Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Lonicera utahensis


Introductory

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Pavek, Diane S. 1993. Lonicera utahensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

ABBREVIATION : LONUTA SYNONYMS : Lonicera ebractulata Rydb. Lonicera utahensis f. ebractulata St. John SCS PLANT CODE : LOUT2 COMMON NAMES : Utah honeysuckle red twinberry fly honeysuckle TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of Utah honeysuckle is Lonicera utahensis Wats. [33,84]. It is a member of the honeysuckle family (Caprifoliaceae). There are no recognized subspecies, varieties, or forms. LIFE FORM : Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Utah honeysuckle is distributed from southern British Columbia and Alberta south to northern California, Arizona, and New Mexico [39,78,81,84]. It does not occur in the Coast Ranges of Oregon or on the east side of the Sierra Nevada [33,57]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir - spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine STATES : AZ CA ID MT NV NM OR UT WA WY AB BC BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 1 Northern Pacific Border 2 Cascade Mountains 4 Sierra Mountains 5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 8 Northern Rocky Mountains 3 Southern Pacific Border 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest K010 Ponderosa shrub forest K011 Western ponderosa forest, K012 Douglas-fir forest, K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest K015 Western spruce - fir forest K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest K019 Arizona pine forest K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest SAF COVER TYPES : 205 Mountain hemlock 206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir 210 Interior Douglas-fir 211 White fir 212 Western larch 213 Grand fir 215 Western white pine 216 Blue spruce 217 Aspen 218 Lodgepole pine 224 Western hemlock 227 Western redcedar - western hemlock 228 Western redcedar 230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Utah honeysuckle is an understory component of mature forests [69]. It is a major or minor shrub component, depending on the phase, in grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple (Abies grandis/Acer glabrum) habitat types in central Idaho [71]. It may be codominant in the shrub layer at mid-elevations with grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium) in subalpine fir/common beargrass (Abies lasiocarpa/Xerophyllum tenax) habitat types in Idaho [69]. At low to mid-elevations, Utah honeysuckle is present in cool lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) habitat types. At higher elevations it occurs in dry to moist, warm and cold Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), grand fir, western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and subalpine fir habitat type series [4,11,18,29,49]. Utah honeysuckle is listed as a dominant, codominant, or minor understory species in habitat types described in the following publications: (1) Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico [20] (2) Riparian dominance types of Montana [31] (3) Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah [48] (4) The subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type: succession and management [69] (5) The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management [71].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Utah honeysuckle has little value as browse for livestock [81]. It is valuable summer and fall browse for elk, but a minor browse species for white-tailed deer [31,71,76,88]. On sites in the Garnet Range of Mountain that had been logged within the last 50 years, radio-collared elk used Utah honeysuckle 2 to 4 percent of the time throughout the summer. The relative availability of Utah honeysuckle and use by the elk did not change over the summer [15]. Moose used Utah honeysuckle in trace amounts as summer and winter forage in Wyoming [32,34]. Moose in north-central Idaho consumed it from October through April [62]. Grizzly bear eat Utah honeysuckle fruits summer and fall [49,65,85]. Utah honeysuckle occurs with 14 to 80 percent frequency in various types of grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains [49]. Black bear utilized Utah honeysuckle with 15 to 45 percent frequency during the summer in central Idaho [71]. Ruffed grouse consumed Utah honeysuckle during the summer