
14 Northern pin oak
16 Aspen
18 Paper birch
35 Paper birch-red spruce-balsam fir
37 Northern white-cedar
38 Tamarack
39 Black ash-American elm-red maple
42 Bur oak
46 Eastern redcedar
52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
65 Pin oak-sweetgum
107 White spruce
110 Black oak
201 White spruce
202 White spruce-paper birch
203 Balsam poplar
204 Black spruce
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
208 Whitebark pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood-willow
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
235 Cottonwood-willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
251 White spruce-aspen
252 Paper birch
253 Black spruce-white spruce
254 Black spruce-paper birch
256 California mixed subalpine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [167]:
102 Idaho fescue
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
108 Alpine Idaho fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
203 Riparian woodland
204 North coastal shrub
205 Coastal sage shrub
209 Montane shrubland
210 Bitterbrush
213 Alpine grassland
216 Montane meadows
217 Wetlands
302 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass
304 Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
305 Idaho fescue-Richardson needlegrass
306 Idaho fescue-slender wheatgrass
307 Idaho fescue-threadleaf sedge
308 Idaho fescue-tufted hairgrass
309 Idaho fescue-western wheatgrass
311 Rough fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
312 Rough fescue-Idaho fescue
313 Tufted hairgrass-sedge
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue
323 Shrubby cinquefoil-rough fescue
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
406 Low sagebrush
408 Other sagebrush types
410 Alpine rangeland
411 Aspen woodland
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
422 Riparian
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
601 Bluestem prairie
606 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
607 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
608 Wheatgrass-grama-needlegrass
609 Wheatgrass-grama
612 Sagebrush-grass
613 Fescue grassland
804 Tall fescue
901 Alder
904 Black spruce-lichen
905 Bluejoint reedgrass
906 Broadleaf forest
907 Dryas
908 Fescue
909 Freshwater marsh
910 Hairgrass
912 Low scrub shrub birch-ericaceous
913 Low scrub swamp
914 Mesic sedge-grass-herb meadow tundra
916 Sedge-shrub tundra
917 Tall shrub swamp
918 Tussock tundra
919 Wet meadow tundra
920 White spruce-paper birch
921 Willow

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Eastern North America:
Shrubby cinquefoil is common in fen and meadow vegetation in the eastern part of its range. In Newfoundland, shrubby cinquefoil occurs in fen larch (Larix spp.) forests with bog birch (Betula glandulosa), swamp birch (Betula pumila), yellow sedge (Carex pensylvanica), northern singlespike sedge (Carex scirpoidea), sweet gale (Myrica gale), and white meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia) [154], and is an indicator species of rich fens [143]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in fens and bogs in Maine [157], may dominate peatland vegetation in Indiana [176], and is a typical indicator species of fens in Ohio [170]. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs in bog meadow vegetation in Ohio with ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), dogwood (Cornus spp.), and swamp birch [56]. It is common in wetland vegetation dominated by sedges (Carex spp.) [97] and is associated with mat muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis) [44] in Wisconsin. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs as a codominant with tussock sedge (Carex stricta), Ohio goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis), and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii) in Illinois fens [175].

Shrubby cinquefoil is common in prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis)-little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) grasslands [173] and is a common understory species of black oak (Quercus velutina) communities on sand dunes [130] in Michigan.

Western North America:
Shrubby cinquefoil is associated with willows (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.), birch (Betula spp.), sedges, rushes (Juncus spp.), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) [189], and is a common shrub associate of blue spruce (Picea pungens) [50] in western North America. It is common in open taiga spruce (Picea spp.) forests [1,94,131]. In northern Rockies peatlands, shrubby cinquefoil occurs in the water sedge (Carex aquatilis) community type [22]. In the northern Rockies and the Intermountain West, shrubby cinquefoil is common in mountain brush and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities [127,141,193]. It occurs in the central Rockies in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), blue spruce, quaking aspen, cliffbush (Jamesia americana), common juniper (Juniperus communis), bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), wax currant (Ribes cereum), and Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii) [152].

Western Canada and Alaska:
In northwestern Canada, shrubby cinquefoil is common in the medium shrub/entire leaf mountainavens (Dryas integrifolia) plant association and prominent in the white spruce (Picea glauca)/shrub/mountainavens plant association [179]. In the Yukon Territory, it occurs with American green alder (Alnus viridis ssp. crispa) and prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) [12]. In western Canada, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs in jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forests [23,41]; in the black spruce (Picea mariana) forests with bog Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), blueberry willow (Salix myrtillifolia), and prickly rose [23,41,117]; and in the white spruce-willow-birch plant association, with grayleaf willow (Salix glauca), planeleaf willow (S. planifolia ssp. planifolia), Scouler willow (S. scouleriana), Bebb willow (S. bebbiana), bog birch, and russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis) [116,117,142].  It may occur as a shrub dominant in some black spruce and white spruce communities in British Columbia [138]. It is common in the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)/common juniper plant association in British Columbia and Alberta, occurring with russet buffaloberry and bearberry [129]; and in the limber pine forests with common juniper, Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), creeping juniper (J. horizontalis), bearberry, prickly rose, common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) [1]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stands [102] and in the prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha)-creeping juniper shrub savannah plant association [172] in the Canadian Rockies. It is an important constituent in the grasslands of the Canadian Rockies, occurring in the rough fescue (Festuca altaica) grasslands [19,29,109,125,151,195]. It is commonly found in the rough fescue/Parry's danthonia (Danthonia parryi) plant association of Alberta [168]. It may codominate grasslands with bearberry and prickly rose in western Canada [172]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in riparian and forest wetland vegetation [83,91].

Shrubby cinquefoil occurs in the open willow shrub communities of interior Alaska [67,196]. It is a common understory shrub in white spruce stands [55] and in the open black spruce forests of Alaska, occurring with bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), Labrador tea, black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), and red bearberry (Arctostaphylos rubra) [55,79]. It may form a dense shrub layer with russet buffaloberry, diamondleaf willow (Salix planifolia ssp. pulchra), prickly rose, and saplings of white spruce and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) in upland taiga vegetation [112]. Shrubby cinquefoil is a common understory species in Alaska willow (Salix alaxensis) and American green alder stands [36]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in freshwater marshes and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) grasslands [67], and may occur as a dominant in arctic alpine plant communities [86].

Western United States:
Shrubby cinquefoil is a codominant in the montane grasslands of north-central Montana, occurring with Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and rough fescue [110,178]. In some areas shrubby cinquefoil has become established in large continuous stands [148]. It is also a codominant with rough fescue in a tundra-like plant community of subalpine grassland above timberline [178]. It is a common associate of bearberry, rockdwelling sedge (Carex rupestris), and russet buffaloberry on subalpine sites [6]. Shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs with creeping juniper in the juniper (Juniperus spp.)/cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.)/fescue (Festuca spp.) and juniper/cinquefoil/sedgeplant associations. It is also common in  juniper/alpineoatgrass (Helictotrichon spp.) and juniper/little bluestem/fescue plant associations [119]. It may also occur with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) or silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) in eastern and southwestern Montana [126,128,134,135]; and with willow [139], onespike danthonia (Danthonia unispicata), and mountain brome (Bromus carinatus) [128] in southwestern Montana. Shrubby cinquefoil also forms a major riparian or wetland vegetation type in Montana [62,64,65,66]. It is common in Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests [106] and in the Douglas-fir/common snowberry habitat type [96].

Shrubby cinquefoil occurs sparsely in Rocky Mountain juniper stands [146] and in the wooded draws of upland grass communities [200] in the badlands of North Dakota.  It occurs commonly in this region with skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata) and Saskatoon serviceberry [159,200]. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, shrubby cinquefoil is the most common understory species in the ponderosa pine/shrubby cinquefoil/common snowberry/woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca) plant community [39,177].

In western Wyoming, shrubby cinquefoil occurs in silver sagebrush, shrub swamp communities, and occasionally in riparian and aspen forests [7,99,149,198]. It is common in big sagebrush/bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) [76] and big sagebrush/Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) [169] plant associations. Shrubby cinquefoil is a characteristic shrub of the spruce (Picea spp.)-fir (Abies spp.) zone [25]. It is commonly found with Englemann spruce (Picea engelmannii), blue spruce, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), common snowberry, pachistima (Pachistima myrsinites), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), common juniper, Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), russet buffaloberry [198], big sagebrush, silver sagebrush [199], timber oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia) [181], tufted hairgrass, Wolf's trisetum (Trisetum wolfii), alpine timothy (Phleum alpinum), varileaf cinquefoil (Potentilla diversifolia), and meadow thistle (Cirsium scariosum) [115]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in limber pine habitat types in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho [14,54]. 

In Idaho wetland and riparian communities, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs with quaking aspen, sedges, and willows [26,27,144]. The shrubby cinquefoil/timber oatgrass plant association forms riparian complexes with sedge and willow communities [28].

In Nevada, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs with Gray's licoriceroot (Ligusticum grayii), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), rosy pussytoes (Antennaria microphylla), northwest cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis), California false hellebore (Veratrum californicum), and Fendler's meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri) [113].

