Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)
FEIS Home Page

SPECIES: Rhus glabra



Johnson, Kathleen A. 2000. Rhus glabra. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: [].




No entry




smooth sumac
common sumac
Rocky Mountain sumac
red sumac
western sumac
white sumac


The documented scientific name of smooth sumac is Rhus glabra L. (Anacardiaceae) [36,44,51]. There are no infrataxa. Smooth sumac and staghorn sumac (R. typhina) hybridize [58].




No special status


No special status


SPECIES: Rhus glabra

Smooth sumac is distributed widely throughout most of the contiguous U.S. and into Mexico [58]. It does not occur in California [42,93]. In Canada it extends from Lake Huron to central British Columbia [46,57,76].


FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie


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


K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K065 Grama-buffalo grass
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass-grama-buffalo grass
K069 Bluestem-grama prairie
K070 Sandsage-bluestem prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K084 Cross Timbers
K086 Juniper-oak savanna
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K097 Southeastern spruce-fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K100 Oak-hickory
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods-fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods-spruce forest
K110 Northeastern oak-pine forest
K111 Oak-hickory-pine
K112 Southern mixed forest
K115 Sand pine scrub


14 Northern pin oak
17 Pin cherry
40 Post oak-blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
43 Bear oak
45 Pitch pine
52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak
53 White oak
210 Interior Douglas-fir
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
236 Bur oak
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper


109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
602 Bluestem-prairie sandreed
603 Prairie sandreed-needlegrass
606 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
710 Bluestem prairie
720 Sand bluestem-little bluestem (dunes)
721 Sand bluestem-little bluestem (plains)
722 Sand sagebrush-mixed prairie
731 Cross timbers-Oklahoma
801 Savanna
802 Missouri prairie
804 Tall fescue
809 Mixed hardwood and pine


Smooth sumac is a climax indicator in a number of shrub-grassland communities. In eastern Washington climax mountain grasslands once dominated by smooth sumac and perennial grasses have been overgrazed and are now smooth sumac/cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) communities [22]. Smooth sumac grows well in both the mountain brush and pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) zones [36].

Dominant associates in Appalachian pine-hardwood forests are pitch pine (P. rigida), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinia), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), and mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia) [28,29].

Common plant associates in Kansas bluestem prairies are [75]:

big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium)
Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans)
sideoats grass (Bouteloua curtipendula)
blue grama (B. gracilis)
hairy grama (B. hirsuta)
buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides)
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)

Woody Plants
buckbrush (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana)
bur oak (Q. macrocarpa)
chinkapin oak (Q. muehlenbergii)
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii)

Characteristic woody and graminoid species associated with smooth sumac in black oak (Q. velutina) savanna in Indiana include [8]:
white oak (Q. alba)
black cherry (Prunus serotina)
sassafras (Sassafras albidum)
flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallina)
little bluestem
yellow sedge (Carex pensylvanica)
prairie junegrass (Koelaria macrantha)

Plant classifications naming smooth sumac as a dominant species are:

Steppe vegetation of Washington [22]
Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington [32]
Canyon grasslands and associated shrublands of west-central Idaho and adjacent areas [84]


SPECIES: Rhus glabra

Birds, insects, and mammals consume smooth sumac fruits and leaves [9,69,81,95]. Because the drupes persist through the fall and winter months, smooth sumac provides a ready food source when other foods are scarce or unavailable. It is browsed by deer, particularly during the winter months when more preferred browse is scarce [95]. This species provides little forage for domestic livestock [66].


Smooth sumac fruits are palatable to many species of birds and small mammals. Wild turkey, gray partridge, and mourning dove also feed on the fruits [78]. Smooth sumac is moderately palatable to wintering mule deer [66,78]. In general, however, smooth sumac is relatively unpalatable to most big game and domestic livestock. Overall palatability is as follows [26]:

                       CO     ND       UT       WY

Cattle                Poor   ----     Poor     Poor
Domestic sheep        Poor   ----     Poor     Poor
Horses                Poor   ----     Poor     Poor
Pronghorn             ----   ----     Poor     Poor
Bighorn               ----   ----     ----     ----
Elk                   ----   ----     Poor     Poor
Mt. goat              ----   ----     ----     ----
Mule deer             ----   ----     Poor     Fair
White-tailed deer     ----   Fair     Fair     ----
Small mammals         ----   ----     Fair     Good
Small nongame birds   ----   ----     Fair     Fair
Upland game birds     ----   ----     Fair     Fair
Waterfowl             ----   ----     Poor     Poor

Smooth sumac is rated poor in both energy and protein value [26]. Soper and others [77] observed significant (P<0.05) seasonal fluctuations in smooth sumac nutritional value and an increase in dry matter digestibility after treatment with herbicides.


