Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Chamaecyparis nootkatensis

Introductory

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Griffith, Randy Scott. 1992. Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. 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/ []. Revisions: 23 July 2013: Fargon and others 2002, Little and others 2004, and Flora of North America Editorial Committee 2013 citations added. ABBREVIATION : CHANOO SYNONYMS : Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Oerst. ex D.P. Little [62] Cupressus nookatensis D. Don. [61] Xanthocyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Farjon & Harder [63] SCS PLANT CODE : CHNO COMMON NAMES : Alaska-cedar Alaska cedar Alaska yellow-cedar Alaska yellowcedar yellow-cedar Alaska cypress Nootka cypress Nootka false-cypress Sitka cypress yellow cypress mountain cypress cypress TAXONOMY : The scientific name of Alaska-cedar is Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach. It is a member of the Cypress family (Cupressaceae) [32,64]. Alaska-cedar hybridizes with members of the genera Xanthocyparis and Cupressus. The hybrids are as follows [23,24,61]: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Xanthocyparis vietnamensis Cupressocyparis notabilis (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Cupressus glabra) Cupressocyparis ovensii (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Cupressus lusitanica) Cupressocyparis leylandii (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Cupressus macrocarpa) The Cupressocyparis hybrids have been extensively introduced in Great Britain [23]. LIFE FORM : Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Alaska-cedar is found in the Pacific Coast mountain ranges from south-central Alaska to southwestern Oregon with isolated groves in the Siskiyou Mountains of northern California [1,23,24].  The eastern edge of Alaska-cedar's range is defined by two disjunct populations:  one in the Selkirk Mountains of southeastern British Columbia [33] and one in the Aldrich Mountains of central Oregon [1]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES20  Douglas-fir    FRES22  Western white pine    FRES23  Fir - spruce    FRES24  Hemlock - Sitka spruce STATES :      AK  CA  OR  WA  BC BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :     1  Northern Pacific Border     2  Cascade Mountains     4  Sierra Mountains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    K001  Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest    K002  Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest    K003  Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest    K004  Fir - hemlock forest    K012  Douglas-fir forest    K015  Western spruce - fir forest SAF COVER TYPES :    205  Mountain hemlock    215  Western white pine    223  Sitka spruce    224  Western hemlock    225  Western hemlock - Sitka spruce    226  Coastal true fir - hemlock    227  Western redcedar - western hemlock    228  Western redcedar    229  Pacific Douglas-fir SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Alaska-cedar is listed as a dominant or codominant overstory species in the following publications: A preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska [55]. The forest communities of Mount Rainer National Park [17]. A preliminary classification of forest communities in the central   portion of the western Cascades in Oregon [9]. Preliminary plant associations of the southern Cascade Mountain Province [2]. Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province [3]. Vegetation and the environment in old growth forests of northern   southeast Alaska:  A plant association classification [44].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Alaska-cedar commands a high price for stumpage due to its fine texture, straight grain, durability, freedom from splitting and checking, resistance to acid, and excellent milling qualities [1,24,33,35].  The wood is used in window frames, doors, boat building, utility poles, marine pilings, cabinets [24,56], carving, and greenhouse construction [33]. Most of the harvested wood is exported to Japan where, because of its similar bright yellow color, it is used as a substitute for the rare hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa) [6]. The wood has an unusual and distinct "potato-like" odor [48]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Alaska-cedar is of minor importance to livestock and wildlife as browse. When densities of black-tailed deer are high, Alaska-cedar is browsed [51].  