Holodiscus discolor

Printer-friendly version


INTRODUCTORY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Fryer, Janet L. 2010. Holodiscus discolor. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
HOLDIS

NRCS PLANT CODE [227]:
HODI

COMMON NAMES:
creambush oceanspray
creambush rockspirea
creambush rock spirea
hillside oceanspray
oceanspray

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of creambush oceanspray is Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim (Rosaceae) [97,99,103,117,193].

The Holodiscus taxonomy is confused because creambush oceanspray, rockspirea (H. dumosus), and small-leaved rockspirea (H. microphyllus) are taxonomically and morphologically very similar [45,163]. Authorities separating these 3 closely related taxa do so based on different leaf morphologies [45,136] and distributions [136]. This review follows the taxonomy of Lis (in [97]), who is authoring the Flora of North America's [63] Holodiscus chapter. In Lis's treatment, creambush oceanspray, rockspirea, and small-leaved rockspirea are treated as separate and distinct species [97]. Some systematists lump either creambush oceanspray and rockspirea [104,236], creambush oceanspray and small-leaved rockspirea [103], or all 3 taxa [233] into single species.

SYNONYMS:
Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. var. dumosus (Nutt. ex Hook.) Maxim. ex J.M. Coult.
Holodiscus dumosus (Pursh) Maxim. var. glabrescens (Greenm.) Jeps. [104]

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Creambush oceanspray is native to the western United States and southwestern Canada. It occurs from southern British Columbia south to southern California and Arizona and east to western Montana [86,100,103]. A few collections have been made in Colorado [227]. Plants Database provides a distributional map of creambush oceanspray.

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Creambush oceanspray is important or dominant in many plant communities of the Pacific Northwest, California, and the Northern Rocky Mountains. These communities include seral and old-growth conifer, seral and old-growth hardwood, mixed-riparian, and mixed-shrubland types.

Conifer communities: Creambush oceanspray is called "the most widespread and possibly the most abundant flowering shrub" in coniferous forests of northeastern Washington and northern Idaho [225]. On the Umatilla National Forest, Washington, it is dominant in coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), and western larch (Larix occidentalis) forests [90].

  In Oregon, coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray associations on the Willamette National Forest are primarily structurally diverse old-growth stands, containing long-lived canopy trees and a subcanopy of younger trees. Most of the stands are >150 years old [94]. Creambush oceanspray is common to dominant in dry white fir (A. concolor) forests in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon [238], and it is an important shrub in Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) communities of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California [257]. It is important in many mixed-conifer forests of southern Oregon and California [33,34]. These communities are codominated by Pacific ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa var. ponderosa), coast Douglas-fir, Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), and/or canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis) [34]. Creambush oceanspray is also important in knobcone pine (P. attenuata) communities of southern Oregon and California [39].
Creambush oceanspray in mixed-conifer forest of Oregon's Cascade Range. Photo permission of Craig Smith.

In California, creambush oceanspray is a characteristic to dominant species of redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) [202,254], Pacific ponderosa pine [116], shore pine (P. contorta var. contorta) [255], and Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (P. c. var. murrayana) [77] forests. It is a minor species in pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) communities [24].

Creambush oceanspray is associated with Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) and Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) in northern Idaho [217]; it is commonly dominant in Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forests of northern Idaho and Montana [178,217,225]. It is infrequent to common in western redcedar-western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla-Thuja plicata)) forests of the Interior Pacific Northwest and the Northern Rocky Mountains [148,186].

Hardwood communities: Creambush oceanspray occurs in the understories of Oregon white oak (Q. garryana) communities throughout Oregon white oak's range ([147,185,216], review by [122]). It also occurs or dominates in other montane oak (Quercus spp.) communities in California [142].

Riparian: Creambush oceanspray occurs in riparian communities throughout its range (review by [196]). Overstory dominants may be conifers, hardwoods or a mix [112,219]. Meriwether Lewis made the first scientific collection of creambush oceanspray on the banks of the Clearwater River in Idaho [48]. Creambush oceanspray is dominant in grand fir floodplain associations of eastern Washington [112]. In western hemlock stands in the central Cascade Range of Washington, it was more common on high floodplains than on low floodplains [229]. On Myrtle Island Research Natural Area, Oregon, creambush oceanspray is occasional in red alder-Oregon ash (Alnus rubra-Fraxinus latifolia) and willow/field horsetail (Salix spp./Equisetum arvense) riparian communities [219].

Shrublands: Creambush oceanspray is common to dominant in mixed montane shrublands of the Pacific Northwest and the Northern Rocky Mountains [51,204]. These communities are common on harsh slopes and in coniferous forests in early succession [51]. In montane regions of Nevada and western Utah, creambush oceanspray occurs in mosaics of mountain meadow and mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana) stands [65]. In Redwood National Park, California, it occurs in Lewis' mockorange/brittle bladderfern (Philadelphus lewisii/Cystopteris fragilis) and Sierra gooseberry/varileaf phacelia (Ribes roezlii/Phacelia heterophylla) bald-hill communities [211]. On the Jasper Ridge Biological Reserve in coastal northern California, creambush oceanspray is an associated species in chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) chaparral communities [1].

Publications describing plant communities where creambush oceanspray is a dominant or indicator species are listed below.

Pacific Northwest:
Washington: Oregon: California: Northern Rocky Mountains:
Northern Idaho: Montana: Western United States:

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Botanical description: This description covers characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (for example, [97,99,117,193]). Morris and others [161] provide a key for identifying creambush oceanspray and other shrubs in winter. Creambush oceanspray and rockspirea are distinguished by their forms, leaf characteristics, and distributions [136]; intergradation of the 2 species is most pronounced in Nevada [104] and Utah [236].  
Photo © 2009 Barry Breckling

Morphology:
Form: Creambush oceanspray is a deciduous [1,41,198], spreading shrub with slender arching branches [75,136,223]. It can range from bushy forms about 2.5 feet (0.75 m) tall on poor or frequently disturbed sites to arborescent forms that may be 20 feet (6.1 m) tall in coastal areas. Plants are usually 3 to 10 feet (1-3 m) in height [52,99,198]. They typically have multiple branches [198]. Stem wood is hard and dense [73]; bark of mature plants is shreddy [41,174]. Stand structures of plant communities where creambush oceanspray is important are discussed in the Stand structure section of Fuels.

Leaves and flowers: The leaves are mostly 1.6 to 2.75 inches (4-7 cm) long and 0.8 to 2.75 inches (2-7 cm) wide [136,223]. Creambush oceanspray has a large leaf area relative to most associated shrubs. In the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, its leaves were more densely packed, larger, thinner, and more prone to wilt than leaves of associated shrub species [40].

Creambush oceanspray flowers are small, about 2 mm long [163]. They are borne on large, showy, terminal panicles that may reach 12 inches (30 cm) long [22]. The name "oceanspray" is derived from these masses of loose, creamy plumes [50]. The fruit is a 1-seeded [45] achene [41,97,117], about 2 mm long [198].

Roots: Rooting depth is likely associated with depth to bedrock. In southwestern Oregon, creambush oceanspray extracted water from no deeper than 3 feet (1 m) below ground, indicating a shallow root system [40]. Dyrness and Franklin [57] had similar findings in the west-central portion of the Cascade Range in Oregon, where shallow soils confined roots to <3 feet below the soil surface. However, a planting guide for the Pacific Northwest reports creambush oceanspray roots as "deep and wide" [154], and researchers described creambush oceanspray as "relatively deep-rooted" in the Blue Mountains [249].

Descriptions of creambush oceanspray's root morphology were not found in the literature as of 2010.

Life span: This species rarely lives more than 30 years [10]. On the Jasper Ridge Biological Reserve, California, its mean life span was 4.5 years [1].

Physiology: Creambush oceanspray is highly drought tolerant [51]. It has adapted to dry sites and drought by shutting down or slowing its rate of transpiration. In droughty conditions, it apparently uses water less efficiently than associated sclerophyllous species. Its large leaf area, however, may partially compensate for low water transpiration rates in summer. It is likely that creambush oceanspray depletes water in upper soil layers rapidly in summer [40].

Antieau [13] suggested that creambush oceanspray may differ in water-use efficiency and cold tolerance across its distribution.

Raunkiaer [180] life form:
Phanerophyte

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Creambush oceanspray is among the first shrubs to initiate leaves in spring. Although floral buds swell in early [100] to late spring, creambush oceanspray is a late bloomer [12]. Full flowering does not occur until late June or July and may continue into August in some areas [12,100]. Fruits mature in late summer and may persist until fall (reviews by [196,198]). Panicles and panicle branches typically persist through winter after drying in fall [196].

Leaf phenology is closely regulated by weather. In the Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon, leaf water conductance peaked in July [40]. On the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, mean leaf age was 4.5 months; leaves were drought-deciduous and mostly absent by August [1]. A study in the western redcedar-western hemlock zone of northern Idaho found summer or fall drought initiated leaf color change and leaf drop [55].

Creambush oceanspray consistently shows a late and long period of flowering throughout its distribution:

Phenology of creambush oceanspray across its range
Area Event
southern California flowers June-August [41]
northern Idaho buds swell and burst late March-early April;
leaf-out late March-mid-April [55];
stem elongation late March-late June [55,170];
flowers early May-late June;
fruits late June-August [55,174];
leaves change color late June-late September [55,170];
leaves fall late July-late November;
seeds disperse late August-late November [55]
Montana flowers late June-July [117]
Nevada flowers June-August [104]
southwestern Oregon flower buds expand in July;
flowers and fruits July-August [183]
Oregon and western Washington flowers May-July;
seeds disperse August-September (review by [237])
Pacific Northwest flowers midsummer [113]
Puget Sound flowers mid-June [12]
Northern Rocky Mountains flowers mid- to late July;
fruit ripens late August;
seeds disperse late August-late November [170]

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Creambush oceanspray regenerates by sprouting from the root crown [55,60,61,140,140,167,209,228,245] and establishing from seed [160]. Root crown sprouting is more prevalent than regeneration from seed [140,149,150,208,213]. Ackerly [1] characterizes creambush oceanspray's reproduction as "opportunistic regeneration following disturbance". Fire and other top-killing events favor creambush oceanspray regeneration. Vegetative regeneration: Creambush oceanspray sprouts from the root crown after top-kill [55,60,61,140,140,150,167,209,228,245]. It may also reproduce by layering ([74], review by [196]).

Pollination and breeding system: Insects pollinate creambush oceanspray (review by [196]). The flowers are perfect [100].

Antieau [13] suggested that mountain ranges restrict creambush oceanspray breeding. A study across creambush oceanspray's distribution in Washington and Oregon showed phenotypic differences in creambush oceanspray (for example, in leaf area); these differences were related to geographic regions and climate [13].

Flower and seed production: Thinning, burning, or other canopy-opening events may increase creambush oceanspray's seed output. In the understories of coast Douglas-fir forests in western Oregon, creambush oceanspray showed a "large increase" in flower and/or fruit production after moderate thinnings (leaving 200 trees/ha) or heavy thinnings (leaving 100 trees/ha or 0.4-ha openings); production increases were "minimal" after light thinning (leaving 300 trees/ha) [213].

Seed dispersal: Creambush oceanspray seed is disseminated by wind ([213,237,248], review by [198]) or animals [213].

Seed banking: Creambush oceanspray has a soil seed bank [60,150]. In western hemlock forests of southwestern British Columbia, viable creambush oceanspray seed was more common in undisturbed soils (x=15.5 germinants/0.04-m² soil sample) compared to clearcut rights-of-way in early-seral succession (x=1-2.5 germinants/0.04-m² soil sample) [150].

Germination, seedling establishment, and plant growth: Fresh creambush oceanspray seed is dormant [74]. In the field, it likely requires overwintering to germinate. As of 2010, little research had been conducted on creambush oceanspray's germination requirements [197]. Stratification at around 41 oF (5 oC) [197] for 15 to 18 weeks breaks dormancy in the laboratory [12,113,197].

Creambush oceanspray seed may have low viability. According to a fact sheet, most seeds lack developed embryos, so only about 7% of a given seed lot may be sound [74].

Seedling establishment is uncommon [140,149,150,208,213] but has been documented a few times. Open stand structure [214], heat, and bare mineral soil may favor creambush oceanspray germination and establishment (review by [196]). In the Oregon Coast Range, creambush oceanspray seedlings emerged well (>70%) in both clearcuts and young, unthinned conifer stands; however, seedlings survived only in the young, unthinned stands [214]. Creambush oceanspray established from seed 3 growing seasons after a debris flow on the Central Coast Ranges of southwestern Oregon [173]. See Seedling establishment in the Plant Response to Fire section for studies on postfire seedling establishment.

A review states that creambush oceanspray seedlings grow slowly in their first 2 years of development [196]. Plants released by overstory removal may grow rapidly, however. Daubenmire and Daubenmire [51] found that in northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray grew up to 15 feet (4.6 m) tall following harvest of the Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir overstory; this was twice its stature in unharvested Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forests.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Soils: Creambush oceanspray tolerates soils with a pH range from approximately 5.0 to 7.5, fine to coarse textures, and low nutrient and moisture content [74]. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, it had significantly greater cover in soils with pH above 6.1 than in soils with lower pH values (6% vs. ≤1% cover, P=0.05) [165]. Soils supporting creambush oceanspray are often shallow ([87,94,100], review by [196]). In the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon, however, creambush oceanspray is dominant in Pacific ponderosa pine-Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forests on deep, fertile soils similar to those of Palouse prairie [84].