In Utah, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs with silver sagebrush or mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) and bog birch, Wolf's willow (Salix wolfii), smallwing sedge (Carex microptera), clustered field sedge (C. praegracilis), and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) [132,199]. It is also common in quaking aspen stands [89], lodgepole pine forests [132], and with narrowleaf cottonwood, common juniper, and bearberry [133]. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs as a prominent shrub layer associate in the spruce-fir zone of Utah [70].

Shrubby cinquefoil is also common in the spruce-fir zone of Colorado [77], and is a common understory species in aspen stands, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forests, occurring with Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, rose (Rosa spp.), russet buffaloberry, and common juniper [31,32,105].

In New Mexico, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs in alpine tundra vegetation [122] and in spruce-fir forests with quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine [32,136].

Plant Communities:
Shrubby cinquefoil is a dominant species in the following plant associations: 

white spruce/shrubby cinquefoil/bearberry [1]
cinquefoil/Campylietum stellati  [143]
water birch (Betula occidentalis)/shrubby cinquefoil
shrubby cinquefoil/tufted hairgrass
shrubby cinquefoil/dry alkaline graminoid
shrubby cinquefoil/Idaho fescue [81]
shrubby cinquefoil/timber oatgrass [28,81]

Shrubby cinquefoil is a dominant species in the following community types:

black spruce/dwarf arctic birch (Betula nana)-shrubby cinquefoil/sedge
black spruce/willow/shrubby cinquefoil/red bearberry/felt lichen (Peltigera spp.) 
shrubby cinquefoil-sweet gale-bog birch/black crowberry (Empetrum nigra)/marsh sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) 
shrubby cinquefoil-sweet gale-bog birch-narrow leaf Labrador tea (Ledum palustre ssp. decumbens)/feathermoss 
sweet gale-shrubby cinquefoil-dwarf arctic birch/narrow leaf Labrador tea-cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus) [185]
shrubby conifer/shrubby cinquefoil [132]
shrubby cinquefoil/timber oatgrass [113,180]
shrubby cinquefoil [108]
shrubby cinquefoil/Idaho fescue [199]
shrubby cinquefoil/tufted hairgrass [16,132,140,199]
shrubby cinquefoil/Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) [16,132,199]

Shrubby cinquefoil is a dominant species in the following habitat types:

shrubby cinquefoil/Idaho fescue [115,126,181]
shrubby cinquefoil/rough fescue [126]
shrubby cinquefoil/tufted hairgrass [13,61,64,65,66].

Shrubby cinquefoil has also been identified as "dominance type" in Montana, with understory species including tufted hairgrass, Baltic rush, clustered field sedge, and smallwing sedge [63].

Classifications describing plant communities in which shrubby cinquefoil is a dominant species are as follows:

Alaska [185]
Alberta [1]
British Columbia [1]
Idaho [61,81,132,180,199]
Montana [13,61,63,64,65,66,126]
Newfoundland [143]
Nevada [108,113]
Utah [132]
Wyoming [115,181,199]


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Though it has low forage value [119], shrubby cinquefoil's widespread distribution, persistent leaves, and low spreading growth form make it an important source of forage for ungulates [13,34,65,182]. 

Sites abundant in shrubby cinquefoil in New Mexico generally have a low potential for grazing [32]. Shrubby cinquefoil is grazed in some areas by domestic goats, sheep, and cattle [92,125,148,190,194].

Though it is not preferred forage for deer in Utah [5], shrubby cinquefoil is lightly browsed by mule deer, elk, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep throughout its range [55,101,125,148,161,190]. Winter use of shrubby cinquefoil by deer and elk is also typically light [13,65]. It is a low preference shrub for bighorn sheep, though it receives moderate to heavy use when new growth begins [172]. Shrubby cinquefoil stems are important elk winter browse in Colorado [75].

Small birds and mammals consume shrubby cinquefoil seeds [189].

PALATABILITY:
Shrubby cinquefoil is of low palatability for livestock [13,65,126,181,189,190] and big game animals [13,65,68,177,181,189,190,193]. Leaves have a coarse texture and astringent taste [34]. Young seedlings are more palatable than mature plants, and the seeds are palatable to small mammals [46,189].

The palatability of shrubby cinquefoil has been rated as follows [40]:

  CO MT ND OR UT WY
Cattle Poor Poor Poor --- Fair Poor
Domestic sheep Poor  Fair Fair --- Fair Fair
Horses Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor
Pronghorn --- --- Poor --- Poor Poor
Elk Poor Poor --- --- Fair Fair
Mule deer Poor Poor Poor --- Fair Fair
White-tailed deer --- Poor Poor --- --- Fair
Small mammals --- --- --- --- Poor Fair
Small nongame birds --- --- --- --- Fair Good
Upland game birds --- --- --- --- Poor Fair
Waterfowl --- --- --- --- Poor Poor

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Shrubby cinquefoil has fair food value for elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, nongame birds, and small mammals. It has poor food value for antelope, upland game birds, and waterfowl [13,65].

Shrubby cinquefoil provides a fair amount of usable energy and a poor amount of digestible protein [13]. Digestible protein increases with seasonal development, from 0.1% at leaf stage to 0.8% at heading and 0.9% at seed ripening [11]. Specific nutritional information is as follows [85]:

  Leaf stage Heading Seed ripe
Dry matter (%) 92.17 90.80 91.24
Protein (%) 12.97 9.50 9.53
Crude fat (%) 3.53 4.35 4.43
Crude fiber (%) 19.20 20.55 20.50
Ash (%) 4.67 4.65 5.30
Ca (%) 0.73 0.99 1.01
P (%) 0.18 0.11 0.15
Carotene (mg/kg) 37.37 40.60 6.03
Digestible protein (%) 0.1 0.8 0.9

COVER VALUE:
Shrubby cinquefoil provides fair cover for mule deer and has a high cover value for upland game birds and small mammals [190]. It is also an important source of nesting and hiding cover for numerous songbirds [13,61,64,65].

Cover value of shrubby cinquefoil has been rated as follows [40]:

CO MT ND OR UT WY
Pronghorn --- --- Fair --- Poor Poor
Elk --- Poor --- --- Poor Poor
Mule deer --- Poor Fair --- Poor Poor
White-tailed deer --- Poor Fair --- --- Poor
Small mammals --- Poor --- --- Fair Good
Small nongame birds --- Poor --- --- Fair Good
Upland game birds Poor Poor --- --- Fair Fair
Waterfowl --- --- --- --- Fair Poor

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Shrubby cinquefoil has been found to successfully revegetate disturbed lands [53,111,141,182]. It establishes poorly from seed but very well if transplanted [141]. One study of nursery stock survival on disturbed sites in Alaska found 97% survival of seedlings after 2 years and 100% survival of rooted cuttings after 1 year. Planting nursery stock also provides visual amelioration on disturbed sites [38]. Five years or more may be required for full stands to develop from seed [189]. Shrubby cinquefoil has been rated high for biomass production, moderate for erosion control potential, low to moderate for short-term revegetation potential, and moderate to high for long-term revegetation potential [13,40,61,64,65,66].

Shrubby cinquefoil sometimes occurs as a dominant plant species on dry, unstable cut slopes and is recommended for revegetating dry, disturbed sites [37,53] and roadsides [182,190]. It colonizes oil spills [95], seismic lines [94], and abandoned coal mining sites [158] in Canada. Shrubby cinquefoil is successful in revegetating mining-disturbed lands [17,190], and has shown good potential for growth and survival on amended mine tailings [189], achieving a 67-100% survival rate [51,52]. Because shrubby cinquefoil readily establishes from nursery grown stock, grows quickly, and provides excellent soil stability, it is well adapted for revegetating disturbed streambank and moist meadow sites [13,61,64,65,66].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:
On northern and western grasslands, shrubby cinquefoil commonly occurs with rough fescue, which may benefit from the protection afforded by shrubby cinquefoil. Rough fescue may experience increased vigor as a result, and on some sites may fail to set seed without the presence of shrubby cinquefoil [110].

Shrubby cinquefoil is useful for erosion control and soil stabilization [46,189,190], and may be useful in wildlife habitat mitigation [59].

Due to its virtually continuous summer blooming, shrubby cinquefoil is a valuable landscape ornamental [33,37,46,182,189,190], and is recommended for landscaping in deer winter range areas because it is seldom browsed [5].

The dried leaves of shrubby cinquefoil were commonly used by Native Americans to make tea. Dried leaves were also made into a mixture considered an arrow poison that was thought to go directly to the heart. Dried, finely powdered leaves were believed to protect the body from severe, temporary heat [69].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Canopy cover of shrubby cinquefoil increases in response to moderate grazing, while heavy grazing decreases canopy cover.  Shrubby cinquefoil is tolerant to moderate defoliation by grazing but is injured by repeated defoliation, especially when accompanied by drought conditions [13,61,64,65,189,190]. Shrubby cinquefoil may be killed by browsing [20,47] or trampling; in a Wisconsin study, significantly fewer (p<0.05) shrubby cinquefoil plants were found on or near animal trails than in the surrounding vegetation [20]. On study sites in New York, invasion by shrubby cinquefoil corresponds to the cessation of grazing activities [49]. 