in northern Idaho [36]. PALATABILITY : The palatability of Utah honeysuckle is poor to fair for sheep and poor for cattle and horses in Utah and Montana [12,31]. Palatability of Utah honeysuckle for moose is intermediate [32]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Utah honeysuckle has poor protein and energy value [12]. The elemental content of 10 compounds in Utah honeysuckle leaves and stems has been determined on plants growing in areas subjected to seven different silvicultural treatments [70]. COVER VALUE : In Utah and Wyoming, Utah honeysuckle provides poor cover for pronghorn, elk, and waterfowl; poor to fair cover for mule and white-tailed deer; and fair to good cover for small mammals and nongame and upland game birds [12]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Utah honeysuckle is recommended for reclamation plantings in the Intermountain region on riparian sites, such as wet meadow and forest types [56]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Utah honeysuckle is recommended for ornamental use in gardens [41]. It can be artificially propagated by stem cuttings [41,56]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Silviculture: Utah honeysuckle can survive light to moderate site preparation following logging [69]. It significantly (p<0.05) increased in cover at 5 and 11 years after logging in western hemlock/pachystima (Tsuga heterophylla/Pachystima myrsinites) and grand fir/pachystima habitat types in northern Idaho [86]. In a comparison of clearcuts and shelterwood cuts in northern Idaho, Utah honeysuckle was present in areas opened up 0.25 mile or more, and its frequency was not influenced by increased evaporation due to canopy removal [43]. Natural regeneration of six conifer species was compared under various silvicultural methods and site prepartations in three different habitat types in west-central Idaho. Utah honeysuckle provided light or efficient cover for Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and grand fir seedlings; and moderate or very efficient cover under which western larch (Larix occidentalis), lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce seedlings established well [24,71]. A salvage cut was done following a Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreak in Douglas-fir and grand fir forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Utah honeysuckle was considered an important facilitative shrub; regeneration of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and Engelmann spruce was abundant [68]. Other Uses: Regression equations have been developed for predicting Utah honeysuckle aboveground biomass based on stem diameter and/or shrub height [9,64]. Other equations predict Utah honeysuckle development following various silvicultural treatments [37,45]. Regression equations were developed for shrub production following logging; Utah honeysuckle had no significant (p>0.05) relationships between biomass, twig production, and cover with the environment or habitat type overstory characteristics [38]. Regression equations also allow the prediction of understory production for maintenance of wildlife populations [77]. Utilization studies and clipping projects in northern Idaho have estimated forage production of Utah honeysuckle. Intense clipping levels caused decreased vitality over time [21]. However, Utah honeysuckle can withstand up to 60 percent removal of the annual growth of twigs if clipped in the fall [22]. Control: Herbicide treatments are not always needed in Utah honeysuckle management. Utah honeysuckle is one of the shorter shrubs in the understory of the cedar-hemlock zone in northern Idaho. After logging, container-grown Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine transplants soon were taller (0.9 foot [0.27 m]) than Utah honeysuckle (0.5 foot [0.15 m]) [56]. Where control is required for site preparation and conifer release, various herbicides have been successfully used on Utah honeysuckle. Utah honeysuckle had more than 50 percent damage 2 years after treatment with glyphosate. Aerial broadcast application of 2,4-D caused 58 percent top-kill by year 2. After this, Utah honeysuckle recovered in two out of three treatments [5]. Herbicides must reduce shrub cover by 50 percent, or shrubs may recover within 1 or 2 years [54]. Herbicide selection and application seasons and rates have been discussed in detail [50,52,53,55,61].