Smooth sumac, which often grows in dense thickets, provides cover for many birds and mammals [24,12,53,72,92]. Cover value has been rated as follows [26]:

                       CO       ND       UT       WY

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

Smooth sumac is rated low in potential for short-term revegetation and moderate in potential for long-term revegetation [15]. It is useful in controlling soil erosion and for roadside planting [66]. Smooth sumac shrubs were among 17 native species successfully planted on an abandoned landfill in New York, chosen because of their value to wildlife. Survival of planted smooth sumac shrubs was greater than 50% on reclaimed strip mines in Texas [35]. In Montana it is propagated commercially [7] and has been used with limited success to revegetate road cuts [47].

Smooth sumac recovered naturally in disturbed stream channels in Tennessee [48] and abandoned coal mines in West Virginia [48,74] though the authors did not indicate whether the regeneration was from seed or rhizomes.

Propagation: Rootstocks can be easily propagated [78] and generally survive even when transplanted onto very severe sites [66].

Seed production and handling characteristics are described as "good" [65]. Smooth sumac seed remains viable 5 or more years in storage [78]. Seed stored for 10 years exhibited 63% germination following sulfuric acid treatments [16]. Sulfuric acid treatments aid germination [15,16,41,44].


Smooth sumac is planted as an ornamental because of its colorful fall foliage [44]. It is recommended in Utah for xeriscaping due to its drought tolerance [37]. It is also planted as a shelterbelt species and on depleted game ranges [16,67] and is recommended for use in "living" snow fences where wildlife habitat improvement is an objective [72].

Laboratory analyses of smooth sumac plant tissue indicate the presence of antifungal and antibacterial compounds [71,59].

Native Americans traditionally made hot and cold beverages [39], dyes, and medicines from smooth sumac fruits. Young sprouts were eaten in salads [10].


In a 1983 review of management practices for controlling smooth sumac, Evans [30] determined that smooth sumac is susceptible to a number of control practices, including cutting 2 or 3 successive years shortly after flowering or cutting 5 times over a period of 3 years. The author also indicates that cutting can be used in combination with herbicides and prescribed burning. As discussed in the Fire Effects section of this report, spring burning alone often causes smooth sumac to proliferate. Evans recommends combining cutting and burning and suggests herbicides where appropriate.

Packard [64] reports that cutting mature stems at flowering helps control smooth sumac, but may be less effective in the case of those which had been previously cut or partially burned at a less sensitive time.

Hutchinson [49] reports that smooth sumac is one of the primary invaders of hill prairies in Illinois, where dense clones eliminate other native species. He suggests however, that it not be eliminated totally from communities, and should be left in ravines and draws. Removal of shrubs by cutting is recommended in July, followed by sprout cutting in August. He also indicates that fire may be a useful control (see Fire Management Considerations section).

The general response of smooth sumac to browsing is unclear. Wambolt [88] reported that it is a decreaser, whereas other researchers have classified it as an increaser [5]. Still others report that on many sites its response is unpredictable [32]. Daubenmire [23] followed the progress of disturbed smooth sumac thickets in a western Washington palouse prairie site and concluded that the thickets are highly dynamic under "heavy" grazing. One large thicket thinned out over 10 years, while another became established and spread in a different place.

Though treatment with herbicides increased both crude protein and dry matter digestibility in several Oklahoma shrub forage species, only dry matter digestibility increased significantly (P<0.05) in smooth sumac [77].


SPECIES: Rhus glabra


Smooth sumac is a native, perennial, deciduous, thicket-forming shrub or small tree that grows from 2 to 20 feet (0.5 to 6 m) [78]. Branches tend to be fairly sparse, smooth, and stout [36]. The flowers are borne in long (up to 18 inches (45 cm)), dense, compound, terminal panicles [44]. The fruit is a small drupe containing a single small seed [10]. Smooth sumac has a high tannin content [40].