The spread of continuous stands of shrubby cinquefoil in western grasslands may be associated with excessive grazing [126,148,164,181]. On bighorn sheep range in western Canada, shrubby cinquefoil was positively correlated with total forage utilization and stocking rates but negatively correlated with forage production. The proportion of shrubby cinquefoil in the vegetation increased as forage utilization increased and the stocking rate increased, but the proportion decreased as forage production/ha increased. Study results indicated that in using shrubby cinquefoil as an index to range condition, grasslands containing more than 5% shrubby cinquefoil, and especially those containing more than 10%, were overgrazed [172]. However, another study in fescue grassland of western Canada found no significant difference in shrubby cinquefoil percent cover at different stocking rates, which ranged from low to very high [195], and other authors report that extensive grazing may substantially decrease the density of shrubby cinquefoil [163,194].

Shrubby cinquefoil may limit forage production on some high elevation grasslands. The density of shrubby cinquefoil has been negatively correlated with forage production [125], and continuous stands of shrubby cinquefoil in particular may limit production and availability of herbaceous forage [148]. 

Effective control of shrubby cinquefoil has been achieved with herbicide treatments of 2,4-D, 2,4-DE/dichlorprop E, and hexazinone. Little regrowth occurred after treatment, and shrubby cinquefoil control resulted in increased forage production and utilization [125]. Picloram is also effective in controlling shrubby cinquefoil, with higher concentrations causing greater mortality [164]. 


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Shrubby cinquefoil is native to North America, Asia, and Europe [5,45,189] and is cold tolerant and winter hardy [189]. It is a deciduous, multi-stemmed [148] and many branched shrub [46,171,182,190] reaching heights of 1 to 6.5 feet (0.3-2 m) [46,92,103,171,182,189,190], but occurring as a cushion plant in alpine areas [9]. Shrubby cinquefoil branches are pubescent in the 1st year, becoming brown and glabrous in the 2nd year [46,103,171]. Bark becomes fibrous on branches in the 2nd and 3rd years [46,92,148,171,189]. Mature plants have both erect and prostrate branches [46,78,189], the latter able to root adventitiously [46]. The growth form of shrubby cinquefoil varies; it occurs as a low mat and as an erect shrub [125,148,190].

Shrubby cinquefoil has numerous leaves with 3 to 9 leaflets that have long white hairs on both surfaces [46,78]. The lower surface of the leaves has many stomata; the upper surface has none [46]. 

Shrubby cinquefoil flowers are terminal, occasionally with solitary flowers but usually with many flowers in close clusters [46,103,171]. Varieties of shrubby cinquefoil from North America are monoecious [45,46]. In pollination experiments, shrubby cinquefoil from North America was found self-incompatible [33]. Shrubby cinquefoil produces a compact head of hairy achenes that may persist in winter months [103,171,189].

Shrubby cinquefoil has a shallow to moderately deep, spreading root system [148,189] with thin woody roots [46].

Shrubby cinquefoil is a "long-lived" perennial [190]; on moist marl sites in New York, the average age of shrubby cinquefoil plants was 25.3 years, with the oldest plant 36 years old [165].

RAUNKIAER [147] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Shrubby cinquefoil regenerates from wind-dispersed seed and by sprouting from the root crown [38,46,72,148,189,190]. The number of flowers on each plant varies, so seed production is also variable among individuals [46]. Generally, shrubby cinquefoil produces approximately 50 seeds per flower [164]. Seed undergoes a dormancy period; there is no evidence that frost is required to break dormancy [46]. In laboratory experiments, seed germination rates range from 55% to 82%. Growth is slow and 5 years may be required for full stands to develop [189].

Though the normal means of reproduction is through seed, shrubby cinquefoil also spreads vegetatively from adventitious rooting of prostrate stems [46,148]. Elkington and Woodell [46] note that on some sites, particularly those periodically inundated, this type of vegetative reproduction may be highly effective.

Shrubby cinquefoil grows well under greenhouse conditions from both seed and cuttings [38]. It is easily propagated from softwood cuttings, and establishes well from rooted cuttings [42,104]. Shrubby cinquefoil transplants readily from the wild and from bare-root or container nursery stock. Seeding sites must be moist for good establishment; shrubby cinquefoil seedlings are durable and persistent once established [182,189].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Shrubby cinquefoil occupies a wide variety of sites and is distributed from low valleys to mountain peaks [148,182], growing in riparian communities [13,21,27,61,81,113,139,163,182,198], around springs [16,64,65,66,144], wetland sites [13,81,83,115,139], upland sites [6,61,168,194], rock ledges [1,124], and subalpine and alpine sites [8,9,37,122,124]. In Alberta alone, shrubby cinquefoil occurs on low, moist riparian sites, prairies, dry rock ledges, open mountain valleys, and boreal forests where it is confined to swamps and riparian areas [164,190]. In intermountain areas, it is well adapted to wet meadows and subalpine areas [141]. In western Montana, shrubby cinquefoil is likely to occur in mountain stream bottoms; on the east side of the Continental Divide it is more widespread, occurring in large open areas, particularly subalpine meadows [148,178].

Shrubby cinquefoil often occurs as transitional vegetation from wetland sites to drier upland sites [115,199] and from foothills to mountains [84] in the western part of its range. Though present next to rivers, shrubby cinquefoil may contribute more to shrub cover 65 to 130 feet (20-40 m) from riverbanks [135].

Shrubby cinquefoil has fair to weakly moderate drought tolerance in the western United States [189], and has been rated moderate to high drought tolerance in Alberta [190]. Shrubby cinquefoil prefers open sites but will grow under light shade [125,134,182,190]. Though it is moderately shade tolerant, shrubby cinquefoil flowers more abundantly in nearly full sun [189]. 

Topography: Shrubby cinquefoil occupies toeslopes, mid-slopes, and upper slopes, as well as old stream terraces of steep-sided valleys [81,113,116,117,131,132]. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, shrubby cinquefoil grows on exposed ridges [177]. Shrubby cinquefoil is also found on gently rolling or sloping topography [16,81,126,168,181], in broad meadows [64,65,66,81,132], and on broad terraces adjacent to streams [13,16,64,65,66,132,149]. It grows on slopes ranging from 1-20% [113,132].

Elevation: Shrubby cinquefoil grows in the subarctic zone of northern Canada [94], occurring from 4760 to 5413 feet (1450-1650 m) in the Yukon Territory [12]. It grows up to at least 4920 feet (1500 m) in Alaska [78]. In the Rocky Mountain States, shrubby cinquefoil's distribution ranges from the prairie and foothills to the alpine regions. In Montana, it grows from 2820 to 9500 feet (859-2895 m) [6,13,64,65,66,103,119,126,128,134,139]; in Idaho, from 4820 to12000 feet (1469-3658 m) [26,61,81,124]; in Wyoming from 6500 to 8600 feet (1981-2621 m) [181]; in Utah, from 6000 to 10000 feet (1828-3048 m) [132]; in Colorado, from 9000 to 11000 feet (2743-3353 m) [77]. In New Mexico, it is common in the alpine zone above 11,500 feet (3505 m) [122]. In Nevada, shrubby cinquefoil grows in the subalpine zone, 8500-8800 feet (2591-2682 m) [113].

Precipitation: Shrubby cinquefoil occurs on sites receiving 10-30 inches  (254-762 mm) of annual precipitation [19,36,126,128,145,181].

Soils: Shrubby cinquefoil grows on depositional substrates including alluvial, morainal, glaciofluvial, and colluvial [26,76,81,116,132,144]. Parent materials vary [199] and include limestone, sandstone, granite, and basalt [16,26,84,107,126,145]. Soils may be poorly to well-drained; shrubby cinquefoil is tolerant of wet conditions and flooding, and calcareous substrates [1,26,120,127,150,190]. 

In the western part of its range, shrubby cinquefoil is found on a wide range of soil classes [189], from clay, fine loam, sandy loam, and loamy skeletal soils [16,26,61,64,65,66,113,132,133,169,190,199] to coarse textured soils [144,177,182,190,198]. It grows well on most textural classes, except dense clay and loose sand [189]. Soils supporting shrubby cinquefoil are moderately deep [26,117,126,181] to very deep [181,199], often with humus layers [117]. Confining rock layers may be present beneath the soil [16]. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs on xerophytic sites [1,133] and on mesic sites [29,105,124,125,168,177,181] with moderate to high estimated water holding capacity that dry out early in the growing season [113,132,199]. In Idaho, shrubby cinquefoil occurs in calcareous fens, phreatophytic woodlands, and spring-fed meadows [81].

In the eastern part of its range, shrubby cinquefoil is found primarily on moist lowland forest sites [24], occurring on dry or wet sites of river banks, lakeshores, fens and marshes [80,82,84,156,157,171]. It occurs on sandy, rocky, and gravelly soils including sand dunes and rock ledges [30,130,171], and on poorly drained soils, occurring in mesotrophic and eutrophic fens [49,154]. Fen sites are often calcareous [20,44,162] with a pH of 5.5-8.0 [162]. Shrubby cinquefoil dominates peatland vegetation in Indiana where pH is 6.9 [176]. Shrubby cinquefoil may dominate the vegetation around calcareous seeps in Illinois where soil is maintained in a saturated condition [175]. In New York, shrubby cinquefoil often occurs on moist marl beds [165]. In Michigan grasslands, shrubby cinquefoil increases in abundance at the lower end of drainage gradients and may dominate vegetation on associated wetland sites [173].

