Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Quercus coccinea

Introductory

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Carey, Jennifer H. 1992. Quercus coccinea. 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 : QUECOC SYNONYMS : Quercus richteri Baenitz SCS PLANT CODE : QUCO2 COMMON NAMES : scarlet oak Spanish oak TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of scarlet oak is Quercus coccinea Muenchh. (Fagaceae)[24,30]. Scarlet oak has been placed within the the subgenus Erythrobalanus, or red (black) oak group [20]. A rarely recognized variety, Quercus coccinea var. tuberculata Sarg., is distinguished by thickened tuberculate scales of the cup [5]. Scarlet oak hybridizes with the following species [24,30]: x Q. ilicifolia (bear oak): Q. X robbinsii Trel. x Q. velutina (black oak): Q. X fontana Laughlin x Q. palustris (pin oak) LIFE FORM : Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : In Maine's Official List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, scarlet oak is listed under the administrative category, Special Concern-Possibly Extirpated [13].


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Scarlet oak is distributed from southwestern Maine west to New York, Ohio, southern Michigan and Indiana; south to southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri, and central Mississippi; east to southern Alabama and southwestern Georgia; and north along the western edge of the Atlantic Coastal Plain to the Virginia Coast.  Scarlet oak is abundant in the Piedmont and in the Appalachian Mountains [24,30]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES10  White - red - jack pine    FRES13  Loblolly - shortleaf pine    FRES14  Oak - pine    FRES15  Oak - hickory STATES :      AL  CT  DE  GA  IL  IN  KY  ME  MD  MA      MI  MS  MO  NH  NJ  NY  NC  OH  PA  RI      SC  TN  VA  VT  WV BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : NO-ENTRY KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    K095  Great Lakes pine forest    K100  Oak - hickory forest    K104  Appalachian oak forest    K110  Northeastern oak - pine forest    K111  Oak - hickory - pine forest SAF COVER TYPES :     14  Northern pin oak     40  Post oak - blackjack oak     43  Bear oak     44  Chestnut oak     45  Pitch pine     51  White pine - chestnut oak     52  White oak - black oak - northern red oak     53  White oak     75  Shortleaf pine     76  Shortleaf pine - oak     78  Virginia pine - oak     79  Virginia pine     82  Loblolly pine - hardwood    110  Black oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Scarlet oak is a common component of many eastern and central dry upland forests.  Nearly pure stands of scarlet oak grow in areas of the Ozark Plateau in Missouri [24].  A chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)-scarlet oak variant of the chestnut oak SAF cover type is found on upper slopes and ridges in the central Appalachians.  Scarlet oak is also prominent in several variants of the white oak (Q. alba)-black oak (Q. velutina)-northern red oak (Q. rubra) SAF cover type [14]. At middle and lower elevations in the Appalachian Mountains, scarlet oak is often a major component of pine (Pinus spp.) forests and pine heaths [61].  Scarlet oak constitutes an important component of the subcanopy and canopy layers of Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens) forest [62]. The following published classifications list scarlet oak as a codominant species: Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains [61] Old growth forests within the Piedmont of South Carolina [25]

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Although scarlet oak wood is of inferior grade, it is cut and utilized with other red oaks as red oak lumber [20]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Scarlet oak acorns are an important food source for numerous upland wildlife species including squirrels, chipmunks, mice, wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, blue jays, and woodpeckers [24].  White-tailed deer occasionally browse young oak sprouts.  The deer only take the top few inches of the sprout unless it is extremely succulent or other food is scarce [33]. Small mammals and birds use scarlet oak for nesting sites, both in the canopy and in cavities [2,56].  PALATABILITY : The sprouts of scarlet oak are more palatable to white-tailed deer than the sprouts of bear oak [34]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Scarlet oak acorns are on average 14.6 percent crude fat, 35.6 percent total carbohydrates, 4.2 percent total protein, 0.18 percent calcium, 0.07 percent phosphorus, and 0.07 percent magnesium [4]. COVER VALUE : NO-ENTRY VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : Scarlet oak is widely planted in the United States and Europe as a shade tree and ornamental.  