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Utah honeysuckle is a native deciduous shrub that grows 3.2 to 6.6 feet (1-2 m) tall [13,31,84]. It may form clumps. Branches are slender and spreading [81]. Fruit is a small, several-seeded berry [33,39]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Chamaephyte Hemicryptophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Utah honeysuckle sprouts from the root crown [19]. It begins sexual reproduction at 5 to 10 years [37]. Fleshy fruits are dispersed by birds, rodents, and bears [69]. The seeds of Lonicera species require stratification before germinating [41]. Utah honeysuckle seeds are short lived [40]. In a seedbank study in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, Utah honeysuckle was present at 4 percent frequency in a grand fir/pachystima habitat type where some trees were 150 years old. No seedlings of Utah honeysuckle emerged from soil samples [75]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Utah honeysuckle is found on moist, open or wooded slopes and canyons [33,59]. It also occurs on glaciofluvial flats or stream valley plains [35,79]. It occurs from 2,240 to 11,000 feet (683-3,353 m) in elevation [35,39,78,81,84]. In northern Idaho, Utah honeysuckle was associated with soils of intermediate depth, 14 to 20 inches (35.6-50.8 cm) [58,69]. There was no difference in the amount of Utah honeysuckle cover on northern and southern exposure; it was common on northwestern to eastern exposures [4,58]. Soil textures may be fine sandy loams to loamy sands [35,60,68]. Utah honeysuckle occurs in a continental climate that is influenced by maritime air masses or is semiarid [1]. Precipitation ranges from 28.3 to 45.3 inches (719-1,150 mm) [16,35,79]. Common associated species not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence are white spirea (Spiraea betulifolia), ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), Sitka alder (Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata), thinleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), queencup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora), and sweetscented bedstraw (Galium triflorum) [4,31,34,47]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Facultative Seral Species Utah honeysuckle is an important shrub in late seral to climax communities in mesic coniferous forests [25,71]. It can tolerate moderate to dense shade and is common beneath relatively closed canopies [58,69]. Utah honeysuckle was a common understory plant in stands aged 60 to 325 years in the cedar-hemlock/spruce-fir ecotone in Glacier National Park, Montana [27]. It had similar frequencies (average of 2.4 percent) in stands aged approximately 50 and 400 years [26]. Seedlings may establish in an early successional stage [37]. Utah honeysuckle comes in after the herb stage following disturbance in the western white pine (Pinus monticola) zone in northern Idaho [44]. Under closed canopies of Douglas-fir-lodgepole pine/northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis) community types of western Montana, Utah honeysuckle was sparsely distributed with 3 percent mean cover [30]. In the Swan Valley, Montana, it was present at 33 percent frequency in immature (less than 90 years old) grand fir forests and at 67 percent frequency in old-growth (150 or more years old) stands [1]. Beneath the climax cedar-hemlock canopy, no Utah honeysuckle occurred. Under the almost closed canopies (3 to 5 percent of full sunlight) of Douglas-fir and western white pine seral stands, Utah honeysuckle was present at 10 to 40 percent frequency [35]. In central Idaho, Utah honeysuckle may be either a major or minor seral species in different phases of grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple habitat types [71]. Utah honeysuckle was one of the dominant shrubs in mid-successional stages (11 to 79 years) following clearcutting of spruce-fir forest [67]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Utah honeysuckle leaves expand in late March to early May [14,66]. Flowers bloom April through June [14,59,66]. Fruits mature from June to September [14,36,81]. Leaves drop in the fall [14,66].