Shrubby cinquefoil is tolerant of weakly saline and moderately acid to moderately basic soils; it is often found on calcareous sites [6,16,19,49,141,144,145,169,177,179,189]. Shrubby cinquefoil is tolerant of poor soil [114], and it has been found on depleted, unproductive sites [32].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Shrubby cinquefoil occurs as both a dominant species and a minor understory species  in a variety of vegetation types, and occurs in both early and late seral stages. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs on forest edges and in openings created by disturbance [86]. It colonizes disturbed sites [84,95,145] and may be vigorous due to reduced competition from canopy species [84]. Shrubby cinquefoil occurs as a dominant in vegetation on dry, disturbed sites in Alaska [37]. Shrubby cinquefoil is common in both slowly and rapidly progressing successional vegetation of riparian areas, and persists through the successional stages [36]. Shrubby cinquefoil may occur as part of climax or subclimax vegetation on seral floodplains in Wyoming [76]. In Alaskan taiga vegetation, shrubby cinquefoil occurs on surfaces disturbed annually by flooding, ice scouring and sediment deposition/erosion. On these sites, shrubby cinquefoil forms a dense shrub layer with russet buffaloberry, prickly rose, willow, and white spruce and balsam poplar saplings [112]. The presence of shrubby cinquefoil in big sagebrush/Sandberg bluegrass communities in Wyoming may indicate an unstable plant community, seral to a subalpine climax forest [169].

Shrubby cinquefoil may be an indicator of climax vegetation on moderately moist Montana grassland and shrub foothill communities east of the Continental Divide [126]. It is a major shrub component on undisturbed sites in fescue grassland [125]. In the shrubby cinquefoil/tufted hairgrass habitat type, canopy cover of shrubby cinquefoil averages 20-29% [13,61,66], and may form pure stands with more than 7500 plants per acre on sites in Montana [92]. In western Wyoming, stands of shrubby cinquefoil/tufted hairgrass may be mid-seral, while stands of shrubby cinquefoil/Idaho fescue are relatively stable [199].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
In North America, shrubby cinquefoil resumes growth in early spring to early summer [172,189]. Shrubby cinquefoil flowers from late May to late September [56,171,189]. The main flowering of shrubby cinquefoil occurs in July on older growth and in August on current year growth [164]. Seed maturation occurs in late summer to early fall [171,189].


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Shrubby cinquefoil is susceptible to damage by fire [7,14,15,98,128,189]; however, if the root crown remains undamaged individual plants readily resprout [13,14,15,64,65,92,126,128,131,181,189]. Shrubby cinquefoil also re-establishes from off-site seed sources [46,189].

The fibrous bark of shrubby cinquefoil results in very flashing, high intensity fuel [92,148]. The high density of shrubby cinquefoil growing in pure stands (up to 7,500 plants/acre or 18,750 plants/ha) may increase fire spread and intensity; when growing in conjunction with shrubby cinquefoil, bunchgrasses may contribute to shrubby cinquefoil's flammability [92].

Fire occurs infrequently on many shrubby cinquefoil sites; some areas are too moist to carry fire [189]. Other sites, such as talus slopes, may lack sufficient fuels to carry fire [92].

Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which shrubby cinquefoil occurs are summarized below. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities and ecosystems where shrubby cinquefoil is found, see the 'Fire Ecology and Adaptations' section of the FEIS summary for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below.

Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
sagebrush steppe Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata 20-70 [137]
basin big sagebrush A. t. var. tridentata 12-43 [160]
mountain big sagebrush A. t. var. vaseyana 20-60 [4,18]
Wyoming big sagebrush A. t. var. wyomingensis 10-70 (40**) [186,197]
plains grasslands Bouteloua spp. < 35 
mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii < 35 to < 100 
California steppe Festuca-Danthonia spp. < 35
western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70 
Rocky Mountain juniper J. scopulorum < 35 
tamarack Larix laricina 35-200 [137]
western larch L. occidentalis 25-100 [3]
Great Lakes spruce-fir Picea-Abies spp. 35 to > 200 
northeastern spruce-fir Picea-Abies spp. 35-200 [43]
Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir P. engelmannii-A. lasiocarpa 35 to > 200 [3]
black spruce P. mariana 35-200 
conifer bog* P. m.-L. laricina 35-200 [43]
blue spruce* P.  pungens 35-200 [3]
pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. < 35 [137]
whitebark pine* P. albicaulis 50-200 [3]
jack pine P. banksiana <35 to 200 [43]
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine* P. contorta var. latifolia 25-300+ [2,3,155]
Sierra lodgepole pine* P. c. var. murrayana 35-200 
western white pine* P. monticola 50-200 
Pacific ponderosa pine* P.  ponderosa var. ponderosa 1-47 
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine* P. p. var. scopulorum 2-10 
Arizona pine P. p. var. arizonica 2-10 [3]
red-white-jack pine* P. resinosa-P. strobus-P. banksiana 10-300 [43,71]
aspen-birch Populus tremuloides-Betula papyrifera 35-200 [43,188]
quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains) P. tremuloides 7-120 [3,60,118]
mountain grasslands Pseudoroegneria spicata 3-40 (10**) [2,3]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 25-100 [3]
coastal Douglas-fir* P. m. var. menziesii 40-240 [3,123,153]
California mixed evergreen P. m. var. m.-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii < 35 [3]
northeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. 10 to < 35 
white oak-black oak-northern red oak Q. alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra < 35 
northern red oak Q. rubra 10 to < 35 
black oak Q. velutina < 35 [188]
*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary
**mean

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [174]:
Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Shrubby cinquefoil is susceptible to fire top-kill [7,14,15,98,128,189], but may survive low- to moderate-severity fires [14,15,189] and resprout vigorously [148]. Fischer and Clayton [54] found shrubby cinquefoil susceptible to fire in eastern Montana, and Kessell and Potter [96] found that even a low-intensity fire removed shrubby cinquefoil from Douglas-fir/common snowberry habitat types in Montana.

Research suggests that spring burns are less damaging to shrubby cinquefoil and cause less mortality than do summer or fall burns [189].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Though spring burns are reported to be less damaging, research results are conflicting. A spring burn in central Montana resulted in little mortality of shrubby cinquefoil because most plants readily resprouted [92]. Wet or saturated soil moisture levels on these sites were high enough to prevent damage to the root crown. Nimir and Payne [128] found higher rates of mortality and little resprouting on another spring burn in Montana; shrubby cinquefoil was clearly damaged by fire on these sites.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Following fire, shrubby cinquefoil readily resprouts from the surviving root crown [13,14,15,64,65,92,126,128,131,181,189]. When the root crown is damaged by fire, re-establishment occurs from off-site seed [46]. If resprouting occurs, recovery of shrubby cinquefoil is relatively rapid, but seedling growth is slower and full stand development may take up to 5 years [189].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
No entry

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Due to the ability of shrubby cinquefoil to readily resprout, burning to reduce shrubby cinquefoil density is normally ineffective [13,61,64,66,148]. Percent cover of shrubby cinquefoil  remained at preburn levels in response to a relatively "cool" prescribed burn in Maine [156,157]. However, burning in sagebrush vegetation in southwestern Montana significantly reduced (p<0.01) basal cover of shrubby cinquefoil [128], and percent cover has also been reduced by fire in Illinois fens [175].

The fibrous, highly flammable bark of shrubby cinquefoil may result in high intensity prescribed burns in stands of shrubby cinquefoil. In one study in central Montana, defoliation of overstory conifers was common due to high intensity burning of shrubby cinquefoil in the understory, resulting in 90% mortality of trees [92].

On one southwestern Montana site, browsing of shrubby cinquefoil after prescribed burning was substantially greater than browsing prior to burning [93].

For more information about fire effects and management considerations of shrubby cinquefoil, see the "Fire Case Studies" section of this FEIS summary.


FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Dasiphora floribunda

1st CASE STUDY:

FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:
Tirmenstein, D., compiler. 1987. Shrubby cinquefoil response to prescribed burning in light, flashy fuels of Blacktail Hills, Montana. In: Dasiphora floribunda. 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:
Keown, L. D. 1977. Interim report: Black Tail Hills Prescribed Fire Project: implementation and results. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 9 p. [92].

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
spring/low

STUDY LOCATION:
This prescribed fire was conducted in the Blacktail Hills near Stanford, Montana.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:
The burn units in this study included sites that were grass- or shrub-dominated, as well as ecotonal areas where forest communities intermixed with grass or shrub communities. The general vegetative composition of these units was:
  1) shrub dominated
  2) shrubs and scattered limber pine (Pinus flexilis)
  3) shrub dominated
  4) shrub/forest ecotone
  5) grass/forest ecotone
  6) grass and scattered limber pine; bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) well represented

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), limber pine, and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) occurred on most units, and one quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) was present on one burn unit. Common shrubs included shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora floribunda), bearberry, gooseberry and currant (Ribes spp.), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), comon snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis). Burn units also had unspecified bunchgrasses and forbs.