Creambush oceanspray is common in sands and clay loams (review by [196]) but may occur in all soil textures. In the Cascade Range of Oregon, coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray communities occur on coarse soils and loams but not on fine soils [153]. A study in the Blue Mountains, however, found creambush oceanspray presence was positively correlated with fine-textured soils (P<0.05) [249]. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray cover, frequency, and importance value increased as soil organic matter increased; increases in importance values were significant (P=0.05) [165]. Soils supporting creambush oceanspray are often stony [67,87,94,97,98,100], and creambush oceanspray sometimes grows within rock crevices. It is common on talus slopes (review by [196]). In Nevada and western Utah, creambush oceanspray grew on talus slopes near mountain meadows and in granite boulder piles [65].

Creambush oceanspray occurs on a variety of parent materials. In the Cascade Range of Oregon, coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray communities occur on poorly developed basalts, andesites, and other parent materials of volcanic origin [153]. At Oregon Caves National Monument, mixed-conifer forests with creambush oceanspray occur on soils of diorite origin [240]. Poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)-creambush oceanspray-Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) communities of San Luis Obispo County, California, are associated with andesite-derived soils [235].  
Photo © Br. Alfred Brousseau, St Mary's College

Moisture regime: Creambush oceanspray is most common on dry sites. McDonald and others [148] list creambush oceanspray as an indicator species of dry montane/shrub forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Creambush oceanspray is also associated with dry montane forests in British Columbia [168,179] and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. It is an indicator species of very dry to moderately dry, nitrogen-medium soils in coastal British Columbia [110,111]; its occurrence decreases with increasing precipitation [111]. It also grows in dry to fresh soils in coniferous forests of interior British Columbia [168]. The western hemlock-coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray association occurs on some of the hottest and driest sites in the Cascade Range of Washington [222]. In the west-central portion of the Cascade Range in Oregon, Dyrness and Franklin [57] found the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray association occurs on the dry end of coast Douglas-fir forest types. In an extreme case, creambush oceanspray is "widespread but not abundant" on the Indian Plateau of southwestern Oregon. The plateau is a severe site known for widely fluctuating and extreme temperatures in winter and summer and a record of poor artificial regeneration of conifers [156].

Creambush oceanspray is also reported from sites with moist to mesic soils. It is frequently associated with riparian communities (review by [196]). In southeastern Washington and northern Idaho, Pacific ponderosa pine/mallow ninebark-creambush oceanspray communities dry out later in the growing season than Pacific ponderosa pine/common snowberry communities [152]. Creambush oceanspray occurs on moist woodland edges in California [97] and in moist open woods in British Columbia [193]. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray frequency was significantly greater on sites with 21% to 25% soil moisture content than on sites with drier or wetter soils [165].

Aspect and topography: This species is most common on warm, dry, south-facing slopes [67,98,165]. A grand fir/creambush oceanspray association in southwestern Washington is common on exposed, south-facing slopes and on ridgetops. Sites having this association remain snow-free much of the year and experience extreme summer drought [221]. In Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests in the Columbia River Gorge of Washington, creambush oceanspray had greatest cover on south-facing slopes (13%) and least cover in mesic ravines (6%) [243]. The coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray association in Oregon's Coast Ranges occurs most often on relatively steep, south- or west-facing slopes between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (600-900 m) elevation. The environment is hot and dry, and the growing season is long, with drought developing by midsummer. Snowpacks are not generally deep or persistent [94]. The western hemlock-Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray association is found in some of the hottest and driest forests in the western Cascade Range. Sites are "always" upper slopes and fairly steep, and drainage and solar input are "excessive" [87]. Coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray communities in the Cascade Range of Oregon are also most prevalent on dry, south-facing slopes [153]. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray cover, frequency, and importance values were significantly greater on south- than north-facing slopes (P=0.05) [165].

Creambush oceanspray grows on more mesic exposures as well. In montane zones on the Umatilla National Forest, it dominated the understory on north, northeast, northwest, and east aspects [90]; in western Oregon clearcuts it occurred only on north-facing slopes [246]. Creambush oceanspray mostly grows on moist slopes in southern California [41], where it reaches the southern end of its distribution.

Elevation: Creambush oceanspray occurs from sea level to about 7,000 feet (2,150 m) across its range. It mostly grows on low-elevation montane sites. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray cover, frequency, and importance values were significantly greater on 3,000- to 3,400-foot (910-1,000 m) elevations than on higher-elevation sites (P=0.05) [165]. Creambush oceanspray grows mostly on high peaks in the Great Basin (review by [196]).

Location Elevation
eastern Washington and Oregon, Blue Mountains 1,700-4,800 feet [84]
Deschutes National Forest, Oregon, east slopes >2,800 feet, from ponderosa pine to subalpine mixed-conifer zones [212]
California <5,900 feet [97]
southern California <4,500 feet [41]
Nevada 4,500-9,500 feet [104]
Pacific Northwest sea level to 5,500 feet [135]

Climate: Creambush oceanspray occurs mostly in dry zones [135], although it is characterized as a "predominantly humid zone species" in western Washington [53]. Annual precipitation across its United States distribution [37,56,97,137,215,241] ranges from 9.3 inches (236 mm) in central Oregon [56] to 57 inches (1,140 mm) in western Washington [137].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Creambush oceanspray is most common in early succession but occurs in all stages of succession. In mesic coniferous forests of northwestern Montana, it is approximately 5 times as dense in stands ≤150 years old than in old growth [14].

Seral occurrence: Disturbance favors creambush oceanspray [111,113]. Kruckeberg [113] characterized creambush oceanspray as a "colorful reclaimer of open or disturbed lands" of the Pacific Northwest, where it commonly establishes on recently logged sites, in second growth, and on roadbanks. It is especially common in seral Douglas-fir forests [111]. Following the Sundance Fire in northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray was important or codominant in the first decade of postfire succession in Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir-western hemlock forests [206]. On another site in northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray grew rapidly and dominated early-seral sites after a Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forest was clearcut. The shrub layer regained precutting cover about 60 to 80 years after tree harvest [51]. Creambush oceanspray seedlings established 3 growing seasons after a debris flow on the Central Coast Ranges of southwestern Oregon [173].

Creambush oceanspray prefers open sites [111,218]. It is described as a "light demanding, early successional" species [218]. Logging and fire promote creambush oceanspray by opening the canopy. A study at the Eastern Oregon Experiment Station showed shrub cover, including that of creambush oceanspray, decreased with increasing cover of the mixed-conifer overstory. At about 90% canopy closure, shrub cover dropped to about 5%. However, even under a nearly closed canopy, a few shrubs remained alive in the understory, and seedlings of these shrubs established in canopy breaks [247]. In coast Douglas-fir/salal stands on foothills of the Cascade Range, Washington, maximum creambush oceanspray cover occurred approximately 20 years after disturbance (clearcutting or wildfire); creambush oceanspray generally declined after that [137]:

Creambush oceanspray cover in different-aged Douglas-fir stands in Washington [137]
Disturbance and stand age Postclearcut year 5 Postfire year 22 Postfire year 30 Postfire year 42 Postfire year 73
Cover (%) 1.72 4.46 3.34 2.13 2.84

Defoliation and/or death of overstory trees due to insects may favor creambush oceanspray. In the Blue Mountains, creambush oceanspray showed 5% cover and 15% frequency 23 years after a record-breaking, 2-year attack by Douglas-fir tussock moths. About 1,250 miles² (3,240 km²) of a grand fir-Douglas-fir forest was affected by the outbreak [250].

Where it is a minor species, creambush oceanspray may not decline with canopy closure. In western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, its cover, frequency, and importance values were not significantly different in 5 canopy-cover classes ranging from 1% to 100% closure. Creambush oceanspray had ≤1% cover in all canopy-cover classes. Similarly, its cover, frequency, and importance values in these forests were not significantly different between logged, logged-and-burned, single-broadcast-burned, or multiple-broadcast-burned sites and sites with no history of logging or prescribed fire [165].

Logging: Lightly-shaded areas, such as those occurring a few decades after thinning, can promote creambush oceanspray growth [194]. In Douglas fir-western hemlock forests of coastal Oregon, creambush oceanspray was associated with intermediate tree densities (P<=0.01) [199]. In Douglas- fir stands in northern Idaho, its cover peaked about 20 years after logging [176].

Creambush oceanspray cover in unlogged and logged Douglas-fir stands in northern Idaho [176]
Treatment Unlogged Logged 13 years previous Logged 20 years previous Logged 40+ years previous
Cover (%) 0.6 21.4 26.8 8.0

On the Fort Lewis Military Reservation of Washington, a late 1990s study found creambush oceanspray cover was greater in a coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray forest that had been clearcut in the 1920s and thinned twice afterwards (2.5% creambush oceanspray cover) than in a coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray forest that had been partially cut only once, in the 1930s (1.5% creambush oceanspray cover) [220]. In Pacific ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir habitat types of the Swan Valley, Montana, creambush oceanspray cover was greater on clearcut (15%) and plantation (10%) plots than on untreated plots (8%) [69].

In the Klamath Mountains of Oregon and California, shrubfields of creambush oceanspray and other sprouting shrubs develop after logging or fire when conifers fail to regenerate in the early postfire community; conifers eventually replace the shrubs on most sites [149].

Logging does not favor creambush oceanspray on all sites. In northern Idaho logging reduced creambush oceanspray frequency slightly compared to its frequency in the understory of an adjacent unlogged site. The study site was in a western hemlock/pachistima forest. A tall-shrub (>3 feet (1 m)) community developed after logging; creambush oceanspray was a component of this early-seral, tall-shrub community. On cut sites, creambush oceanspray had 1.4% frequency 7 years after logging and 0.7% frequency 25 years after logging. It had 2.1% cover on the unlogged site 25 years after treatments [242].

See Plant response to fire for more information on creambush oceanspray occurrence in seral postfire communities.

Late-successional occurrence: Creambush oceanspray sometimes occurs in late succession. In Glacier Park's western redcedar-western hemlock forests, it is mostly restricted to late-seral or climax communities [81]. Creambush oceanspray also occurs in late succession in western redcedar-western hemlock and grand fir forests of Montana [186], and it is a late-successional or climax species in some western hemlock habitat types of Washington [95] and northern Idaho [251]. However, Henderson and others [95] point out that on the Olympic National Forest, climax western hemlock/salal-creambush oceanspray forests rarely develop due to recurrent fires. Coast Douglas-fir dominates the seral stands; creambush oceanspray often codominates the understory of these seral stands [95]. Creambush oceanspray also dominates the understories of late-successional Douglas-fir forests in Oregon [256] and Montana [186]. In mixed-conifer forests of western Oregon and California, creambush oceanspray and other deciduous shrubs are more likely to dominate in late succession on north-facing and other mesic slopes than on south-facing, dry slopes [240].

FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
FIRE EFFECTS:
Immediate fire effect on plant: Creambush oceanspray is usually top-killed by fire [25,35,60,140,167,167,203,207,207,253]. Many fire researchers describe it as "moderately resistant" to fire [60,61,207,248]. Stickney [208] classifies creambush oceanspray among the shrubs "least susceptible" to fire mortality, although fire may kill some individuals within a population [91].

Postfire regeneration strategy [207]:
Tall shrub, sprouting root crown
Small shrub, sprouting root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources)

Fire adaptations and plant response to fire:
Fire adaptations: Creambush oceanspray sprouts from the root crown after fire [55,60,61,140,167,208,209,228,232,245]. Stickney [207,208] uses creambush oceanspray as a characteristic example of a root crown-sprouting, "postfire survivor species".

Creambush oceanspray may establish from soil-stored seed [25,60,160,167,207,232,248], although seedlign establishment is apparently rare [167,248] and to date (2010), has only been documented 3 times after fire [83,160,191]. Postfire seed dispersal onto burns by wind or animals is possible but has not been documented. Heat and bare mineral soil may favor creambush oceanspray germination and establishment (review by [196]); this has not been determined experimentally or in the field.

Plant response to fire: Creambush oceanspray sprouts from the root crown and establishes from seed after fire.

Sprouting from surviving root crowns is creambush oceanspray's most common method of postfire regeneration [25,25,35,42,54,58,108,126,134,167,167,206,207,208,208,232,245,248,248]. It usually takes 5 to 10 years for creambush oceanspray to recover its prefire abundance [55]. It is often important on early-seral shrubfields after fire; these shrubfields eventually succeed to coniferous forests [204]. Shatford and others [195] found creambush oceanspray "common and abundant" on 9- to 19-year-old burns in dry coast Douglas-fir forests of the Siskiyou and Klamath mountains of Oregon and California. Creambush oceanspray's cover generally increases after disturbances [25,35,167,248] that open the canopy in late-successional forests, so creambush oceanspray is likely to increase on sites that were in late succession before fire [42,60,61,167,248].

Sprouting allows creambush oceanspray to survive large, severe wildfires. In southeastern Oregon, creambush oceanspray was noted in montane postfire communities after the 2002 Biscuit Fire Complex, a series of mixed-severity (low- to high-severity surface and crown) wildfires that burned about 500,000 acres (200,000 ha), and after the Bear Butte and Booth Fire Complex, a series of mixed-severity wildfires that burned about 91,000 acres (37,000 ha) [85]. A survey of wildfire-burned sites in California chaparral and moist and dry, mixed-conifer forests of western Montana showed creambush oceanspray sprouted after fires of all severities in all vegetation types where it was present before fire. Its postfire sprouting response was stronger in moist and dry conifer forests than in chaparral [134]. Reburns generally favor creambush oceanspray (see Northern Idaho below).