Smooth sumac thickets are often connected by branched rhizomes [89]. The main roots grow to depths of 7 to 8 feet (2.1-2.4 m) and give rise to many smaller roots. The dense network of main roots, relatively shallow laterals, and rhizomes promotes increased utilization of soil moisture and rapid vegetative spread. Rhizomes reach to a depth of 3 to 12 inches (7.6-30.5 cm) [19,90].

In a detailed study of 13 clones of smooth sumac in Michigan and Ohio, Gilbert [34] drew several major conclusions, including the following: Stems range from 1.3 to 9.8 feet (0.4-3m) in height and 1 to 15 years in age, with the tallest stems being the oldest. Fifty-six percent of observed floral buds did not develop completely to the flowering or fruiting stage. One clump was shown to be a vegetative development of a single individual. A single clone may cover as much as an area 72 × 131 feet (22 × 40 m). Average annual spread of a clone is 37.6 inches (94 cm), and a stem may arise from a rhizome several years old.




Li and others [37] report that the 1.5 months required for flower, fruit and seed development in smooth sumac is much faster than that reported for other members of the Anacardiaceae family. Flowers may develop into conspicuous red fruits after only 6 weeks.

Smooth sumac produces at least some seed nearly every year [16]. The seeds are widely distributed by many species of birds and mammals [26]. There is evidence that seeds persist in the soil seedbank [1,6]. Smooth sumac seed has averaged up to 97% sound, depending on the lot examined [50]. Germination is inhibited by the hard, impervious hull and seedcoat [37,41,50]. Brinkman [16] observed that germination was greatest and most rapid under continuous light. A constant temperature regime of 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 oC) and alternating warm and cool temperatures both promoted good germination, whereas a constant temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 oC) prevented germination.

Smooth sumac also readily reproduces vegetatively. It spreads through rhizomes to form large, dense thickets [16,45]. The rhizomes may produce new shoots as far as 30 feet (1-9 m) from the parent plant [90].


Smooth sumac grows in a wide range of habitats including open woodlands, prairies, dry rocky hillsides, canyons, and protected ravines [36,40,90]. It often forms dense thickets in prairies [89]. It is common in ecotonal areas and is often found along roadsides, in dry waste areas, and in old fields [36]. Smooth sumac grows well on shallow to moderately deep, dry to moist, coarse or variably textured soils. It grows best on slightly acidic to neutral soils (pH 6.5-7.0) with sunny exposures [78].

Smooth sumac occurs as high as 2290 meters in Utah [91].


Smooth sumac is a climax indicator in a number of shrub and grassland communities [22,32,84]. Three vegetation associations typified by smooth sumac are found on colluvial or alluvial soils in canyons in the Columbia Basin Province described in Franklin and Dyrness [32]; Their understories are dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), or red threeawn (Aristida purpurea). Daubenmire [22] identified these 3 hypothetical climaxes, but concluded that grazing effectively reduced them to a smooth sumac/cheatgrass community. The patchy distribution of smooth sumac stands in the Washington steppe and their restriction to sandy soils warrant designating them as one or more edaphic climaxes.

Smooth sumac is a prominent species in prairie and oak savanna communities where fire has been suppressed [38,49,80,83]. It is relatively intolerant of shade [90].

In a 1981 central Oklahoma tallgrass prairie studied for old field succession following different initial plowing treatments beginning in 1949, vegetation development in 4 hypothesized stages from pioneer weeds to mature prairie was heterogeneous and unpredictable. Smooth sumac was present in unplowed plots and also appeared in the other 2 plots that developed to mature prairie following one 1949 plowing and 5 annual plowings from 1949 to 1953. The authors [20,21] characterize the succession to mature prairie as "very rapid," at least in part due to continual fire suppression. They predict that woody shrubs, including smooth sumac and flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallina), Chickasaw plum (Prunus angustifolia), and coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus) will continue to increase, and the upland forest trees post oak (Quercus stellata) and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica ) may eventually dominate the site. The authors note that in the absence of fire, mature prairie vegetation is not the climax on the coarse textured soils of the region, and that fire is essential to maintenance of tallgrass prairie. Please note, however, that the Fire Effects section of this report discusses a number of prescribed burns, especially in the spring, which increased smooth sumac.


