SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus


INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
McWilliams, Jack. 2000. Symphoricarpos albus. 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:
SYMALB

SYNONYMS:
Symphoricarpos racemosus Michx. [48,116]
Symphoricarpos rivularis Suksdorf [38,56]

NRCS PLANT CODE:
SYAL
SYALA
SYALL

COMMON NAMES:
common snowberry
snowberry
white coralberry

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of common snowberry is Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake (Caprifoliaceae) [58,66]. The 2 recognized varieties are [56,58,66,116]:

Symphoricarpos albus var. albus
Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus (Fern.) Blake

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts [72] lists common snowberry as an endangered species.

Virginia classifies common snowberry as very rare within the state [112].

Delaware [34] has common snowberry on their watchlist of rare native plants.


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Common snowberry occurs from Hudson Bay to Alaska, south to California and east to North Carolina. Symphoricarpos albus var. albus, the Atlantic slope variety, has the same general distribution described above for common snowberry. Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus, Pacific slope variety, is found from southern Alaska south to California, Montana and Colorado [38,65].

Common snowberry was introduced into England in 1817 and is now well naturalized [47]. Delaware [34] lists it as an introduced species (see other status). In Utah it is classified as a cultivated ornamental shrub introduced from elsewhere in North America [116].

ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie

STATES:
AK CA CO CT DE ID IL IN IA KS
KY MD MA MI MN MT NE NH NJ NM
NY ND OH OR PA RI SD TN UT VT
VA WA WV WI WY DC


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


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest
K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir-hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest
K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K025 Alder-ash forest
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K028 Mosaic of K002 & K026
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K050 Fescue-wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
K069 Bluestem-grama prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K093 Great Lakes spruce-fir forest
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce-fir forest
K100 Oak-hickory
K101 Elm-ash forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K107 Northern hardwoods-fir forest

SAF COVER TYPES:
1 Jack pine
16 Aspen
18 Paper birch
42 Bur oak
53 White oak
107 White spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
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
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
222 Black cottonwood-willow
224 Western hemlock
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock
233 Oregon white oak
235 Cotton-willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon-juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
250 Blue oak-foothills pine
251 White spruce-aspen
255 California coast live oak

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
102 Idaho fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
201 Blue oak woodland
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
411 Aspen woodland
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
416 True mountain-mahogany
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
422 Riparian

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Across its distribution, common snowberry is classified as dominant or subdominant in a variety of habitat and community types and vegetation associations. Most of these listings are at the warm/dry end of the habitat scale and include classifications as both climax and seral vegetation.

Examples of climax forest habitat types where common snowberry is a subdominant include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) [3]. Common snowberry is considered a mid- to late-seral subdominant with ponderosa pine on floodplains in Oregon [68]. Also in Oregon, common snowberry is considered subdominant to Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) in a climax tall shrub community type [10] and dominant in a community type with Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii) [67].

Species commonly associated with common snowberry include oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) in California's hardwood rangelands [4], ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) in Oregon [63], bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) in south Dakota and eastern Wyoming [3], and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) in eastern Washington [14].

References describing common snowberry as a community or habitat dominant or subdominant include:

Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex [2]
Steppe vegetation of Washington Daubenmire 1970 [28]
Ecology of curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) in eastern Oregon and adjacent areas [32]
Riparian dominance types of Montana [52]
Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification [59]
Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites [62]
Ecology and plant communities of the riparian areas associated with Catherine Creek in northeastern Oregon [67]
Vegetation of the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California [106]


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Common snowberry is considered important browse for many types of wildlife and livestock. It is especially important to domestic sheep and cattle [22,23,53,84,98,108,109,111]. In Oregon, common snowberry was found to be highly palatable to cattle. It plays a critical role in permitting cattle to meet their protein requirements during the latter half of the growing season [60]. It provides summer forage for cattle in Idaho [22,108] and is 1 of 2 major woody plants in cattle diet during fall in South Dakota [111]. However, it is rated as poor forage for cattle in Nebraska [105]. Domestic sheep also utilize common snowberry for browse and it is considered fair to good forage. It is has no forage value for horses [53,84].