Seedling establishment: Creambush oceanspray regenerates from soil-stored seed after fire [25] occasionally. Neuenschwander [167] noted that for creambush oceanspray, "reproduction from seed is rarely observed after a burn", and Stickney (1978 personal communication cited in [167]) noted that creambush oceanspray seedling growth is slow in burns compared to other species. However, in the western Cascade Range of Oregon, creambush oceanspray seedlings occurred 2 years after former western-hemlock/Douglas-fir old growth had been clearcut, broadcast burned, and planted to coast Douglas-fir. Creambush oceanspray was not present on study plots before treatments [191].

Although creambush oceanspray does not often establish from seed, its postfire seedling cover may be greatest where fire was severe. A northern Idaho study determined that creambush oceanspray regenerated from duff- and soil-stored seed 1 to 3 years after broadcast burning in western redcedar/queencup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora) habitat types. Greatest creambush oceanspray seedling cover was in areas that experienced severe fire [160]. Succession proceeded slowly after the severe 1960 Saddle Mountain Fire in the Saddle Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, where creambush oceanspray is near its southern distributional limit. Creambush oceanspray showed low cover (0.03%) and frequency (0.01 %) in a vegetation survey conducted in postfire year 48 [83].

Regional studies: Creambush oceanspray is most common in early postfire succession [41], with cover and frequency declining with advancing stand age. Studies from the following regions provide site- and habitat-specific examples of creambush oceanspray's postfire response, as well as information on combining spraying with prescribed burning for shrub control, reburning, and interactions between prescribed fire and browsing.

Pacific Northwest:
Creambush oceanspray showed good recovery after prescribed-burning and thinning-and-burning treatments in the Pacific Northwest. Herbicides-and-burning treatments helped control creambush oceanspray.

Washington: In a short-term study, creambush oceanspray gained cover rapidly between postfire years 2 and 3 following a July 1970 wildfire in North Cascades National Park. The wildfire burned a coast Douglas-fir-western hemlock stand on a ridgetop [155].

Creambush oceanspray abundance after the 1970 Silver Creek Wildfire in North Cascades National Park [155]
Year Cover (%) Frequency (%)
1971 (postfire year 1) 3.2 <0.05
1972 (postfire year 2) 3.2 <0.05
1973 (postfire year 3) 16.1 1.1

Near Wenatchee, creambush oceanspray was abundant a year after thinning and prescribed fire in a Pacific ponderosa pine/white spirea (Spiraea betulifolia) forest. Burning was conducted on 22 September 1997; the fire was of low severity, with flame lengths generally <4.9 feet (1.5 m). Seventy-eight percent of creambush oceanspray plants sprouted in postfire year 1. Ocean spray density was 15 plants/ha in postfire year 1; 337 plants/ha in postfire year 3; and 238 plants/ha in postfire year 9. The management objectives—to reduce fuels and conifer seedling density and to help restore approximate historical stand structure and composition—were considered met [91].

Creambush oceanspray had regained its "former size and luxuriance" 10 years after slash burning in a Pacific ponderosa pine/mallow ninebark habitat type in northeastern Washington [232].

Central Oregon:
Spraying and prescribed burning for shrub control: In the central Oregon coast, an herbicides-and-fire treatment helped control creambush oceanspray in the short term. A shrubfield on a heavily logged Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)-western hemlock habitat type was treated with either herbicides (picloram-phenoxy mix), herbicides followed by October prescribed fire, herbicides followed by tractor crushing, or bulldozer scarification without herbicides or fire. The objective was to reduced shrub interference with conifer seedlings. For sprayed plots, herbicide was applied in summer or early fall; any additional treatments were done in fall. Treatments employing mechanical disturbance were most effective, and spraying alone least effective, at controlling creambush oceanspray. The author attributed the only moderate control obtained from the herbicides-and-fire treatment to recent rains and poor combustion of fuels [107].

Mean creambush oceanspray frequency (%) a year after shrub-control treatments on an Oregon shrubfield [107]
  Pretreatment Posttreatment
Herbicides 3 3
Herbicides + Rx fire 9 3
Herbicides + crushing 31 0
Scarification 13 0

Although herbicides and crushing best controlled creambush oceanspray in particular, scarification controlled shrubs in general better than other treatments [107].

Southern California: Prescribed burning had little or no effect on creambush oceanspray in a mixed-conifer Jeffrey pine-California black oak woodland with a chaparral understory in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County. In postfire year 2, creambush oceanspray was present in trace amounts (4 plants/ha) on unburned control plots but was not present on burned plots [143]. See the Research Project Summary of Martin and Lathrop's [124,143,144] study for details of the fire weather, fire prescription, and fire's effects on 38 other plants in the woodland.

Northern Rocky Mountains:
In the Northern Rocky Mountains, prescribed fires had either no effect or a positive effect on creambush oceanspray. Creambush oceanspray had a strong postfire recovery after a wildfire. Prescribed and wildfire reburns promoted creambush oceanspray and other shrubs over conifers. Postfire ungulate browsing of creambush oceanspray was minimal.

Western Montana: Thinning and/or prescribed fire had little effect on creambush oceanspray in Pacific ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forests on the Lubrecht Experimental Forest. Creambush oceanspray was scarce in these forests; it had <1% cover and frequency before treatments and in posttreatment year 2. The treatments successfully reduced fuel loads and helped restore historical stand structure in these forests. See Metlen and others' Research Project Summary for information on fire and thinning prescriptions used in this study, on fire behavior, and on the effects of thinning-alone and/or thinning-and-burning treatments on 7 tree, 24 shrub, 37 graminoid, 1 fern, and 540 forb species.

Northern Idaho: In Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir/mallow ninebark habitat types on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, mean creambush oceanspray across 3 postfire years cover did not differ significantly on unburned control sites, sites burned at low intensity (127 Kcal/m-s), or sites burned at high intensity (781 Kcal/m-s). For information on the fire weather, fire prescription, and postfire responses of 14 other shrub, 9 perennial graminoid, 25 perennial forb, and 6 annual species, see the Research Project Summary of Armour and others' [15] study.

Creambush oceanspray showed mixed but mostly favorable responses after prescribed fires on the Clearwater National Forest [18]. Prefire abundance and season of burning were not given.

Creambush oceanspray abundance in the summer of 1969, after prescribed fires on the Clearwater National Forest, northern Idaho [18]
Site* (year of fire) Frequency (%) Density (plants/acre)
Lone Knob fire (1969) 56 219
Lone Knob control 12 53
Fish Creek fire (1968) 32 101
Fish Creek control 20 158
Bee Creek fire (1967) 4 28
Bee Creek control 44 101
Relay Station fire (1968) 8 24
Relay Station control 16 117
*Relay Station is near Avery; all other sites are on the Lochsa Watershed.

Creambush oceanspray grew rapidly after prescribed fires in seral shrubfields in a grand fir/pachistima (Pachistima myrsinites) habitat type on the Coeur d’Alene National Forest. Its sprouts were approximately 24 inches (60 cm) tall by the end of the 1st postfire growing season. Spring-burned creambush oceanspray sprouted during postfire weeks 4 to 8; plants burned in fall did not sprout until the next spring. Unlike many associated shrubs that sprouted most prolifically following spring prescribed fire, creambush oceanspray showed greatest shoot production following fall prescribed fire [133].

Ten years after the mixed-severity Sundance Fire, Stickney [206] reported 5% to 11% cover of creambush oceanspray; it was one of the principal cover species on his plots. Study plots were in a western hemlock habitat type. Creambush oceanspray was a component of the initial "sprouting shrub stage" that formed a year after the fire and persisted through at least 10 years of postfire succession [206].

Reburning: Reburns generally promote creambush oceanspray and other sprouting shrubs over conifers. In conifer forests on the Coeur d’Alene National Forest, creambush oceanspray was a component of mixed-species shrubfields after wildfires 19, 21, and 9 years apart (initial fire in 1851, reburns in 1870, 1910, and 1919). The shrubs were dense and well developed 10 years after the 1919 wildfire [123].

Creambush oceanspray sprouted and grew rapidly after a March 1965 prescribed fire in a grand fir/Oregon boxwood (Paxistima myrsinites) habitat type in the Fish Creek area of the Nez Perce National Forest. Prior to the prescribed fire, the overstory had been killed by wildfires in 1934 and in 1954; a shrubfield developed after these fires. The fire management objective was to maintain the shrubfield as big game browse [131,132].

Creambush oceanspray response to spring prescribed fire in a grand fir/Oregon boxwood habitat type in northern Idaho [131,132]
  Live crown diameter (feet) Live crown height (feet) Basal sprouts/plant Sprout height (feet)
prefire (March 1965) 5.3 8.6 2.7 1.0
postfire month 5 (August 1965) 2.8 3.6 33.4 2.6

The fire successfully rejuvenated the shrubfield. See the 2nd Fire Case Study in Saskatoon serviceberry for details on the prescription and behavior of this prescribed fire.

Prescribed fire and postfire browsing: Since creambush oceanspray is relatively unpalatable, it is unlikely to be overbrowsed after fire. Ungulates browse new creambush oceanspray sprouts, but browsing pressure usually declines rapidly after postfire year 1. On the Sherman Creek Watershed in northern Idaho, elk browsed new creambush oceanspray sprouts but did not consume unburned plants or sprouts ≥3 years old. Prescribed burning was conducted in the spring or fall of 1966 to enhance winter browse for big game species, so fall-burned plants did not provide forage until the next growing season (1968). Creambush oceanspray was not utilized in postfire years 6 or 8 on either burned or unburned plots; overall, elk use of creambush oceanspray was the least of 8 browse species. Diameter of creambush oceanspray twigs that sprouted after fire was thicker than that of twigs of unburned plants for at least 2 postfire years [128]:

Percent of creambush oceanspray twigs that elk browsed and creambush oceanspray twig diameters on prescription-burned and unburned control plots on the Sherman Creek Watershed, northern Idaho. Data are means [128].
  1967 1968 1970
Browsed (%) Twig diameter (mm) Browsed (%) Twig diameter (mm) Browsed (%) Twig diameter (mm)
spring-burned, 1966 23.1 2.47* 6.9 2.1 2.1 2.95
fall-burned, 1966 no new growth no new growth 12.1 2.4** 0 2.13
unburned 0.7 1.37 0 1.0 0 not available
*Different from control at P=0.01.
**Different from control at P=0.05.

Prescribed fire and cattle-grazing treatments had no significant effect on creambush oceanspray cover in a Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir/mallow ninebark habitat type on the Idaho Experimental Forest [253].

Creambush oceanspray density (and cover) 1 year after prescribed fire and grazing in a Douglas-fir/mallow ninebark habitat type in northern Idaho [253]
Treatments Burned Unburned
Grazed 1,267 plants/ha (1.1%) 500 plants/ha (0.6%)
Ungrazed 833 plants/ha (1.0%) 600 plants/ha (2.2%)

See Palatability for more information on ungulate use of creambush oceanspray after fire.

FUELS AND FIRE REGIMES:

 

Photo by J. E. (Jed) and Bonnie McClellan © California Academy of Sciences

Fuels: Creambush oceanspray is most frequent on south slopes of dry montane forests (see Site Characteristics); these sites typically burn earlier in the season or with higher severities than cooler, drier sites. In northern Idaho, Smith and Fischer [204] placed the Pacific ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, and grand fir forests where creambush oceanspray is most typically dominant in Fire Group 2. These forests tend to have warm temperature regimes, dry to moderate soil moisture, and are generally more productive—with heavier loads of downed woody fuels—compared to cooler or drier forests. Creambush oceanspray also occurs in mesic to moist grand fir forests (Fire Group 7); these forests also have heavy fuel loads. See Smith and Fischer [204] for fuel load measurements representative of coniferous forest habitat types where creambush oceanspray is important in northern Idaho.

In Pacific ponderosa pine-grand fir forests of Washington and Oregon, growing-season moisture content of shrubs, including creambush oceanspray, averaged >125% over 2 years. Shrub moisture content peaked in June at ~175%. Moisture contents of dominant overstory trees are also described in this study [7].

In many forest types with creambush oceanspray, fire exclusion has resulted in higher loads of woody debris compared to woody fuel loads when historic fire regimes were still functioning. In white fir stands in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, large woody-debris loads were positively correlated with time-since-fire (P=0.01). Snag density was positively correlated with low (30 snags/ha) and high (23 snags/ha) fire severities (P=0.05). The authors attributed the correlation to nonconsumption of preexisting snags at low fire severity and creation of new snags at high severity. In this study, creambush oceanspray dominated the shrub layer of white fir stands in dry, interior valleys [238].

Stand structure: Stand structure of communities where creambush oceanspray is an important component of the vegetation is variable, as is the amount of fuel creambush oceanspray contributes. On some sites, structure is open, with a sparse shrub component. In the west-central portion of the Cascade Range of Oregon, the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray association displayed a relatively open stand structure (30-60% crown closure) of old growth, with few shrubs and a "very poorly developed" herb layer. Creambush oceanspray cover averaged 5% [57]. Another study of coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray communities in the Cascade Range found that except for creambush oceanspray, the tall-shrub layer was depauperate; low-shrub and herbaceous cover was also low. Incense-cedar, however, was encroaching in the subcanopy. Tree densities averaged 53 stems/ha for coast Douglas-fir and 5/ha for incense-cedar [153]. Live shrubs, including creambush oceanspray as a dominant, comprised <5% of total stand biomass in mixed-conifer communities in the White Cap Wilderness Study Area of northern Idaho. Total shrub fuel loads ranged from 204 to 2,190 lbs/acre; shrubs were 0.6 inch to 27 inches (1.5-69 cm) tall, with 2% to 50% cover [26].

