Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)
FEIS Home Page

Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Rumex acetosella
Common sheep sorrel. Image used with permission of Robert H. Mohlenbrock, hosted by the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database/USDA NRCS. 1992. Western wetland flora: Field office guide to plant species. West Region, Sacramento.

 


Introductory

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Esser, Lora L. 1995. Rumex acetosella. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/rumace/all.html []. Revisions: On 5 June 2018, the common name of this species was changed in FEIS from: sheep sorrel to: common sheep sorrel. Images were also added.
ABBREVIATION: RUMACE SYNONYMS: Acetosella vulgaris Fourr. NRCS PLANT CODE: RUAC3 COMMON NAMES: common sheep sorrel red sorrel sheep sorrel TAXONOMY: The scientific name of common sheep sorrel is Rumex acetosella L. [29,34,51,95]. It is in the family Polygonaceae. There are no recognized infrataxa [34,44]. LIFE FORM: Forb FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS: No special status OTHER STATUS: NO-ENTRY

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION: Common sheep sorrel is a forb of Eurasian origin that has naturalized throughout much of temperate North America [46,75,95].
Distribution of common sheep sorrel. Map courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [2018, June 5] [88].

ECOSYSTEMS: 
   Common sheep sorrel is found in most FRES ecosystems.


STATES: 
     AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI
     ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  ME  MD  MA  MI
     MN  MO  MT  NE  NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC
     ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX
     UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  AB  BC  MB
     NB  NS  ON  PQ  SK



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


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS: 
NO-ENTRY


SAF COVER TYPES: 
   Common sheep sorrel is found in most SAF Cover Types. 


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES: 
   101  Bluebunch wheatgrass
   102  Idaho fescue
   103  Green fescue
   108  Alpine Idaho fescue
   110  Ponderosa pine-grassland
   201  Blue oak woodland
   203  Riparian woodland
   204  North coastal shrub
   215  Valley grassland
   216  Montane meadows
   304  Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
   409  Tall forb
   411  Aspen woodland
   601  Bluestem prairie
   804  Tall fescue
   809  Mixed hardwood and pine


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES: 
Common sheep sorrel occurs mainly in grassland, mixed-grass prairie, and
montane meadow communities of western North America, but is also common
in forested communities throughout temperate North America. 

Common sheep sorrel is common in floodplain and riparian habitats.  In western
Washington common sheep sorrel is found on gravel bars and floodplains
dominated by Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana).  Other associates
include Virginia strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), velvetgrass (Holcus
lanatus), white clover (Trifolium repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus),
and bog rush (Juncus effusus) [20].  In Oregon common sheep sorrel occurs in a
riparian mountain meadow community dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum) [45].  In California common sheep sorrel occurs in a freshwater marsh
community dominated by tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), sedge (Carex
spp.), and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) [18].

Common sheep sorrel is commonly found in old fields, annual grassland, and
montane meadow communities.  In Connecticut common sheep sorrel occurs in a
postagricultural little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) grassland.
Associates include redtop (Agrostis alba) and yellow sedge (Carex
pensylvanica) [69].  In New Jersey common sheep sorrel is a member of an
old-field plant community dominated by Canada goldenrod (Solidago
canadensis) [9].  Common sheep sorrel is commonly found in southern Appalachian
grassy bald communities dominated by mountain oatgrass (Danthonia
compressa).  Other associates include thornless blackberry (Rubus
canadensis), hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), and violet (Viola
spp.) [56,60].  In Indiana common sheep sorrel occurs in a little bluestem
community with hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and smooth horsetail
(Equisetum laevigatum) [81].  In Montana common sheep sorrel occurs in
mixed-grass prairie communities [86].

In California common sheep sorrel is common in annual grassland, montane
meadow, and perennial bunchgrass communities.  Associates include ripgut
brome (Bromus rigidus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), silver hairgrass
(Aira caryophyllea), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratense), Sandberg
bluegrass (P. nevadensis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), wild
oat (Avena fatua), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)
[8,12,18,61]. 

At Point Reyes National Seashore, California, common sheep sorrel occurs in a
coastal grassland community with coast rock cress (Arabis
blepharophylla), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), California
barberry (Berberis pinnata), and the endangered Sonoma spineflower
(Chorizanthe valida) [11,12].