The Alaskan brown bear girdles the upslope side of the tree in the spring to feed on the phloem, which is high in sucrose [27]. PALATABILITY : Alaska-cedar browse is unpalatable to blue grouse [36]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : Alaska-cedar as a component of old-growth forests can provide critical thermal and hiding cover for large ungulates [22] and small mammals [58]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Alaska-cedar seedlings can be planted in the subalpine environment where disturbance is recurrent, for it is the only conifer capable of surviving on sites with frequent avalanches [15]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Native Americans used Alaska-cedar wood to produce bows [52], masks, bowls, and dishes.  The roots were split and used for the framework of baskets and hats [48]. Alaska-cedar is grown as an ornamental in North America and Europe [41]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : In southeast Alaska, Alaska-cedar is suffering from dieback that started around the turn of the century [28,30,31].  Most of the mortality has occurred in bog and semibog sites [28].  The search for a pathogen has been exhaustive with little results.  It now seems likely the cause is abiotic [28,30,31].  The most plausible hypothesis offered thus far is that of a warming trend that started in Alaska in the late 1800's which has decreased the snow pack [28].  Because Alaska-cedar has low frost resistance [40], the decreased snow pack renders the fine roots susceptible to frost damage.  This is the first sign of Alaska-cedar decline [28]. Alaska-cedar is relatively free of damaging agents due to chemical composition of the wood [24].  It is virtually rot-free, and the snags can persist for 100+ years [29].  Hennon [26] lists the 77 known fungi associated with Alaska-cedar. Clearcutting changes the species compostion of second-growth forests in the Western Hemlock Zone, increasing Alaska-cedar's percent composition [23].  The recommended silvicultural practice of cutting old-growth Alaska-cedar is clearcut with planting [60]. Plantation-grown Alaska-cedar has a growth rate comparable to that of Douglas-fir; this is much greater than natural regeneration of Alaska-cedar within its range [34]. Equations have been developed for Alaska-cedar based on growth percent as an estimation of future productivity on different soil types [54]. Hamilton [21] explored the response of Alaska-cedar to single-tree selection method, and he determined that Alaska-cedar will respond favorably to the method.

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Alaska-cedar is a native, evergreen, long-lived (as long as 3,500 years [16]), monoecious tree [1,24].  It is slow growing with a narrow crown; the twigs are four-angled [56].  The boles of mature trees have buttressed and fluted bases, and the bark is shreddy [33]. Alaska-cedar is a medium-sized tree, although at treeline it is reduced to a shrub.  It can obtain heights of 100 to 125 feet (30-38 m) with a d.b.h. as great as 12 feet (3.7 m) [24].  The root system is shallow with complex layering [24].  The leaves are scalelike and roughly 0.125 inch (0.32 cm) in length [1,46].  The stroboli are borne on the tips of branchlets.  The male strobili are yellow.  The female strobili are green, spherical, and 0.5 inch (1 cm) in diameter [23]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :    Ligneous Chamaephyte    Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Sexual:  The frequency of good seed crops is irregular (4 or more years) [59], and germination rates are low [35].  A germination rate of around 12 percent can be obtained with a warm stratification (30 days at 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit [20-30 deg C]) followed by a moist stratification (30 days at 40 degrees Fahrenheit [4 deg C]).  A tetrazolium stain has been recommended for a test of seed viability [23].  The seed are quite small with an average of 108,000 seeds per pound (240,000 seeds/kg) [23,24].  The seed can be stored dry at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 deg C) for 3 to 5 years [59].  Bower and others [5] recommend foliar application of gibberellin A3 to increase flowering and filled seed. From the parent tree the mean dissemination distance is about 400 feet (120 m) [24].  Germination is epigeal [24], and mineral soil or well decomposed organic matter are the preferred germination substrates [37]. Vegetative:  Alaska-cedar reproduces asexually by layering.  It layers readily under the deep, heavy coastal snowpacks [49].  Vegetative reproduction is the method of choice to meet the demands for containerized stock, due to the low germination rate and infrequent good seed crops [35].  Cuttings, treated with indolebutyric acid and potted in the greenhouse, were ready for planting in 1 year [24].  Clones have advantages over seedlings such as fewer multiple leaders and uniformity in size [35].  