Nearly pure stands of shrubby cinquefoil occurring in the shrub-dominated vegetation grew 1 to 3 feet (0.3-1 m) tall and reached densities of 7,500 plants/acre (18,750 plants/ha).

The grazing history of these units was not fully documented, varying between sites and within individual sites. One shrub dominated site was noted as heavily grazed.

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:
The phenological state of shrubby cinquefoil was not specified, but plants were probably experiencing current season growth and beginning to flower.

SITE DESCRIPTION:
The overall topography of the area was gentle. Some relatively flat units were bordered by a slope on one side.

FIRE DESCRIPTION:
Air temperature: 55 to 65 oFahrenheit (13-18 oC)
Relative humidity: 20 to 40%
Wind: calm to 25 mph
Fuel moisture: 7%
Soil moisture: wet or saturated
Snow cover: present in parts of some units

Fuels were classified as "Model C", with herbaceous vegetation as the primary carrier of fire, or "Model D", with most fuels 1 inch (2.5 cm) or less in diameter. Fuels varied according to the vegetative composition of each unit. All of the burn units had light, flashy fuels mixed with trees, shrubs, or slash. Douglas-fir and limber pine had basal limbs which extended to the ground and were very flammable. These trees burned at "fairly high" intensities. With its fibrous bark, shrubby cinquefoil also constituted a high-intensity, flashy fuel. Fuel volumes determined for two of the burn units were as follows:

Type of unit: Fuel volume:
2) shrub with scattered limber pine 4,170 lbs/acre
4) shrub/forest ecotone 3,177 lbs/acre

This prescribed burn was conducted during the spring. Two methods of firing were used in this prescribed burn, strip-head and backing. The strip-head method was intended to achieve a rapid rate of spread with maximum scorch height and minimum soil heating, and was found to be preferable to the backing method. The backing method was slow and worked poorly, producing irregular burn patterns and going out easily.

Fire in the grass-dominated unit was characterized by a rapid rate of spread. In places, patches of bearberry inhibited the rate of spread and created a mosaic of burned and unburned vegetation. On many ungrazed sites, a "ladder effect" was noted, which resulted in severe defoliation of trees as fire moved upward from the tall grass to the lower tree branches. In grazed areas, fuels were reduced and trees were less seriously damaged.

A rate of spread ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet (0.2-0.5 m) per second was typical in the shrub-dominated units. Flame heights of 4 feet (1.2 m) were common. Flame depths at maximum rates of spread were 30 to 40 feet (9-12 m). Shrubby cinquefoil, with its fibrous bark, was largely responsible for heightened fire intensity in these shrub communities. Defoliation of scattered trees on these shrub units was common, resulting in up to 90% mortality of these trees.

Highest severity fires with the lowest rates of spread occurred in the ecotonal areas. Crowning was common at the forest-shrub boundary. Pruning of the lower 50% of the crown was more typical where shrubs were absent.

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:
This spring burn caused little shrubby cinquefoil mortality. Soil moisture was high enough to prevent heat from penetrating to the root crown, and shrubby cinquefoil commonly resprouted. However, canopy coverage of shrubby cinquefoil was reduced by an average of 75%.

Preburn percent coverage of shrubby cinquefoil averaged 26%, decreasing to 12% after fire.

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
Domestic cattle and deer were observed feeding preferentially in burned areas. Cattle use of shrubby cinquefoil was estimated at 24% of available plants. In the following winter, snow depths on burned plots were generally much lower than on similar unburned areas, possibly due to shorter and smaller crowns of shrubby cinquefoil in the burned areas. Elk and deer utilized these burned areas to a greater degree due to relative ease of movement and an increase in available food.


FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:
Tirmenstein, D., compiler. 1987. Prescribed burning of shrubby cinquefoil on mountain range of the Gallatin National Forest. In: Dasiphora floribunda. 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:
Nimir, Mutasim Bashir; Payne, Gene F. 1978. Effects of spring burning on a mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 259-263. [128].

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
spring/low

STUDY LOCATION:
The burn site was located in southwestern Montana on the Taylor Fork of the Gallatin River, immediately southwest of the junction of Taylor Fork and Wapiti Creek.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:
Dominant shrubs on the site included big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana), and shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora floribunda). Onespike danthonia (Danthonia unispicata) was the dominant grass, occurring with Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), alpine bluegrass (Poa alpina), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), and sedges (Carex spp.). Common forbs on the site included slender cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis), old man's whiskers (Geum triflorum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), sticky geranium (Geranium viscosissimum), lava aster (Ionactis alpina), velvet lupine (Lupinus leucophyllus), rose pussytoes (Antennaria rosea), Virginia strawberry (Fragaria viginiana), false dandelion (Agoseris glauca), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), tufted phlox (Phlox caespitosa), and forget-me-not (Myosotis sylvatica).

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:
The phenological state of shrubby cinquefoil was not specified, but plants were probably beginning to flower.

SITE DESCRIPTION:
Elevation: 6,900 feet (2,105 m)
Topography: gently sloping to the east

The soils on the burn site were well-drained, with 6 inches (15 cm) of very dark brown loam surface layer, a grayish brown blocky structured clay loam subsoil, and a calcareous loam substratum resting on partially weathered sandstone. 

Average annual precipitation on the site is 16 to 20 inches (400-500 mm), mostly occurring in the form of snow. During the summer, the monthly average maximum temperatures range between 60 and 80 oFahrenheit (15-27 oC), while the monthly average minimum temperatures range between 26 and 39 oFahrenheit (-3-4 oC).

FIRE DESCRIPTION:
Maximum temperatures at soil surface: 347 to 401 oFahrenheit (175-205 oC)
Maximum temperatures at 0.4 inches (1 cm) depth: 149 to 176 oFahrenheit (65-80 oC)

The prescribed burn was conducted on May 30, 1973, with approximately 140 acres (56 ha) burned. The burn was patchy with some areas completely burned, others partially burned, and still others unburned. Fire consumed most of the available mulch (2.8 g/dm2). Small localized areas within the burn site were "severely burned".

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:
Shrubby cinquefoil was reduced significantly (p<0.01) by this burn, decreasing in basal cover from 0.65 dm2/20 dm2 to 0.15 dm2/20 dm2. Though damaged by fire, shrubby cinquefoil experienced some resprouting.

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
No entry



FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:
Anderson, M., compiler. 2001. Prescribed burning of shrubby cinquefoil stands in the Little Belt Mountains, Montana. In: Dasiphora floribunda. 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:
Redfern, Samuel P. 1984. The effects of burning on the mortality and vigor of shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa) in central Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 28 p. M.S. thesis. [148].

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
summer/low severity
fall/moderate severity
spring/high severity

STUDY LOCATION:
The two prescribed burn sites were located in the Wolf Creek drainage in the Little Belt Mountains of central Montana, south of Stanford, Montana.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:
The site was located in the rough fescue (Festuca altaica) phase of the limber pine (Pinus flexilis)/Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) habitat type. Shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora floribunda) was the dominant plant species on the site. Common grasses included Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratense), Idaho fescue, rough fescue, and timber oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia). Forbs included pussytoes (Antennaria spp.), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), old man's whiskers (Geum triflorum), and chickweed (Cerastium arvense).

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:
Summer treatment: flowering complete, few flowers remaining, seeds not yet formed
Fall treatment: leaves shed, plants dormant
Spring treatment: buds unbroken, no swelling occurring

SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 1 has an elevation of 5413 feet (1650 m), 5% slope, and a northwest exposure.  Site 2 has an elevation of 5413 feet (1650 m), 10% slope, and a northeast exposure.

Annual precipitation on both sites is 20.5 inches (520 mm) per year. Soils are a well-drained stony clay loam with a strongly calcareous subsoil and fair to good moisture-holding capacity.

Both sites have been grazed by livestock and were burned approximately 7 years prior to this study.

FIRE DESCRIPTION:
Site 1 had fine fuel loads (grasses) of 700 kg/ha and shrubby cinquefoil fuel loads of 2150 kg/ha.
Site 2 had fine fuel loads of 800 kg/ha and shrubby cinquefoil fuel loads of 2300 kg/ha.

The prescription called for a minimum consumption of 75% of the shrubby cinquefoil to a stub height of 3 to 4.3 inches (8-11 cm). Target flame lengths were 23.6 to 70.9 inches (60-180 cm) and target fireline intensity was 14-240 Kcal/m/second.

The following table lists average burning conditions for each treatment on the 2 sites:

  Spring (April 1984) Summer (August 1983) Fall (October 1983)
Soil moisture (%) 15 17 10
Vegetation moisture (%)      
      grass 2 76 9
      shrubby cinquefoil 21 40 9
10 hour fuel sticks 6 6 12
Relative humidity (%) 30 25 1
Wind speed (km/hr) 14 8-11 8-11
Time of day (p.m.) 2-4 5-6 1-2
Average flame length (inches) 39.4-59   23.6
Average rate of spread (m/min.) 13   4

Summer treatment; August 16, 1983: The summer burn was less intense because fuel moistures were high, resulting in flame lengths less than 23.6 inches (60 cm), low rates of spread, and patchy burning.

