SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus


INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Aleksoff, Keith C. 1999. Symphoricarpos oreophilus. 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:

SYMORE

SYNONYMS:

Symphoricarpos utahensis Rydb. [22]

NRCS PLANT CODE:

SYOR2
SYORO
SYORU

COMMON NAMES:

mountain snowberry
Utah snowberry

TAXONOMY:

The scientific name of mountain snowberry is Symphoricarpos oreophilus A. Gray (Caprifoliaceae) [11,25,28,29,64].

Varieties are [64]:

S. oreophilus var. oreophilus   mountain snowberry
S. oreophilus var. utahensis (Rydb) A. Nels.   Utah snowberry

LIFE FORM:

Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

No entry


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Mountain snowberry is a widespread cordilleran species. It occurs from the foothills to high elevations throughout the western mountains ranges from British Columbia to Alberta and south to California, New Mexico, and northern Mexico [11,25].

ECOSYSTEMS:

FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES44 Alpine

STATES:
AZ  CA  CO  ID  MT  NV  NM  OR  TX  UT  WA  WY 
 
BC 
 
MEXICO
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
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K098 Northern floodplain forest

SAF COVER TYPES:

206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
241 Western live oak

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:

101 Bluebunch wheatgrass
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
108 Alpine Idaho fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
209 Montane shrubland
402 Mountain big sagebrush
409 Tall forb
411 Aspen woodland
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
805 Riparian

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Mountain snowberry is a dominant shrub species in numerous nonforested and forested communities in the western United States. Habitat types using mountain snowberry as an indicator species have been identified within the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) series. Mountain snowberry also occurs within the pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) zone and is a dominant understory species within the quaking aspen type throughout the western mountains. It is a major component on open slopes in the mountain-brush zone, where it may form pure stands. The upper limits of mountain snowberry's elevational range extend into the subalpine zone [33].

Common associates of mountain snowberry in quaking aspen communities are western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), black chokecherry (Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea), lupine (Lupinus spp.) and sticky geranium (Geranium viscosissimum) [2].

Common associates in Douglas-fir communities include Rocky mountain maple (Acer glabrum), heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), bristly black currant (Ribes lacustre), Saskatoon serviceberry, snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), fireweed, and butterweed (Senecio spp.) [49].

In Gambel oak communities of Utah, mountain snowberry often occurs with smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana) [36]. Mountain snowberry is common within the big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)/grass region and may become a codominant with big sagebrush, occurring most conspicuously on the more mesic sites with mountain big sagebrush [24].

Publications listing mountain snowberry as an indicator or dominant species in plant communities are listed below.

Grassland, shrubland, and forested habitat types of the White River-Arapaho National Forest [23]
Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho [24]
Forest vegetation of the White River National Forest in western Colorado: a habitat type classification [26]
Aspen community types on the Caribou and Targhee National Forests in southeastern Idaho [39]
Aspen community types of Utah [40]
Forest habitat types of Montana [45]
A preliminary description of plant communities found on the Sawtooth, White Cloud, Boulder, and Pioneer Mountains [48]
Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming [51]
Forest habitat types of central Idaho [53]
Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National Forest [59]


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Because of its abundance and wide distribution, mountain snowberry is important forage on many mountain ranges. Although not highly nutritious or palatable, mountain snowberry is frequently one of the first species to leaf out, making it a highly sought after food in the early spring [46]. Use by livestock and game is moderate throughout the summer and declines in fall. Mountain snowberry's low growth form makes its foliage easily available. Plants withstand browsing well and produce numerous basal sprouts following browsing [65]. Results of clipping experiments carried out in the mountain-brush zone of Utah indicate that mountain snowberry can withstand early season browsing if given sufficient time to recover [16].

PALATABILITY:

Mountain snowberry is readily eaten by all classes of livestock, particularly domestic sheep. Palatability varies in different localities and different plant communities. In general mountain snowberry has greater palatability in the Intermountain region than on more southern or western ranges [12]. Mountain snowberry is a highly valued elk and domestic sheep forage within quaking aspen types in Colorado and Wyoming [7]. Mountain snowberry is of no value for horses [43].