Some communities with creambush oceanspray have denser overstories and/or understories. A coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray stand on the west-central portion of the Cascade Range, Oregon, had 70% tree cover, 46% shrub cover, and 36% herb cover. Aspect of the forest was southwest; it was the hottest and driest of 18 stand types examined [256]. Bailey [20] found coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray-salal habitat types off the southern coast of Oregon had relatively open canopies and "well-developed" shrub layers. Creambush oceanspray averaged 30% cover [20]. Western redcedar-western hemlock forests often have a dense overstory, but understory cover of creambush oceanspray and other shrubs may be sparse [204].

Mixed-conifer forests of southern Oregon and California are structurally and compositionally complex, with small conifers—often white fir and/or incense-cedar—often forming ladder fuels in a well-developed subcanopy. Snags and large, downed woody debris are common, but fuel loads are highly variable. Many of these mixed-conifer forests support a moderate to dense shrub understory, although some have few shrubs but a dominant herbaceous layer, and others have both depauperate understory and ground layers [34]. Stand structure in California's mixed-conifer forests was mostly open in the presettlement period [79].

Insect attacks increase snag densities in creambush oceanspray habitats, which eventually increase dead and downed woody fuel loads. Youngblood and Wickman [250] provide data on stand structure, live and dead tree abundance, and shrub and herb cover of a grand fir-Douglas-fir forest attacked by Douglas-fir tussock moths 23 years prior. Creambush oceanspray was an important component of the understory (5% cover); the site was in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness in the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon [250].

Models: A few models were available for predicting creambush oceanspray's contribution to total fuel loads as of 2010. Smith and Brand [205] review equations for predicting creambush oceanspray biomass. Harris [90] presents models to predict creambush oceanspray aboveground biomass and cover; the models were developed from data collected in coast Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western larch forests on the Umatilla National Forest. Brown [27] provides a model for predicting total aboveground creambush oceanspray biomass and total leaf biomass based on basal stem diameter. Samples on which the model is based were collected in northern Idaho and western Montana [27].

Leaf area indices are used in some fuel models [49]. In the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, creambush oceanspray had a large mean leaf area compared to associated shrubs; about twice as large as the leaf areas of associated greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) and redstem ceanothus (Ceanothus sanguineus) [40]. Agee and Lolley [6] placed creambush oceanspray in fuel type 2: shrubs with thick stems but thin leaves.

Fire regimes: Plant communities with creambush oceanspray display a wide range of fire regimes. Creambush oceanspray is most often dominant in dry Douglas-fir forests but is also common in dry ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and mesic western redcedar-western hemlock forests. Historical fire regimes of these coniferous forests are a continuum from mostly frequent, low-severity surface fires for ponderosa pine; to mixed surface and crown fires for Douglas-fir; to mostly long return-interval, crown fires for western redcedar-western hemlock types. Creambush oceanspray also occurs in less widely distributed conifer and nonconifer types that historically experienced a similarly wide range of fire regimes. These types include Port-Orford-cedar, redwood, and knobcone pine coniferous communities and Oregon white oak and chaparral communities. See Habitat Types and Plant Communities for details on communities with creambush oceanspray.

Douglas-fir: Douglas-fir forests with creambush oceanspray experience low- to moderate-severity surface, stand-replacement surface, and crown fires (review by [204]). Because Douglas-fir forests with a large component of creambush oceanspray occur mainly at low elevations, human-ignited fires can be frequent [35]. A study in the Cascade Range of Oregon found the ages of coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray stands that established after major fires (those killing ≥50% of the overstory) ranged from 75 to 450 years. Mean return intervals of major fires ranged from 72 years for the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/Indian's-dream (Aspidotis densa) phase of the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/grass type to 111 years for the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/vine maple type. The coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/Indian's-dream phase is the driest phase of the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/grass type; the coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/vine maple type occurs on ridges that may burn less frequently than other coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray types [153].

Fire regime data for Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray communities in the Cascade Range, Oregon [153]
Plant community    Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/grass type,
Indian's-dream phase
Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/grass type,
manyleaf collomia (Collomia heterophylla) phase*
Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/vine maple type
Number of plots 4 19 12
Number of fire intervals 6 12 11
Mean stand age (SD); range 196 (104); 94-330 198 (84); 75-337 294 (151); 89-450
Mean time since last major fire (SD); range 128 (52); 82-197 133 (51); 63-266 162 (89); 89-420
Mean interval between stand-replacement fires (SD); range 72 (41); 26-131 107 (65); 34-217 111 (68); 41-232
Plots experiencing a major fire since initiation of last cohort (%) 50 47 48
Plots burned since initiation of oldest cohort (%) 75 58 61
*The most common phase of the Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray/grass type.

Chappell and Giglio [32] found fire was the major natural disturbance in coast Douglas-fir-Pacific madrone/creambush oceanspray associations near the Puget Trough of Washington. Their study of over 50 coast Douglas-fir-Pacific madrone sites across west-central Washington found all sites had experienced fire at least once in 130 years [32]. Agee [4] reported a fire regime of mostly mixed moderate-severity surface and crown fires—with some low-severity surface fires—for coast Douglas-fir-Pacific madrone forests in the area.

Weisburg [234] found coast Douglas-fir forests in the west-central portion of the Cascade Range of Oregon showed a mean fire-return interval of 97 years from 1475 to 1996; the mean interval was 197 years when low-severity fires were excluded. Low- to moderate-severity fires averaged 58% of all fires. Basal area of understory shrubs, which included creambush oceanspray, decreased with time since fire (R²=0.51) [234].

Ponderosa pine: Ponderosa pine communities historically experienced mostly low-severity surface fires (for example, [16,82]). Pacific ponderosa pine forests of the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon had mostly low-severity surface fires averaging every 6 to 22 years (review by [244]). This fire regime favored creambush oceanspray; Wright [244] characterized creambush oceanspray and other shrubs in these communities as "vigorous sprouters and very tolerant of fire". Very frequent fire-return intervals (<5 years), however, resulted in greater cover of bluebunch wheatgrass and other bunchgrasses than cover of shrubs [244]. Pacific ponderosa pine forests of northern Idaho and western Montana historically experienced similar fire behavior and fire-return intervals. Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir generally becomes dominant in these forests with fire exclusion (review by [244]).

Western redcedar-western hemlock: Historical fire regimes in this type were variable; some stands experienced fire only rarely but others burned at moderate intervals. Stand-replacement fires are more common in this type than understory fires. Seral forests—where creambush oceanspray is most likely to occur—historically burned about every 50 to 100 years, usually with surface or mixed surface and crown fires. Surface fires in seral western redcedar-western hemlock forests may affect the composition of understory shrubs such as creambush oceanspray but typically have little effect on overstory composition. Western redcedar-western hemlock forests of northern Idaho, in which creambush oceanspray is prevalent, are typically cooler and damper than most conifer types, with a sparse understory, deep duff, and moist large woody fuels. The fire-return interval ranges from 25 to >500 years for these forests (review by [201]).

Port-Orford-cedar: Port-Orford-cedar forests experience mixed-severity and stand-replacement fires at short to long intervals. Port-Orford-cedar is somewhat unusual in that it persists from early-seral to climax stages of postfire succession [257]. Creambush oceanspray is unlikely to persist in closed-canopy, old-growth Port-Orford-cedar (see Successional Status), but may persist in seral Port-Orford-cedar communities.

Redwood: These forests historically experienced short to long fire-return intervals [76,119], with surface fires at short to moderate intervals (10-100 years) most common [119]. Creambush oceanspray is unlikely to persist in closed-canopy, old-growth redwood forests (see Successional Status) but may persist in seral communities.

Mixed-conifer forests of Oregon and California: These mixed-conifer forests historically had a regime of mostly low-severity surface fires on the hot, dry sites [34] where creambush oceanspray is most likely to occur (see Site Characteristics). Fire-return intervals varied from about 10 to 80 years (review by [34]). A study in the Klamath Mountains of California found that fires in mixed-conifer forests with creambush oceanspray were historically mostly small and of mixed severity. Fire activity declined in the 1950s, with the advent of fire exclusion [239]. Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine-white fir communities in Emigrant Basin Wilderness Area, California, historically had fire-return intervals averaging 57 years [77].

Oregon white oak: Oregon white oak communities historically had short- to moderate-interval surface fires. White and others [238] report that Oregon white oak in Oregon's Klamath Mountains experienced fire every 3 to 20 years. A fire history study of Oregon white oak-coast Douglas-fir mosaics of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, found that prior to European settlement, the island experienced mostly low-severity surface fires. Native Americans apparently burned these mosaics several times/decade, so fire-caused mortality of overstory trees was negligible. These intervals were much shorter [147] than the 50- to 100-year intervals Agee [4] estimated for coast Douglas-fir forests on the adjacent mainland.

Knobcone pine and chaparral: Some communities where creambush oceanspray is important experience frequent crown fires. Knobcone pine communities of southern Oregon and coastal California require frequent (<60-year intervals) [230], stand-replacement fires to maintain knobcone pine as the community dominant [39,230]. Likewise, chamise communities of southern Oregon and California require stand-replacement fires at <60-year intervals to maintain chamise as the community dominant [188].

Other shrublands: In Redwood National Park the bald-hill shrubland communities, of which creambush oceanspray is an important component, were historically maintained by very frequent fire. Native Americans may have burned the bald hills at least every other year. Fire scars on Oregon white oaks adjacent to the hills show fire-return intervals of about 2 years; 10 years was the maximum time between fires that left scars. Coast Douglas-fir seedlings are encroaching on the hills with fire exclusion; the former shrubby balds will likely succeed to redwood/Douglas-fir forests without the return of very frequent fire [211].

See the Fire Regime Table for further information on fire regimes of vegetation communities in which creambush oceanspray may occur.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Creambush oceanspray is well adapted to survive prescribed fires and wildfires, showing good recovery even after large, severe wildfires (see Plant response to fire). Prescribed fires at 10- to 15-year intervals may rejuvenate shrubfields with creambush oceanspray (review by [196]).

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
None

OTHER STATUS:
Creambush oceanspray had no special protection status as of 2010. Information on state- and province-level protection status of plants in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe.

IMPORTANCE TO WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK:
Browse: Creambush oceanspray is a minor browse species [41,50,125,161,178,203,226]. Ungulates generally browse it only when more palatable forage is unavailable [84]. Many low-elevation, dry-site Douglas-fir forests with creambush oceanspray are important cattle rangelands, but the cattle generally seek forage other than creambush oceanspray [35]. Creambush oceanspray is considered poor forage in Idaho [203] and an undesirable "competitor" with redstem ceanothus, a more desirable browse species [139]. Among ungulates in British Columbia, only Sitka black-tailed deer made much use of creambush oceanspray [23].

Importance of creambush oceanspray as browse for wild ungulates in British Columbian [23]
Ungulate Importance as Browse
Sitka black-tailed deer moderate
white-tailed deer low
mountain goat low
bighorn sheep low
Roosevelt elk low
Rocky mountain elk low
moose low
caribou low

However, because this species is common and readily available to wildlife and livestock on low-elevation rangelands, ungulates may make light but frequent use of creambush oceanspray in summer [161,226]. Cattle use it as summer forage in northern Idaho [35,217] and northeastern Oregon [115].

Wildlife [125,161] and livestock [125] sometimes browse creambush oceanspray more heavily [36,62,115], especially in late fall and winter when green forage is less available [125,197]. Snowshoe hares in the Flathead region of western Montana use the leaves and twigs for fall forage [3]. Studies on the Bitterroot National Forest and in the Rattlesnake Creek drainage of western Montana found elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer preferred creambush oceanspray as winter forage [109,146]. Columbian black-tailed deer in western Oregon browse creambush oceanspray twigs in winter [47]; mule deer on the Los Padres National Forest of southern California also use creambush oceanspray [184]. Creambush oceanspray is heavily utilized by migrating mule deer and elk in central Washington [187].

Green clippings of creambush oceanspray were found in dusky-footed woodrat shelters in Oregon [29], and the shrub is apparently palatable to native slugs in western Washington [31].

Palatability and/or nutritional value: Creambush oceanspray is usually unpalatable to ungulates [157,158] and other browsing animals. A review rated its palatability as poor to fair for cattle and fair for domestic sheep [80]. A study on the Tillamook Burn of northwestern Oregon found mountain beavers browsed creambush oceanspray less than expected based on availability [46]. New postfire sprouts are most palatable ([18,166], review by [196]). On burned sites in northern Idaho, big game species in northern Idaho preferred browsing sprouts of creambush oceanspray and other shrubs to browsing current-year growth of shrubs on adjacent unburned sites, especially the first growing season after fire [18]. On one site, elk utilization of creambush oceanspray increased from 1.3% before fire to 36.3% a year after prescribed fire; elk use dropped to 6.9% in postfire year 2 [127]. Asherin [18] also noted that big game species browsed creambush oceanspray readily in postfire year 1, but use dropped after that. Browsing ungulates may pass over creambush oceanspray sprouts if more palatable shrubs are available. On a wildfire-burned Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir/mallow ninebark habitat type on upper Selway River, northern Idaho, mule deer browsed creambush oceanspray "minimally" in postfire years 2 and 3, while western serviceberry and Scouler willow were used heavily [105]. Following prescribed fires on the Lochsa Watershed in northern Idaho, elk preferred Scouler willow, western serviceberry, and Rocky Mountain maple sprouts to those of creambush oceanspray [126].