Fall treatment; October 8, 1983: Though not as intense as desired, the fall burn was more intense than the summer burn and was within the prescription.

Spring treatment; April 16, 1984: Flame lengths in the spring burn reached 59 inches (150 cm). Very dry conditions and the resulting low fine fuel moisture contributed to high fire spreads and good fuel consumption.

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:
In response to burning, there was an almost complete lack of shrubby cinquefoil mortality. Essentially all burned plants studied, regardless of the season of burning or the amount of plant consumed by the fire, sprouted from the root crown after burning.

Vigor of shrubby cinquefoil plants was measured as a function of the number, length, and weight of spouts on sampled plants. There was no significant difference (p<0.05) between the two sites for the mean number of sprouts or the mean total length of sprouts. However, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) for the mean total weight of the sprouts between sites. Site 2, with its northeast aspect, was a slightly moister and therefore more productive site than site 1. The control plots (no treatment) had significantly lower (p<0.05) vigor than the treated plots, but there was no significant difference in the vigor measurements between treatments.  Plants in the control did not actively resprout, while plants in the burned plots resprouted with equal vigor regardless of the season of burning. A nonsignificant trend suggested that the summer-treated plants were the least vigorous of the treated plants.

FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
Vigor of resprouting shrubby cinquefoil following burning treatments indicates it is a species suited to surviving fire. Due to this response, burning may not be a viable practice for the control of shrubby cinquefoil.


Dasiphora floribunda: References


1. Achuff, Peter L. 1989. Old-growth forests of the Canadian Rocky Mountain national parks. Natural Areas Journal. 9(1): 12-26. [7442]

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

3. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984]

4. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]

5. Austin, D. D.; Hash, A. B. 1988. Minimizing browsing damage by deer: Landscape planning for wildlife. Utah Science. Fall: 66-70. [6341]

6. Bamberg, Samuel A.; Major, Jack. 1968. Ecology of the vegetation and soils associated with calcareous parent materials in three alpine regions of Montana. Ecological Monographs. 38(2): 127-167. [12554]

7. Bartos, Dale L.; Mueggler, Walter F. 1979. Influence of fire on vegetation production in the aspen ecosystem in western Wyoming. In: Boyce, Mark S.; Hayden-Wing, Larry D., eds. North American elk, ecology, behavior and management. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming: 75-78. [5101]

8. Bell, Katherine L. 1974. Autumn, winter and spring phenology of some Colorado alpine plants. The American Midland Naturalist. 91(2): 460-464. [233]

9. Belsky, J.; Del Moral, R. 1982. Ecology of an alpine-subalpine meadow complex in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Canadian Journal of Botany. 60: 779-788. [6740]

10. 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]

11. Bezeau, L. M.; Johnston, A. 1962. In vitro digestibility of range forage plants of the Festuca scabrella association. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 42: 692-697. [441]

12. Birks, H. J. B. 1980. The present flora and vegetation of the moraines of the Klutlan Glacier, Yukon Territory, Canada: a study in plant succession. Quaternary Research. 14(1): 60-86. [13490]

13. Boggs, Keith; Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian Association. 217 p. Draft Version 1. [8447]

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

15. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1991. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18211]

16. Brichta, Paul Harold. 1986. Environmental relationships among wetland community types of the northern range, Yellowstone National Park. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 74 p. Thesis. [6727]

17. Brown, J. A. 1974. Cultural practices for revegetation of high-altitude disturbed lands. In: Berg, W. A.; Brown, J. A.; Cuany, R. L., co-chairmen. Proceedings of a workshop on revegetation of high-altitude disturbed lands; 1974 January 31-February 1; Fort Collins, CO. Information Series No. 10. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Environmental Resources Center: 59-63. [7799]

18. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565]

19. Campbell, J. B.; Lodge, R. W.; Johnston, A.; Smoliak, S. 1962. Range management of grasslands and adjacent parklands in the prairie provinces. Publ. 1133. Ottawa, ON: Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch. 32 p. [595]

20. Carpenter, Quentin J.; DeWitt, Calvin B. 1993. The effects of ant mounds and animal trails on vegetation pattern in calcareous fens. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 81: 23-30. [23453]

21. Carson, Robert G.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1989. Creating riparian wildlife habitat along a Columbia River impoundment in northcentral Washington. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 64-69. [5924]

22. Chadde, Steve W.; Shelly, J. Stephen; Bursik, Robert J.; [and others]. 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]

23. Chrosciewicz, Z. 1976. Burning for black spruce regeneration on a lowland cutover site in southeastern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6(2): 179-186. [7280]

24. Chrosciewicz, Z. 1983. Jack pine regeneration following postcut burning and seeding in southeastern Manitoba. Information Report NOR-X-252. Edmonton, AB: Environment Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre. 10 p. [16917]

25. Clary, Warren P. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: spruce-fir forests. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds. Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional Research Publication No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Agriculture Experiment Station: 9-12. [3310]

26. Clary, Warren P.; Medin, Dean E. 1993. Vegetation, nesting bird, and small mammal characteristics--Wet Creek, Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-293. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. [21292]

27. Clary, Warren P.; Medin, Dean E. 1999. Riparian zones--the ultimate ecotones? In: McArthur, E. Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings: shrub ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 49-55. [36061]

28. Clary, Warren P.; Shaw, Nancy L. 1992. Grazing-riparian issues: a Sawtooth National Recreation Area field trip. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 228-232. [19127]

29. Coupland, R. T. 1992. Fescue prairie. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V: 291-295. [23829]

30. Cowles, Henry Chandler. 1899. The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette. 27(2-3): 95-117, 167-202. [11091]

31. Crouch, Glenn L. 1983. Effects of commercial clearcutting of aspen on understory vegetation and wildlife habitat values in southwestern Colorado. Res. Pap. RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [3200]

32. Currie, Pat O. 1975. Grazing management of ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ranges of the central Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. RM-159. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [12600]

33. Davidson, Campbell G.; Lenz, Louis M. 1989. Experimental taxonomy of Potentilla fruticosa. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 3520-3528. [11059]

34. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]

35. de Groot, W. J.; Wein, Ross W. 1999. Betula glandulosa Michx. repsonse to burning and postfire growth temperature and implications of climate change. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 9(1): 51-64. [37477]

36. Densmore, R. V. 1994. Succession on regraded placer mine spoil in Alaska, U.S.A., in relation to initial site characteristics. Arctic and Alpine Research. 26(4): 354-363. [24360]

37. Densmore, R. V.; Holmes, K. W. 1987. Assisted revegetation in Denali National Park, Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 19(4): 544-548. [6078]

38. Densmore, Roseann V.; Dalle-Molle, Lois; Holmes, Katherine E. 1990. Restoration of alpine and subalpine plant communities in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, U.S.A. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration `89: the new management challange: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 509-519. [14720]

39. Diem, Kenneth L.; Zeveloff, Samuel I. 1980. Ponderosa pine bird communities. In: DeGraff, Richard M., technical coordinator. Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds: Proceedings of a workshop; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 170-197. [15929]

40. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]

41. Dix, R. L.; Swan, J. M. A. 1971. The roles of disturbance and succession in upland forest at Candle Lake, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Botany. 49: 657-676. [12808]

42. Doran, William L. 1941. The propagation of some trees and shrubs by cuttings. Bulletin No. 382. Amherst, MA: Massachusetts State College, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. [20255]

43. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982]

44. Eddy, Thomas L.; Harriman, Neil A. 1992. Muhlenbergia richardsonis in Wisconsin. The Michigan Botanist. 31(1): 39-40. [29250]

45. Elkington, T. T. 1969. Cytotaxonomic variation in Potentilla fruticosa L. New Phytologist. 68(1): 151-160. [30434]

46. Elkington, T. T.; Woodell, S. R. J. 1963. Potentilla fruticosa L. (Dasiphora fruticosa (L.) Rydb.). Journal of Ecology. 51: 769-781. [858]

47. Ellison, Lincoln. 1943. A natural seedling of western aspen. Journal of Forestry. 41: 767-768. [26841]

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

49. Falb, Diana L.; Leopold, Donald J. 1993. Population dynamics of Cypripedium candidum Muhl. ex Willd., small white ladyslipper, in a western New York fen. Natural Areas Journal. 13(2): 76-86. [21444]

50. Fechner, Gilbert H. 1990. Picea pungens Engelm. blue spruce. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 238-249. [13387]

51. Fedkenheruer, A. W. 1979. Native shrub research for oil sands reclamation. Edmonton, AB: Syncrude Canada Ltd. 14 p. [16250]

52. Fedkenheuer, A. W.; Heacock, H. M.; Lewis, D. L. 1980. Early performance of native shrubs and trees planted on amended Athabasca oil sand tailings. Reclamation Review. 3: 47-55. [12468]

53. 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]

54. Fischer, William C.; Clayton, Bruce D. 1983. Fire ecology of Montana forest habitat types east of the Continental Divide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-141. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 83 p. [923]