Bighorn sheep use common snowberry regularly during the summer in Montana and Idaho [84] and in fall, winter, and early spring in British Columbia [109]. White-tailed deer utilize it regularly during summer and fall [57,84,108]. In British Columbia, white-tailed deer use it mainly in fall, winter, and early spring [109]. Reports of elk utilization vary. In western Montana, 1 source [37] reports Rocky Mountain elk use common snowberry frequently and heavily during early summer while another [53] states that elk rarely or never use it, even when available. Yet another source [84] reports its forage value to elk as fair. Moose are reported as utilizing common snowberry extensively during winter in the Gallatin River drainage in Montana [102]. However, Pierce [85] found moose utilization of it very light in north-central Idaho and another source [24] states common snowberry is unpalatable to moose. Grizzly bears use common snowberry as food [30].

Common snowberry is important as both cover and food for bird and small mammal populations [25,27]. These include sharp-tailed, ruffed, and blue grouse [27,61,94], wild turkey [59] and, several non-game species of bird including the kingbird, western flycatcher, and western bluebird [109]. Among small mammals that rely on common snowberry are fox squirrels [59], desert cottontails [25], and pocket gophers [13].

PALATABILITY:
Palatability of common snowberry to livestock and wildlife varies, and there are differing reports of palatability within an area (see discussion about forage value of common snowberry for elk in Importance to Livestock and Wildlife above). The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for common snowberry is rated as follows [10,22,23,37,53,57,60,61,84,85,98,102,108,109,110]:

MT ID ND OR
Cattle poor-fair poor-fair --- good
Domestic sheep fair-good fair-good --- ---
Horses poor poor --- ---
Moose poor-good poor --- ---
Pronghorn fair --- --- ---
Bighorn sheep good good --- ---
Elk fair-good fair --- ---
Mule deer fair --- fair-good ---
White-tailed deer fair-good --- fair fair
Small mammals fair fair-good --- fair
Small game birds fair --- --- ---
Upland game birds fair good --- good

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Common snowberry, like other shrubs, contains a higher percentage of crude protein during fall and winter than grasses or forbs, but lesser amounts during spring and summer. Leaves of common snowberry contain a higher percentage of crude protein than stems. Tips of leaves contain higher protein levels than thicker mid and butt sections [35]. Information presented in the following table is from [35] and is based on seasonal nutritional levels for common snowberry in the Black Hills of South Dakota:

Spring Summer Fall Winter
Leaves Stems Leaves Stems Leaves Stems Leaves
Crude protein1 13.1 6.80 10.7 4.20 5.60 5.10 5.20
Carbohydrate components1 ADF2 18.3 39.1 20.1 47.8 24.4 48.7 50.0
ADL3 7.50 11.0 8.50 --- 11.4 17.0 20.5
Cell4 11.5 27.3 11.1 --- 14.0 27.3 26.0
Ash1 6.20 5.90 6.20 3.90 6.50 4.40 5.00
Ca1 0.82 0.90 1.21 1.17 1.70 1.31 1.27
P1 0.35 0.22 0.31 0.13 0.35 0.14 0.15
Gross energy5 4,953 4,560 4,770 4,591 5,040 4,687 4,617

1 Percentage of oven-dried weight; 2 ADF = Acid-detergent fiber;
3 ADL = Acid-detergent lignin; 4Cell = Cellulose; 5 Calories/gram

COVER VALUE:
Common snowberry provides cover for several species of birds and mammals. White-tailed deer in western Montana show a marked preference for the Douglas-fir/common snowberry habitat type in winter. It is speculated that this preference is for structure of the habitat type [12]. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, Merriam's turkeys prefer common snowberry for cover [93]. Ruffed, blue and sharp-tailed grouse use common snowberry extensively as thermal cover [27,93,94]. In Palouse prairie habitat, common snowberry provides cover for small mammals [29]. In northern Idaho and eastern Washington, common snowberry is considered important cover for small mammals in several habitat types [90]. Pocket gophers dig large numbers of shallow burrows underneath common snowberry in winter in northeast Oregon [13] and desert cottontails use it in Nebraska [25].

In western Montana, common snowberry is rated for cover value as follows [52,53]:
Elk poor (rarely or never utilized when available)
Mule deer fair (moderately utilized)
White-tailed deer good (readily utilized when available)
Upland game birds good
Waterfowl good
Nongame birds good
Small mammals good

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Common snowberry has large ecological amplitude. Because of this amplitude, it has been widely used in rehabilitation of disturbed sites. Common snowberry does best when large 1-0 or 2-0 stock is planted [86]. It is not recommended for use on sites that have been "extremely" disturbed [52,53,82].