Habitat: Conifer/creambush oceanspray communities provide important habitat to a variety of wildlife species. Along the Umatilla River of Oregon, white-tailed deer used Pacific ponderosa pine-coast Douglas-fir/creambush oceanspray and Pacific ponderosa pine/creambush oceanspray communities more than expected based on availability (P<0.0001) [21]. On sky islands across Nevada and in western Utah, yellow-bellied marmot burrows were closely associated with creambush oceanspray, "almost without exception" [64,65]. In the central Oregon Coast Ranges, creambush oceanspray was found on streamside and upslope habitats where 18 of 22 small mammal species and 9 of 13 amphibian species known to the area were captured [145]. This shrub is also common in northern Idaho Pacific treefrog habitats [190].

Cover value: Creambush oceanspray provides cover for a variety of species. Blue grouse hide beneath creambush oceanspray and other shrubs [66]. Dense shrub understories in Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir/mallow ninebark habitat types—where creambush oceanspray is common to codominant—provide visual and thermal cover for deer and elk; in addition, these sites supply nesting habitat, cover, and food for a variety of nongame birds and mammals [36].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Creambush oceanspray could potentially be used on Burned Area Recovery sites, although to date (2010), there was no documentation of its suvivorship after transplanting onto burns. It is used successfully for erosion control ([154], review by [196]), highway plantings, windbreaks, riparian plantings, and wildlife plantings (reviews by [196,197]). It establishes readily through natural regeneration on burned sites [35,246] (see Successional Status and Plant response to fire). In northern Idaho, for example, creambush oceanspray dominated (48% of total understory cover) a Pacific ponderosa pine-Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir stand in early postfire succession; its size (10-15 feet (3-4.6 m)) and relative unpalatability allowed it to compete successfully with other shrubs for light, moisture, and space. Because it is a "poor forage species", researchers predicted it would dominate the burn until crowded out by conifers [203].

Creambush oceanspray is propagated from cuttings or seed [12,113], with cuttings the usual method. A 2004 review found creambush oceanspray seeds were "rare and costly" [196], and as of 2008, there were no published guidelines for growing this species from seed [197]. See these sources: ([74], reviews by [196,197]) for information on propagating creambush oceanspray. Plants are available commercially [74].

OTHER USES:
Creambush oceanspray is planted as an ornamental [197]. Leaf extracts show antifungal, antiviral, and cytotoxic properties ([102], review by [164]).

Traditional uses: Native Americans used creambush oceanspray for making implements, as medicine [255], and sometimes as food. The long, straight, hard branchwood was highly prized for making arrow shafts [50,224], as well as digging sticks, fishing hooks, and needles [73,224]. Native Americans used creambush oceanspray for treating viral and skin diseases ([73], review by [164]) and as a tonic [73]. The bark and leaves were dried and pulverized for application to burns or sores [86]. The Pima made tea from the leaves [118], and Native Americans in the Inland Northwest ate the seeds [55].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Creambush oceanspray may interfere with conifer seedlings on plantations [168]. Because its roots are often shallow, creambush oceanspray is likely to compete with conifer seedlings for water [40].

Grazing: Creambush oceanspray may decline with grazing despite its relative unpalatibility; its growth response in browsing and clipping studies has been mixed. In northern Idaho sites with elk, moose, mule deer, and white-tailed deer, creambush oceanspray was more common inside than outside exclosures [8]. Another northern Idaho study in a Douglas-fir habitat type found creambush oceanspray decreased in cattle-grazed stands [253]. Similarly, in the Bitterroot Mountains of northern Idaho, creambush oceanspray showed greater density, cover, and frequency on ungrazed plots than on plots grazed by cattle (989 vs. 522 plants/ha; 2.6% vs. 0.6%; 4.4% vs. 1.3%, respectively, for desnity, cover, and frequency) [252]. Garrison [71] recommends ≤50% to 60% utilization of creambush oceanspray to prevent the species' decline.

Daubenmire and Daubenmire [51] reported that in eastern Washington and northern Idaho, overgrazing of Pacific ponderosa pine/mallow ninebark stands, in which creambush oceanspray often codominates, may result in a disclimax ponderosa pine/bluegrass (Poa spp.) community.

Exclosure studies in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon found that creambush oceanspray production was significantly greater (P≤0.04) for completely clipped plants (100% of new growth removed, x=200 g/0.25 acre) compared with heavily (75%, x=151 g), moderately (50%, x=162 g), and slightly (25%, x=64 g) clipped plants. Much of the new growth was long twig and branch sprouts. Moderate or heavier clipping suppressed flower production. Results were averaged over 4 to 5 consecutive years of clipping [70].

APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to creambush oceanspray habitats. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which creambush oceanspray may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [121], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest California Southwest Great Basin Northern and Central Rockies
Pacific Northwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northwest Shrubland
Mountain big sagebrush (cool sagebrush) Replacement 100% 20 10 40
Northwest Woodland
Western juniper (pumice) Replacement 33% >1,000    
Mixed 67% 500    
Oregon white oak-ponderosa pine Replacement 16% 125 100 300
Mixed 2% 900 50  
Surface or low 81% 25 5 30
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Oregon white oak Replacement 3% 275    
Mixed 19% 50    
Surface or low 78% 12.5    
Subalpine woodland Replacement 21% 300 200 400
Mixed 79% 80 35 120
Northwest Forested
Sitka spruce-western hemlock Replacement 100% 700 300 >1,000
Douglas-fir (Willamette Valley foothills) Replacement 18% 150 100 400
Mixed 29% 90 40 150
Surface or low 53% 50 20 80
Oregon coastal tanoak Replacement 10% 250    
Mixed 90% 28 15 40
Ponderosa pine (xeric) Replacement 37% 130    
Mixed 48% 100    
Surface or low 16% 300    
Dry ponderosa pine (mesic) Replacement 5% 125    
Mixed 13% 50    
Surface or low 82% 8    
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (dry mesic) Replacement 25% 300 250 500
Mixed 75% 100 50 150
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (wet mesic) Replacement 71% 400    
Mixed 29% >1,000    
Mixed conifer (southwestern Oregon) Replacement 4% 400    
Mixed 29% 50    
Surface or low 67% 22    
California mixed evergreen (northern California) Replacement 6% 150 100 200
Mixed 29% 33 15 50
Surface or low 64% 15 5 30
Lodgepole pine (pumice soils) Replacement 78% 125 65 200
Mixed 22% 450 45 85
Pacific silver fir (low elevation) Replacement 46% 350 100 800
Mixed 54% 300 100 400
Subalpine fir Replacement 81% 185 150 300
Mixed 19% 800 500 >1,000
Mixed conifer (eastside dry) Replacement 14% 115 70 200
Mixed 21% 75 70 175
Surface or low 64% 25 20 25
Mixed conifer (eastside mesic) Replacement 35% 200    
Mixed 47% 150    
Surface or low 18% 400    
Spruce-fir Replacement 84% 135 80 270
Mixed 16% 700 285 >1,000
California
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
California Shrubland
Coastal sage scrub Replacement 100% 50 20 150
Coastal sage scrub-coastal prairie Replacement 8% 40 8 900
Mixed 31% 10 1 900
Surface or low 62% 5 1 6
Chaparral Replacement 100% 50 30 125
Montane chaparral Replacement 34% 95    
Mixed 66% 50    
California Woodland
California oak woodlands Replacement 8% 120    
Mixed 2% 500    
Surface or low 91% 10    
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
California Forested
California mixed evergreen Replacement 10% 140 65 700
Mixed 58% 25 10 33
Surface or low 32% 45 7  
Coast redwood Replacement 2% ≥1,000    
Surface or low 98% 20    
Mixed conifer (North Slopes) Replacement 5% 250    
Mixed 7% 200    
Surface or low 88% 15 10 40
Mixed conifer (South Slopes) Replacement 4% 200    
Mixed 16% 50    
Surface or low 80% 10    
Aspen with conifer Replacement 24% 155 50 300
Mixed 15% 240    
Surface or low 61% 60    
Jeffrey pine Replacement 9% 250    
Mixed 17% 130    
Surface or low 74% 30    
Mixed evergreen-bigcone Douglas-fir (southern coastal) Replacement 29% 250    
Mixed 71% 100    
Interior white fir (northeastern California) Replacement 47% 145    
Mixed 32% 210    
Surface or low 21% 325    
Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (dry subalpine) Replacement 11% 250 31 500
Mixed 45% 60 31 350
Surface or low 45% 60 9 350
Southwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Southwest Grassland
Montane and subalpine grasslands with shrubs or trees Replacement 30% 70 10 100
Surface or low 70% 30    
Southwest Shrubland
Interior Arizona chaparral Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Mountain-mahogany shrubland Replacement 73% 75    
Mixed 27% 200    
Southwest Woodland
Madrean oak-conifer woodland Replacement 16% 65 25  
Mixed 8% 140 5  
Surface or low 76% 14 1 20
Pinyon-juniper (mixed fire regime) Replacement 29% 430    
Mixed 65% 192    
Surface or low 6% >1,000    
Pinyon-juniper (rare replacement fire regime) Replacement 76% 526    
Mixed 20% >1,000    
Surface or low 4% >1,000    
Ponderosa pine/grassland (Southwest) Replacement 3% 300    
Surface or low 97% 10    
Southwest Forested
Riparian forest with conifers Replacement 100% 435 300 550
Riparian deciduous woodland Replacement 50% 110 15 200
Mixed 20% 275 25  
Surface or low 30% 180 10  
Ponderosa pine-Gambel oak (southern Rockies and Southwest) Replacement 8% 300    
Surface or low 92% 25 10 30
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (southern Rockies) Replacement 15% 460    
Mixed 43% 160    
Surface or low 43% 160    
Southwest mixed conifer (warm, dry with aspen) Replacement 7% 300    
Mixed 13% 150 80 200
Surface or low 80% 25 2 70
Southwest mixed conifer (cool, moist with aspen) Replacement 29% 200 80 200
Mixed 35% 165 35  
Surface or low 36% 160 10  
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Lodgepole pine (Central Rocky Mountains, infrequent fire) Replacement 82% 300 250 500
Surface or low 18% >1,000 >1,000 >1,000
Spruce-fir Replacement 96% 210 150  
Mixed 4% >1,000 35 >1,000
Great Basin
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Great Basin Grassland
Mountain meadow (mesic to dry) Replacement 66% 31 15 45
Mixed 34% 59 30 90
Great Basin Shrubland
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert with trees Replacement 84% 137 30 200
Mixed 11% >1,000 20 >1,000
Surface or low 5% >1,000 20 >1,000
Wyoming sagebrush steppe Replacement 89% 92 30 120
Mixed 11% 714 120  
Interior Arizona chaparral Replacement 88% 46 25 100
Mixed 12% 350    
Mountain big sagebrush Replacement 100% 48 15 100
Mountain big sagebrush with conifers Replacement 100% 49 15 100
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Montane chaparral Replacement 37% 93    
Mixed 63% 54    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Mountain shrubland with trees Replacement 22% 105 100 200
Mixed 78% 29 25 100
Black and low sagebrushes Replacement 33% 243 100  
Mixed 67% 119 75 140
Great Basin Woodland
Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodland Replacement 20% 333 100 >1,000
Mixed 31% 217 100 >1,000
Surface or low 49% 135 100  
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Great Basin Forested
Interior ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 161   800
Mixed 10% 80 50 80
Surface or low 86% 9 8 10
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
Great Basin Douglas-fir (dry) Replacement 12% 90   600
Mixed 14% 76 45  
Surface or low 75% 14 10 50
Aspen with conifer (low to midelevation) Replacement 53% 61 20  
Mixed 24% 137 10  
Surface or low 23% 143 10  
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) Replacement 28% 170 80 400
Mixed 72% 65 50 250
Aspen with conifer (high elevation) Replacement 47% 76 40  
Mixed 18% 196 10  
Surface or low 35% 100 10  
Stable aspen-cottonwood, no conifers Replacement 31% 96 50 300
Surface or low 69% 44 20 60
Spruce-fir-pine (subalpine) Replacement 98% 217 75 300
Mixed 2% >1,000    
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Stable aspen without conifers Replacement 81% 150 50 300
Surface or low 19% 650 600 >1,000
Northern and Central Rockies
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northern and Central Rockies Shrubland
Mountain shrub, nonsagebrush Replacement 80% 100 20 150
Mixed 20% 400    
Mountain big sagebrush steppe and shrubland Replacement 100% 70 30 200
Northern and Central Rockies Woodland
Ancient juniper Replacement 100% 750 200 >1,000
Northern and Central Rockies Forested
Ponderosa pine (Northern Great Plains) Replacement 5% 300    
Mixed 20% 75    
Surface or low 75% 20 10 40
Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies) Replacement 4% 300 100 >1,000
Mixed 19% 60 50 200
Surface or low 77% 15 3 30
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, low elevation) Replacement 7% 300 200 400
Mixed 21% 100 50 400
Surface or low 71% 30 5 50
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, high elevation) Replacement 12% 300    
Mixed 18% 200    
Surface or low 71% 50    
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
Western redcedar Replacement 87% 385 75 >1,000
Mixed 13% >1,000 25  
Douglas-fir (xeric interior) Replacement 12% 165 100 300
Mixed 19% 100 30 100
Surface or low 69% 28 15 40
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) Replacement 28% 170 80 400
Mixed 72% 65 50 250
Douglas-fir (cold) Replacement 31% 145 75 250
Mixed 69% 65 35 150
Grand fir-Douglas-fir-western larch mix Replacement 29% 150 100 200
Mixed 71% 60 3 75
Mixed conifer-upland western redcedar-western hemlock Replacement 67% 225 150 300
Mixed 33% 450 35 500
Western larch-lodgepole pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 33% 200 50 250
Mixed 67% 100 20 140
Grand fir-lodgepole pine-larch-Douglas-fir Replacement 31% 220 50 250
Mixed 69% 100 35 150
Persistent lodgepole pine Replacement 89% 450 300 600
Mixed 11% >1,000    
Lower subalpine lodgepole pine Replacement 73% 170 50 200
Mixed 27% 450 40 500
Lower subalpine (Wyoming and Central Rockies) Replacement 100% 175 30 300
*Fire Severities
Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.
Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects.
Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [88,120].