Common sheep sorrel is a common understory species in forested habitats
throughout North America.  In Pennsylvania common sheep sorrel occurs in
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus)-poverty oatgrass (D. spicata)
communities; associates include Canada goldenrod, fireweed (Epilobium
angustifolium), whorled yellow loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia),
Virginia springbeauty (Claytonia virginica), trout lily (Erythronium
americanum), mountain wood sorrel (Oxalis montana), and violet
[3,49,93].  In Alberta common sheep sorrel is a member of an 80-year-old white
spruce (Picea glauca)-jack pine (Pinus banksiana)-feathermoss
(Pleurozium spp.)  community [21].  In Idaho common sheep sorrel occurs in
grand fir (Abies grandis)/wild ginger (Asarum caudatum), grand
fir/pachistima (Pachistima myrsinites), and grand fir/ninebark
(Physocarpus malvaceus) habitat types [30,53,54,99].  In California
common sheep sorrel occurs in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)
habitats [22,50,83].

In Montana and Wyoming, common sheep sorrel is found in alpine tundra
environments [94].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE: In Arizona common sheep sorrel is grazed by cattle and sheep, but has little forage value [39].  Common sheep sorrel contains oxalic acid which can be poisonous [46,100]. In California and Ohio common sheep sorrel is grazed by mule deer [50,70].  In Idaho, Montana, and Wisconsin sharp-tailed grouse and ruffed grouse eat common sheep sorrel seed [40,41,76,86].  PALATABILITY: In Utah palatability ratings for common sheep sorrel are fair for cattle and poor for sheep and horses [100].  NUTRITIONAL VALUE: Common sheep sorrel nutritional levels are adequate to meet the requirements of mule deer [50].  Energy and protein content ratings of common sheep sorrel are poor.  Nutritional values are rated as poor for waterfowl and fair for elk, mule deer, upland game birds, small nongame birds, and small mammals [100]. COVER VALUE: In Utah common sheep sorrel cover values are rated as fair for small mammals and small nongame birds and poor for upland game birds and waterfowl [100].  VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES: Common sheep sorrel colonizes disturbed sites such as clearcuts, streambanks, and surface mined lands.  It has been used for revegetation of disturbed lands, although it is rated low for erosion control, and short- and long-term revegetation potential [100].  In a mining and smelting region of Sudbury, Ontario, common sheep sorrel established when a thin sprinkling of limestone was applied to the soil [97]. In east-central Texas revegetation of eight unreclaimed mine sites occurred naturally.  These sites and an adjacent unmined site were sampled to determine vegetational changes over time.  The percent frequency of common sheep sorrel was as follows [79]:     3m*    6m    5y    10y    15y    20y    30y    50y    control         0     11     4      6      4      3      0      0       0 *m=months since first sampling, y=years since first sampling In Pennsylvania an attempt was made to transplant rootstocks of sheep sorrel on black waste sites created by anthracite mining.  All emergent vegetation was subsequently heat killed [77]. OTHER USES AND VALUES: Common sheep sorrel leaves are used in salads [4,51].  The Nuxalk Indians of British Columbia eat common sheep sorrel [55].  OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: Common sheep sorrel is classified as a noxious weed in 23 states [67].  It is a serious weed in pastures and rangelands.  Control is difficult because of its perennial, creeping rhizomes [4,52].  Common sheep sorrel is a common weed in West Virginia, except in limestone regions; liming the soil may help eradicate common sheep sorrel [82].  Common sheep sorrel presence and abundance are indicative of poor and "sour" soils [82,87].  It reaches peak abundance at low soil nitrogen levels [87].  Common sheep sorrel is potentially poisonous to livestock because of the presence of soluble oxalates [19]; however, it is grazed by sheep and cattle [39].  In Idaho common sheep sorrel is an increaser species under heavy grazing regimes, and a decreaser species under light grazing regimes [54].  In Oregon percent frequency of common sheep sorrel was not affected by late season cattle grazing in a riparian mountain meadow [45]. In Novia Scotia common sheep sorrel is one of the most common weed species in lowbush blueberry fields.  Control with hexazinone was attempted but after the activity of the herbicide decreased, common sheep sorrel grew and produced a large number of seeds [62].  In Pennsylvania in a goldenrod (Solidago spp.)-aster (Aster spp.) community, common sheep sorrel was dominant in 1- and 3-year-old plowed, disked, prometone-treated plots [64].  Control Methods:  Repeat cultivation during dry weather gradually weakens rootstalks of common sheep sorrel [19].  According to Fitzsimmons [19] several herbicides can selectively control common sheep sorrel.