Karlsson [34] and Karlsson and Russell [35] provide in-depth information on age of the donor, clone survival, establishment, and planting guidelines. Preliminary results indicate that there is genetic variation between provenances for shoot growth; however, further testing is needed to establish transfer zones [6]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Alaska-cedar occurs in hypermaritime to submaritime, subalpine, boreal, and summer-wet, cool mesothermal climates [39].  It occurs from shoreline to treeline in the northern portion of its range but is restricted to higher elevations in the southern portion [24]. Elevation:  Elevational ranges for Alaska-cedar in several western states are as follows [24,49]:                         Feet                    Meters Alaska                  0 to 3,000              0 - 910 Washington and Oregon    2,000 to 7,500          600 - 2300 California              4,950 to 7,260          1,500 - 2,200 Soil:  Alaska-cedar has a strong affinity for deep, well-drained soils rich in calcium and magnesium, and derived from parent materials of andesite, diorite, gabbro, or basalt (Histosol and Spodosol soil orders) [24].  It also can be found on the poor, rocky soils of the alpine environment far above the limits of other conifers [1]. Associates:  In addition to those previously listed under Distribution and Occurrence, Alaska-cedar's overstory associates include California red fir (Abies magnifica), subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), Pacific silver fir (A. anabilis), noble fir (A. procera), Brewer spruce (Picea breweriana), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), shore pine (P. contorta), incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens), and Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) [24]. Understory associates include big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), Alaska blueberry (V. alaskaense), fool's huckleberry (Menziesia ferruginea), and copperbush (Cladathamnus pyroliflorus) [24]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Depending on the site, Alaska-cedar can be a long-lived seral species or a climax species [14,16].  In the subalpine environment it is the first tree species to become established, later forming large krummholz stands from layering [15].  Alaska-cedar is classified as shade tolerant; it will respond to 10 percent of full light and reach photosynthetic saturation at 60 percent [20]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Flowering of Alaska-cedar occurs progressively earlier in the spring as elevation decreases, suggesting that bud development is based on heat sums [5].  Alaska-cedar flowers from April to June depending on latitude and elevation [24].  The cones of trees in the southern portion of its range mature from September to October, and dispersal begins in October and lasts through spring.  In the northern portion of its range and in alpine environments, maturation of the cones is also based on heat sums, with 2- and 3-year reproductive cycles, respectively, being the norm [10].  In the northern portion of its range pollination of cones initiated the previous summer occurs from mid-April to late May; cones mature the following year [24].  The mature cones can be identified by their yellow-brown color [23].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Fire is not an important factor in Alaska-cedar's cool, wet habitats. Alaska-cedar's bark is thin and offers little protection from fire [1]. The fire regime of Alaska-cedar's habitats is one of long-interval (150 to 350+ years) severe crown or surface fires resulting in stand replacement [44]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    Tree without adventitious-bud root crown    Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : The immediate effect of a cool to hot fire on Alaska-cedar is damage to the cambium layer, usually resulting in the death of the tree [1]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : Fire resistance is rated as low for Alaska-cedar [49], although a few individuals will survive a cool fire [7,25]. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Alaska-cedar will invade a burned site via wind-dispersed seed from adjacent unburned forests [24]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : The burning of slash is controversial.  Fyles and others [18] recommend the burning of slash to improve access for planters, increase plantable sites, reduce brush competition, and reduce fire hazard; however, there is little information about the effects of slash burning on Alaska-cedar [12,38].  Feller [13] gives information on the effects of slashburning on nutrient loss (see Fire Case Study). After fire in the subalpine environment Alaska-cedar is slow to regenerate in the krummholz zone [8].

FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION : Griffith, Randy Scott, compiler. 1992. Fuel properties and slash-burning-induced nutrient losses in a western hemlock forest in British Columbia. In: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ []. REFERENCE : Feller, M. C. 1988. Relationships between fuel properties and slashburning induced nutrient losses. Forest Science. 34(4): 998-1015. [13]. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : The plots were burned on 10 different days in July, August, and September 1984 to incorporate a range of fuel moisture conditions. STUDY LOCATION : The prescribed fire took place on a clearcut area of the University of British Columbia's Research forest which is located approximately 24 miles (40 km) east of Vancouver, British Columbia.  The coordinates are 49 degrees 17 minutes N latitude, 122 degrees 35 minutes W longitude. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : The preburn community was a productive coastal western hemlock forest composed of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) that had been clearcut. TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : NO-ENTRY SITE DESCRIPTION : The study site was on a gentle, easterly slope at an elevation of 500 m (1,650 ft).  The climate of the area is marine, warm-temperate, rainy. The mean annual precipitation is from 87 to 138 inches (220-350 cm), which is received mainly in the form of rain.  The soil over most of the area was a Typic Haplorthod with a mor forest floor with a mean depth of 10 inches (26 cm). The area had been logged during a snow-free period using a high lead harvesting system.  After clearcutting the slash was sorted by species* into five diameter classes:                 (1)  < 1 cm                 (2)  1.1-3.0 cm                 (3)  3.1-5.0 cm                 (4)  5.1-7.0 cm                 (5)  > 7 cm *Alaska-cedar and western redcedar were combined and shall be henceforth referred to as cedar. The area was then divided into 50 2.25-square-meter plots that were greater than 0.5 meter apart.  These were slpit into 10 groups of 5 plots; within each group the plots were randomly assigned a species. Western hemlock slash had three fuel loadings (4.4, 9.9, 17.7 kg/m2) while cedar and Douglas-fir had one fuel loading (9.9 kg/m2).  Each plot received all size classes of slash.  Ten samples of slash were oven dried and used to determine prefire chemical and percent composition. FIRE DESCRIPTION : The fire was ignited on each plot using a strip of gasoline around the perimeter of the plot.  The five plots within a group were ignited separatly, but within minutes of each other. Atmospheric conditions and fuel moisture at the time of ignition of each fire were as follows:                 Temp.   Relative        Wind speed      Fine fuel                  C      Humidity        (km/hr)         moisture (%) July    17      23.8    68              7               15                        23      27.7    37              5               14         26      21.4    59              6               20         30      25.1    59              7               15 August   2      20.5    64              7               18         13      14.8    82              4               19         16      25.1    52              3               13         22      22.4    58              7               15 Sept.   14      22.2    49              5               32         26      15.3    64              4               20 Depth of burn into the forest floor (L, F, H layers combined) averaged 1.9 cm on the cedar plots, 1.6 cm on Douglas fir plots, and 1.8 on the western hemlock.  The total mean slash consumption per species in kilograms per square meter was 4.2, 3.3, and 3.6 for cedar, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock, respectively. FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : Cedar slash had the greatest depth of burn, which in turn ment greater losses of nutrients to the atmosphere.  The mean nutrient loss (grams per square meter) for seven elements from the three types of slash were as follows:                 N       P       S       K       Na      Mg      Ca Cedar           26.3    1.3     2.7     3.7     0.1     2.0     19.5 Douglas-fir     19.5    1.2     2.2     2.3     0.1     1.1     11.0 Western hemlock 20.9    0.2     2.3     1.0     0.1     0.9      3.8 FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : This study revealed that western hemlock/western redcedar/Alaska-cedar forests produce greater nutrient losses to the atmosphere when the slash composition has a greater proportion of Alaska-cedar and western redcedar.  One can expect smaller nutrient losses when western hemlock makes up the majority of the slash. Nutrient losses can be limited if the the forest floor and larger fuels are moist when burned.  This limits fuel consumption.  Also nutrient loss can be reduced by more complete utilization during harvest, thus reducing the slash load.

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
REFERENCES :  1.  Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle,        WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p.  [4208]  2.  Atzet, Thomas; McCrimmon, Lisa A. 1990. Preliminary plant associations        of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Province. Grants Pass, OR: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 330        p.  [12977]  3.  Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of        the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p.  [9351]  4.  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]  5.  Bower, R. C.; Ross, S. D.; Dunsworth, B. G. 1989. Effect of GA3        treatment timing in relation to natural day length on flowering and sex        expression in Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. Canadian Journal of Forest        Research. 19: 1422-1428.  [10044]  6.  Cherry, M. L.; Lester, D. T. 1992. Genetic variation in Chamaecyparis        nootkatensis from coastal British Columbia. Western Journal of Applied        Forestry. 7(1): 25-29.  [18313]  7.  