Smooth sumac renews growth early in the year [89], with flowers developing before the leaves [86]. Flowering dates are as follows [26]:

Location    Beginning of Flowering    End of Flowering

CO          May                       July
MT          July                      July
ND          July                      July
UT          May                       July

Fruit ripens from September to October [16]. Seed often persists through the fall and winter [78].


SPECIES: Rhus glabra

Smooth sumac sprouts vigorously from underground rhizomes following fire [66,78,97]. Since rhizomes are buried at depths of 3 to 12 inches (7.6-30.5 cm) [89], overlying soil probably protects them from most fires.

Although vegetative reproduction is the primary mode of reestablishment after fire, smooth sumac may also reproduce through seed. Evidence suggests that some species of Rhus seedbank with seed stored in the humus layer. These seeds germinate when fire creates seedbed and open canopy [1,63].


Smooth sumac occurs in ecosystems and plant communities with varying fire regimes. The range of fire intervals reported for some species that dominate communities where smooth sumac occurs are listed below. To learn more about the fire regimes in these ecosystems and communities, refer to the FEIS Species Review for the dominant plant species, under "Fire Ecology Or Adaptations."

Community or Ecosystem Scientific Name of Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range in Years
1. prairie Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii 1-6 [18]
2. pitch pine Pinus rigida 6-25 [55]
3. oak-hickory Quercus-Carya spp. 50-100 [3]

Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which smooth sumac may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".



Tree with adventitious bud/root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Tall shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

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".


SPECIES: Rhus glabra

Sumacs (Rhus spp.) generally tolerate fire [17]. Fires in the Great Plains rarely kill smooth sumac and some authorities state that smooth sumac actually depends on fire for survival [97]. Its propensity for sprouting minimizes fire's damaging effects.


No entry


The response of smooth sumac to fire appears to vary considerably depending on the burn frequency, season, and postburn management techniques. Smooth sumac spreads readily from rhizomes following fire [43,66], but growth may be stunted by frequent fire. Spring fires increase smooth sumac cover. Consecutive late spring fires may be particularly effective in reducing the height of these shrubs, although plants often increase in number after such fires [75].


Smooth sumac was among 50 understory species examined for changes in relation to spring burn periodicity in a Minnesota oak savanna dominated by northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) and bur oak. The table below shows average smooth sumac stem frequency per circular plot, each plot with a radius of 18.5 feet (5.6 m). The author did not draw specific conclusions for smooth sumac, but the numbers suggest persistence of the species despite burn treatments [94].

Plot   Fire                       # of   Mean stem
       treatment                  burns  frequency/plot
1a	  2 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn   7       0
1	  4 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn  10       0
3	  Annual burns              14       2
4	  Annual burns              16      13
5	  3 yrs burn/3 yrs no burn   9       6
6	  2 yrs burn/1 yr no burn   10      13
8	  2 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn   7	     8
Control unburned                     0       3
Anderson and others [5] reported an increase in smooth sumac during the first 10 years after an early spring fire in the Flint Hills of Kansas. Kruse and Higgins [54] found an increase in smooth sumac following spring burning in northern mixed grass prairies. Increases are also reported following spring fires in South Dakota [96,], Kansas [27,75], Indiana [8,80], Connecticut [62] and Minnesota [11]. Adams and others [4] report an increase in canopy cover following both March and July fires on separate tallgrass prairie sites in Oklahoma. It is noteworthy that in the same study other woody plants, including 2 Rhus species, were eliminated by the fires.

Repeated annual fires during the late spring may reduce the average height of smooth sumac plants. On Kansas pastures, plants were reduced in height after 20 years of annual late spring fires, with most shrubs growing to only 12 to 18 inches (30.5-45.7 cm) in height. Although smooth sumac was stunted by these fires, its density increased [75]. Abrams [2] reported a decrease in smooth sumac canopy cover after 2 consecutive April burns in the understory of a mature oak woodland.

In a study on the effects of an April 1984 fire on smooth sumac in the Kansas tallgrass prairie, Knapp [52] found reductions in height and production of woody, leaf, and reproductive tissue in August 1984. The burned and unburned sites had been free of fire for at least 5 years prior to fire treatment, so the 2 populations were considered similar. Smooth sumac aboveground biomass and fruit production was greater in unburned populations in the August following burning. However, a significant (P<0.05) postfire increase in shoot density resulted in similar leaf area indices in burned and control plots in August 1984.