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Common sheep sorrel is an introduced rhizomatous perennial herb that sometimes forms dense colonies by adventitious shoots from widely spreading roots and rhizomes [19,29,35,52,92].  Stems are erect, slender, and 4 to 24 inches (10-60 cm) tall [33,72,95].  Leaves are 0.8 to 4 inches (2-10 cm) long and 0.4 to 0.8 inch (1-2 cm) wide [33,34,72].  The fruit is an achene [25,29,38,72,95].  Roots are slender, almost fibrous and penetrate to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 m) [48]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:    Hemicryptophyte    Geophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES: Sexual:  Common sheep sorrel reproduces by seed.  It is wind pollinated and seed is dispersed by wind and insects [37,91].  Common sheep sorrel regularly colonizes from buried seed following disturbance [14,21,26].  In Massachusetts common sheep sorrel was not present in the ground cover of most eastern white pine and red pine (Pinus resinosa) stands, but seeds were contained in soil samples from 1-to 80-year-old stands.  In the laboratory soil-stored seeds from all stands germinated [57]. Vegetative:  Common sheep sorrel reproduces from creeping roots and rhizomes [2,16,48,77].  Shoots develop from stem buds that arise adventitiously at irregular intervals on horizontal roots.  Adventitious buds are usually found in the top 8 inches (20 cm) of soil [48].  SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Common sheep sorrel is common in fields, pastures, meadows, waste places, and along roadsides [4,29,39,46,72,95].  In Olympic National Park, Washington, common sheep sorrel is commonly found on lower terraces and gravel bars of the riparian zone [1,13,63].  Common sheep sorrel is generally found in open, unshaded areas on disturbed sites [29,92,95].  It thrives on acidic soils with low fertility, but is adapted to a variety of soil types [19,29,96].  Common sheep sorrel is commonly found on sandy loam, fine sandy, silty, and gravelly soils [6,7,14,58,99].  Elevations for common sheep sorrel are as follows:                     feet            meters           Arizona          5,500-8,000     1,650-2,400     [46] California           0-9,900         0-3,000     [34] Colorado        4,000-11,200     1,200-3,360     [33,100] Connecticut      1,020-1,050         310-320     [14] Idaho            2,800-6,000       853-1,830     [65,99] Montana          3,300-6,200       990-1,860     [100] New York           900-1,700         270-510     [85] Oregon                <4,000          <1,200     [66] Utah             4,500-9,100     1,350-2,730     [95,100] Washington            <4,000          <1,200     [66] Wyoming          6,000-9,000     1,800-2,700     [100] SUCCESSIONAL STATUS: Common sheep sorrel invades disturbed sites and may move onto undisturbed sites when growing conditions are ideal [1,16,52,77].  It is commonly found on clearcut, burned, and flood-disturbed riparian sites [1,13,27,94].  It colonizes rapidly by seed and may persist for 15 to 20 years through vegetative growth and propagation [16].  Competition from other species on good soils may reduce its abundance [19]. In South Carolina common sheep sorrel is found in the early seral stages of a disturbed old-field broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus) community [101].  In the Pacific Northwest common sheep sorrel seed generally remains viable in the soil long enough to provide a source of new infestations when the soil is disturbed [19].  In Massachusetts buried common sheep sorrel seed germinated from soil samples from eastern white pine and red pine stands 1 to 80 years old [57].  Common sheep sorrel is moderately shade tolerant.  In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges, California, common sheep sorrel was more abundant under dead blue oak (Quercus douglasii) trees (5.7%) than in open grassland (5.2%) or live blue oak stands (<0.1%) [36]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT: Common sheep sorrel flowering dates are as follows: California         Mar-Aug      [68] Idaho              May-Sept     [19] Georgia            Mar-Jun      [98] Kansas             Apr-July     [4] Montana            May-Aug      [100] North Carolina     Mar-July     [72,98] North Dakota       May-Jun      [100] Oregon             May-Sept     [19] South Carolina     Mar-July     [72,98] Tennessee          Mar-Jun      [98] Virginia           Mar-Jun      [98] Washington         May-Sept     [19] West Virginia      May-Sept     [82] Great Plains       Apr-Aug      [29]