Mountain snowberry is an important forage species for deer and elk on high elevation summer ranges. On quaking aspen forest summer range in Utah, mountain snowberry comprised 24% of the diet for elk and 20% for mule deer [6]. Ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasants, and yellow-billed magpies utilize the fruits [50].

The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for mountain snowberry is rated as follows [14]:

                     CO      MT     OR      UT      WY
Cattle               Fair    Fair   ----    Fair    Fair
Domestic Sheep       Fair    ----   ----    Good    Fair 
Horses               Poor    ----   ----    Poor    Fair 
Pronghorn            ----    ----   ----    ----    Fair 
Elk                  Poor    ----   ----    Good    Good 
Mule deer            Poor    ----   Good    Good    Good 
Small mammals        ----    ----   ----    Good    Good 
Small nongame birds  ----    ----   ----    Fair    Good 
Upland game birds    ----    ----   ----    Good    Good 
Waterfowl            ----    ----   ----    Poor    Poor 
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

Mountain snowberry has been rated fair in energy and protein value. Nutritional value of mature browse for snowberry species is as follows [41]:

Ash              8.3%
Crude fiber     15.8%
Ether extract    5.9%
N-free extract  62.6%
Protein          7.4%
Calcium          1.88%
Phosphorus        .28%  
COVER VALUE:

Due to its relatively low growth form, mountain snowberry provides moderate to low cover for most ungulates. In Oregon mule deer utilize mountain snowberry-dominated communities for cover where these communities provide the only diversity in large expanses of big sagebrush [34]. Mountain snowberry provides important hiding cover for a variety of small mammals and birds. Cover ratings by state have been summarized as follows [14]:

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

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Mountain snowberry is useful for establishing cover on bare sites and has done well when planted onto roadbanks [38]. Once established it persists well and spreads vegetatively through layering [46]. Revegetation has been particularly successful using transplanted wildings. Transplants are easily obtained by pulling up small rooted portions of plants in the early spring before leaf growth has begun. Plants can also be propagated via stem cuttings [17] and seed [38]. Mountain snowberry is recommended for riparian plantings in wet meadow and forested communities [37]. Direct seeding is generally recommended in the fall or winter on well-drained sites in the following types: big sagebrush, mountain brush, pinyon-juniper, quaking aspen openings, and subalpine herblands. Commercial seed may be dried fruits or cleaned seed. Seeds have a pronounced dormancy; acid treatments break down the seedcoat. Stratification should be employed for spring planting. Maximum storage period for mountain snowberry seeds is 10 years [54]. Cultivated seedlings can reach 30 inches (76 cm) within 5 years [38].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

Mountain snowberries are highly regarded for the beauty of their foliage and fruits and are widely grown as ornamentals [60].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Mountain snowberry's tendency to sprout enables plants to persist and even increase following browsing. However, plant densities decrease substantially in response to prolonged browsing [9].

On high summer ranges in Oregon, domestic sheep have browsed mountain snowberry to the ground in areas also heavily utilized by cattle [13].


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Mountain snowberry is a native, deciduous, montane shrub. It is low growing, erect and sometimes trailing, with spreading to arching branches [11,25]. Although averaging 2 to 4 feet (0.6-1.2 m) in height, plants on good sites can grow up to 5 feet (1.5 m), while those on poor sites are barely a foot (0.3 m) tall. Fruits are white, berrylike drupes containing 2 nutlets, each of which contains a seed [33]. The genus Symphoricarpos is widely described as rhizomatous [4,58,66,67], but rhizomatous growth generally is less well developed in mountain snowberry than in most snowberry species [33,57,63].