It has brilliant red foliage in autumn [24]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Forest managers have noticed a decrease in upland oak frequency in newly regenerated stands after clearcutting, especially on good sites.  The reason for the decrease is the inability of oak seedlings to compete successfully with late successional, fast-growing species that have invaded the oak forest understory in the absence of fire [51]. Oak seedlings that are occasionally top-killed will sprout from the stump.  These sprouts, known as advance regeneration, have well-developed root systems.  They grow faster than true seedlings and are better able to compete successfully.  To regenerate upland oaks successfully, advance regeneration must be 4 to 5 feet (1.2-1.5 m) tall before the overstory is removed.  Regeneration of a mixed oak forest after clearcutting can be successful only if there are adequate numbers of older advance regeneration or saplings [51].  Sanders [50] recommends there be at least 433 well-distributed oak sprouts and saplings per acre (1,070/ha).  Otherwise, a shelterwood silviculture system is needed to give oak regeneration time and partial light to grow [24,51,59].  For best results, the shelterwood cut should leave a 60 to 70 percent stocking density.  All nonoak stems in the understory larger than 4 to 6 feet (1.2-1.8 m) tall should be killed [51]. The season of clearcutting appears to have an effect on the regeneration of upland oaks stands.  On medium quality sites in south-central Ohio, upland oaks (chestnut, scarlet, black and white) were more favored over mixed hardwoods after summer clearcutting than after winter clearcutting.  The season of harvest (dormant season versus growing season) did not affect regeneration on good sites [59]. Site quality affects the ability of upland oaks to regenerate.  In the above study in south-central Ohio, medium quality sites had higher absolute and relative oak densities 18 to 20 years after clearcutting than did good sites.  The oaks showed good early establishment on both medium and good sites but were later unable to compete with the faster growing, mesic hardwoods on good sites [59]. Information on storage, seeding, and planting techniques for upland oaks is detailed [49].  A method for increasing the growth rate of northern red oak seedlings in nurseries has been developed and may be applicable to scarlet oak [55]. Once scarlet oak stands are established, thinning increases the growth rate of remaining trees.  Thirty-two-year-old scarlet oaks showed 12 years of increased differential diameter growth beginning 6 to 7 years after thinning.  The reason for the delayed response is unknown [10]. Information on thinning, stocking, growth and yields of upland oaks is detailed [18].  Thinning upland oak stands to retain the best acorn producers for wildlife habitat enhancement did not improve acorn yields enough to justify the efforts [13]. Scarlet oak is susceptible to a number of insects and diseases.  Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), an introduced species, defoliates scarlet oak, and successive defoliations can kill a tree.  Other insects that defoliate scarlet oak include oak leaftier (Croesia semipurpurana), fall cankerworm (Alsophila pometaria), forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria), and walkingstick (Diapheromera femorata).  Insects that bore into the trunk include twolined chestnut borer (Agrilus bilineatus), red oak borer (Enaphalodes rufulus), oak timberworm (Arrhenodes minutus), Ambrosia beetles (Platypus spp. and Xyleborus spp.), and the larvae of carpenterworms (Prionoxystus spp.).  Egg-laying activity of the gouty oak gall wasp (Callirhytis quercuepuntata) results in galls on smaller twigs and limbs, and the oak-apple gall wasp (Amphibolips confluenta) causes gall growth on leaves and petioles.  Black carpenter ants (Camponotus pennsylvanicus) sometimes nest in standing trees [24]. Scarlet oak is susceptible to oak wilt caused by the fungus Cerotocystis fagacearum, and infected trees may die within 1 month.  Cankers are caused by Nectria spp. and Strummella coryneoidea.  Fungi, such as Stereum gausapatum, cause heart rot and enter the bole through branch stubs and fire wounds.  Scarlet oak does not self-prune well, and old branch stubs facilitate fungi entry [24].  Pruning a scarlet oak stand results in better timber quality [7].  Sprouts are susceptible to heart rot; sprouts from large diameter stumps are more susceptible than those from small diameter stumps [24]. Scarlet oaks that are stressed from drought, gypsy moth defoliation, spring frost defoliation, old age, fire, poor site conditions, or other factors often succumb to secondary agents such as twolined chestnut borer and shoestring root rot (Armillaria mellea).  This scenario, in which a primary agent stresses the tree and a secondary agent kills it, is known as "oak decline" and is responsible for considerable scarlet oak mortality.  