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS: Common sheep sorrel probably survives fire by sprouting from rhizomes and roots [47,72].  It probably regenerates from on-site buried seed.  FIRE REGIMES: Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes". POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:    Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil    Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)    Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT: Common sheep sorrel is probably top-killed by fire. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE: Common sheep sorrel probably sprouts from rhizomes following fire and establishes from on-site seed [14,21,26].  Several studies describe establishment or increase of common sheep sorrel after fire.  Very severe fire may kill common sheep sorrel. In New Brunswick a woodlot was clearcut in the fall of 1949 and prescribed burned in April 1951.  The number of stems of common sheep sorrel per area present in June 1949, 1950, 1951, and 1952 were 0, 0, 18, and 28, respectively [31].  In New Brunswick understory layers of 11 mixed hardwood stands representing an age sequence of 7 to 57 postfire years were examined.  Sampling occurred in July and August 1973 and 1974. Common sheep sorrel was found in stands 7, 10, 13, 17, and 25 years old.  It did not occur in some 7-year-old stands, or in stands 18, 20, 29, and 37 years old [58]. In Idaho seral brushfields in a grand fir/pachistima habitat type were prescribed burned on May 14, 1975, and a portion was seeded on May 15, 1975.  Common sheep sorrel was present on the burn-only area, but did not occur on the burn-and-seed site.  Frequency (out of 10 possible plots) of common sheep sorrel was as follows [53]:                     Prefire          Postfire year                     July 3, 1974        1    2    4 control                1              2    3    3 burn only              0              0    5    4 burn and seed          0              0    0    0   In Idaho a wildfire burned a ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest and adjacent montane grassland on August 10, 1973 for 43 days.  Fourteen sites were examined in June 1974 and June 1976.  Percent cover and frequency of common sheep sorrel on burned and unburned sites were as follows [65]:                             1974                     1976                      burned     unburned      burned      unburned cover +/- SD        t* +/- 1    t +/- t      2 +/- 3      1 +/- 2 frequency +/- SD    1  +/- t    t +/- 1      2 +/- 4      1 +/- 2 *t = trace In Washington on the Mount Adams huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.)  fields, an experimental area was prescribed burned from October 3-7, 1972. Average understory cover (%) of common sheep sorrel from 1972 to 1977 was as follows [66]:                1972 (before treatment)    1973    1974    1975    1977 unburned, uncut      0.2                   0.2     0.3     0.3     0.2 thin, underburn      0.2                   0.6     0.9     1.2     1.5 clearcut and burn    0.2                   0.9     1.9     1.0     1.6 In Great Britain severe fires in late summer 1976 killed all surface vegetation.  Common sheep sorrel first appeared in burned areas in October 1985, postfire year 9 [59].  DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE: Some research describes no change in cover or frequency in common sheep sorrel after fire.  In California the effects of a late fall burn on a mountain meadow in Grover Hot Springs State Park were evaluated.  Both wet and dry meadow plots were prescribed burned by a low- to moderate-intensity fire in mid-November 1987.  Common sheep sorrel was found only on dry plots before burning and did not increase following fire [8]. In Connecticut experimental tracts were set up in a little bluestem grassland in 1967.  Tract A was prescribed burned annually from 1968-1976, and in 1978, 1980, 1983, and 1985.  Tract B was prescribed burned annually from 1968-1975, and in 1978, 1980, 1983, and 1985. Common sheep sorrel percent cover and frequency in two burns and 2 control plots on each tract were as follows [69]:                      Tract A                        Tract B                1967           1985            1967           1985             cover  freq    cover  freq     cover  freq    cover   freq treatment Burn         <1     9        2     6        <1     29      <1      5    Control      <1     22       0     0         1     65      <1      27      The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed fire use and postfire response of plant community species, including common sheep sorrel, that was not available when this review was originally written: FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Rumex acetosella