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Mountain snowberry reproduces vegetatively and by seed. Individual plants produce basal sprouts from a root crown; perennating buds are usually located approximately 0.8 to 1.2 inches (2-3 cm) below the ground surface [55,65]. Layering has also been observed in mountain snowberry [11,65]. Herbarium specimens from a ponderosa pine woodland in Musselshell County, Montana, have short, distinct rhizomes [57].

Since no abscission layer is formed on the pedicle, fruits may persist on shrubs for up to 2 seasons before falling to the ground. Seed dormancy is broken by stratification in the soil; ripening and development of the embryo occur during 1 or 2 winters. Seeds do not remain viable and are not stored in the soil for extended periods. Birds and mammals are probably the main dispersal agents. Germination begins in the early spring as soon as the soil thaws. Mountain snowberry germinates best on bare soil in partial shade [52].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Mountain snowberry is found on all aspects on sites ranging from moist to fairly dry and in both acidic and basic soils. It usually occurs in sandy loam to clay loam. Elevational ranges for some western states have been reported as follows [14]:

5,500 to 10,500 feet (1677-3200 m) in Colorado
5,700 to 7,000 feet (1738-2134 m) in Montana
4,000 to 10,500 feet (1220-3200 m) in Utah
8,000 to 8,000 feet (2440-2440 m) in Wyoming

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Mountain snowberry generally establishes in early seral stages and coexists with later arriving species [27,52]. Within pinyon-juniper communities, mountain snowberry remains a major component throughout all successional stages [30]. Mountain snowberry is rarely found in dense shade [60]. Within forested communities mountain snowberry grows under open canopies and along the edges of parks, dry meadows, and other openings.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Mountain snowberry initiates growth early in the spring. Basal shoots have been observed growing in the soil before total snowmelt [65]. The carbohydrate reserve cycle for mountain snowberry has been studied in the mountain-brush zone in Utah [15,23,65]. In general, reserves are at a maximum at full flower, and this maximum is maintained as plants enter dormancy in the fall. Reserves are approximately 25% depleted before the end of dormancy (stem bud swelling) due to the sprouting of basal crown buds below the snow and litter layers. The seasonal low is reached when leaves are 1/2 to 3/4ths mature and leaf buds still remain at the apex of the stems. At this time reserves are approximately 40% lower than the summer high in all perennial plant parts. From June until mid-August carbon reserves are replenished in all plant parts. Stem growth and limited flower production and set are all accomplished during this time.

There is a seasonal change in the aboveground and belowground distribution of carbon reserves. Generally carbohydrate reserve quantities are greater in the aboveground biomass than in the belowground biomass. This balance shifts at the point of maximum reserve depletion (late May or early June) [23].

Average dates of the initiation of phenological events at different elevations on the Wasatch Plateau, Utah, from 1925 to 1934, are presented below [8].

Phenological event                 Elevation                           
 
                       7,655 ft    8,450 ft    8,850 ft 
                       (2234 m)    (2576 m)    (2698 m) 

                                     Date             

Flower buds bursting   June 17      June 22    July 2
Leaf buds bursting     May 3        May 8      May 19
In full leaf           June 1       June 5     June 15
In full bloom          June 26      June 30    July 8
Fruit all ripe         Aug. 20      Aug. 17    Aug. 21
Fruit dropped          Sept. 18     Sept. 12   Sept. 26
Leaves all dropped     Oct. 6       Oct. 14    Oct. 11
Phenological data for mountain snowberry plants located on a mountain-brush zone site at 6,822 feet (2080 m) in Utah are as follows [65]:

May 21   Twigs elongating; sprouts appearing above ground surface
May 30   Twigs elongating; leaves developing
June 5    Twigs elongating; flowers beginning to open
June 12   Fruit developing - early dough stage
June 26   Fruit in hard dough stage
July 15    Fruit disseminating
Aug. 3     Fruit mostly disseminated
Sept. 1    Leaves mostly abscised; mostly dormant
Oct. 1     Dormant


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Mountain snowberry is a sprouter that is usually undamaged by low-severity fire but is top-killed by most fires of medium or high severity [19,58,62,66]. Sprouts are initiated from root crowns. Perennating buds on the root crown are located 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the mineral soil surface [65].