For instance, from 1968 to 1972, 27 percent of scarlet oak in the Newark Watershed in New Jersey died from gypsy moth defoliation followed by twolined chestnut borer and shoestring root rot attack [42].  Based on site factors, a general stand classification of mortality risk from oak decline has been developed [53]. Herbicides have been used to control scarlet oak on sites where pine regeneration is desired.  In order to convert a North Carolina Appalachian site to white pine (Pinus strobus), picloram was applied in May as 10 percent acid equivalent pellets at the rate of 4.5 pounds acid equivalent per acre (5.0 kg ae/ha).  One year later, 19 percent of the scarlet oaks showed complete crown kill or defoliation; 72 percent showed leaf curling, crown biomass reduction, and/or chlorosis; and 9 percent exhibited no effect from the herbicide treatment [44]. In Georgia, three herbicides were tested on scarlet oak.  Each tree received one incision for every 3 inches (7.6 cm) in d.b.h.; each incision was injected with 0.06 ounces (2 ml) of herbicide.  One year after injection, scarlet oaks injected with Arsenal at two different concentrations (1 and 2 pounds AC 252,925 per gallon [120 and 240 g/l]) had 100 percent top-kill and no sprouting.  Garlon 3A (1.5 pounds triclopyr per gallon [180 g/l]) resulted in 50 percent top-kill. Scarlet oak injected with 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid at two concentrations (1.5 and 3 pounds XRM-3972 per gallon [180 and 360 g/l]) resulted in 0 percent and 20 percent top-kill, respectively [41]. When managing forests for cavity-nesting species, scarlet oak should be selected over hickories (Carya spp.) and white oak because of its high number of cavities.  In southeastern Missouri, 21.2 percent of scarlet oaks had cavities.  The average d.b.h. of cavity trees was 12.2 inches (31.0 cm) with bigger trees having larger cavities [2].  In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, dead standing scarlet oak decays at a rate of 5.7 percent per year [21].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Scarlet oak is a medium-sized, monoecious, native, deciduous tree with an open, rounded crown [24,43].  At maturity, scarlet oak is usually 60 to 80 feet (18-24 m) tall and 24 to 36 inches (61-91 cm) in d.b.h., but it can reach a maximum size of 100 feet (30 m) in height and 48 inches (122 cm) in d.b.h. on good sites.  Seedlings have a strong taproot and relatively few lateral roots.  Scarlet oak is one of the fastest growing upland oak species [24] and is short-lived [38]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :       Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Sexual:  Seed production begins when the tree is about 20 years old, with maximum production occurring after 50 years of age.  Seed production is irregular and unpredictable, but good crops generally occur every 3 to 5 years [24].  Seeds are disseminated by animals and gravity. Germination is hypogeal.  A light covering of forest litter is ideal for germination [24].  In oak-pine forests in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, scarlet oak seedlings occurred more frequently in areas with moss-lichen cover and shallow litter layers than in areas with deep litter.  The mean litter depth of 1-year-old seedlings was 0.9 inch (2.2 cm) [7].  In another study, the density of scarlet oak seedlings was negatively correlated with deep litter coverage on some sites.  However, this negative correlation may be related to light availability because more litter accumulated near shrubs [39]. A moderately open overstory canopy provides a favorable environment for germination [24].  In the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, scarlet oak seedlings occurred on sites with a higher percent (37.6) of full sun than did chestnut oak or white oak.  In addition, scarlet oak seedlings occurred on sites with less competition, determined by distance to closest neighbor in the ground layer.  However, because acorns have large energy reserves, 1-year-old seedlings may not be highly site specific [7]. Vegetative:  If top-killed, scarlet oak sprouts from dormant buds at or above the root crown.  Nearly 100 percent of stumps smaller than 4 inches (10 cm) in d.b.h. sprout, and about 18 percent of trees 24 inches (61 cm) in d.b.h. sprout [24].  In a study on the Virginia Piedmont, the season of harvest did not affect the the sprouting frequency of scarlet oak stumps [27]. Scarlet oak stumps initially produce large numbers of sprouts [24], but over time, sprout clumps tend towards the survival of one or two stems. In one study, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 35 years after cutting, the average number of sprouts per stump was 9.0, 4.6, 2.7, 1.9, 1.5, and 1.3, respectively [40].  Between the ages 4 and 8, stem-to-stem competition within a scarlet oak clump is a more dominating interaction than competition between clumps [8]. Scarlet oak sprouts grow faster in the first 5 years than the sprouts of most associated oak species, but height growth falls off rapidly after 20 years [24].  