Dale, Virginia H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1984. The        effect of disturbance frequency on forest succession in the Pacific        Northwest. In: New forests for a changing world: Proceedings of the 1983        convention of The Society of American Foresters; 1983 October 16-20;        Portland, OR. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 300-304.        [4781]  8.  Douglas, George W.; Ballard, T. M. 1971. Effects of fire on alpine plant        communities in the North Cascades, Washington. Ecology. 52(6):        1058-1064.  [6738]  9.  Dyrness, C. T.; Franklin, J. F.; Moir, W. H. 1974. A preliminary        classification of forest communities in the central portion of the        western Cascades in Oregon. Bulletin No. 4. Seattle, WA: University of        Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 123 p.        [8480] 10.  El-Kassaby, Y. A.; Maze, J.; MacLeod, D. A.; [and others]. 1991.        Reproductive-cycle plasticity in yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis        nootkatensis). Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1360-1364.        [16222] 11.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905] 12.  Feller, M. C. 1982. The ecological effects of slashburning with        particular reference to British Columbia: a literature review. Victoria,        BC: Ministry of Forests. 60 p.  [10470] 13.  Feller, M. C. 1988. Relationships between fuel properties and        slashburning induced nutrient losses. Forest Science. 34(4): 998-1015.        [3752] 14.  Franklin, Jerry Forest. 1966. Vegetation and soils in the subalpine        forests of the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pullman, WA:        Washington State University. 132 p. Thesis.  [10392] 15.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon        and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range        Experiment Station. 417 p.  [961] 16.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Hemstrom, Miles A. 1981. Aspects of succession in        the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. In: Forest succession:        concepts and application. New York: Springer-Verlag: 212-229.  [7931] 17.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; [and others].        1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park. Scientific        Monograph Series No 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        National Park Service. 194 p.  [12392] 18.  Fyles, J. W.; Fyles, I. H.; Beese, W. J.; Feller, M. C. 1991. Forest        floor characteristics and soil nitrogen availability on slash- burned        sites in coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.        21: 1516-1522.  [18312] 19.  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] 20.  Grossnickle, Steve C.; Russell, John H. 1991. Gas exchange processes of        yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) in response to environmental        variables. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69: 2684-2691.  [18343] 21.  Hamilton, Ronald C. 1991. Single-tree selection method: An uneven-aged        silviculture system. In: Genetics/silviculture workshop proceedings;        1990 August 27-31; Wenatchee, WA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Management Staff: 46-84.  [16562] 22.  Hanley, Thomas A.; Robbins, Charles T.; Spalinger, Donald E. 1989.        Forest habitats and the nutritional ecology of Sitka black-tailed deer:        a research synthesis with implications for forest management. Gen. Tech.        Rep. PNW-GTR-230. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.  [7509] 23.  Harris, A. S. 1974. Chamaecyparis Spach   white-cedar. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 316-320.  [7586] 24.  Harris, A. S. 1990. Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach        Alaska-cedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical        coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric.        Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service: 97-102.  [13373] 25.  Hemstrom, Miles A.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1982. Fire and other disturbances        of the forests in Mount Rainier National Park. Quaternary Research. 18:        32-51.  [6747] 26.  Hennon, P. E. 1990. Fungi on Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. Mycologia.        82(1): 59-66.  [13291] 27.  Hennon, P. E.; Hansen, E. M.; Shaw, C. G., III. 1990. Causes of basal        scars on Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska. Northwest        Science. 64(1): 45-54.  [11028] 28.  Hennon, P. E.; Hansen, E. M.; Shaw, C. G., III. 1990. Dynamics of        decline and mortality of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska.        Canadian Journal of Botany. 68: 651-662.  [10727] 29.  Hennon, P. E.; Loopstra, E. M. 1991. Persistence of western hemlock and        western red cedar trees 38 years after girdling at Cat Island in        southeast Alaska. Research Note PNW-RN-507. Portland, OR: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research        Station. 5 p.  [18341] 30.  Hennon, P. E.; Shaw, C. G., III; Hansen, E. M. 1990. Dating decline and        mortality of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska. Forest        Science. 36(3): 502-515.  [13011] 31.  Hennon, P. E.; Shaw, C. G., III; Hansen, E. M. 1990. Symptoms and fungal        associations of declining Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast        Alaska. Plant Disease. 74: 267-273.  [13292] 32.  Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific        Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p.  [1168] 33.  Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian        Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p.  [3375] 34.  Karlsson, Ingemar. 1982. Propagation of Alaska yellow cedar        (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis [D. Don] Spach.) by rooted cuttings for        production plantings. In: Combined Proceedings International Plant        Propagators Society; [Date of conference unknown]; Boulder, CO. Vol. 31.        [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 112-116.  [18762] 35.  Karlsson, Ingemar; Russell, John. 1990. Comparisons of yellow cypress        trees of seedling and rooted cutting origins after 9 and 11 years in the        field. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20: 37-41.  [11041] 36.  King, R. Dennis; Bendell, James F. 1982. Foods selected by blue grouse        (Dendragapus obscurus fuliginosus). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 60(12):        3268-3281.  [10169] 37.  Klinka, K.; Feller, M. C.; Green, R. N.; [and others]. 1990. Ecological        principles: applications. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C.        M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests.        Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 55-72.  [10710] 38.  Klinka, K.; Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Nuszdorfer, F. C. 1984. Site        diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the        Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No.        25. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 180        p.  [15448] 39.  Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator        plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British        Columbia Press. 288 p.  [10703] 40.  Krajina, V. J.; Klinka, K.; Worrall, J. 1982. Distribution and        ecological characteristics of trees and shrubs of British Columbia.        Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Department of Botany and        Faculty of Forestry. 131 p.  [6728] 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.  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] 44.  Martin, Jon Randall. 1989. Vegetation and environment in old growth        forests of northern southeast, Alaska: a plant association        classification. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 221 p. Thesis.        [18760] 45.  Parminter, John. 1991. Fire history and effects on vegetation in three        biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.;        Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and        cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990        March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest        Experiment Station: 263-272.  [16651] 46.  Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa        State College Press. 371 p.  [1913] 47.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 48.  Robuck, O. Wayne. 1985. The common plants of the muskegs of southeast        Alaska. Miscellaneous Publication/July 1985. Portland, OR: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 131 p.  [11556] 49.  Sawyer, John O.; Thornburgh, Dale A. 1977. Montane and subalpine        vegetation of the Klamath Mountains. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,        Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley &        Sons: 699-732.  [685] 50.  Scagel, Rob; Green, Bob; Von Hahn, Helmar; Evans, Richard. 1989.        Exploratory high elevation regeneration trials in the Vancouver forest        region: 10-year species performance of planted stock. FRDA Report 098.        Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 40 p.  [1477] 51.  Sullivan, T. P.; Harestad, A. S.; Wikeem, B. M. 1990. Control of mammal        damage. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others],        eds. Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University        of British Columbia Press: 302-318.  [10722] 52.  Turner, Nancy J. 1988. Ethnobotany of coniferous trees in Thompson and        Lillooet Interior Salish of British Columbia. Economic Botany. 42(2):        177-194.  [4542] 53.  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] 54.  Hees, Willem W. S. van. 1988. Timber productivity of seven forest        ecosystems in southeastern Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-391. Portland, OR:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Research Station. 10 p.  [7877] 55.  Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The        Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland,        OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Research Station. 278 p.  [2431] 56.  Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and        shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p.  [6884] 57.  Vitt, Dale H.; Horton, Diana G.; Slack, Nancy G.; Malmer, Nils. 1990.        Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of the hyperoceanic British Columbia coast:        patterns in surface water chemistry and vegetation. Canadian Journal of        Forestry Research. 20: 696-711.  [11739] 58.  Walters, Bradley B. 1991. Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest        and clearcuts. Northwest Science. 65(1): 27-31.  [15155] 59.  Wang, B. S. P. 1974. Tree-seed storage. Publication No. 1335. Ottawa,        Canada: Department of the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service. 32 p.        [17267] 60.  Weetman, G.; Vyse, A. 1990. Natural regeneration. In: Lavender, D. P.;        Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British        Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press:        118-129.  [10711] 61.  Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A.  1999. Synthesis of the North        American flora (Windows Version 1.0).  [36715] 62.  Little, Damon P.; Schwarzbach, Andrea E.; Adams, Robert P.; Hsieh, Chang-Fu.         2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationship of Callitropsis and        the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae).  American Journal of Botany. 91: 1872-1881. [62352] 63.  Farjon, A.; Hiep, Nguyen Tien; Harder, D. K.; Loc, Phan Ke; Averyanov, L.  2002.        A new genus and species in the Cupressaceae (Coniferales) from northern Vietnam,        Xanthocyparis vietnamensis. Novon. 12: 179-189. [62863] 64.  Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2013. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]


FEIS Home Page