REFERENCES: 1.  Agee, James K. 1988. Successional dynamics in forest riparian zones. In:        Raedeke, Kenneth J., ed. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and        forestry interactions. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No.        58. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources:        31-43.  [7657] 2.  Antos, Joseph A.; Zobel, Donald B. 1985. Plant form, developmental        plasticity and survival following burial by volcanic tephra. Canadian        Journal of Botany. 63: 2083-2090.  [12553] 3.  Auchmoody, L. R.; Walters, R. S. 1988. Revegetation of a brine-killed        forest site. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 277-280.        [11374] 4.  Bare, Janet E. 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: The        Regents Press of Kansas. 509 p.  [3801] 5.  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] 6.  Biswell, H. H. 1956. Ecology of California grasslands. Journal of        Forestry. 9: 19-24.  [11182] 7.  Blewett, Thomas. 1978. Prairie and savanna restoration in the Necedah        National Wildlife Refuge. In: Glenn-Lewin, David C.; Landers, Roger Q.,        Jr., eds. Proceedings, 5th Midwest prairie conference; 1976 August        22-24; Ames, IA. Ames, IA: Iowa State University: 154-157.  [3370] 8.  Boyd, Robert S.; Woodward, Roy A.; Walter, Gary. 1993. Fire effects on a        montane Sierra Nevada meadow. California Fish and Game. 70(3): 115-125.        [24152] 9.  Carson, Walter P.; Pickett, S. T. A. 1990. Role of resources and        disturbance in the organization of an old-field plant community.        Ecology. 71(1): 226-238.  [11078]  10.  Clampitt, Christopher A. 1993. Effects of human disturbances on prairies        and the regional endemic Aster curtus in western Washington. Northwest        Science. 67(3): 163-169.  [23038]  11.  Clark, Ronilee A.; Fellers, Gary M. 1986. Rare plants of Point Reyes        National Seashore. Tech. Rep. No. 22. Davis, CA: University of        California, Institute of Ecology; San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of        the Interior, National Park Service, Western Region. 117 p.  [18095]  12.  Davis, Liam H.; Sherman, Robert J. 1992. Ecological study of the rare        Chorizanthe valida (Polygonaceae) at Point Reyes National Seashore,        California. Madrono. 39(4): 271-280.  [19787]  13.  DeFerrari, Collette M.; Naiman, Robert J. 1994. A multi-scale assessment        of the occurrence of exotic plants on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.        Journal of Vegetation Science. 5: 247-258.  [23698]  14.  Del Tredici, Peter. 1977. The buried seeds of Comptonia peregrina, the        sweet fern. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 104(3): 270-275.        [21893]  15.  Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain        West Publishing. 340 p.  [6129]  16.  Escarre, Josep; Houssard, Claudie; Thompson, John D. 1994. An experimental study of the role of seedling density and neighbor relatedness in the persistence of Rumex acetosella in an old-field succession. Canadian        Journal of Botany. 72(9): 1273-1281.  [24362]  17.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905]  18.  Fiedler, Peggy Lee; Leidy, Robert A. 1987. Plant communities of Ring        Mountain Preserve, Marin County, California. Madrono. 34(3): 173-192.        [4068]  19.  Fitzsimmons, J. P.; Burrill, L. C. 1993. Red sorrel: Rumex acetosella L.        Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Pacific Northwest Extension Publication; PNW 446:        [25189]  20.  Fonda, R. W. 1974. Forest succession in relation to river terrace        development in Olympic National Park, Washington. Ecology. 55(5):        927-942.  [6746]  21.  Fyles, James W. 1989. Seed bank populations in upland coniferous forests        in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 274-278.  [6388]  22.  Gardner, Robert A. 1958. Soil-vegetation associations in the redwood -        Douglas-fir zone of California. In: Proceedings, 1st North American        forest soils conference; [Date of conference unknown]; East Lansing, MI.        East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment        Station: 86-101.  [12581]  23.  Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].        1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range        ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.  [998]  24.  Gashwiler, Jay S. 1970. Plant and mammal changes on a clearcut in        west-central Oregon. Ecology. 51(6): 1018-1026.  [8523]  25.  Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of        northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New        York Botanical Garden. 910 p.  [20329]  26.  Granstrom, A.; Schimmel, J. 1993. Heat effects on seeds and rhizomes of        a selection of boreal forest plants and potential reaction to fire.        Oecologia. 94: 307-313.  [22867]  27.  Granstrom, Anders. 1982. Seed banks in five boreal forest stands        originating between 1810 and 1963. Canadian Journal of Botany. 60:        1815-1821.  [5940]  28.  Grant, S. A.; Torvell, L.; Smith, H. K.; [and others]. 1987. Comparative        studies of diet selection by sheep and cattle: blanket bog and heather        moor. Journal of Ecology. 75: 947-960.  [21037]  29.  Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.        Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p.  [1603]  30.  Green, Pat; Jensen, Mark. 1991. Plant succession within managed grand        fir forests of northern Idaho. In: Harvey, Alan E.; Neuenschwander, Leon        F., compilers. Proceedings--management and productivity of        western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech.        Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Research Station: 232-236.  [15987]  31.  Hall, I. V. 1955. Floristic changes following the cutting and burning of        a woodlot for blueberry production. Canadian Journal of Agricultural        Science. 35: 143-152.  [9012]  32.  Hall, Ivan V.; Aalders, Lewis E.; Nickerson, Nancy L.; Vander Kloet, Sam        P. 1979. The biological flora of Canada. I. Vaccinium angustifolium        Ait., sweet lowbush blueberry. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 93(4):        415-430.  [9185]  33.  Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed.        Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p.  [6851]  34.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]  35.  Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific        Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p.  [1168]  36.  Holland, V. L. 1980. Effect of blue oak on rangeland forage production        in central California. In: Plumb, Timothy R., technical coordinator.        Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology, management, and utilization        of California oaks; 1979 June 26-28; Claremont, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep.        PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 314-318.  [7052]  37.  Houssard, C.; Escarre, J. 1991. The effects of seed weight on growth and        competitive ability of Rumex acetosella from two successional        old-fields. Oecologia. 86(2): 236-242.  [25190]  38.  Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.        Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p.  [13403]  39.  Humphrey, Robert R. 1955. Forage production on Arizona ranges, IV.        Coconino, Navajo, Apache Counties: A study in range condition. Bulletin        266. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station.        84 p.  [5087]  40.  Hungerford, K. E. 1951. Ruffed grouse populations and cover use in        northern Idaho. Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference.        [Volume unknown]: 216-224.  [13618]  41.  Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat        improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference.        [Volume unknown]: 380-395.  [15905]  42.  Jobidon, R.; Thibault, J. R.; Fortin, J. A. 1989. Phytotoxic effect of        barley, oat, and wheat-straw mulches in eastern Quebec forest        plantations  1. Effects on red raspberry (Rubus idaeus). Forest Ecology        and Management. 29: 277-294.  [9899]  43.  Juday, Glenn Patrick. 1992. Alaska Research Natural Areas. 3: Serpentine        Slide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-271. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.        [21511]  44.  Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W. C.; Vavra, M. 1983. Effects of late        season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. Journal of Range        Management. 36(6): 685-691.  [16965]  46.  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]  47.  Keown, Larry D. 1978. Fire management in the Selway-Bitterroot        Wilderness, Moose Creek Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest.        Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern        Region. 163 p.  [18634]  48.  Kiltz, B. F. 1930. Perennial weeds which spread vegetatively. Journal of        the American Society of Agronomy. 22(3): 216-234.  [25191]  49.  Kolb, T. E.; Bowersox, T. W.; McCormick, L. H. 1990. Influences of light        intensity on weed-induced stress of tree seedlings. Canadian Journal of        Forestry Research. 20: 503-507.  [12251]  50.  Krueger, William C.; Donart, Gary B. 1974. Relationship of soils to        seasonal deer forage quality. Journal of Range Management. 27(2):        114-117.  [25192]  51.  Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological        perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p.  [19376]  52.  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]  53.  Leege, Thomas A.; Godbolt, Grant. 1985. Herebaceous response following        prescribed burning and seeding of elk range in Idaho. Northwest Science.        59(2): 134-143.  [1436]  54.  Leege, Thomas A.; Herman, Daryl J.; Zamora, Benjamin. 1981. Effects of        cattle grazing on mountain meadows in Idaho. Journal of Range        Management. 34(4): 324-328.  [2961]  55.  Lepofsky, Dana; Turner, Nancy J.; Kuhnlein, Harriet V. 1985. Determining        the availability of traditional wild plant foods: an example of Nuxalk        foods, Bella Coola, British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 16:        223-241.  [7002]  56.  Lindsay, Mary M.; Bratton, Susan Power. 