The sprouts concentrate on stem growth during the first and second growth flushes.  A third flush does not show nearly as much growth which may be because this species is adapted to xeric sites where moisture stress limits growth later in the growing season [57]. Juveniles often die back and sprout numerous times, thus becoming advance regeneration.  Seedling sprouts grow faster than seedlings, with the sprout growth rate dependent on the thickness of the stem [24]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Scarlet oak, an upland xerophytic species, commonly occurs on ridges and slopes in hilly to mountainous terrain.  It occurs up to 5,000 feet (1,520 m) in the southern Appalachian Mountains but is most common below 3,000 feet (910 m) [24].  In the Smoky Mountains, scarlet oak is most frequent in middle and lower slope positions centered around 2,500 feet (760 m) in elevation [61].  Scarlet oak will also grow in valley sites on generally coarser soils than white oak [46]. Scarlet oak grows in a wide variety of soils, but especially in dry sandy or gravelly soils [20,24].  It is most common on lower quality sites [56].  In 51 upland hardwood stands on the Virginia Piedmont, scarlet oak was significantly associated with low soil clay content (p<0.05), low soil calcium (p<0.01), low soil magnesium (p<0.05), and low pH (p<0.05) [15]. Common small tree and shrub associates of scarlet oak not mentioned in Distribution and Occurrence include sassafras (Sassafras albidum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), sumacs (Rhus spp.), hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), greenbriers (Smilax spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), and huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.). Mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia) is an associate on very dry sites [24,56]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Scarlet oak is intolerant of shade [24].  Seeds can germinate in the shade, but seedlings do not exhibit long-term survival or growth under a closed canopy [11].  Scarlet oak is usually found in dominant and codominant positions, since suppressed individuals eventually die [24]. Scarlet oak tends to be better represented in forests with a history of disturbance such as fire, logging, grazing, or disease [24,38].  In a study of long-term forest composition in North Carolina, scarlet oak regeneration was low for over 30 years, suggesting population recruitment of this species is episodic and probably dependent on disturbance.  In the absence of disturbance, codominant scarlet oak declines in importance in mixed oak stands [47]. Scarlet oak may be climax on dry sites with adequate light because of its drought tolerance [24].  Little [32] suggests mixed oak forests of black, white, chestnut, and scarlet oaks may represent a physiographic climax association on upland sites in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Scarlet oak flowers in April or May, depending on latitude, elevation, and weather.  Acorns mature in two growing seasons.  They ripen and drop in the fall and germinate in the spring [24].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : The fire resistance of scarlet oak is rated as low.  It has thin bark, and even low severity surface fires can result in severe basal damage and high mortality.  Top-killed scarlet oaks sprout vigorously from the root crown after fire [24]. A thick litter covering is unfavorable for scarlet oak acorn germination [24].  Fire removes litter and may facilitate scarlet oak regeneration [39].  However, no study documenting increased scarlet oak regeneration from seed after fire was found in the literature.  The primary mode of regeneration after fire appears to be sprouting. The prevalent presettlement upland oak forests in the eastern and central United States were associated with recurring fire.  These forests probably burned at an intermediate frequency (50 to 100 year intervals), which promoted the dominance and stability of oak [1]. Oak-hickory forests are not usually conducive to high-severity fires, but surface fires are easily ignited and spread rapidly under favorable conditions [9].  In the absence of fire or other disturbance, the short-lived scarlet oak is replaced by later successional species. Periodic fire opens the canopy and provides an opportunity for upland oaks to regenerate and maintain dominance [1].  Fifty-five years after a late summer fire in south-central Connecticut, a burned area had higher absolute and relative amounts of oak (scarlet, black, white, chestnut, and northern red) than an adjacent unburned area [60]. In Missouri, nearly all trees were top-killed after a spring fire in a 23-year-old white oak-black oak-hickory stand in which 79 percent of the stems larger than 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) in d.b.h. were oak and hickory. Ten years later, 64 percent of the stems were oak and hickory, indicating that a stand can replace itself.  