55. Foote, Joan. 1976. Classification, description, and dynamics of plant communities following fire in the taiga of interior Alaska. Final report: "Fire effects study"; BLM Contract No. 53500-CT2-244. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 181 p. [36000]

56. Frederick, Clara May. 1974. A natural history study of the vascular flora of Cedar Bog, Champaign County, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science. 74(2): 65-116. [23770]

57. 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]

58. 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]

59. Green, Jeffrey E.; Nilson, Alan. 1989. Wildlife habitat mitigation for the Oldman River Dam project, Alberta, Canada. In: Walker, D. G.; Powter, C. B.; Pole, M. W., compilers. Reclamation, a global perspective: Proceedings of the conference; 1989 August 27-31; Calgary, AB. Rep. No. RRTAC 89-2. Vol. 1. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council: 165-173. [14358]

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

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

62. Hansen, Paul L.; Boggs, Keith; Pfister, Robert D.; [and others]. 1994. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in Montana. In: Hamre, R. H., ed. Workshop on western wetlands and riparian areas: public/private efforts in recovery, management, and education: Proceedings; 1993 September 9-11; Snowbird, UT. Boulder, CO: Thorne Ecological Institute: 1-17. [27800]

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

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

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

66. Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John; [and others]. 1989. Classification and management of riparian sites in southwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Riparian Association. 292 p. Draft Version 2. [8900]

67. Hanson, Herbert C. 1953. Vegetation types in northwestern Alaska and comparisons with communities in other arctic regions. Ecology. 34(1): 111-140. [9781]

68. Harry, G. Bryan. 1957. Winter food habits of moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21(1): 53-57. [8429]

69. Hart, Jeffrey A. 1981. The ethnobotany of the northern Cheyenne Indians of Montana. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 4: 1-55. [35893]

70. Hayward, C. Lynn. 1945. Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 6(1-4): 1-124. [15958]

71. Heinselman, Miron L. 1970. The natural role of fire in northern conifer forest. In: The role of fire in the Intermountain West: Proceedings of a symposium; 1970 October 27-29; Missoula, MT. Missoula, MT: Intermountain Fire Research Council. In cooperation with: University of Montana, School of Forestry: 30-41. [15735]

72. Hernandez, Helios. 1973. Natural plant recolonization of surficial disturbances, Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula region, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Botany. 51: 2177-2196. [20372]

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

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

75. Hobbs, N. Thompson; Baker, Dan L.; Ellis, James E.; Swift, David M. 1981. Composition and quality of elk winter diets in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45(1): 156-171. [7421]

76. Houston, Douglas B. 1968. The Shiras moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Tech. Bull. No. 1. [Place of publication unknown]: The Grand Teton Natural History Association. 110 p. [7824]

77. Hull, A. C., Jr.; Hervey, D. F.; Doran, Clyde W.; McGinnies, W. J. 1958. Seeding Colorado range lands. Bulletin 498-S. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Experiment Station. 46 p. [244]

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

79. Hungerford, Roger D.; Frandsen, William H.; Ryan, Kevin C. 1995. Ignition and burning characteristics of organic soils. In: Cerulean, Susan I.; Engstrom, R. Todd, eds. Fire in wetlands: a management perspective: Proceedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1993 November 3-6; Tallahassee, FL. No. 19. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 78-91. [26950]

80. 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]

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

82. Jeglum, John K. 1971. Plant indicators of pH and water level in peatlands at Candle Lake, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Botany. 49: 1661-1676. [7450]

83. Jeglum, John K.; He, Fangliang. 1995. Pattern and vegetation--environment relationships in a boreal forested wetland in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany. 73: 629-637. [26695]

84. Johnson, Elizabeth. 1989. Managing artificial environments with RTE species. Park Science. 9(5): 3. [13557]

85. Johnston, A.; Bezeau, L. M. 1962. Chemical composition of range forage plants of the Festuca scabrella association. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 42: 105-115. [1291]

86. Juday, Glenn Patrick. 1992. Alaska Research Natural Areas. 3: Serpentine Slide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-271. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. [21511]

87. 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]

88. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]

89. Kay, Charles E.; Bartos, Dale L. 2000. Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen: assessment of longterm exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 53(2): 145-153. [36034]

90. 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]

91. Kelsall, John P. 1957. Continued barren-ground caribou studies. Wildlife Management Bulletin Series 1: No. 12. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, National Parks Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service. 148 p. [16597]

92. Keown, L. D. 1977. Interim report: Black Tail Hills Prescribed Fire Project: implementation and results. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 9 p. [12233]

93. Keown, Larry D. 1982. An evaluation of qualitative plant responses to prescribed burning on a central Montana ecosystem. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17 p. [14925]

94. Kershaw, G. P. 1988. The use of controlled surface disturbances in the testing of reclamation treatments in the subarctic. In: Kershaw, Peter, ed. Northern environmental disturbances. Occas. Publ. No. 24. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta, Boreal Institute for Northern Studies: 59-70. [14420]

95. Kershaw, G. Peter; Kershaw, Linda J. 1986. Ecological characteristics of 35-year-old crude-oil spills in tundra plant communities of the Mackenzie Mountains, N.W.T. Canadian Journal of Botany. 64: 2935-2947. [12972]

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

97. Kost, Michael A.; De Steven, Diane. 2000. Plant community responses to prescribed burning in Wisconsin sedge meadows. Natural Areas Journal. 20(1): 36-45. [36045]

98. Kramp, Betty A.; Patton, David R.; Brady, Ward W. 1983. The effects of fire on wildlife habitat and species. Wildlife Unit Tech. Rep. RUN WILD: Wildlife/habitat relationships. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Wildlife Unit. 29 p. [152]

99. Krebill, R. G. 1972. Mortality of aspen on the Gros Ventre elk winter range. Res. Pap. INT-129. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [16089]

100. 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]

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

102. La Roi, George H.; Hnatiuk, Roger J. 1980. The Pinus contorta forests of Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study in comparative synecology and syntaxonomy. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 1-29. [8347]

103. 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]

104. Landis, Thomas D.; Simonich, Edward J. 1984. Producing native plants as container seedlings. In: Murphy, Patrick M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's Association 1983 conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 16-25. [6849]

105. Langenheim, Jean H. 1962. Vegetation and environmental patterns in the Crested Butte Area, Gunnison County, Colorado. Ecological Monographs. 32(3): 249-285. [18482]

106. Larsen, J. A. 1930. Forest types of the northern Rocky Mountains and their climatic controls. Ecology. 11(4): 631-672. [12449]

107. Lesica, Peter; Ahlenslager, Kathleen; Desanto, Jerry. 1993. New vascular plant record and the increase of exotic plants in Glacier National Park, Montana. Madrono. 40(2): 126-131. [21049]

108. 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]

109. Looman, J. 1969. The fescue grasslands of western Canada. Vegetatio. 19: 128-145. [1471]

110. Lynch, Daniel. 1955. Ecology of the aspen groveland in Glacier County, Montana. Ecological Monographs. 25(4): 321-344. [950]

111. Majerus, Mark. 1999. Collection and production of indigenous plant material for national park restoration. In: Revegetation with native species: Proceedings, 1997 Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting; 1997 November 12-15; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Proceedings RMRS-P-8. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 17-21. [30375]

112. Mann, Daniel H.; Plug, Lawrence J. 1999. Vegetation and soil development at an upland taiga site, Alaska. Ecoscience. 6(2): 272-285. [36398]

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

114. Markus, Henrietta. 1987. Tallgrass prairie and woodland restoration: a one-year record (Ontario). Restoration and Management Notes. 5(1): 27-28. [1525]

115. Mattson, David John. 1984. Classification and environmental relationships of wetland vegetation in central Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 409 p. Thesis. [7348]

116. Meidinger, D.; Lewis, T. 1983. Biogeoclimatic zones and subzones of the Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area, British Columbia. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 53 p. [1638]

117. Meidinger, D.; Lewis, T.; Kowall, R. 1986. Biogeoclimatic zones and subzones of the northern portion of the Mackenzie Timber Supply Area, British Columbia. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Northern Mackenzie Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 44 p. [9204]

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

119. Miller, John Gage. 1978. An ecological study of creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis Moench.) in Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 154 p. Thesis. [3524]

120. Miller, R. F.; Branson, I. S.; McQueen, I. S; Snyder, C. T. 1982. Water relations in soils as related to plant communities in Ruby Valley, Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 35(4): 462-468. [1652]

121. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]

122. Moir, W. H. 1993. Alpine tundra and coniferous forest. In: Dick-Peddie, William A., ed. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press: 47-84. [21100]

123. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. [13074]

124. Moseley, Robert K.; Bernatas, Susan. 1992. Vascular flora of Kane Lake cirque, Pioneer Mountains, Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(4): 335-343. [20212]

125. Moyer, J. R.; Smoliak, S. 1987. Shrubby cinquefoil control changes range forage production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 67: 727-734. [3894]

126. Mueggler, W. F.; Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-66. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 154 p. [1717]