REFERENCES

SPECIES: Holodiscus discolor
1. Ackerly, David. 2004. Functional strategies of chaparral shrubs in relation to seasonal water deficit and disturbance. Ecological Monographs. 74(1): 25-44. [47395]
2. Adams, David L.; Mahoney, Ronald L. 1991. Effects of shade and competing vegetation on growth of western redcedar regeneration. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(1): 21-22. [15151]
3. Adams, Lowell. 1959. An analysis of a population of snowshoe hares in northwestern Montana. Ecological Monographs. 29(2): 148-153. [25154]
4. Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p. [22247]
5. Agee, James K.; Finney, Mark; de Gouvenain, Roland. 1990. Forest fire history of Desolation Peak, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 350-356. [11035]
6. Agee, James K.; Lolley, M. Reese. 2009. Fuels and fire behavior. In: Agee, James K.; Lehmkuhl, John F., compilers. Dry forests of the northeastern Cascades fire and fire surrogate project sites, Mission Creek, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Research Paper PNW-RP-577. Portland , OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 35-46. [79562]
7. Agee, James K.; Wright, Clinton S.; Williamson, Nathan; Huff, Mark H. 2002. Foliar moisture content of Pacific Northwest vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior. Forest and Ecology Management. 167: 57-66. [41775]
8. Alldredge, Matthew W.; Peek, James M.; Wall, William A. 2001. Alterations of shrub communities in relation to herbivory in northern Idaho. Northwest Science. 75(2): 137-144. [53493]
9. Allen, Barbara H.; Holzman, Barbara A.; Evett, Rand R. 1991. A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands. Hilgardia. 59(2): 1-45. [17371]
10. Anderson, H. G. 1969. Growth form and distribution of vine maple (Acer circinatum) on Mary's Peak, western Oregon. Ecology. 50(1): 127-130. [8425]
11. Anderson, Howard George. 1967. The phytosociology of some vine maple communities in the Mary's Peak watershed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 118 p. Thesis. [9877]
12. Antieau, Clayton J. 1987. Holodiscus discolor. American Nurseryman. 166(2): 110. [76325]
13. Antieau, Clayton Joseph. 1985. Patterns of natural variation in oceanspray, Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. (Rosaceae). Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 164 p. Thesis. [76401]
14. Antos, J. A.; Habeck, J. R. 1981. Successional development in Abies grandis (Dougl.) Forbes forests in the Swan Valley, western Montana. Northwest Science. 55(1): 26-39. [12445]
15. Armour, Charles D.; Bunting, Stephen C.; Neuenschwander, Leon F. [n.d.]. The effect of fire intensity on understory vegetational development. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17 p. [30855]
16. Arno, Stephen F. 1988. Fire ecology and its management implications in ponderosa pine forests. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Ponderosa pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29 - October 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 133-139. [9410]
17. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]
18. Asherin, Duane A. 1975. Changes in elk use and available browse production on north Idaho winter ranges following prescribed burning. In: Hieb, Susuan R., ed. Proceedings, elk logging-roads symposium; 1975 December 16-17; Moscow, ID. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho: 122-134. [17049]
19. Atzet, Thomas; White, Diane E.; McCrimmon, Lisa A.; Martinez, Patricia A.; Fong, Paula Reid; Randall, Vince D., tech. coords. 1996. Field guide to the forested plant associations of southwestern Oregon. Tech. Pap. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/publications/plant-associations.shtml [2008, September 12]. [49881]
20. Bailey, Arthur Wesley. 1966. Forest associations and secondary succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 166 p. Thesis. [5786]
21. Bell, Jack H.; Lauer, Jerry L.; Peek, James M. 1992. Habitat use patterns of white-tailed deer, Umatilla River, Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(3): 160-171. [19276]
22. Berch, Shannon M.; Gamiet, Sharmin; Deom, Elisabeth. 1988. Mycorrhizal status of some plants of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 1924-1928. [8841]
23. Blower, Dan. 1982. Key winter forage plants for B.C. ungulates. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Terrestrial Studies Branch. 57 p. [17065]
24. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1989. California's western juniper and pinyon-juniper woodlands: area, stand characteristics, wood volume, and fenceposts. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-166. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 p. [10365]
25. 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. [19557]
26. Bradshaw, Larry S. [n.d.]. Post-fire vegetation and fuel succession in the White Cap Wilderness Study Area: 1972-1980. Final Report: Cooperative Agreement 22-C-3-INT-28-CA. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 23 p. [20955]
27. Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 153-358. [10107]
28. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [36581]
29. Carey, Andrew B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-276. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 46 p. [18163]
30. Carey, Andrew B.; Kershner, Janet; Biswell, Brian; Dominguez de Toledo, Laura. 1999. Ecological scale and forest development: squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildlife Monographs No. 142. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 71 p. [30476]
31. Cates, Rex G.; Orians, Gordon H. 1975. Successional status and the palatability of plants to generalized herbivores. Ecology. 56: 410-418. [15989]
32. Chappell, Christopher B.; Giglio, David F. 1999. Pacific madrone forests of the Puget Trough, Washington. In: Adams, A. B.; Hamilton, Clement W., eds. The decline of the Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii Pursh): Current theory and research directions: Proceedings of the symposium; 1995 April 28; Seattle, WA. Seattle, WA: Save Magnolia's Madrones, Center for Urban Horticulture, Ecosystems Database Development and Research: 2-11. [40472]
33. Chappell, Christopher B.; Kagan, Jimmy. 2001. 2. Westside oak and dry Douglas-fir forest and woodland. In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 26-28. [68065]
34. Chappell, Christopher B.; Kagan, Jimmy. 2001. 3. Southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest. In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 28-30. [68066]
35. Cholewa, Anita F. 1977. Successional relationships of vegetational composition to logging, burning, and grazing in the Douglas-fir/Physocarpus habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 65 p. [+ appendices]. Thesis. [29853]
36. Cholewa, Anita F.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1983. Secondary succession in the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus association. Northwest Science. 57(4): 273-282. [11402]
37. Christianson, Steven P.; Adams, David L.; Grahm, Russell T. 1984. First season survival and growth of Douglas-fir planted in north Idaho shrubfields. Tech. Rep. 16. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [7256]
38. Clarke, Sharon E.; Garner, Mark W.; McIntosh, Bruce A.; Sedell, James R. 1997. Section 3--Landscape-level ecoregions for seven contiguous watersheds, northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. In: Clarke, Sharon E.; Bryce, Sandra A., eds. Hierarchical subdivisions of the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountains ecoregions, Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-395. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 56-113. [28539]
39. Colwell, Wilmer L., Jr. 1980. Knobcone pine. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 124-125. [50059]
40. Conard, Susan G.; Sparks, Steven R.; Regelbrugge, Jon C. 1997. Comparative plant water relations and soil water depletion patterns of three seral shrub species on forest sites in southwestern Oregon. Forest Science. 43(3): 336-347. [76322]
41. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]
42. Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 85 p. [5297]
43. Crawford, Rex C. 2001. 6. Lodgepole pine forest and woodlands. In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 34-35. [68069]
44. Crawford, Rex C.; Kagan, Jimmy. 2001. 14. Eastside canyon shrublands. In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press:46-47. [68103]
45. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]
46. Crouch, Glenn L. 1968. Clipping of woody plants by mountain beaver. Journal of Mammalogy. 49(1): 151-152. [64410]
47. Crouch, Glenn L. 1968. Forage availability in relation to browsing of Douglas-fir seedlings by black-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(3): 542-553. [16105]
48. Cutright, Paul Russell. 1989. Lewis and Clark: pioneering naturalists. First Bison Book. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 506 p. [20300]
49. Dasgupta, Swarvanu; Qu, John J.; Hao, Xianjun; Bhoi, Sanjeeb. 2007. Evaluating remotely sensed live fuel moisture estimations for fire behavior predictions in Georgia, USA. Remote Sensing of Environment. 108(2): 138–150. [79564]
50. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture; Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 131 p. [733]
51. Daubenmire, Rexford F.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Technical Bulletin 60. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture; Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 104 p. [749]
52. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. No. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
53. del Moral, Roger; Cates, Rex G. 1971. Allelopathic potential of the dominant vegetation of western Washington. Ecology. 52(6): 1030-1037. [4794]
54. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626]
55. Drew, Larry Albert. 1967. Comparative phenology of seral shrub communities in the cedar/hemlock zone. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 108 p. Thesis. [9654]
56. Driscoll, Richard S. 1964. A relict area in the central Oregon juniper zone. Ecology. 45(2): 345-353. [5181]
57. Dyrness, C. T.; Franklin, J. F.; Moir, W. H. 1974. A preliminary classification of forest communities in the central portion of the western Cascades in Oregon. Bulletin No. 4. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 123 p. [8480]
58. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comps. 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]
59. Finney, Mark A.; Martin, Robert E. 1989. Fire history in a Sequoia sempervirens forest at Salt Point State Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1451-1457. [9845]
60. Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p. [633]
61. 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]
62. Flessner, T. R.; Darris, D. C.; Lambert, S. M. 1992. Seed source evaluation of four native riparian shrubs for streambank rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest. 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: 155-162. [19111]
63. Flora of North America Association. 2010. Flora of North America: The flora, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
64. Floyd, Chris H. 2004. Marmot distribution and habitat associations in the Great Basin. Western North American Naturalist. 64(4): 471-481. [76354]
65. Floyd, Christian Hollace. 2003. Ecological genetics of dispersal and mating system in populations of yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris). Davis, CA: University of California, Davis. 148 p. Dissertation. [76400]
66. Fowle, C. David. 1960. A study of the blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus Say) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 38(4): 701-713. [34529]
67. Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. Vegetation of the Douglas-fir region. In: Heilman, Paul E.; Anderson, Harry W.; Baumgartner, David M., eds. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service: 93-112. [8207]
68. Franklin, Jerry F. 1988. Pacific Northwest forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. New York: Cambridge University Press: 103-130. [13879]
69. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319]
70. Garrison, George A. 1953. Effects of clipping on some range shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 6(5): 309-317. [995]
71. Garrison, George A. 1972. Carbohydrate reserves and response to use. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 271-278. [997]
72. Goheen, Donald; Frankel, Susan. 1993. Using diverse plant species to maintain forest health. In: Landis, Thomas D., tech. coord. Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery Association; 1992 September 14-18; Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-20. [22068]
73. Gonzalez-Laredo, Rubin F.; Chaidez-Gonzalez, Judith; Ahmed, Ahmed A.; Karchesy, Joseph J. 1997. A stilbene xyloside from Holodiscus discolor bark. Phytochemistry. 46(1): 175-176. [76317]
74. Gonzalves, Pete; Darris, Dale. 2007. Plant fact sheet--Oceanspray: Holodiscus discolor (Pursh.) Maxim, [Online]. In: Plant profile--Holodiscus discolor. In: PLANTS database. Baton Rouge, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Center (Producer). Available: http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_hodi.pdf. In: http://plants.usda.gov/ [2010, April 28]. [79499]
75. Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Klinka, K.; Slaco, R. J.; Ray, C. A. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region. Land Management Handbook Number 8 [Abridged version]. Burnaby, BC: Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Forest Region. 143 p. [9475]
76. Greenlee, Jason M.; Langenheim, Jean H. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay area of California. The American Midland Naturalist. 124(2): 239-253. [15144]
77. Greenlee, John M. 1973. A study of the fire ecology of the Emigrant Basin Primitive Area: Stanislaus National Forest. [Project No. 14]. Sonora, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Summit Ranger District, Pinecrest Ranger Station. 64 p. [21257]
78. Griffin, James R. 1974. Notes on environment, vegetation and flora: Hastings Natural History Reservation. Carmel Valley, CA: University of California, Hastings Natural History Reservation. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 90 p. [10531]
79. Gruell, George E. 2001. Fire in Sierra Nevada forests: A photographic interpretation of ecological change since 1849. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 238 p. [43843]
80. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada: No. 49. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Research Division; Washington, DC: U.S. National Arboretum, Herbarium. 170 p. [6729]
81. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]
82. Habeck, James R. 1990. Old-growth ponderosa pine-western larch forests in western Montana: ecology and management. Northwest Environmental Journal. 6(2): 271-292. [17661]
83. Haire, Sandra L.; McGarigal, Kevin. 2008. Inhabitants of landscape scars: succession of woody plants after large, severe forest fires in Arizona and New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 53(2): 146-161. [70959]
84. Hall, Frederick C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. R6 Area Guide 3-1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 82 p. [1059]
85. Halofsky, Jessica E.; Hibbs, David E. 2009. Controls on early post-fire woody plant colonization in riparian areas. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7): 1350-1358. [77249]
86. Halverson, Nancy M., comp. 1986. Major indicator shrubs and herbs on national forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. R6-TM-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 180 p. [3233]
87. Halverson, Nancy M.; Topik, Christopher; Van Vickle, Robert. 1986. Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Mt. Hood National Forest. R6-ECOL-232A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 111 p. [1068]
88. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2010, 3 May]. [70966]
89. Harrington, Constance A.; McGrath, James M.; Kraft, Joseph M. 1999. Propagating native species: experience at the Wind River Nursery. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 61-64. [30058]