Mountain snowberry occurs in plant communities with a variety of fire regimes. The range of fire intervals reported for some species that dominate communities where mountain snowberry occurs are listed below. To learn more about the fire regimes in these communities, refer to the FEIS summary for that species, under "FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS."

Community dominant                 Range of fire 
                                   intervals (yrs)                                                                                                               

interior ponderosa pine              20-42
(Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum)
Rocky Mt. Douglas-fir                10-30
(Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca )
subalpine fir                        >100
(Abies lasiocarpa) 
Engelmann spruce                     >150
(Picea engelmannii)
quaking aspen                        5-10
(Populus tremuloides)
mountain big sagebrush               10-50
(Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana)  
Gambel oak                           ----
(Quercus gambelii) 
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:

Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Symphoricarpos oreophilus
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Fires top-kills mountain snowberry. Although plant survival may be variable, mountain snowberry root crowns usually survive even severe fires [10,32,44,68].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

Mountain snowberry crowns that are intertwined with surrounding big sagebrush will burn even when their moisture content is relatively high [68].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Mountain snowberry sprouts from basal buds at the root crown following fire [10,32,58,66,67]. This species is a weak sprouter [10,42,67], especially after severe fire. Although the majority of plants survive burning and sprouting is reliable, sprout production can be limited initially and may remain so for several years. Recovery rates are variable. Mountain snowberry is usually top-killed but otherwise undamaged by low-severity fire, but may show decreases the first few years after severe fire [32,44]. Even after severe fire, prefire numbers and coverages are usually regained by 15 years [4,36,42,44,68].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

It is unclear from the literature what part burning season plays in mountain snowberry's highly variable response to fire. On most sites plants survive low severity fires and sprout within the first year [30,32,68].

Fifteen years after a September prescribed burn in big sagebrush/grass habitat in Idaho, mountain snowberry production was nearly equal on light-severity and severely burned sites. Production was greatest on moderate-severity and unburned sites. Postfire production (lbs/acre, air-dry) was [4]:

 
Unburned Light burn Moderate burn Severe burn
6.7 2.6 6.6 3.0
 

Koniak [30] found that in singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper (Pinus monophylla-Juniperus osteosperma) woodlands of California and Nevada, occurrence of mountain snowberry was significantly higher on 1-year-old August burns than on adjacent unburned woodlands. In Nevada mountain big sagebrush, mountain snowberry plants regained 75% of prefire plant height within 4 years of late summer fires [68].

Mountain snowberry was severely damaged in Wyoming, however, following a late August prescribed burn in a quaking aspen forest. Twelve years after the burn, mountain snowberry was only producing about half the biomass of that being produced prior to the burn. Snowberry biomass production (air-dry, kg/ha) was as follows 3 and 12 years after different burn severities [1,2]:

Prefire        88
Postfire      low       moderate    high
              severity  severity    severity
 
3 years       9         36          7
12 years      48        25          18
Lyon's Research Paper and the Research Project Summary Vegetation recovery following a mixed-severity fire in aspen groves of western Wyoming provide information on prescribed fire and postfire response of plant community species, including mountain snowberry.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Snowberry species are capable of producing firebrand material. When large mountain snowberry plants are located near fire control lines, they may cause spot fires [42].

Elk browsed mountain snowberry more on burned than unburned quaking aspen forests. Postfire browsing may slow the shrub's recovery time [5,10].

Annual or very frequent fires may be detrimental to mountain snowberry [43].