1979. Grassy balds of the Great        Smoky Mountains: their history and flora in relation to potential        management. Environmental Management. 3(5): 417-430.  [23347]  57.  Livingston, R. B.; Allessio, Mary L. 1968. Buried viable seed in        successional field and forest stands, Harvard Forest, Massachusetts.        Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 95(1): 58-69.  [3377]  58.  MacLean, David A.; Wein, Ross W. 1977. Changes in understory vegetation        with increasing stand age in New Brunswick forests: species composition,        cover, biomass, and nutrients. Canadian Journal of Botany. 55:        2818-2831.  [10106]  59.  Maltby, E.; Legg, C. J.; Proctor, M. C. F. 1990. The ecology of severe        moorland fire on the North York Moors: effects of the 1976 fires, and        subsequent surface and vegetation development. Journal of Ecology.        78(2): 490-518.  [19852]  60.  Mark, A. F. 1958. The ecology of the southern Appalachian grass balds.        Ecological Monographs. 28(4): 293-336.  [23350]  61.  McBride, Joe R.; Norberg, Ed; Cheng, Sheauchi; Mossadegh, Ahmad. 1991.        Seedling establishment of coast live oak in relation to seed caching by        jay. In: Standiford, Richard B., technical coordinator. Proceedings of        the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management; 1990        October 31 - November 2; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126. Berkeley,        CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest        Research Station: 143-148.  [19055]  62.  McCully, Kevin V.; Sampson, M. Glen; Watson, Alan K. 1991. Weed survey        of Nova Scotia (Canada) lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)        fields. Weed Science. 39(2): 180-185.  [20036]  63.  McKee, Arthur; LaRoi, George; Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. Structure,        composition, and reproductive behavior of terrace forests, South Fork        Hoh River, Olympic National Park. In: Proceedings, 2nd conference on        scientific research in the National Parks; [Date of conference unknown];        [Location of conference unknown]. [Place of publication unknown].        [Publisher unknown]. 22-29.  [21571]  64.  Medve, Richard J. 1984. The mycorrhizae of pioneer species in disturbed        ecosystems of western Pennsylvania. American Journal of Botany. 71(6):        787-794.  [8544]  65.  Merrill, Evelyn H.; Mayland, Henry F.; Peek, James M. 1980. Effects of a        fall wildfire on herbacious vegetation on xeric sites in the        Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 33(5):        363-367.  [1642]  66.  Minore, Don; Smart, Alan W.; Dubrasich, Michael E. 1979. Huckleberry        ecology and management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech.        Rep. PNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 50 p.        [6336]  67.  Mitich, Larry W.; Kyser, Guy B. 1992. Impact of exotic weeds in the        United States. In: Lym, Rodney G., ed. Proceedings, Western Society of        Weed Science; 1992 March 10-12; Salt Lake City, UT. [Place of        publication unknown]. Western Society of Weed Science: 86-93.  [20616]  68.  Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:        University of California Press. 1905 p.  [6155]  69.  Niering, William A.; Dreyer, Glenn D. 1989. Effects of prescribed        burning on Andropogon scoparius in postagricultural grasslands in        Connecticut. American Midland Naturalist. 122: 88-102.  [8768]  70.  Nixon, Charles M.; McClain, Milford W.; Russell, Kenneth R. 1970. Deer        food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife        Management. 34(4): 870-886.  [16398]  71.  Old, Richard. 1990. Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L.) in        Washington: Identification, biology, ecology and distribution. In:        Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisited:        Proceedings of a symposium: A 1989 Pacific Northwest range management        short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington        State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative        Extension: 71-76.  [14839]  72.  Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of        the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of        North Carolina Press. 1183 p.  [7606]  73.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843]  74.  Roberts, Teresa L.; Vankat, John L. 1991. Floristics of a chronosequence        corresponding to old field-deciduous forest succession in southwestern        Ohio. II. Seed banks. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 118(4):        377-384.  [17753]  75.  Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS:        Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p.  [13158]  76.  Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and        pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203.        [16729]  77.  Schramm, J. R. 1966. Plant colonization studies on black wastes from        anthracite mining in Pennsylvania. Transactions of the American        Philosophical Society. [Philidelphia, PA]; 56(1): 5-194.  [24769]  78.  Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United        States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p.  [23362]  79.  Skousen, J. G.; Call, C. A.; Knight, R. W. 1990. Natural revegetation of        an unreclaimed lignite surface mine in east-central Texas. Southwestern        Naturalist. 35(4): 434-440.  [21195]  80.  Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern        Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire        Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p.  [20090]  81.  Strait, Rebecca A.; Jackson, Marion T. 1986. An ecological analysis of        the plant communities of Little Bluestem Prairie Nature Preserve:        pre-burning versus post-burning. Proceedings, Indiana Academy of        Science. 95: 447-452.  [22165]  82.  Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed.        Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p.  [23213]  83.  Sugihara, Neil G.; Reed, Lois J.; Lenihan, James M. 1987. Vegetation of        the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California.        Madrono. 34(3): 193-208.  [3788]  84.  Swales, Dorothy E. 1975. An unusual habitat for Drosera rotundifolia L.,        its over-wintering state, and vegetative reproduction. Canadian        Field-Naturalist. 89(2): 143-147.  [22335]  85.  Swan, Frederick R., Jr. 1970. Post-fire response of four plant        communities in south-central New York state. Ecology. 51(6): 1074-1082.        [3446]  86.  Swenson, Jon E. 1985. Seasonal habitat use by sharp-tailed grouse,        Tympanuchus phasianellus, on mixed-grass prairie in Montana. Canadian        Field-Naturalist. 99(1): 40-46.  [23501]  87.  Tilman, David. 1988. Dynamics and structure of plant communities.        Monographs in Population Biology 26. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University        Press. 360 p.  [16944]  88.  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/.  [34262]  89.  U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP        Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National        Biological Survey.  [23119]  90.  Vankat, John L.; Carson, Walter P. 1991. Floristics of a chronosequence        corresponding to old field-deciduous forest success. in southwestern        Ohio. III. Post-disturbance vegetation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical        Club. 118(4): 385-391.  [17755]  91.  Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific        Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management        and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p.  [2434]  92.  Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots        (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook        Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium.        724 p.  [11472]  93.  Walters, R. S.; Auchmoody, L. R. 1989. Vegetation re-establishment on a        hardwood forest site denuded by brine. Landscape and Urban Planning. 17:        127-133.  [9819]  94.  Weaver, T.; Lichthart, J.; Gustafson, D. 1990. Exotic invasion of        timberline vegetation, Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. In: Schmidt, Wyman        C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark        pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource;        1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station: 208-213.  [11688]  95.  Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry        C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,        UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.  [2944]  96.  Wilson, Scott D.; Tilman, D. 1991. Interactive effects of fertilization        and disturbance on community structure and resource availability in an        old-field plant community. Oecologia. 88: 61-71.  [25193]  97.  Winterhalder, Keith. 1990. The trigger-factor approach to the initiation        of natural regeneration of plant communities on industrially-damaged        lands at Sudbury, Ontario. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M.,        eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st        annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January        16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum,        Society for Ecological Restoration: 215-226.  [14697]  98.  Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue        Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p.  [12908]  99.  Zimmerman, G. T.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1984. Livestock grazing        influences on community structure, fire intensity, and fire frequency        within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range        Management. 37(2): 104-110.  [10103] 100.  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] 101.  Golley, Frank B. 1965. Structure and function of an old-field broomsedge        community. Ecological Monographs. 35(1): 113-137.  [17419]

FEIS Home Page