Seeds of common snowberry, held within nutlets, should be collected during the fall or winter by stripping the fruit [38] and then separated from the fruit by using a rubbing board when the fruit has dried [54]. Once separated from the fruit, seeds will remain viable for 7-10 years if stored properly [96]. Highest germination rates (74 to 87%) have been obtained by a 20- to 91-day warm stratification period followed by a cold stratification period of 60 to 300 days [38,96].

Common snowberry has fair seedling establishment rates [86,99] and good survival rates once established [40,86,99]. It has been used extensively in rehabilitation of riparian sites and has excellent bank stability properties [20,21,52,53,86]. Properties that make it a good choice for bank stabilization also provide good soil stability for erosion control [74,86,99]. Common snowberry has been used for reclamation of tailings sand after extraction of oil [40] and on mining sites with acidic, steep tailings [89,113].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Common snowberry fruit was eaten fresh but was not favored by Native Americans in Washington and Oregon. The fruits were also dried for winter use. Common snowberry was used on hair as soap, and the fruits and leaves mashed and applied to cuts or skin sores as a poultice and to soothe sore, runny eyes. Tea from the bark was used as a remedy for tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. A brew made from the entire plant was used as a physic tonic. Arrowshafts and pipestems were made from the stems [51].

One source [47] reports eating the fruit of common snowberry has caused vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and in severe cases, unconsciousness in humans. There are no reports of poisoning in animals and no definite information on the toxic constituent.

Because of its decorative white fruits, common snowberry has been used extensively as an ornamental [38,47].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Common snowberry is browsed by cattle but is resistant to heavy browsing [23]. However, in a common snowberry-rose (Rosa spp.) community type in Oregon, common snowberry was reportedly browsed to elimination from the site [63]. On grazed sites in Idaho, common snowberry occupies at least 50% less crown space than on ungrazed sites [22]. Grazing capacity guidelines for some western Montana common snowberry community/habitat types are provided by Williams and others [117]. Common snowberry is sensitive to trampling and soil compaction [118].

Common snowberry responds moderately well after logging depending on site characteristics [8,43,46]. Seven years after logging in ponderosa pine in eastern Washington and Oregon, common snowberry had increased its coverage by 30% over its prelogging coverage [44]. It can be expected to increase in cover and form low thickets following logging and may provide shade to conifer seedlings during their early growth [50]. The expected response of common snowberry to clearcutting and low and high severity site preparation by fire or mechanical means is [81]:
Mechanical Fire
low high low high
+++ ++ ++ +
Where + equals increase and ++ equals an even greater increase.


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Common snowberry is a native, deciduous, shrub that is densely branched. Plants vary in height from 3 to 4.5 feet (1-1.5 m) [50,70,104]. In riparian habitats, common snowberry can reach a height of 6 feet (2 m) [70]. It has a rhizomatous growth habit with rhizomes 2 to 5 inches (5-12.5 cm) deep in mineral soil and commonly forms dense thickets. Flowers are borne in small clusters that produce white drupes. Each drupe contains 2 nutlets with 1 seed per nutlet [50,70,104].

One source [11] reports common snowberry to have a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal relationship in British Columbia. In western Washington, common snowberry has been found to contain allelopathic chemicals [33].

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
A common snowberry rhizome sprout. Photo by Jane Kapler Smith, Fire Sciences Laboratory.

Common snowberry can regenerate by seeds, but rhizomes are the primary method of reproduction [50,104]. Rhizomes are occasionally connected in a mass of woody tissue from which multiple stems can regenerate; however, separate rhizomes are usually produced from which single stems arise [17]. Rhizomes sprout after fire or other disturbance kills the top of the plant [64,77,103] and can vary from site to site depending on conditions [64,77,84]. Plants sprouting from rhizomes are among the first to recolonize a site after a fire [64,103] and will often produce fruit the 1st growing season [16]. The rhizome sprout pictured above came from a 3-year-old common snowberry in a garden at the Fire Sciences Laboratory. The rhizome was 6.5-foot (2.0 m) long, and the sprout was 2 feet (0.6 m) tall (Fryer 2011, personal observation).