Scarlet oak increased from a prefire density of 253 stems per acre (625 stems/ha) to a postfire density of 329 stems per acre (813 stems/ha).  Scarlet oak basal area decreased from (2.7 m sq/ha) prefire to (0.6 m sq/ha) postfire. However, scarlet oak maintained its position as the third most frequent overstory species behind white oak and black oak.  New stems were primarily from basal sprouting [37]. Scarlet oak is restricted from the pine-scrub oak communities of the New Jersey Pine Barrens because it does not produce viable seed at a young enough age to become established in areas that burn every 8 to 12 years [31,32].  In the Pine Barrens, scarlet oak is usually restricted to the later successional forests along with white, black, and chestnut oaks [19]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/root sucker    Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Small scarlet oak are easily top-killed by low-severity surface fires, and larger scarlet oak may suffer severe basal damage [24].  Scarlet oak is less resistant to basal injury than black oak, white oak, or chestnut oak.  Scarlet oak is often severely wounded even when the area of discolored bark is comparatively small.  Fire wounds often extend far beyond the region of bark discoloration [45]. Because bark thickens with age, the longer the fire interval, the greater the chance a thin-barked species will develop bark thick enough to protect it from a low-severity surface fire.  Scarlet oak is reduced in number by short-interval fires because of its thin bark and slow growth [22]. Almost all scarlet oak in a 23-year-old mixed oak-hickory stand in Missouri were top-killed by a spring fire [37]. Acorns cannot withstand the amount of heat usually generated in leaf litter fires [28].  Acorns buried in the soil by animals may survive, although documentation of this possibility with respect to scarlet oak was not found in the literature. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Scarlet oak individuals, including seedlings, sprout from the root crown when top-killed.  Individuals that survive fire often have basal fire wounds. Fire-wounded scarlet oaks sometime suffer a reduction in the rate of diameter growth.  A severe fire in the Bent Creek Experimental Forest in North Carolina resulted in larger reductions in growth than a moderate-severity fire.  While unwounded scarlet oaks grew on average of 0.20 inch per year (0.50 cm/yr) in diameter, scarlet oak with 1 to 25 percent, 25 to 50 percent, and more than 50 percent of the base wounded grew 0.17 inch per year (0.43 cm/yr), 0.14 inch per year (0.36 cm/yr), and 0.09 inch per year (0.23 cm/y), respectively [23]. The mortality of oak trees from fire is often delayed.  Six months after two surface fires of different severity in southern New York, living butt-scorched trees (larger than 1 inch [2.5 cm] in d.b.h.) were tagged for future study.  In the less severely burned area, 23 percent of the tagged scarlet oak were dead 1.5 years after the fire.  Smaller diameter trees, especially those less than 5 inches (12.7 cm), had the highest mortality.  In the other area that burned more severely because of a dense understory of mountain-laurel, 100 percent of the tagged scarlet oaks were dead 1.5 years after the fire.  The authors concluded that at least one postfire growing season must elapse before fire damage to oaks can be accurately determined [54]. The density of scarlet oak stems generally increases after fire because of sprouting.  Two growing seasons after two annual fires in an oak-pine stand in the Cumberland Plateau in Kentucky, scarlet oak and black oak stems increased from a prefire density of approximately 1,250 stems per acre (3,090 stems/ha) to a postfire density of approximately 1,750 stems per acre (4,320 stems/ha) [63]. If high fire frequency is continued, however, scarlet oak density will eventually decrease as rootstocks weaken and die.  After 27 years of annual burning in a Tennessee upland oak forest, both overstory and understory stem densities of scarlet oak were considerably reduced [11].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed
fire use and postfire response of plant community species, including scarlet
oak, that was not available when this species review was originally
written:
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Prescribed fire is often used to control hardwoods and promote
establishment of pine.  In a study on the South Carolina Piedmont,
spring felling of leafed-out residual oaks (scarlet, chestnut, and
black) followed by summer burning produced greater reductions of
dominant sprout height and sprout clump crown diameters at the end of
the first postfire growing season than did winter felling followed by
summer broadcast burning.  Spring felling was probably more effective
because carbohydrate root reserves are low after leaves emerge [17].