90. Harris, Gregory Dean. 2004. Integrating a shrub growth model with remote sensing and geographic information system data to predict shrub spatial growth patterns in a post fire environment. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 130 p. Dissertation. [76399]
91. Harrod, Richy J.; Fonda, Richard W.; McGrath, Mara K. 2007. Role of fire in restoration of a ponderosa pine forest, Washington. In: Butler, Bret W.; Cook, Wayne, comps. The fire environment--innovations, management, and policy; conference proceedings; 2007 March 26-30; Destin, FL. Proceedings RMRS-P-46CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 315-328. CD-ROM. [71109]
92. Harrod, Richy J.; Knecht, Dottie E.; Kuhlmann, Ellen E.; Ellis, Mark W.; Davenport, Roberta. 1997. Effects of the Rat and Hatchery Creek fires on four rare plant species. In: Greenlee, Jason M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats; 1995 November 13-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 311-319. [28155]
93. Hebda, R. J.; Chinnappa, C. C.; Smith, B. M. 1988. Pollen morphology of the Rosaceae of western Canada. II. Dryas, Fragaria, Holodiscus. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 595-612. [4514]
94. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Logan, Sheila E.; Pavlat, Warren. 1987. Plant association and management guide: Willamette National Forest. R6-Ecol 257-B-86. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 312 p. [13402]
95. Henderson, Jan A.; Peter, David H.; Lesher, Robin D.; Shaw, David C. 1989. Forested plant associations of the Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP 001-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 502 p. [23405]
96. Hickey, William O. 1971. Response of Ceanothus sanguineus to cutting and burning at various stages of phenology. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 39 p. Thesis. [9777]
97. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
98. Hines, William Wester. 1971. Plant communities in the old-growth forests of north coastal Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 146 p. Thesis. [10399]
99. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
100. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion; Thompson, J. W. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]
101. Irwin, Larry L.; Peek, James M. 1979. Shrub production and biomass trends following five logging treatments within the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Forest Science. 25(3): 415-426. [16511]
102. Jantova, S.; Nagy, M.; Ruzekova, L.; Grancai, D. 2000. Antibacterial activity of plant extracts from the families Fabaceae, Oleaceae, Philadelphaceae, Rosaceae and Staphyleaceae. Phytotherapy Research. 14(8): 601-603. [76312]
103. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
104. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
105. Keay, Jeffrey A. 1977. Relationship of habitat use patterns and forage preferences of white-tailed and mule deer to post-fire vegetation, upper Selway River. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 76 p. Thesis. [1316]
106. Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 1986. An ecological survey of the proposed Stone Corral - Josephine Peridotite Research Natural Area (L. E. Horton - Darlingtonia Bog Research Natural Area) on the Six Rivers National Forest, Del Norte County, California. Purchase order # 40-9AD6-5-907. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 69 p. [12307]
107. Kelpsas, B. R. 1978. Comparative effects of chemical, fire, and machine site preparation in an Oregon coastal brushfield. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 97 p. Thesis. [6986]
108. Kessell, Stephen R. 1979. Comparison of community stratification methods in Mount Rainier National Park and Glacier National Park. Unpublished preliminary report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. 154 p. [6678]
109. Klebenow, Donald A. 1965. A montane forest winter deer habitat in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29(1): 27-33. [8430]
110. Klinka, K.; Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Nuszdorfer, F. C. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No. 25. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 180 p. [15448]
111. Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. 288 p. [10703]
112. Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 2004. Classification and management of aquatic, riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series description. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-593. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 354 p. [53329]
113. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
114. Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1977. Manzanita (Arctostaphylos) hybrids in the Pacific Northwest: effects of human and natural disturbance. Systematic Botany. 2(4): 233-250. [13561]
115. Krueger, W. C.; Vavra, M.; Wheeler, W. P. 1980. Plant succession as influenced by habitat type, grazing management, and reseeding on a northeast Oregon clearcut. In: 1980 progress report--research in rangeland management. Special Report 586. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: 32-37. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA-AR. [2749]
116. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Ponderosa shrub forest (Pinus). In: Kuchler, A. W. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society: 10. [67010]
117. 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]
118. Laferriere, Joseph E.; Weber, Charles W.; Kohlhepp, Edwin A. 1991. Mineral composition of some traditional Mexican teas. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 41(3): 277-282. [76358]
119. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R1SESE--redwood, [Online]. In: Rapid assessment reference condition models. In: LANDFIRE. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/zip/CA/R1SESE.pdf [2010, 14 April]. [79490]
120. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
121. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
122. Larsen, Eric M.; Morgan, John T. 1998. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: Oregon white oak woodlands. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 37 p. [52756]
123. Larsen, J. A. 1925. Natural reproduction after forest fires in northern Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Research. 30(12): 1177-1197. [13193]
124. Lathrop, Earl W.; Martin, Bradford D. 1982. Response of understory vegetation to prescribed burning in yellow pine forests of Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. Aliso. 10(2): 329-343. [15943]
125. Lee, Lyndon C.; Pfister, Robert D. 1978. A training manual for Montana forest habitat types. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 142 p. [1434]
126. Leege, Thomas A. 1968. Prescribed burning for elk in northern Idaho. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1968 March 14-15; Tallahassee, FL. No 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 235-253. [5287]
127. Leege, Thomas A. 1969. Burning seral brush ranges for big game in northern Idaho. Transactions, North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 34: 429-438. [144]
128. Leege, Thomas A. 1974. Changes in browse utilization after burning. Job No. 2: July 1,1966 to March 31, 1974. Study II: Spring vs. fall burning for range rehabilitation. Final report: Elk ecology. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project: W-160-R. Boise, ID: Idaho Fish and Game Department. 5 p. [42144]
129. Leege, Thomas A. 1978. Changes in browse intercept, production and seedlings after burning--Holly Creek. Job No. 2: July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1978. Study I: Range rehabilitation by spring burning. Job Completion Report: Elk ecology. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project: W-160-R. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 11 p. [17170]
130. Leege, Thomas A. 1978. Changes in browse production after burning vs. slashing and burning on the four cardinal aspects--Polar Ridge. Job No. 3: July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1978. Study I: Range rehabilitation by spring burning. Job Completion Report: Elk ecology. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project: W-160-R. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 20 p. [17171]
131. Leege, Thomas A. 1979. Effects of repeated prescribed burns on northern Idaho elk browse. Northwest Science. 53(2): 107-113. [5116]
132. Leege, Thomas A.; Hickey, William O. 1966. Lochsa elk study. Job No. 8: July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966. Job Completion Report: Big game surveys and investigations. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project: W-85-R-17. Boise, ID: State of Idaho Fish and Game Department. 22 p. [16759]
133. Leege, Thomas A.; Hickey, William O. 1971. Sprouting of northern Idaho shrubs after prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management. 35(3): 508-515. [1437]
134. Lentile, Leigh B.; Morgan, Penelope; Hudak, Andrew T.; Bobbitt, Michael J.; Lewis, Sarah A.; Smith, Alistair M. S.; Robichaud, Peter R. 2007. Post-fire burn severity and vegetation response following eight large wildfires across the western United States. Fire Ecology. 3(1): 91-108. [70228]
135. Lesher, Robin D.; Henderson, Jan A. 1989. Indicator species of the Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP003-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 79 p. [15376]
136. Ley, Arline. 1943. A taxonomic revision of the genus Holodiscus (Rosaceae). Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 70(3): 275-288. [142]
137. Long, James N. 1977. Trends in plant species diversity associated with development in a series of Pseudotsuga menziesii/Gaultheria shallon stands. Northwest Science. 51(2): 119-130. [10152]
138. Luoma, Daniel L.; Frenkel, Robert E.; Trappe, James M. 1991. Fruiting of hypogeous fungi in Oregon Douglas-fir forests: seasonal and habitat variation. Mycologia. 83(3): 335-353. [21391]
139. Lyon, L. Jack; Mueggler, Walter F. 1968. Herbicide treatment of north Idaho browse evaluated six years later. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(3): 538-541. [8428]
140. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
141. MacKinnon, A.; Meidinger, D.; Klinka, K. 1992. Use of the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification system in British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle. 68(1): 100-120. [18845]
142. Mallory, James I. 1980. Canyon live oak. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 125-126. [7608]
143. Martin, Bradford D. 1981. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning in a mixed-conifer woodland, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University. 112 p. Thesis. [64684]
144. Martin, Bradford D. 1982. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 617. [6088]
145. McComb, William C.; McGarigal, Kevin; Anthony, Robert G. 1993. Small mammal and amphibian abundance in streamside and upslope habitats of mature Douglas-fir stands, western Oregon. Northwest Science. 67(1): 7-15. [20564]
146. McCulloch, Clay Y., Jr. 1955. Utilization of winter browse on wilderness big game range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 19(2): 206-215. [7933]
147. McDadi, Omar; Hebda, Richard J. 2008. Change in historic fire disturbance in a Garry oak (Quercus garryana) meadow and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) mosaic, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: a possible link with First Nations and Europeans. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(10): 1704-1710. [72957]
148. McDonald, G. I.; Harvey, A. E.; Tonn, J. R. 2000. Fire, competition and forest pests: landscape treatment to sustain ecosystem function. In: Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Ryan, Kevin C., tech. eds. Crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management: Proceedings, Joint Fire Sciences conference and workshop; 1999 June 15-17; Boise, ID. Vol. II. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho; Boise, ID: International Association of Wildland Fire: 195-211. [41176]
149. McDonald, Philip M. 1980. Pacific ponderosa pine--Douglas-fir. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 120. [50055]
150. McGee, Ann; Feller, M. C. 1993. Seed banks of forested and disturbed soils in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 71: 1574-1583. [25756]
151. McKenzie, Donald; Halpern, Charles B. 1999. Modeling the distributions of shrub species in Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 114(2/3): 293-307. [38747]
152. McMinn, Robert G. 1952. The role of soil drought in the distribution of vegetation in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ecology. 33: 1-15. [1624]
153. Means, Joseph Earl. 1980. Dry coniferous forests in the western Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 264 p. Dissertation. [5767]
154. Menashe, Elliott. 1993. Appendix A: Plants commonly found on Puget Sound shoreland sites, [Online]. In: Vegetation Management: A program for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Publication 93-31. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program (Producer). Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-31/app-a.html [2010, June 11]. [68858]
155. Miller, Margaret M.; Miller, Joseph W. 1976. Succession after wildfire in the North Cascades National Park complex. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: Pacific Northwest; 1974 October 16-17; Portland, OR. No. 15. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 71-83. [6574]
156. Minore, Don. 1978. The Dead Indian Plateau: a historical summary of forestry observations and research in a severe southwestern Oregon environment. PNW-72. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p. [8423]
157. Mitchell, John E. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: Douglas-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, Experiment Station: 27-34. [3314]
158. Mitchell, John E.; Rodgers, Richard T. 1985. Food habits and distribution of cattle on a forest and pasture range in northern Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 38(3): 214-220. [14430]
159. Morgan, P.; Neuenschwander, L. F. [In preparation]. Seedbank contribution to shrub regeneration following clearcutting and burning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. [29144]
160. Morgan, Penelope; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1988. Shrub response to high and low severity burns following clearcutting in northern Idaho. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(1): 5-9. [3895]
161. Morris, Melvin S.; Schmautz, Jack E.; Stickney, Peter F. 1962. Winter field key to the native shrubs of Montana. Bulletin No. 23. Missoula, MT: Montana State University, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 70 p. [17063]
162. 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]
163. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
164. Mrizova, M.; Lacidova, L.; Haladova, M.; Eisenrieichova, E.; Graneai, D.; Fickova, M. 2007. Cytotoxic activity of aqueous extract from Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. leaves. Planta Medica. 73(9): 932. Abstract. [76350]
165. Mueggler, W. F. 1961. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Durham, NC: Duke University. 126 p. Thesis. [9981]
166. Nelson, Jack R. 1976. Forest fire and big game in the Pacific Northwest. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: Pacific Northwest; 1974 October 16-17; Portland, OR. No. 15. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 85-102. [6464]
167. Neuenschwander, L. F. 1978. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art review. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 31 p. [1747]
168. Newton, M.; Comeau, P. G. 1990. Control of competing vegetation. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; Montgomery, G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R. A.; Winston, D., eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 256-265. [10719]
169. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 391-420. [6273]
170. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1980. Phenology of shrubs on a north Idaho elk range. Northwest Science. 54(3): 187-198. [1800]
171. Ossinger, Mary C. 1983. The Pseudotsuga-Tsuga/Rhododendron community in the northeast Olympic Mountains. Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University. 50 p. Thesis. [11435]
172. Owens, T. E. 1982. Postburn regrowth of shrubs related to canopy mortality. Northwest Science. 56(1): 34-40. [1806]