Seed banks of common snowberry were analyzed in a postfire study [80], but the literature contains very little about postfire regeneration from seed. One study in an east-central Washington ponderosa pine/common snowberry community found common snowberry sprouted from roots, rhizomes, underground organs, or other perennial plant parts, but did not establish from seeds [87]. The seeds of this shrub are commonly dispersed by birds after they eat the fruit [104].

Common snowberry seeds will sprout in a nursery setting [54,78,96]. However, nutlets of common snowberry are extremely difficult to germinate because they have a hard, tough, impermeable covering and only a partially developed embryo [38].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Common snowberry occurs on a wide variety of soil types [50]. It is tolerant of mildly acidic to moderately alkaline conditions and somewhat tolerant of salts. It can also survive under low nutrient conditions [115]. It does well on soils derived from limestone and not well on soils derived from granitic sources [49]. It is often found on disturbed, coarse-textured and rocky soils in Alberta [115]. It does best on well-drained soils [51,52,118].

These well-drained sites can range from warm dry slopes and open forests (where it is used as an indicator species) [51] to warm moist slopes [118] to riparian benches and terraces [52]. It will grow in partial shade, but prefers more open sites [115]

Elevation ranges for some western states include [3]:

 4,200 to 6,700 feet (1,572-2,061 m) in South Dakota
 5,500 to 7,900 feet (1,676-2,408 m) in Colorado
 4,200 to 8,300 feet (1,572-2,553 m) in Wyoming
 2,600 to 6,300 feet (800-1,938 m) in Montana
 7,700 to 9,200 feet (2,389-2,831 m) in Colorado and New Mexico
 2,600 to 5,400 feet (800-1353 m) in Idaho and Washington

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Common snowberry occurs in early, mid-, and late successional stages and as a climax species. It is considered part of the climax community in the ponderosa pine/common snowberry habitat type in Idaho [101] and with Douglas-fir in warm dry habitat types [7]. It is late seral in ponderosa pine/ninebark habitat type in Idaho [101]. In thinleaf alder (Alnus incana)/common snowberry plant associations in Oregon, it is considered mid-seral [68]. It is included in early seral stages of 2 western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) habitat types in Idaho [119].

In general, common snowberry is a shrub characterized by survival through rhizomes. If it is on a site prior to disturbance, it will be become established in the initial postdisturbance year and may dominate early succession [71].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Common snowberry initiates budding in early May in the northern Rocky Mountains. This budding can be delayed a month in Canada and Alaska or happen a month early in the Southwest depending on elevation and weather conditions. Leaves are full grown about 1 month after emergence. Flowers appear any time from May to August and may be present as late as September. Peak flowering time is June and July. Fruit ripening times are also variable, but typically occur during late August and early September, coinciding closely with leaf fall [50]. The fruits of this shrub commonly remain on the plant over winter [104].

Phenology for common snowberry east of the Continental Divide in Montana and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, is [95]:
Leaf buds burst Leaves full grown Flowers start Flowers end Fruits ripe Seed fall starts Leaves start to color Leaves start to fall Leaves fallen
Average date May 6 June
14
July
4
July
22
Sept. 2 Sept. 14 Aug. 28 Sept. 9 Sept. 30
Earliest Apr. 10 May
17
June
4
June
10
Aug. 7 Aug. 16 July
20
July
23
Aug. 28
Latest June 7 July
10
Aug.
11
Aug.
21
Oct. 9 Oct. 14 Sep. 25 Oct. 15 Oct. 30


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Common snowberry is classified as a "survivor" [71,103] and has high resistance to fire [26,73,84]. It is a rhizomatous species with rhizomes buried 2 to 5 inches (5-12.5 cm) deep in mineral soil [50,70,104]. After fire has killed the top of the plant, new growth sprouts from these rhizomes [77,83,118]. This rhizomatous growth response is highly variable and depends on conditions at specific sites [23,77,84]. Regeneration from buried seed is favored by fires of low severity and short duration that remove little of the soil organic level [23,55].

Common snowberry occurs in a wide variety of community/habitat types and plant associations (see DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE). There are many fire regimes included within these plant communities [15,31,41,42]. To learn more about fire regimes and fire ecology of communities where common snowberry occurs, refer to the FEIS summary for the dominant species.