Because of the prolific sprouting of scarlet oak, prescribed burning
without additional use of herbicides or mechanical removal may not
adequately control this species.  Prescribed burning is not recommended
for hardwood control, including scarlet oak, for shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata) regeneration on the Cumberland Plateau in Kentucky [63].

Equations have been developed to estimate the fire-caused mortality of
scarlet oak.  In order to predict mortality, a manager needs to know the
tree d.b.h., the height of bark blackening, the width of bark blackening
1 foot (0.3 m) above the ground, and the season of fire.  The equation
should be applied to trees between 3 and 16 inches (7.6-40.6 cm) in
d.b.h. [35].  Equations have also been developed to predict lumber value
losses due to fire wounding of scarlet oak [36].  An equation has been
developed to predict the size of a fire wound on a scarlet oak from the
area of the exterior discolored bark and the diameter of the damaged
tree [45].

Scarlet oak is a preferred species for shelterbelts around farms and
houses to protect them from fire in open country.  The row of trees
reduces wind velocity, filters out air borne debris, slows ground fires,
and readily regenerates after fire [52].

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Quercus coccinea
REFERENCES :  1.  Abrams, Marc D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests.        BioScience. 42(5): 346-353.  [19215]  2.  Allen, Arthur W.; Corn, Janelle G. 1990. Relationships between live tree        diameter and cavity abundance in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. Northern        Journal of Applied Forestry. 7: 179-183.  [13504]  3.  Bonner, F. T.; Vozzo, J. A. 1987. Seed biology and technology of        Quercus. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-66. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p.        [3248]  4.  Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State        University Press. 362 p.  [12914]  5.  Brown, Arthur A.; Davis, Kenneth P. 1973. Forest fire control and use.        2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 686 p.  [15993]  6.  Burns, Paul Y.; Nichols, J. Milford. 1952. Oak pruning in the Missouri        Ozarks. University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin.        581(Apr): 1-8.  [10156]  7.  Collins, Scott L.; Good, Ralph E. 1987. The seedling regeneration niche:        habitat structure of tree seedlings in an oak-pine forest. Oikos. 48:        89-98.  [8637]  8.  Cook, James E. 1990. Degree of competition and integration in one- to        eight-year-old scarlet and chestnut oak sprout clumps. In: Van Sambeek,        J. W.; Larson, M. M., eds. Proceedings, 4th workshop on seedling        physiology and growth problems in oak plantings; 1989 March 1-2;        Columbus, OH. (Abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-139. St. Paul, MN: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest        Experiment Station: 29. Abstract.  [13156]  9.  Crosby, John S.; Loomis, Robert M. 1974. Some forest floor fuelbed        characteristics of black oak stands in southeast Missouri. NC-162. St.        Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central        Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.  [8153] 10.  Cutter, Bruce E.; Lowell, Kim E.; Dwyer, John P. 1991. Thinning effects        on diameter growth in black and scarlet oak as shown by tree ring        analyses. Forest Ecology and Management. 43: 1-13.  [16684] 11.  DeSelm, Hal R.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Rennie, John C. 1991. Effects of        27 years of prescribed fire on an oak forest and its soils in middle        Tennessee. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compiler.        Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference:        Vol. 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep.        SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 409-417.  [17488] 12.  Dibble, Alison C.; Campbell, Christopher S.; Tyler, Harry R., Jr.;        Vickery, Barbara St. J. 1989. Maine's official list of endangered and        threatened plants. Rhodora. 91(867): 244-269.  [4258] 13.  Drake, William E. 1991. Evaluation of an approach to improve acorn        production during thinning. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt        W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March        4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest        Experiment Station: 429-441.  [15328] 14.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905] 15.  Farrell, John D.; Ware, Stewart. 1991. Edaphic factors and forest        vegetation in the piedmont of Virgina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical        Club. 118(2): 161-169.  [15694] 16.  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] 17.  Geisinger, Donn R.; Waldrop, Thomas A.; Haymond, Jacqueline L.; Van        Lear, David H. 1989. Sprout growth following winter and spring felling        with and without summer broadcast burning. In: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed.        