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Fire often injures Utah honeysuckle, and results in temporary reductions in cover and frequency [10,19,31]. Utah honeysuckle sprouts from the root crown after top-kill by fire [8,11,18,31]. For some of the communities that Utah honeysuckle occurs in, such as grand fir/queencup beadlily in northwestern Montana or mixed-conifer subalpine forests of the southern and central Rocky Mountains, fire-free intervals or stand-destroying fires occur on average every 150 years [2,10]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community) Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Fire top-kills Utah honeysuckle. Surviving plants will sprout from the root crown. Regrowth is slow [37]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Utah honeysuckle is a decreaser following fire in the cedar-hemlock zone of the Rocky Mountains [87]. A site in southeastern British Columbia was logged, burned, and planted with Engelmann spruce. The burning inhibited Utah honeysuckle growth compared to unburned sites after 3 years [83]. Fire in Douglas-fir zone in Montana and Idaho eliminated Utah honeysuckle from study areas. Before burning, Utah honeysuckle was present at 2.9 plants per 1,000 square feet (2.9 plants/92.9 sq m). One to four years following the fire, no Utah honeysuckle plants were recorded [47]. In Douglas-fir-western larch forests of Montana, cover of Utah honeysuckle was 1 to 2 percent on several sites. Following clearcuts and prescribed burns, cover was 0 to 3 percent by postfire year 2 and 6 percent by postfire year 8. At one site, it was not present until postfire year 5 and had 1 percent cover [72]. In spruce-fir forests of Montana, Utah honeysuckle neither increased nor decreased following fire [82]. In Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, mean frequency (27 percent) and cover (9 percent) of Utah honeysuckle were higher on unburned spruce-fir sites than on burned sites (differing ages and severities). On a 1-year-old moderate-severity burn, frequency was 5 percent; on a 1-year-old severely burned site frequency was 3 percent; and on a 43-year-old severely burned site frequency was 2 percent [6]. There was no difference in frequency (52-67 percent) of Utah honeysuckle in closed stands compared to logged sites and sites logged with slash piled and then burned. However, a single broadcast burn on logged sites reduced honeysuckle frequency to 35 to 40 percent, and multiple broadcast burns on logged sites reduced it to 25 percent [58,89]. In a 19-year-old clearcut with no postcut treatment in west-central Montana, Utah honeysuckle biomass was 0.064 pounds per 10.8 square feet (29 g/sq m). In a 10 year-old stand that had been clearcut and broadcast burned, Utah honeysuckle biomass was 0.01 pounds per 10.8 square feet (4 g/sq m) [64]. In a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, Utah honeysuckle was present in the postfire community by year 2. It remained constant for about 8 years and then increased for another 10 years. Herbicides were applied at postfire year 6. Utah honeysuckle sharply decreased for 1 year; after this, it steadily increased [46]. Based on growth curves developed from lodgepole pine understory, projections were made about Utah honeysuckle response following a clearcut and broadcast burn. The model assumed that all aboveground vegetation and duff were consumed, and 30 percent of the area was exposed mineral soil. Surviving Utah honeysuckle were projected to have spacing similar to prefire communities but with less cover. Height of Utah honeysuckle was expected to be 2 feet (0.61 m) at year 5 and about 3 feet (0.91 m) at year 20 [37]. One year following a severe fire in northern Idaho, Utah honeysuckle was present on six out of 21 sites. On two sites, it achieved 3.28 square feet per 0.004 acre (1 sq m/0.01 ha) cover at postfire years 6 to 11. It was not an important species on the other sites [73]. Repeated fires in the cedar-hemlock zone of the northern Rocky Mountains will maintain the seral shrub stage, of which Utah honeysuckle is a component, for about 50 years [87]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : In grand fir/pachystima habitat types in Idaho, Utah honeysuckle fuel loadings were 5 to 141 pounds per acre (2.3-64 kg/ha) [28]. Although it was suggested that overstory removal would increase Utah honeysuckle fuel loading, there was no significant (p>0.05) difference in Utah honeysuckle cover following a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemic that killed the lodgepole pine overstory [3]. Overall fuel loads are about 20 tons per acre (4.5 kg/sq m) in the moist lower subalpine habitat types in which Utah honeysuckle occurs [19]. Utah honeysuckle stem diameters range from 0.12 to 0.67 inch (0.3-1.7 cm) [9].