In a 20-year study of the effects of fire frequency on Minnesota oak savanna herbs and shrubs, Tester [82,83] determined that increased fire frequency tended to increase the density of true prairie shrubs and decrease the density of non-prairie shrubs, though in the case of smooth sumac, cover estimates were not positively correlated with burn frequency.

Bowles and others [14] report a decrease in smooth sumac cover attributed to an 11-year fire management program in a peatland prairie fen in Illinois. A total of 8 dormant-season burns (4 in spring and 4 in fall) were conducted supplemented by shrub cutting.

A winter burn in South Carolina was reported to increase smooth sumac vigor the following spring [25].

The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed fire and postfire response of plant community species, including smooth sumac, that was not available when this species review was written:

Management practices to reduce smooth sumac cover through repeated prescribed fires alone appear limited. However, evidence suggests that the height or structure of smooth sumac stands can be altered. Repeated annual fires during the late spring may effectively reduce smooth sumac height [75].

Hutchison [49] reports that to reduce smooth sumac in Illinois prairies, stand-replacing prescribed fire in August may be sufficient to kill mature stems, but must be followed by sprout removal. He indicates that dormant-season fires do not control sumac, and spring fires may increase sprouting.

Reeves and Lenhart [68] provide fuel weight prediction equations for smooth sumac and 18 other east Texas woody species. Elliot and Clinton [29] developed equations for predicting total aboveground, foliage, and stem biomass for herbs, smooth sumac, and other woody vegetation in prescribe burned and other early-successional, disturbed sites in southern Appalachian oak-pine (Pinus-Quercus spp.) forest. Equations for smooth sumac are as follows:

Model r2 p n Sy.x
total = 1.5130 + 0.62920 D2H 0.974 0.0001 7 1.587
foliage = 1.2388 + 0.44405 D2H 0.974 0.0001 7 1.126
stem = 0.27415 + 0.18516 D2H 0.964 0.0001 7 0.548

Sy.x = standard error
H = height
D = diameter measured at about 1.0 cm from ground level

Rhus glabra: References

1. Abrams, Marc D. 1988. Effects of burning regime on buried seed banks and canopy coverage in a Kansas tallgrass prairie. The Southwestern Naturalist. 33(1): 65-70. [4415]

2. Abrams, Marc D. 1988. Effects of prescribed fire on woody vegetation in a gallery forest understory in northeastern Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 91(3-4): 63-70. [10796]

3. Abrams, Marc D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience. 42(5): 346-353. [19215]

4. Adams, Dwight E.; Anderson, Roger C.; Collins, Scott L. 1982. Differential response of woody and herbaceous species to summer and winter burning in an Oklahoma grassland. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27: 55-61. [6282]

5. Anderson, Kling L.; Smith, Ed F.; Owensby, Clenton E. 1970. Burning bluestem range. Journal of Range Management. 23: 81-92. [323]

6. Artigas, Francisco J.; Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1989. Advance regeneration and seed banking of woody plants in Ohio pine plantations: implications for landscape change. Landscape Ecology. 2(3): 139-150. [13633]

7. Atthowe, Helen. 1993. Propagation of riparian and wetland plants. In: Landis, Thomas D., ed. Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery Association; 1992 September 14-18; Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 78-81. [22076]

8. Bacone, John A.; Post, Thomas W. 1986. Effects of prescribed burning on woody & herbaceous vegetation in black oak sand savannas at Hoosier Prairie Nature Preserve, Lake Co., Indiana. In: Koonce, Andrea L., ed. Prescribed burning in the Midwest: state-of-the-art: Proceedings of a symposium; 1986 March 3-6; Stevens Point, WI. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Natural Resources, Fire Science Center: 86-90. [16273]

9. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. [12148]

10. Barkley, Fred Alexander. 1937. A monographic study of Rhus and its immediate allies in North and Central America, including the West Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 24(3): 265-498. [392]

11. Becker, Donald A. 1989. Five years of annual prairie burns. In: Bragg, Thomas A.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988 August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 163-168. [14037]

12. Bell, Jack H.; Lauer, Jerry L.; Peek, James M. 1992. Habitat use patterns of white-tailed deer, Umatilla River, Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(3): 160-171. [19276]

13. 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]

14. Bowles, Marlin; McBride, Jeanette; Stoynoff, Johnson, Ken. 1996. Temporal changes in vegetation composition and structure in a fire-managed prairie fen. Natural Areas Journal. 16(4): 275-288. [27220]