Proceedings of pine-hardwood mixtures: a symposium on management and        ecology of the type; 1989 April 18-19; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep.        SE-58. Asheville, SC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 91-95.  [10262] 18.  Gingrich, Samuel F. 1971. Stocking, growth, and yield of oak stands. In:        Oak symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper        Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern        Forest Experiment Station: 65-73.  [9085] 19.  Givnish, Thomas J. 1981. Serotiny, geography, and fire in the pine        barrens of New Jersey. Evolution. 35(1): 101-123.  [8634] 20.  Harlow, William M.; Harrar, Ellwood S., White, F. M. 1979. Textbook of        dendrology. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 510 p.  [18070] 21.  Harmon, Mark E. 1982. Decomposition of standing dead trees in the        southern Appalachian Mountains. Oecologia. 52: 214-215.  [13735] 22.  Harmon, Mark E. 1984. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface        fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology. 65(3): 796-802.        [10997] 23.  Jemison, George M. 1944. The effect of basal wounding by forest fires on        the diameter growth of some southern appalachian hardwoods. Bulletin 9.        Durham, NC: Duke University, School of Forestry. 63 p.  [8716] 24.  Johnson, Paul S. 1990. Quercus coccinea Muenchh.  scarlet oak. In:        Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North        America. Vol. 2, Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 625-630.  [19373] 25.  Jones, Steven M. 1988. Old-growth forests within the Piedmont of South        Carolina. Natural Areas Journal. 8(1): 31-37.  [11008] 26.  Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of        the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume        II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North        Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie        Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p.  [6954] 27.  Dieterich, John H. 1983. Fire history of southwestern mixed conifer: a        case study. Forest Ecology. 6: 13-31.  [5242] 28.  Korstian, C. F. 1927. Factors controlling germination and early survival        of oaks. Bull. No. 19. New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of        Forestry. 115 p.  [19369] 29.  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] 30.  Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native        and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p.  [2952] 31.  Little, S. 1964. Fire ecology and forest management in the New Jersey        pine region. In: Proceedings, 3rd annual Tall Timbers fire ecology        conference; 1964 April 9-10; Tallahassee, FL. No. 3. Tallahassee, FL:        Tall Timbers Research Station: 35-59.  [5893] 32.  Martin, S. Clark. 1980. Mesquite. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover        types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of        American Foresters: 118.  [9858] 33.  Little, Silas; Moorhead, George R.; Somes, Horace A. 1958. Forestry and        deer in the Pine Region of New Jersey. Station Pap. No. 109. Upper        Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern        Forest Experiment Station. 33 p.  [11681] 34.  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] 35.  Loomis, Robert M. 1973. Estimating fire-caused mortality and injury in        oak-hickory forests. Res. Pap. NC-94. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 6        p.  [8740] 36.  Loomis, Robert M. 1974. Predicting the losses in sawtimber volume and        quality from fires in oak-hickory forests. NC-104. St. Paul, MN: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest        Experiment Station. 6 p.  [8712] 37.  Loomis, Robert M. 1977. Wildfire effects on an oak-hickory forest in        southeast Missouri. Res. Note NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4        p.  [8738] 38.  Martin, William H. 1992. Characteristics of old-growth mesophytic        forests. Natural Areas Journal. 12(3): 127-135.  [19371] 39.  Matlack, G. R.; Good, R. E. 1989. Plant-scale pattern among herbs and        shrubs of a fire-dominated coastal plain forest. Vegetatio. 82: 95-103.        [9829] 40.  McIntyre, A. C. 1936. Sprout groups and their relation to the oak        forests of Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry. 34: 1054-1058.  [10086] 41.  Michael, J. L. 1985. Hardwood control by injection with two new        chemicals. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. 38:        164-167.  [12687] 42.  Millers, Imants; Shriner, David S.; Rizzo, David. 1989. History of        hardwood decline in the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-126.        Bromall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 75 p.  [10925] 43.  National Arbor Day Foundation. 1992. Scarlet oak. Arbor Day. Sept/Oct:        8.  [19370] 44.  