127. Neiland, Bonita J.; Viereck, Leslie A. 1977. Forest types and ecosystems. In: North American forest lands at latitudes north of 60 degrees: Proceedings of a symposium; 1977 September 19-22; Fairbanks, AK. [Place of publication unknown]. [University of Alaska, Fairbanks]: 109-136. [19933]

128. Nimir, Mutasim Bashir; Payne, Gene F. 1978. Effects of spring burning on a mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 259-263. [1756]

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

130. Olson, Jerry S. 1958. Rates of succession and soil changes on southern Lake Michigan sand dunes. Botanical Gazette. 119(3): 125-170. [10557]

131. Oswald, E. T.; Brown, B. N. 1990. Vegetation establishment during 5 years following wildfire in northern British Columbia and southern Yukon Territory. Information Report BC-X-320. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, Pacific Forestry Centre. 46 p. [16934]

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

133. Pammel, L. H. 1903. Some ecological notes on the vegetation of the Uintah Mountains. Proceedings, Iowa Academy of Sciences. 10: 57-68. [16302]

134. Patten, D. T. 1963. Vegetational pattern in relation to environments in the Madison Range, Montana. Ecological Monographs. 33(4): 375-406. [1836]

135. Patten, D. T. 1968. Dynamics of the shrub continuum along the Gallatin River in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 49(6): 1107-1112. [1837]

136. Patton, David R.; Avant, Herman D. 1970. Fire stimulated aspen sprouting in a spruce-fir forest in New Mexico. Research Note RM-159. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 3 p. [6941]

137. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

138. Peck, V. Ross; Peek, James M. 1991. Elk, Cervus elaphus, habitat use related to prescribed fire, Tuchodi River, British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105(3): 354-362. [18204]

139. Peek, James M. 1963. Appraisal of a moose range in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 16(5): 227-231. [16489]

140. Pierce, John; Johnson, Janet. 1986. Wetland community type classification for west-central Montana. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Ecosystem Management Program. 158 p. [Review draft]. [7436]

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

142. Pojar, J.; Trowbridge, R.; Lewis, T. 1983. Biogeoclimatic zones of the Cassiar Timber Supply Area, northwestern British Columbia. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project, Cassiar Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 53 p. [9199]

143. Pollett, Frederick C. 1972. Classification of peatlands in Newfoundland. Proceedings, 4th International Peat Congress. 1: 101-110. [15403]

144. Rabe, Fred W.; Elzinga, Caryl; Breckenridge, Roy. 1994. Classification of meandering glide and spring stream natural areas in Idaho. Natural Areas Journal. 14(3): 188-202. [23961]

145. Racine, Charles H.; Johnson, Lawrence A.; Viereck, Leslie A. 1987. Patterns of vegetation recovery after tundra fires in northwestern Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 19(4): 461-469. [6114]

146. Ralston, Robert Dean. 1960. The structure and ecology of the north slope juniper stands of the Little Missouri Badlands. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. 85 p. Thesis. [192]

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

148. Redfern, Samuel P. 1984. The effects of burning on the mortality and vigor of shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa) in central Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 28 p. M.S. thesis. [27993]

149. Reed, John F. 1952. The vegetation of the Jackson Hole Wildlife Park, Wyoming. The American Midland Naturalist. 48(3): 700-729. [1949]

150. Rejmanek, Marcel; Rosen, Ejvind. 1988. The effect of colonizing shrubs Juniperus communis and Potentilla fructicosa on species richness in the grasslands of Stora Alvaret, Oland (Sweden). Acta Phytogeographica Suecica. 76: 67-72. [9745]

151. Revel, Richard D. 1993. Canada's rough fescue grasslands. Restoration & Management Notes. 11(2): 117-124. [30472]

152. Reynolds, Richard T.; Linkhart, Brian D.; Jeanson, Judy-Jo. 1985. Characteristics of snags and trees containing cavities in a Colorado conifer forest. Res. Note RM-455. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [15568]

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

154. Roberts, B. A.; van Nostrand, R. S. 1995. Distribution and site ecology of eastern larch in Newfoundland, Canada. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Ecology and management of Larix forests: a look ahead: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1992 October 5-9; Whitefish, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-319. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 349-359. [25331]

155. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. [9696]

156. Rooney, S. C.; Campbell, C. S.; Jacobson, G. L., Jr. 1992. Prescribed burning and other possible management tools for suppression of woody species in Maine fens. Natural Areas Journal. 12(3): 155. [19405]

157. Rooney, Sally C. 1990. Fire suppresses woody vegetation in fens. Restoration & Management Notes. 8(1): 40. [14519]

158. Russell, W. B. 1985. Vascular flora of abandoned coal-mined land, Rocky Mountain Foothills, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(4): 503-516. [10461]

159. Sanford, Richard Charles. 1970. Skunk bush (Rhus trilobata Nutt.) in the North Dakota Badlands: ecology, phytosociology, browse production, and utilization. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 165 p. Dissertation. [272]

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

161. 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]

162. Schneider, Gregory J. 1994. The sedge (Carex) flora of Ohio fens. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy: Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Department of Parks and Recreation: 147-155. [24686]

163. Schulz, Terri Tucker; Leininger, Wayne C. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 43(4): 295-299. [11836]

164. Scotter, George W. 1975. Effect of picloram on cinquefoil and forage production at the Ya-Ha-Tinda Ranch, Alberta. Journal of Range Management. 28(2): 132-138; 1975. [2102]

165. Seischab, Franz K. 1984. Plant community development in the Byron-Bergen Swamp: marl-bed vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 1006-1017. [23731]

166. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]

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

168. Sinton, Heather M. M. 1980. Effect of burning and mowing on Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper (Festuca scabrella Torr.). Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta. 141 p. Dissertation. [14315]

169. Smith, Dixie R. 1960. Description and response to elk use of two mesic grassland and shrub communities in the Jackson Hole region of Wyoming. Northwest Science. 34(1): 25-36. [2166]

170. Snyder, Timothy A.; Windus, Jennifer L. 1992. Restoration of a fen-savanna complex in westcentral Ohio. Restoration & Management Notes. 10(2): 195-196. [20164]

171. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]

172. Stelfox, John G. 1976. Range ecology of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Canadian national parks. Report Series Number 39. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service. 50 p. [13851]

173. Stephenson, Stephen N. 1983. Maxton Plains, prairie refugia of Drummond Island, Cheppewa County, Michigan. In: Brewer, Richard, ed. Proceedings, 8th North American prairie conference; 1982 August 1-4; Kalamazoo, MI. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of Biology: 56-60. [3123]

174. 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]

175. Stoynoff, Nick A. 1993. A quantitative analysis of the vegetation of Bluff Spring Fen Nature Preserve. Transactions, Illinois State Academy of Science. 63(3&4): 93-110. [23734]

176. Swinehart, Anthony L.; Parker, George R. 2000. Palaeoecology and development of peatlands in Indiana. The American Midland Naturalist. 143(2): 267-297. [36491]

177. Thilenius, John F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. [2317]

178. Thompson, Larry S.; Kuijt, Job. 1976. Montane and subalpine plants of the Sweetgrass Hills, Montana, and their relation to early postglacial environments on the Northern Great Plains. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 90(4): 432-448. [7894]

179. Timoney, Kevin P.; La Roi, George H.; Zoltai, Stephen C.; Robinson, Anne L. 1993. Vegetation communities and plant distributions and their relationships with parent materials in the forest-tundra of northwestern Canada. Ecography. 16: 174-188. [23007]

180. Tuhy, Joel S.; Jensen, Sherman. 1982. Riparian classification for the Upper Salmon/Middle Fork Salmon River drainages, Idaho. Final report. Smithfield, UT: White Horse Associates. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 153 p. [8380]

181. Tweit, Susan J.; Houston, Kent E. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest. 143 p. [2377]

182. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1976. Some important native shrubs of the west. Ogden, UT. 16 p. [2388]

183. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2000. PLANTS database. (1999). (Online). Available: http://plants.usda.gov/ [34262]

184. 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]

185. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p. [2431]

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

187. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]

188. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. [36983]

189. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 347 p. [15400]

190. Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant species suitability for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p. [8855]

191. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]

192. 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]

193. White, Clifford A.; Olmsted, Charles E.; Kay, Charles E. 1998. Aspen, elk, and fire in the Rocky Mountain national parks of North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(3): 449-462. [30387]

194. Williams, Thomas A. 1898. A report upon the grasses and forage plants and forage conditions of the eastern Rocky Mountain region. Bulletin No. 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Agrostology. 78 p. [4278]

195. Willms, W. D.; Smoliak, S.; Dormaar, J. F. 1985. Effects of stocking rate on a rough fescue grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management. 38(3): 220-225. [2570]

196. Yarie, John; Mead, Bert R. 1988. Twig and foliar biomass estimation equations for major plant species in the Tanana River Basin of interior Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-401. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20 p. [13487]

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

198. Young, Richard P., compiler. 1980. A riparian community classification study. Final Report. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department of Range Science. 77 p. [Cooperative project between Utah State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region IV]. [11734]

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

200. Zimmerman, Gregory M. 1981. Effects of fire upon selected plant communities in the Little Missouri Badlands. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 60 p. Thesis. [5121]



FEIS Home Page