173. Pabst, Robert J.; Spies, Thomas A. 2001. Ten years of vegetation succession on a debris-flow deposit in Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37(6): 1693-1708. [41709]
174. Patterson, Patricia A.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Tonn, Jonalea. 1985. Field guide to forest plants of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-180. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 246 p. [1839]
175. Peck, JeriLynn E.; Acker, Steven A.; McKee, W. Arthur. 1995. Autecology of mosses in coniferous forests in the central western Cascades of Oregon. Northwest Science. 69(3): 184-190. [26793]
176. Pengelly, W. Leslie. 1963. Timberlands and deer in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 61: 734-740. [175]
177. Pengelly, William Leslie. 1966. Ecological effects of slash-disposal fires on the Coeur d'Alene National Forest, Idaho. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 23 p. [174]
178. Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby, Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 174 p. [1878]
179. Pojar, J.; Klinka, K.; Meidinger, D. V. 1987. Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 22: 119-154. [7314]
180. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
181. Rickard, W. H. 1975. Litterfall in a Douglas-fir forest near the Trojan Nuclear Power Station, Oregon. Northwest Science. 49(4): 183-189. [8178]
182. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. [33881]
183. Roach, A. W. 1952. Phytosociology of the Nash Crater lava flows, Linn County, Oregon. Ecological Monographs. 22: 169-193. [8759]
184. Robinson, Cyril S. 1937. Plants eaten by California mule deer on the Los Padres National Forest. Journal of Forestry. 35(3): 285-292. [51853]
185. Roemer, Hans. 1993. Vegetation and ecology of Garry oak woodlands. In: Hebda, Richard J.; Aitkens, Fran, eds. Garry oak-meadow colloquium: Proceedings; 1993; Victoria, BC. Victoria, BC: Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society: 19-24. [64527]
186. Ross, Robert L.; Hunter, Harold E. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana: Based on soils and climate. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 64 p. [2028]
187. Rummell, Robert S. 1951. Some effects of livestock grazing on ponderosa pine forest and range in central Washington. Ecology. 32(4): 594-607. [16338]
188. Rundel, Philip W.; Parsons, David J. 1979. Structural changes in chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) along a fire- induced age gradient. Journal of Range Management. 32(6): 462-466. [4915]
189. Sabhasri, Sanga; Ferrell, William K. 1960. Invasion of brush species into small stand openings in the Douglas-fir forests of the Willamette foothills. Northwest Science. 34(3): 77-89. [8652]
190. Schaub, David L.; Larsen, John H., Jr. 1978. The reproductive ecology of the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Herpetologica. 34(4): 409-416. [27248]
191. Schoonmaker, Peter; McKee, Arthur. 1988. Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Forest Science. 34(4): 960-979. [6214]
192. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]
193. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Part 3: Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). National Museum of Natural Sciences: Publications in Botany, No. 7(3). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 1115 p. [75493]
194. Shatford, J. P. A.; Hibbs, D. E.; Puettmann, K. J. 2007. Conifer regeneration after forest fire in the Klamath-Siskiyous: how much, how soon? Journal of Forestry. April/May: 139-146. [67813]
195. Shatford, Jeffrey P. A.; Bailey, John D.; Tappeiner, John C. 2009. Understory tree development with repeated stand density treatments in coastal Douglas-fir forests of Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(1): 11-16. [73400]
196. Shaw, Nancy L. 2004. Holodiscus discolor. In: Francis, John K., ed. Wildland shrubs of the United States and its territories: thamnic descriptions: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-26. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 379-381. [52172]
197. Shaw, Nancy L.; Hurd, Emerenciana G.; Stickney, Peter F. 2008. Holodiscus (K. Koch) Maxim.: ocean-spray. In: Bonner, Franklin T., Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 591-594. [78278]
198. Shaw, Nancy L.; Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Rosaceous shrubs. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 539-596. [52845]
199. Sheridan, Chris D.; Spies, Thomas A. 2005. Vegetation-environment relationships in zero-order basins in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 340-355. [60361]
200. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
201. Shiplett, Brian; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1994. Fire ecology in the cedar-hemlock zone of North Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E.; Tonn, Jonalea R., compilers. Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management: Symposium proceedings; 1993 March 2-4; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources: 41-51. [25789]
202. Shreve, Forrest. 1927. The vegetation of a coastal mountain range. Ecology. 8(1): 27-44. [63417]
203. Simmerman, Dennis G.; Arno, Stephen F.; Harrington, Michael G.; Graham, Russell T. 1991. A comparison of dry and moist fuel underburns in ponderosa pine shelterwood units in Idaho. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Potts, Donald F., eds. Proceedings, 11th annual conference on fire and forest meteorology; 1991 April 16-19; Missoula, MT. SAF Publication 91-04. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 387-397. [16186]
204. Smith, Jane Kapler; Fischer, William C. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 142 p. [27992]
205. Smith, W. Brad; Brand, Gary J. 1983. Allometric biomass equations for 98 species of herbs, shrubs, and small trees. Res. Note NC-299. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. [20785]
206. Stickney, Peter F. 1986. First decade plant succession following the Sundance Forest Fire, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-197. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 26 p. [2255]
207. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
208. Stickney, Peter F. 1991. Effects of fire on flora: Northern Rocky Mountain forest plants. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [21628]
209. Stickney, Peter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 2000. Data base for early postfire succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-61-CD, [CD-ROM]. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [43743]
210. Stuart, John D. 1987. Fire history of an old-growth forest of Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forest in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California. Madrono. 34(2): 128-141. [7277]
211. Sugihara, Neil G.; Reed, Lois J. 1987. Vegetation ecology of the Bald Hills oak woodlands of Redwood National Park. Tech. Rep. 21. Orick, CA: Redwood National Park Research and Development, South Operations Center. 78 p. [55266]
212. Swedberg, Kenneth C. 1973. A transition coniferous forest in the Cascade Mountains of northern Oregon. The American Midland Naturalist. 89(1): 1-25. [4806]
213. Tappeiner, John C., II; McDonald, Philip M.; Newton, Michael; Harrington, Timothy B. 1992. Ecology of hardwoods, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation: effects on conifer regeneration. In: Hobbs, Stephen D.; Tesch, Steven D.; Owston, Peyton W.; Stewart, Ronald E.; Tappeiner, John C., II; Wells, Gail E., eds. Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 136-164. [22157]
214. Tappeiner, John; Zasada, John. 1988. Ecology and management of shrubs and hardwoods in Oregon's Coast Range forests. Cope Report. Newport, OR: Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center. 1(4): 3-4. [15445]
215. Tesch, Steven D.; Crawford, Michael S.; Baker-Katz, Kathryn; Mann, John W. 1990. Recovery of Douglas-fir seedlings from logging damage in southwestern Oregon: preliminary evidence. Northwest Science. 64(3): 131-139. [11764]
216. Thilenius, John F. 1968. The Quercus garryana forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Ecology. 49(6): 1124-1133. [8765]
217. Thilenius, John F.; Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1967. Browse use by cattle and deer in northern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 31: 141-145. [76405]
218. Thompson, K. 1992. The functional ecology of seed banks. In: Fenner, Michael, ed. Seeds: The ecology of regeneration in plant communities. Wallingford, UK: C.A.B. International: 231-258. [60802]
219. Thompson, Ralph L. 2001. Botanical survey of Myrtle Island Research Natural Area, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-507. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. [43785]
220. Thysell, David R.; Carey, Andrew B. 2000. Effects of forest management on understory and overstory vegetation: a retrospective study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-488. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p. [47255]
221. Topik, Christopher. 1989. Plant association and management guide for the grand fir zone, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-TP-006-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 110 p. [11361]
222. Topik, Christopher; Halverson, Nancy M.; Brockway, Dale G. 1986. Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-ECOL-230A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 132 p. [2351]
223. Topik, Christopher; Hemstrom, Miles A., comps. 1982. Guide to common forest-zone plants: Willamette, Mt. Hood, and Siuslaw National Forests. R6-Ecol 101-1982. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 95 p. [3234]
224. Turner, Nancy J.; Cocksedge, Wendy. 2001. Aboriginal use of non-timber forest products in northwestern North America: applications and issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3-4): 31-57. [39451]
225. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of Timber Management, Region 1. 1970. Reference material: Daubenmire habitat types. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17 p. [+ appendices]. [17399]
226. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
227. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
228. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Fire effects in sagebrush/grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities. In: Fire effects in plant communities on the public lands. EA #MT-930-93-01. [Billings, MT]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office: I-1 to I-42. [55086]
229. Villarin, Lauren A.; Chapin, David M.; Jones, John E., III. 2009. Riparian forest structure and succession in second-growth stands of the central Cascade Mountains, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 257(5): 1375-1385. [73721]
230. Vogl, Richard J. 1973. Ecology of knobcone pine in the Santa Ana Mountains, California. Ecological Monographs. 43: 125-143. [4815]
231. Waring, R. H.; Major, J. 1964. Some vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light, and temperature. Ecological Monographs. 34: 167-215. [8924]
232. Weaver, Harold. 1968. Fire and its relationship to ponderosa pine. In: Proceedings, California Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967 November 9-10; Hoberg, CA. Number 7. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 127-149. [16903]
233. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]
234. Weisberg, Peter J. 1998. Fire history, fire regimes, and development of forest structure in the central western Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 256 p. Dissertation. [40273]
235. Wells, Philip V. 1962. Vegetation in relation to geological substratum and fire in the San Luis Obispo quadrangle, California. Ecological Monographs. 32(1): 79-103. [14183]
236. 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]
237. Wender, Bryan W.; Harrington, Constance A.; Tappeiner, John C., II. 2004. Flower and fruit production of understory shrubs in western Washington and Oregon. Northwest Science. 78(2): 124-140. [51134]
238. White, Diane E.; Atzet, Thomas; Martinez, Patricia A. 2004. Relationship of historic fire regimes to dead wood components in white fir forests of southwestern Oregon. In: Engstrom, R. Todd; Galley, Krista E. M.; de Groot, William J., eds. Fire in temperate, boreal, and montane ecosystems: Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: an international symposium; 2001 October 15-18; Kananaskis Village, AB. No. 22. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc: 117-124. [52307]
239. Whitlock, Cathy; Skinner, Carl N.; Bartlein, Patrick J.; Minckley, Thomas; Mohr, Jerry A. 2004. Comparison of charcoal and tree-ring records of recent fires in the eastern Klamath Mountains, California, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34(10): 2110-2121. [55446]
240. Whittaker, R. H. 1953. A consideration of climax theory: the climax as a population and pattern. Ecological Monographs. 23(1): 41-78. [64492]
241. Wiens, John A.; Nussbaum, Ronald A. 1975. Model estimation of energy flow in northwestern coniferous forest bird communities. Ecology. 56: 547-561. [19167]
242. Wittinger, W. T.; Pengelly, W. L.; Irwin, L. L.; Peek, J. M. 1977. A 20-year record of shrub succession in logged areas in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Northwest Science. 51(3): 161-171. [6828]
243. Wolter, B. H. K.; Fonda, R. W. 2002. Gradient analysis of vegetation on the north wall of the Columbia River Gorge, Washington. Northwest Science. 76(1): 61-76. [65993]
244. Wright, Henry A. 1978. The effect of fire on vegetation in ponderosa pine forests: A state-of-the-art review. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 21 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. [4425]
245. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]
246. Yerkes, Vern P. 1960. Occurrence of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation after clear cutting old-growth Douglas-fir. Res. Pap. PNW-34. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [8937]
247. Young, J. A.; Hedrick, D. W.; Keniston, R. F. 1967. Forest cover and logging--herbage and browse production in the mixed coniferous forest of northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 65: 807-813. [16290]
248. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comps. 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: 18-31. [2681]
249. Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. [64992]
250. Youngblood, Andrew; Wickman, Boyd E. 2002. The role of disturbance in creating dead wood: insect defoliation and tree mortality in northeastern Oregon. In: Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Shea, Patrick J.; Valentine, Bradley E.; Weatherspoon, C. Phillip; Lisle, Thomas E., tech. coords. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests; 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 155-168. [44351]
251. Zack, Arthur C.; Morgan, Penelope. 1994. Early succession on two hemlock habitat types in northern Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E.; Tonn, Jonalea R., compilers. Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management: Symposium proceedings; 1993 March 2-4; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources: 71-84. [25792]
252. Zimmerman, G. T.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1984. Livestock grazing influences on community structure, fire intensity, and fire frequency within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range Management. 37(2): 104-110. [10103]
253. Zimmerman, Gordon Thomas. 1979. Livestock grazing, fire, and their interactions within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 145 p. Thesis. [6724]
254. Zinke, Paul J. 1977. The redwood forest and associated north coast forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 679-698. [7212]
255. Zobel, Donald B. 2002. Ecosystem use by indigenous people in an Oregon coastal landscape. Northwest Science. 76(4): 304-314. [64344]
256. Zobel, Donald B.; McKee, Arthur; Hawk, Glenn M.; Dyrness, C. T. 1976. Relationships of environment to composition, structure, and diversity of forest communities of the central western Cascades of Oregon. Ecological Monographs. 46: 135-156. [8767]
257. Zobel, Donald B.; Roth, Lewis F.; Hawk, Glenn M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-184. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 161 p. [9245]

FEIS Home Page