Neary, D. G.; Douglass, J. E.; Ruehle, J. L.; Fox, W. 1984. Converting        rhododendron-laurel thickets to white pine with picloram and        mycorrhizae-inoculated seedlings. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.        8(3): 163-168.  [10697] 45.  Nelson, Ralph M.; Sims, Ivan H.; Abell, Margaret S. 1933. Basal fire        wounds on some southern Appalachian hardwoods. Journal of Forestry. 31:        829-837.  [160] 46.  Nowacki, Gregory J.; Abrams, Marc D. 1991. Community and edaphic        analysis of mixed oak forests in the Ridge and Valley Province of        central Pennsylvania. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds.        Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6;        University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department        of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station:        247-260.  [15315] 47.  Phillips, Donald L.; Murdy, William H. 1985. Effects of Rhododendron        (Rhododendron maximum L.) on regeneration of southern Appalachian        hardwoods. Forest Science. 31(1): 226-233.  [19372] 48.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 49.  Russell, T. E. 1971. Seeding and planting upland oaks. In: Oak        symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby,        PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest        Experiment Station: 49-54.  [9082] 50.  Sander, Ivan L. 1977. Manager's handbook for oaks in the North Central        States. Gen. Tech. Rep NC-37. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 35        p.  [11002] 51.  Sander, Ivan L. 1988. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian oak        stands. In: Smith, H. Clay; Perkey, Arlyn W.; Kidd, William E., Jr.,        eds. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands: Workshop        proceedings; 1988 May 24-26; Morgantown, WV. SAF Publ. 88-03.        Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Books: 189-198.  [13945] 52.  Simpfendorfer, K. J. 1989. Trees, farms and fires. Land and Forests        Bulletin No. 30. Victoria, Australia: Department of Conservation,        Forests and Lands, Lands and Forests Division. 55 p.  [10649] 53.  Starkey, Dale A.; Oak, Steven W. 1989. Site factors and stand conditions        associated with oak decline in Southern upland hardwood forests. In:        Rink, George; Budelsky, Carl A., eds. Proceedings, 7th central hardwood        conference; 1989 March 5-8; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-132. St.        Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central        Forest Experiment Station: 95-102.  [9372] 54.  Stickel, Paul W. 1935. Forest fire damage studies in the Northeast. II.        First-year mortality in burned-over oak stands. Journal of Forestry. 33:        595-598.  [18764] 55.  Struve, Daniel K. 1990. Red oak whip production in containers. In: Van        Sambeek, J. W.; Larson, M. M., eds. Proceedings, 4th workshop on        seedling physiology and growth problems in oak plantings; 1989 March        1-2; Columbus, OH. (Abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-139. St. Paul, MN:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest        Experiment Station: 17. Abstract.  [13144] 56.  Trimble, George R., Jr.; Patric, James H.; Gill, John D.; [and others].        1974. Some options for managing forest land in the central Appalachians.        Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-12. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 42 p.  [13545] 57.  Tworkoski, T. J.; Ross, M. S.; Hopper, G. M. 1990. Analysis of chestnut        and scarlet oak stump growth. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20:        112-116.  [11125] 58.  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] 59.  Ward, Jeffery S.; Heiligmann, Randall B. 1990. Effects of site quality        and season of clearcutting on hardwood regeneration in Ohio. Northern        Journal of Applied Forestry. 7: 69-72.  [11879] 60.  Ward, Jeffrey S.; Stephens, George R. 1989. Long-term effects of a 1932        surface fire on stand structure in a Connecticut mixed hardwood forest.        In: Rink, George; Budelsky, Carl A., eds. Proceedings, 7th central        hardwood conference; 1989 March 5-8; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep.        NC-132. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        North Central Forest Experiment Station: 267-273.  [9389] 61.  Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains.        Ecological Monographs. 26(1): 1-79.  [11108] 62.  Williams, Charles E.; Johnson, W. Carter. 1990. Age structure and the        maintenance of Pinus pungens in pine-oak forests of southwestern        Virginia. American Midland Naturalist. 124(1): 130-141.  [12747] 63.  Williamson, Malcolm J. 1964. Burning does not control young hardwoods on        shortleaf pine sites in the Cumberland Plateau. Res. Note CS-19.        Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Central        States Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.  [10999]


FEIS Home Page