Community or Ecosystem Scientific name of dominant species Fire return interval in years
Pacific ponderosa pine* Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa 1-47 [19]
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine* P. ponderosa var. scopulorum 2-10 [19]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 40-140 [79,107]
coastal Douglas-fir* P. menziesii var. menziesii 95-242 [82,91]
*Fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary.

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos albus

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Common snowberry is top-killed by fire, but belowground parts are very resistant to fire [71,77,83,103,118]. Variable response to fire has been reported [23,77,84] but in general, light- to moderate-severity fires increase stem density [15,23,36], and common snowberry survives even severe fires [15,26,84]. To eliminate rhizomatous sprouting, fire intensity must be severe enough to kill the roots and rhizome system [1].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Common snowberry, as a rhizomatous sprouter, is among the first to recolonize a site after fire [77]. Growth in the 1st postfire year varies, but is generally considered to be good. With light to moderate soil disturbance, sprouting will return common snowberry coverage in a year [36] and common snowberry may produce fruit the 1st year [16]. Sprout height can reach one-half to three-fourths of prefire stem height in the 1st year and equal prefire height in 4 years [84]. Another source [36] states common snowberry will grow 1 foot (0.3 m) the 1st year. Cover and volume measurements consistently exceed prefire values the 2nd year [84] and canopy cover of common snowberry increases rapidly to a maximum in 3 to 5 years after a fire and may maintain this increased coverage [23,80]. Fire severity and soil moisture content at time of burning may determine damage to the rhizome and root system of common snowberry and be responsible for variation in recovery response [52].

On ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, common snowberry cover and frequency were higher on sites that had been thinned 6 years previously than on prescribed burned, thinned-and-burned, or control sites. Common snowberry was determined to be an indicator species for thinned sites (P0.05). For further information on the effects of thinning and burning treatments on common snowberry and 48 other species, see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [120] study.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
The following Research Project Summaries also provide information on prescribed fire use and postfire response of plant community species including common snowberry:

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Common snowberry is one of the first species to recolonize a postfire site. New growth provides forage and often bears increased fruit crops. Cover is provided for small wildlife species and lush vegetation can protect soil surfaces from splash erosion, but can also offer severe competition to new tree seedlings. The living rhizome systems can be important in retaining nutrients released by fire [77]. One study [5] found that planting grass seed to control erosion reduced coverage of common snowberry and other native shrubs on several burned sites in Oregon.

In Saskatchewan, to burn common snowberry it is recommended waiting 4 days after heavy rains. In addition, if spring burning, a minimum temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit (13 oC), wind speed of 2-12 mi hr-1 (3-19 km hr-1), and a maximum relative humidity of 50% is suggested. After burning, a 2-year wait is needed to build up enough fuel to burn again [9]. Common snowberry may be susceptible to frequent burning [100]. If planting common snowberry, prompt, early spring planting is required or it may experience moisture stress in the short term [36].

Common snowberry has a low surface to volume ratio and will have a high flammability if there are many dead stems [18]. It is capable of producing firebrand material. When located near fire control lanes, it should be red-flagged as spot fire potential [83].


Symphoricarpos albus: References


1. Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment). [23656]

2. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. [6327]

3. Alexander, Robert R. 1988. Forest vegetation on National Forests in the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions: habitat and community types. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p. [5903]

4. Allen, Barbara H.; Holzman, Barbara A.; Evett, Rand R. 1991. A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands. Hilgardia. 59(2): 1-45. [17371]

5. Anderson, E. William; Brooks, Lee E. 1975. Reducing erosion hazard on a burned forest in Oregon by seeding. Journal of Range Management. 28(5): 394-398. [12807]

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

7. Arno, Stephen F. 1991. Ecological relationships of interior Douglas-fir. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Interior Douglas-fir: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1990 February 27 - March 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 47-51. [18271]

8. 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]

9. Bailey, Arthur W. 1978. Burning prescriptions. In: McAvoy, M. S. D. A.; Gordon, R. D., co-chairs. Fire and range management; April 1978; Regina, SK. Regina, SK: Land Use Service DREE-PFRA; Lands Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture: 9-14. [30024]

10. 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]

11. 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]