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Lonicera utahensis
REFERENCES : 1. 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] 2. Antos, Joseph A.; Shearer, Raymond C. 1980. Vegetation development on disturbed grand fir sites, Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. INT-251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [7269] 3. Armour, Charles David. 1982. Fuel and vegetation succession in response to mountain pine beetle epidemics in northwestern Montana. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 47 p. Thesis. [16488] 4. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p. [349] 5. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. [12148] 6. Barmore, William J., Jr.; Taylor, Dale; Hayden, Peter. 1976. Ecological effects and biotic succession following the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p. [16109] 7. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 8. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1991. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18211] 9. Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 153-358. [10107] 10. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292] 11. 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] 12. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806] 13. Dorn, R. D. 1977. Manual of the vascular plants of Wyoming. New York: Garland Publ. 2 vols. [21082] 14. Wagonfehr, Bob. 1987. Chaparral and the Tonto land management plan. In: Wagner, Michael R., ed. Challenges and opportunities in chaparral management: Proceedings of the Southwestern Society of American Foresters annual fall meeting; 1986 November 12-14; Prescott, AZ. SAF Publication No. SAF 87.10. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona State University and the San Francisco Peaks Chapter of the Society of American Foresters: 14. [5654] 15. Edge, W. Daniel; Marcum, C. Les; Olson-Edge, Sally L. 1988. Summer forage and feeding site selection by elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 573-577. [6778] 16. Edgerton, Paul J. 1987. Influence of ungulates on the development of the shrub understory of an upper slope mixed conifer forest. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 162-167. [7411] 17. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 18. 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] 19. 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] 20. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206] 21. Garrison, George A. 1953. Effects of clipping on some range shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 6(5): 309-317. [995] 22. 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] 23. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998] 24. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1987. Occurrence of conifer seedlings and their microenvironments on disturbed sites in central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-383. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 12 p. [3554] 25. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1991. Natural regeneration microsites for Douglas-fir in central Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Interior Douglas-fir: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1991 February 27 - March 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 247-254. [18299] 26. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479] 27. Lauer, Jerry L. 1976. Reconnaissance survey of bighorn sheep populations and habitats. Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho. Misc. Publ. 2. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 9 p. [1416] 28. Habeck, James R. 1973. A phytosociological analysis of forests, fuels and fire in the Moose Creek Drainage, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Publication No. RI-73-022. University of Montana--U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 114 p. [10063] 29. Habeck, James R. 1976. Forests, fuels, and fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. In: Proceedings Montana Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference and Fire and Land Management Symposium; [Date of conference unknown]; Tallahassee, FL. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 305-353. [8185] 30. Hann, Wendel John. 1982. A taxonomy for classification of seral vegetation of selected habitat types in western Montana. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 235 p. Dissertation. [1073] 31. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660] 32. Harry, G. Bryan. 1957. Winter food habits of moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21(1): 53-57. [8429] 33. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p. [1170] 34. Lindsey, Gerald D. 1975. The influence of animals on lodgepole pine regeneration. In: Baumgartner, David M., ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems: Symposium proceedings; 1973 October 9-11; Pullman, WA. Vol. 1. PUllman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service: 457-470. [7842] 35. Huberman, M. A. 1935. The role of western white pine in forest succession in northern Idaho. Ecology. 16(2): 137-151. [12447] 36. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905] 37. Hungerford, Roger D. 1986. Vegetation response to stand cultural operations on small stem lodgepole pine stands in Montana. In: Weed control for forest productivity in the interior West; 1985 February 5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 63-71. [5896] 38. 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] 39. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563] 40. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375] 41. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980] 42. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384] 43. Larsen, J. A. 1924. Some factors affecting reproduction after logging in northern Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Research. 28(11): 1149-1157. [12934] 44. Larsen, J. A. 1929. Fires and forest succession in the Bitterroot Mountains of northern Idaho. Ecology. 10: 67-76. [6990] 45. Laursen, Steven B. 1984. Predicting shrub community composition and structure following management disturbance in forest ecosystems of the Intermountain West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 261 p. Dissertation. [6717] 46. Lyon, L. Jack. 1984. The Sleeping Child Burn--21 years of postfire change. Res. Pap. INT-330. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [6328] 47. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1966. Two forest fires: and some specific implications in big-game management. In: Proceedings, annual conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commisssioners: 46: 181-193. [17169] 48. Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 89 p. [1553] 49. Mealey, Stephen P.; Jonkel, Charles J.; Demarchi, Ray. 1977. Habitat criteria for grizzly bear management. In: Peterie, T., ed. Proceedings, 13th international congress of game biologists; 1977 March 11-15; Atlanta, GA. No. 13. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 276-289. [17030] 50. Miller, Daniel L. 1982. Herbicides: guidelines for use and site preparation prescriptions in the Inland Northwest. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 55-62. [18532] 51. Miller, Daniel L. 1986. Conifer release in the Inland Northwest--effects. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Breuer, David W.; Miller, Daniel L., compilers and eds. Weed control for forest productivity in the Interior West: Symposium proceedings; 1985 February 5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 17-24. [1646] 52. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd, Frank A. 1982. How to write a herbicide prescription for shrub control. Forestry Technical Paper TP-82-6. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation, Wood Products, Western Division. 12 p. [3390] 53. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd, Frank A. 1983. Shrub control in the Inland Northwest--a summary of herbicide test results. Forestry Research Note RN-83-4. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 49 p. [7861] 54. Miller, Daniel L.; Kidd; Frank A.; Pope, W. W. 1983. Effects of Garlon 4, 2, 4-D, and Velpar herbicides on north Idaho shrubs. Forest Res. Note RN-83-7. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 5 p. [3582] 55. Miller, Daniel L.; Pope, W. W. 1982. The effects of Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 on north Idaho conifers and shrubs. Forestry Technical Paper TP-82-3. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 11 p. [3583] 56. Monsen, Stephen B. 1983. Plants for revegetation of riparian sites within the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 83-89. [9652] 57. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702] 58. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35: 165-185. [4016] 59. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155] 60. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1974 October 8-10; Misssoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 391-420. [6273] 61. Otchere-Boateng, J.; Herring, L. J. 1990. Site preparation: chemical. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 164-178. [10714] 62. Pierce, John D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to browse availability in north-central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62(12): 2404-2409. [12493] 63. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 64. Richardson, Nancy. 1980. Species-specific aboveground shrub biomass in seral communities in three habitat types in west central Montana. Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 57 p. [7309] 65. Ruediger, William; Mealey, Stephen. 1978. Coordination guidelines for timber harvesting in grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 44 p. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [19354] 66. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082] 67. Scrivner, Jerry H.; Smith, H. Duane. 1981. Pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) in successional stages of spruce-fir forest in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 362-367. [7900] 68. Seidel, K. W.; Head, S. Conrade. 1983. Regeneration in mixed conifer partial cuttings in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. PNW-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [8216] 69. Simpson, Michael L. 1990. The subalpine fir/beargrass habitat type: Succession and management. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 134 p. Thesis. [13464] 70. Stark, N. 1983. The nutrient content of Rocky Mountain vegetation: a handbook for estimating nutrients lost through harvest and burning. Misc. Publ. 14. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 81 p. [8617] 71. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1992. The grand fir/mountain maple habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 90 p. [17791] 72. Stickney, Peter F. 1980. Data base for post-fire succession, first 6 to 9 years, in Montana larch-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-62. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 133 p. [6583] 73. Stickney, Peter F. 1985. Data base for early postfire succession on the Sundance Burn, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-189. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 121 p. [7223] 74. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090] 75. Strickler, Gerald S.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1976. Emergent seedlings from coniferous litter and soil in eastern Oregon. Ecology. 57: 801-807. [2039] 76. Thilenius, John Frederick. 1960. Forage utilization by cattle and white-tailed deer on a northern Idaho forest range. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [5910] 77. Thill, Ronald E.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Patton, David R. 1983. Deer and elk forage production in Arizona mixed conifer forests. Res. Pap. RM-248. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [14381] 78. Tidestrom, I.; Kittell, T. 1941. A flora of Arizona and New Mexico. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 897 p. [18145] 79. Turner, David P.; Franz, Eldon H. 1986. The influence of canopy dominants on understory vegetation patterns in an old-growth cedar-hemlock forest. American Midland Naturalist. 116(2): 387-393. [7469] 80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573] 81. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707] 82. Vogl, Richard J.; Ryder, Calvin. 1969. Effects of slash burning on conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Science. 43(3): 135-147. [8546] 83. Watts, Sue, editor. 1989. FRDA Report 088. UBC INFORMS* Newsletter. 3(1). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Forest Sciences Department.23 p. [9474] 84. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944] 85. Willard, E. Earl; Herman, Margaret. 1977. Grizzly bear and its habitat. Final Report, Cooperative Agreement between U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1 and University of Montana, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 28 p. [15115] 86. 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] 87. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 88. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bull. No. 9. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. [6831] 89. Zager, Peter Edward. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 131 p. Dissertation. [5032]


FEIS Home Page