15. Boyd, Ivan L. 1943. Germination tests on four species of sumac. Transactions, Kansas Academy of Science. 46: 5-86. [501]

16. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. 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: 715-719. [6921]

17. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 61-68. [521]

18. Buchholz, Kenneth: Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age structure, biomass and net annual aboveground productivity of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 24-34. [8639]

19. Canadell, J.; Jackson, R. B.; Ehleringer, J. R.; [and others]. 1996. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia. 108(4): 583-595. [27670]

20. Collins, S. L.; Adams, D. E. 1983. Succession in grasslands: thirty-two years of change in a central Oklahoma tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio. 51: 181-190. [2929]

21. Collins, Scott L. 1990. Patterns of community structure during succession in tallgrass prairie. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 117(4): 397-408. [14139]

22. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 131 p. [733]

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

24. DeMauro, Marcella M. 1993. Colonial nesting bird responses to vistor use at Lake Renwick Heron Rookery, Illinois. Natural Areas Journal. 13(1): 4-9. [20160]

25. Devet, David D.; Hopkins, Melvin L. 1968. Response of wildlife habitat to the prescribed burning program on the National Forests in South Carolina. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 21: 129-133. [14633]

26. 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]

27. Dubis, Douglas; Strait, Rebecca A.; Jackson, Marion T.; Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1988. Floristics and effects of burning on vegetation and small mammal populations at Little Bluestem Prairie Nature Preserve. Natural Areas Journal. 8(4): 267-276. [6775]

28. Elliot, Katherine J.; Vose, James M. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: photosynthesis, water relations, and growth of planted Pinus strobus during establishment. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23(10): 2278-2285. [22743]

29. Elliott, Katherine J.; Clinton, Barton D. 1993. Equations for estimating biomass of herbaceous and woody vegetation in early-successional Southern Appalachian pine-hardwood forests. Res. Note SE-365. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [22273]

30. Evans, James E. 1983. Literature review of management practices for smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), and other sumac species. Natural Areas Journal. 3(1): 16-26. [6248]

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

32. 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]

33. 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]

34. Gilbert, Elizabeth F. 1966. Structure and development of sumac clones. The American Midland Naturalist. 75(2): 432-445. [22424]

35. Gorsira, Bryan; Risenhoover, Ken L. 1994. An evaluation of woodland reclamation on strip-mined lands in east Texas. Environmental Management. 18(5): 787-793. [24119]

36. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]

37. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166]

38. Haney, Alan; Apfelbaum, Steven I. 1990. Structure and dynamics of midwest oak savannas. In: Sweeney, James M., ed. Management of dynamic ecosystems: Proceedings of a symposium; 1989 December 5; Springfield, IL. West Lafayette, IN: North Central Section, The Wildlife Society: 20-30. [21832]

39. Harrington, H. D. 1976. Edible native plants of the Rocky Mountains. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 392 p. [12903]

40. Hayes, Doris W.; Garrison, George A. 1960. Key to important woody plants of eastern Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 148. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 227 p. [1109]

41. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45. [1120]

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

43. Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-761. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 47 p. [26105]

44. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]

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

46. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]

47. Hungerford, Roger D. 1984. Native shrubs: suitability for revegetating road cuts in northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. INT-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [1220]

48. Hupp, Cliff R. 1992. Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: a geomorphic perspective. Ecology. 73(4): 1209-1226. [19499]

49. Hutchison, Max. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.). Natural Areas Journal. 12(3): 158. [19439]

50. Johnson, A. G.; Foote, L. E.; Smithberg, M. H. 1966. Smooth sumac seed germination. Plant Propagator. 12(3): 5-8. [1271]

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

52. Knapp, Alan K. 1986. Postfire water relations, production, and biomass allocation in the shrub, Rhus glabra, in tallgrass prairie. Botanical Gazette. 147(1): 90-97. [6215]

53. Kraus, Kent E.; Smith, Christopher C. 1987. Fox squirrel use of prairie habitats in relation to winter food supply and vegetation density. Prairie Naturalist. 19(2): 115-120. [150]

54. Kruse, Arnold D.; Higgins, Kenneth F. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire upon wildlife habitat in northern mixed-grass prairie. In: Alexander, M. E.; Bisgrove, G. F., technical coordinators. The art and science of fire management: Proceedings, 1st Interior West Fire Council annual meeting and workshop; 1988 October 24-27; Kananaskis Village, AB. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-309. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre: 182-193. [14146]

55. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. [4389]

56. 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]

57. 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]

58. 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]

59. McCutcheon, A. R.; Ellis, S. M.; Hancock, R. E. W.; Towers, G. H. N. 1994. Antifungal screening of medicinal plants of British Columbian native peoples. Journal of Enthnopharmacology. 44(3): 157-169. [29777]

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

61. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]

62. Niering, William A.; Dreyer, Glenn D. 1989. Effects of prescribed burning on Andropogon scoparius in postagricultural grasslands in Connecticut. The American Midland Naturalist. 122: 88-102. [8768]

63. Olmsted, Norwood W.; Curtis, James D. 1947. Seeds of the forest floor. Ecology. 28(1): 49-52. [9904]

64. Packard, Stephen. 1987. Control of mature sumac clones (Illinois). Restoration & Management Notes. 5(1): 41. [1810]

65. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]

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

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

68. Reeves, Hershel C.; Lenhart, J. David. 1988. Fuel weight prediction equations for understory woody plants in eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 40(1): 49-53. [3682]

69. Robinson, George R.; Handel, Steven N. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: rapid addition of new species by bird dispersal. Conservation Biology. 7(2): 271-278. [22062]

70. Rowland, Mary M. 1983. A fire for winter elk. New Mexico Wildlife Magazine. 28(6): 2-5. [5160]

71. Saxena, G.; McCutcheon, A. R.; Farmer, S.; [and others]. 1994. Antimicrobial constituents of Rhus glabra. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 42(2): 95-99. [29748]

72. Shaw, Dale L. 1988. The design and use of living snow fences in North America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 22/23: 351-362. [8775]

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

74. Skousen, J. G.; Johnson, C. D.; Garbutt, K. 1994. Natural revegetation of 15 abandoned mone land sites in West Virginia. Journal of Environmental Quality. 23: 1224-1230. [25964]

75. Smith, E. F.; Owensby, C. E. 1973. Effects of fire on true prairie grasslands. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. No. 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 9-22. [2168]

76. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]

77. Soper, Roderick B.; Lochmiller, Robert L.; Leslie, David M., Jr.; Engle, David M. 1993. Nutritional quality of browse after brush management on cross timbers rangeland. Journal of Range Management. 46(5): 399-410. [29365]

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

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

80. 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]

81. Strauss, Sharon Y. 1991. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of three native herbivores on a shared host plant. Ecology. 72(2): 543-558. [14266]

82. Tester, John R. 1989. Effects of fire frequency on oak savanna in east-central Minnesota. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 116(2): 134-144. [9281]

83. Tester, John R. 1996. Effects of fire frequency on plant species in oak savanna in east-central Minnesota. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 123(4): 304-308. [28035]

84. Tisdale, E. W. 1986. Canyon grasslands and associated shrublands of West-central Idaho and adjacent areas. Bulletin Number 40. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. 42 p. [2338]

85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]

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

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

88. Wambolt, Carl. 1981. Montana range plants: Common and scientific names. Bulletin 355. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 27 p. [2450]

89. Weaver, J. E.; Fitzpatrick, T. J. 1934. The prairie. Ecological Monographs. 4(2): 111-295. [2464]

90. Weaver, J. E.; Kramer, Joseph. 1932. Root system of Quercus macrocarpa in relation to the invasion of prairie. Botanical Gazette. 94: 51-85. [274]

91. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

92. Wertz, Tara L.; Flake, Lester D. 1988. Wild turkey nesting ecology in south central South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist. 20(1): 29-37. [9335]

93. Wetherwax, Margriet. 2000. [E-mail to Janet L. Howard]. January 28. 1 p. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. [31310]

94. White, Alan S. 1986. Prescribed burning for oak savanna restoration in central Minnesota. Res. Pap. NC-266. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 12 p. [3487]

95. Willson, Mary F. 1993. Mammals as seed-dispersal mutualists in North America. Oikos. 67: 159-176. [27081]

96. Worcester, Lynda Lou. 1979. Effects of prescribed burning at different fuel moisture levels on vegetation and soils of grasslands in Wind Cave National Park. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 101 p. Thesis. [2602]

97. Wright, Henry A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 204-217. [2611]

FEIS Home Page