Symphoricarpos oreophilus: References


1. Bartos, D. L.; Mueggler, W. F. 1981. Early succession in aspen communities following fire in western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 34(4): 315-318. [5100]

2. Bartos, Dale L.; Brown, James K.; Booth, Gordon D. 1994. Twelve years biomass response in aspen communities following fire. Journal of Range Management. 47: 79-83. [22891]

3. 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]

4. Blaisdell, James P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the Upper Snake River Plains. Tech. Bull. 1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 39 p. [462]

5. Canon, S. K.; Urness, P. J.; DeByle, N. V. 1987. Habitat selection, foraging behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in burned aspen forest. Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 443-438. [3453]

6. Collins, William B.; Urness, Philip J. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 646-663. [6915]

7. Costello, David F. 1944. Important species of the major forage types in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Monographs. 14: 107-134. [693]

8. Costello, David F.; Price, Raymond. 1939. Weather and plant-development data as determinants of grazing periods on mountain range. Tech. Bull. 686. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [694]

9. Cottam, W. P.; Stewart, George. 1940. Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862. Journal of Forestry. 38(8): 613-626. [696]

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. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1984. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 4. Subclass Asteridae, (except Asteraceae). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 573 p. [718]

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

13. 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]

14. 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]

15. Donart, Gary B. 1969. Carbohydrate reserves of six mountain range plants as related to growth. Journal of Range Management. 22(6): 411-415. [817]

16. Donart, Gary B.; Cook, C. Wayne. 1970. Carbohydrate reserve content of mountain range plants following defoliation and regrowth. Journal of Range Management. 23(1): 15-19. [818]

17. Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Robertson, Joseph H. 1978. Propagation of Nevada shrubs by stem cutting. Journal of Range Management. 31(6): 426-429. [894]

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

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. 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]

21. George, Melvin R.; McKell, C. M. 1978. Distribution of food reserves in snowberry (Symphoricarpus oreophilus). Journal of Range Management. 31(2): 101-104. [1008]

22. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]

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

24. Hironaka, M.; Fosberg, M. A.; Winward, A. H. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [1152]

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

26. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1983. Forest vegetation of the White River National Forest in western Colorado: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-249. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [1178]

27. Humphrey, L. David. 1984. Patterns and mechanisms of plant succession after fire on Artemisia-grass sites in southeastern Idaho. Vegetatio. 57: 91-101. [1214]

28. 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]

29. 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]

30. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371]

31. 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]

32. Kuntz, David Edward. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/ Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 73 p. Thesis. [1388]

33. 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]

34. Leckenby, Donavin A.; Sheehy, Dennis P.; Nellis, Carl H.; [and others]. 1982. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: mule deer. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p. [1432]

35. Lyon, L. Jack. 1971. Vegetal development following prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p. [1495]

36. McKell, Cyrus M. 1950. A study of plant succession in the oak brush (Quercus gambelii) zone after fire. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. 79 p. Thesis. [1608]

37. 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]

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

39. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1982. Aspen community types on the Caribou and Targhee National Forests in southeastern Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-294. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p. [1713]

40. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1986. Aspen community types of Utah. Res. Pap. INT-362. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 69 p. [1714]

41. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 p. [1731]

42. 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]

43. 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]

44. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Blaisdell, James P. 1954. Sagebrush burning good and bad. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [1859]

45. Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby, Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 174 p. [1878]

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

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

48. Schlatterer, Edward F. 1972. A preliminary description of plant communities found on the Sawtooth, White Cloud, Boulder and Pioneer Mountains. Unpublished report. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 111 p. [2076]

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

50. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation. Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 90 p. [2221]

51. Steele, Robert; Cooper, Stephen V.; Ondov, David M.; [and others]. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p. [2230]

52. 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]

53. Steele, Robert; Pfister, Robert D.; Ryker, Russell A.; Kittams, Jay A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 138 p. [2231]

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

55. 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]

56. 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]

57. Stickney, Peter F. 1999. [Memo to Keith Aleksoff]. September 1. 1 leaf. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. [30281]

58. Tisdale, E. W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [2344]

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

60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]

61. 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]

62. Vallentine, John F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. 516 p. [2414]

63. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

64. 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]

65. Willard, E. Earl. 1971. Some factors involved in activation of sprouting in little rabbitbrush and snowberry on summer range. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 116 p. Dissertation. [2565]

66. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]

67. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681]

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



FEIS Home Page