12. Berner, Kevin L.; Fiedler, Carl E.; Pletscher, Daniel H. 1988. White-tailed deer winter habitat use in western Montana second-growth forests. Res. Rep. No. 2. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 7 p. [6917]

13. Bonar, Ronald E. 1995. The northern pocket gopher--most of what you thought you might want to know, but hesitated to look up. TE02E11. Technical Services-Reforestation. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 61 p. [25997]

14. Bookman, Peter A. 1980. Variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae) in eastern Washington. Madrono. 27(1): 36-42. [16914]

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

16. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18212]

17. Bradley, Anne Foster. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 183 p. Thesis. [502]

18. Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 153-358. [10107]

19. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. [In press]. 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. [33874]

20. Carlson, Jack R. 1992. Selection, production, and use of riparian plant materials for the western United States. In: Landis, Thomas D., technical coordinator. Proceedings, Intermountain Forest Nursery Association; 1991 August 12-16; Park City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-211. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 55-67. [20926]

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

22. 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]

23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]

24. Cowan, I. M.; Hoar, W. S.; Hatter, J. 1950. The effect of forest succession upon the quantity and upon the nutritive values of woody plants used by moose. Canadian Journal of Research. 28(5): 249-271. [12820]

25. Cox, Mike K.; Franklin, William L. 1989. Terrestrial vertebrates of Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 597-613. [11004]

26. 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]

27. Crawford, John A.; Van Dyke, Walt; Meyers, S. Mark; Haensly, Thomas F. 1986. Fall diet of blue grouse in Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 123-127. [14176]

28. 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]

29. Daubenmire, Rexford. 1992. Palouse prairie. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V: 297-312. [23830]

30. Davis, Dan; Butterfield, Bart. 1991. The Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area: A report to the Bitterroot Technical Review Team. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; 56 p. [30041]

31. Davis, Kathleen M.; Clayton, Bruce D.; Fischer, William C. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. INT-79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 77 p. [5296]

32. Dealy, J. Edward. 1975. Ecology of curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) in eastern Oregon and adjacent areas. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 161 p. Thesis. [21001]

33. del Moral, Roger; Cates, Rex G. 1971. Allelopathic potential of the dominant vegetation of western Washington. Ecology. 52(6): 1030-1037. [4794]

34. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. (1998, March) Delaware Natural Heritage Program: Rare native plants of Delaware [Online]. Available: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/plant98.htm [2000, June 2]. [35342]

35. Dietz, Donald R. 1972. Nutritive value of shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium; Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 289-302. [801]

36. 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]

37. 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]

38. Evans, Keith E. 1974. Symphoricarpos Duham. snowberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 787-790. [7759]

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

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

41. 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]

42. 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]

43. 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]

44. Garrison, G. A. 1960. Recovery of ponderosa pine range in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington by seventh year after logging. In: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters Annual Meeting: 137-139. [16881]

45. 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]

46. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. Vegetation response to helicopter logging and broadcast burning in Douglas-fir habitat types at Silver Creek, central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-405. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 24 p. [6810]

47. Gilbert, Oliver L. 1995. Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S. F. Blake (S. rivularis Suksd., S. racemosus Michaux) Journal of Ecology. 83(1): 159-166. [27739]

48. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

49. Goldin, A.; Nimlos, T. J. 1977. Vegetation patterns on limestone and acid parent materials in the Garnet Mountains of western Montana. Northwest Science. 51(3): 149-160. [10675]

50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]

51. Halverson, Nancy M., compiler. 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]

52. 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]

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

54. 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]

55. Hawkes, B. C.; Feller, M. C.; Meehan, D. 1990. Site preparation: fire. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 131-149. [10712]

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

57. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270]

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

59. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1181]

60. Holechek, Jerry L.; Berry, Timothy J.; Vavra, Martin. 1987. Grazing system influences on cattle performance on mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 40(1): 55-59. [15347]

61. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]

62. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 141 p. [33106]

63. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p. [9600]

64. Johnson, Charles Grier, Jr. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in national forests of northeastern Oregon. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 128 p. (+ appendices) [30061]

65. Jones, George Neville. 1940. A monograph of the genus Symphoricarpos. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 21: 201-253. [13499]

66. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

67. Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W. C.; Vavra, M. 1985. Ecology and plant communities of the riparian areas associated with Catherine Creek in northeastern Oregon. Tech. Bull. 147. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 35 p. [6174]

68. Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 171 p. [9632]

69. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

70. 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]

71. 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]

72. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. (1999, March 10) The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.hertiage.tnc.org/nhp/us/ma/ [2000, June 26]. [35156]

73. McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122. [1621]

74. Meier, Gretchen; Weaver, T. 1997. Desirables and weeds for roadside management--a northern Rocky Mountain catalogue. Report No. RHWA/MT-97/8115. Final report: July 1994-December 1997. Helena, MT: State of Montana Department of Transportation, Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Program. 145 p. [29135]

75. Miller, Daniel L. 1981. The effects of Roundup herbicide on northern Idaho conifers and shrub species. Forestry Technical Paper TP-81-2. Lewiston, ID: Potlatch Corporation. 13 p. [3581]

76. 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]

77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]

78. Mirov, N. T.; Kraebel, C. J. 1937. Collecting and propagating the seeds of California wild plants. Res. Note No. 18. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. [9787]

79. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the high Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. [5916]

80. Morgan, P.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1988. Seed-bank contributions to regeneration of shrub species after clear-cutting and burning. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 169-172. [3262]

81. Morgan, Penelope. 1984. Modeling shrub succession following clearcutiing and burning. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. [Pages unknown]. Dissertation. [17213]

82. 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]

83. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747]

84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]

85. 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]

86. Platts, William S.; Armour, Carl; Booth, Gordon D.; [and others]. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 177 p. [6171]

87. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52. [16219]

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

89. Richardson, Bland Z. 1985. Reclamation in the Intermountain Rocky Mountain Region. In: McCarter, M. K., ed. Design of non-impounding mine waste dumps; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc: 177-192. [12780]

90. Rickard, W. H. 1960. The distribution of small mammals in relation to the climax vegetation mosaic in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Ecology. 41(1): 99-106. [8454]

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

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

93. Rumble, Mark A.; Anderson, Stanley H. 1987. Turkey habitat use and nesting characteristics in ponderosa pine. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 36-39. [13917]

94. Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203. [16729]

95. 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]

96. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In: Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]

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

98. Singer, Francis J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2): 437-444. [4074]

99. Slayback, Robert D.; Clary, Raimond F., Jr. 1988. Vegetative solutions to erosion control in the Tahoe Basin. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 66-69. [4097]

100. Smith, J. H. G. 1957. Some factors indicative of site quality for black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray). Journal of Forestry. 55: 578-580. [8917]

101. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1995. Major Douglas-fir habitat types of central Idaho: a summary of succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p. [29363]

102. Stevens, David R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 37-46. [7932]

103. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]

104. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

105. Stubbendieck, James; Nichols, James T.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1989. Nebraska range and pasture forbs and shrubs (including succulent plants). Extension Circular 89-118. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 153 p. [10168]

106. Sugihara, Neil G.; Reed, Lois J.; Lenihan, James M. 1987. Vegetation of the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California. Madrono. 34(3): 193-208. [3788]

107. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a Mexian oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: perspectives in the sw United States & n Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. [19759]

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

109. Thompson, S. M. 1990. The initial response of several forage species to prescribed burning in southeastern British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 137 p. Thesis. [27997]

110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]

111. Uresk, Daniel W. 1987. Diets of cattle in the Black Hills of South Dakota. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 33-35. [13916]

112. Virginia Natural Heritage Program. (1999, April) Virginia's rare plants and animals, [Online]. Available: www.stae.va.us/ [2000, May 2]. [35148]

113. Voeller, Pamela J.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; Harsh, James. 1998. Growth response of native shrubs to acid mine spoil and to proposed soil amendments. Plant and Soil. 198(2): 209-217. [30508]

114. Washington State Cooperative Extension Service. 1982. Herbicides in forestry. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 13 p. [7873]

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

116. 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]

117. Willard, E. Earl; Bedunah, Donald J.; Hann, Wendell. 1983. Forage and livestock in western Montana. In: O'Loughlin, Jennifer; Pfister, Robert D., eds. Management of second-growth forests, the state of knowledge and research needs: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 May 14; Missoula, MT. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station: 187-208. [7101]

118. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]

119. 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., compiler. 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]

120. 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]


FEIS Home Page