Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)
FEIS Home Page

Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Quercus muehlenbergii
Chinquapin oak leaves and acorns. Creative Commons image by Paul Wray, Iowa State University,



SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991. Quercus muehlenbergii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: []. Revisions: On 2 March 2018, the common name of this species was changed in FEIS from: chinkapin oak to: chinquapin oak. Images were also added. ABBREVIATION: QUEMUE SYNONYMS: Quercus muhlenbergii Engelm. [31] Quercus prinoides J.M. Coult, misapplied Quercus prinoides Willd. var. acuminata (Michx.) Gleason NRCS PLANT CODE: QUMU COMMON NAMES: chinkapin oak chinquapin oak yellow chestnut oak chestnut oak rock chestnut oak rock oak yellow oak TAXONOMY: The currently accepted scientific name of chinquapin oak is Quercus muehlenbergii Engelm. [36]. Many authorities recognize this species under an alternate spelling, Q. muhlenbergii Engelm. [31]. Chinquapin oak is a member of the white oak subgenus or section (Lepidobalanus) [9] and is placed within the chestnut oak subsection (Prinoideae Trelease) [44]. Two forms have been delineated on the basis of leaf and nut morphology [23]. A form characterized by wide leaves has been identified as Q. muehlenbergii f. alexanderi (Britton) Trel. [75]. Chinquapin oak hybridizes with many other oak species, including bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), white oak (Q. alba), Gambel oak (Q. gambelii), dwarf chinquapin oak, Q. x deamii, Q. x introgressa, and Q. bicolor x prinoides [36,40]. Hybridization with gray oak (Q. grisea) and swamp white oak (Q. bicolor) is suspected [68,69]. Q. x deamii (=Q. fallax) is probably a hybrid of chinquapin oak and white oak or chinquapin oak and bur oak [7,23]. Q. introgressa may be a natural hybrid of chinquapin oak and dwarf chinquapin oak. Introgressants and hybrid swarms between chinquapin oak and dwarf chinquapin oak are common [68]. LIFE FORM: Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS: No special status OTHER STATUS: NO-ENTRY


SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION: Chinquapin oak is widely distributed throughout much of eastern and central North America [11]. Its range extends from New England and Pennsylvania southward mostly in the mountains through Virginia and the Carolinas to northwestern Florida, westward to northern Mexico, south-central Texas, and Oklahoma, and north to Minnesota, Wisconsin, southern Ontario, and southern Michigan [23,26].
Distribution of chinquapin oak. 1971 USDA, Forest Service map digitized by Thompson and others [79].
Local and disjunct populations occur in western Texas, New Mexico, and
northeastern Mexico [36,69].  In the eastern United States, chinquapin
oak is relatively rare throughout much of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal
plains [32].  It is uncommon or rare in Pennsylvania [32] and in New
England [58].  Chinquapin oak reaches greatest abundance in the
Mississippi and Ohio valleys [23,32].

   FRES15  Oak - hickory
   FRES18  Maple - beech - birch
   FRES28  Western hardwoods
   FRES39  Prairie

     AL  AR  CT  DE  FL  GA  IL  IN  IA  KS
     KY  LA  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  NE  NJ
     NM  NY  NC  OH  OK  PA  RI  SC  TN  TX

   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont
   14  Great Plains

   K038  Cedar glades
   K089  Black belt
   K100  Oak - hickory forest
   K103  Mixed mesophytic forest
   K104  Appalachian oak forest

    14  Northern pin oak
    27  Sugar maple
    40  Post oak - blackjack oak
    42  Bur oak
    52  White oak - black oak - northern red oak
    57  Yellow poplar
    60  Beech - sugar maple
   236  Bur oak


Chinquapin oak grows as a codominant with bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)
and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) in gallery forests of the Konza
Prairie in northeastern Kansas [3].  In most other locations it occurs
as scattered individuals within a mixed overstory.


SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE: Wood of chinquapin oak is dark brown with a narrow, pale sapwood; it is hard, heavy, strong, and durable [66]. These characteristics make it a valuable wood for many uses [48]. It is commonly used as sawtimber and is considered a member of the select white oak group [49]. When properly dried and treated, oak wood glues well, machines very well, and accepts a variety of finishes [43]. It is widely used for cabinets, furniture, pallets, and containers [43,53]. Oak wood was traditionally used for railroad ties [53] and is commonly cut for firewood [17]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE: Browse and acorns of chinquapin oak are important to a wide variety of birds and mammals [23]. Oak browse is often eaten by deer and rabbits; rabbits sometimes girdle small trees [28]. Beaver feed on the bark and twigs [23], and porcupines consume the bark [71]. The acorns of chinquapin oak are a high quality, dependable food source [30,52]. Mice, squirrels, voles, other small mammals, and white-tailed deer consume the acorns of chinquapin oak [13,52,65]. Acorns are an especially important fall food item for the black bear [54]; the relative abundance of fall mast crops can affect black bear reproductive success during the following year [21]. The acorns of chinquapin oak are a particularly important food item for the red-headed woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, northern bobwhite, and blue jay [64]. Other bird species that feed on acorns include the ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, common crow, northern flicker, grackle, blue jay, brown thrasher, tufted titmouse, starling, lesser prairie chicken, chickadees, nuthatches, and waterfowl [38,52,71]. PALATABILITY: Browse: In general, the palatability of oak browse is relatively high for livestock and many wildlife species. Eastern oaks are preferred browse of white-tailed deer in some locations [71]. New growth is particularly palatable to deer and rabbits [28]. Acorns: The acorns of chinquapin oak are sweet and highly palatable to many species of birds and mammals [23]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE: Browse: Nutrient content of oak leaves has been reported as follows [45]: Dry Crude Ether N-free matter Ash fiber extract extract Protein ---------------------percent dry matter------------------ 100 56 27.4 2.5 54.3 10.2 Acorns: Most acorns are nutritious [28] and high in carbohydrates [29]. Acorns of the white oaks are generally low in lipids (5 to 10 percent) and tannins (0.5 to 2.5 percent) [62]. COVER VALUE: Chinquapin oak provides good cover for a variety of bird and mammal species. Young oaks with low branches serve as particularly good winter cover [59]. Oak leaves often persist longer than those of many other plant associates, and in some areas, young oaks may represent the only brushy winter cover in dense pole stands [59]. In the pine-oak zone of Texas, species such as chinquapin oak provide shade for pronghorns [16]. Oaks frequently serve as perching or nesting sites for various species of songbirds [18]. The well-developed crowns provide shelter and hiding cover for tree squirrels and other small mammals. Many species of birds and mammals use twigs and leaves as nesting material [39]. Large oaks provide denning sites for a variety of mammals [18]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES: Chinquapin oak can be readily propagated through seed. Attempts to root stem cuttings or propagate through budding have been largely unsuccessful [23]. Details on propagation techniques are available [9,23,46]. OTHER USES AND VALUES: Acorns were an important food source for Native American peoples [71]. The acorns of chinquapin oak are sweet and edible when roasted [11]. Chinquapin oak is an attractive shade tree [48]; it was first cultivated in 1822 [46]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: Silviculture: Oaks often regenerate poorly after timber harvest. Hannah [28] reported that the use of natural seedbeds and standard hardwood silvicultural practices are often ineffectual in promoting oak regeneration. Vigorous, advanced regeneration is essential for producing good stands of oak after timber harvest [18,47,57]. For adequate regeneration of oaks, advanced regeneration at least 4.5 feet (1.4 m) in height should number at least 435 per acre (176/ha) prior to harvest. A series of selection cuts can produce stands with several age classes and can generate sufficient advanced regeneration for well-stocked, postharvest stands. Initial cuts should reduce overstory densities to no less than 60 percent stocking. Reduction of competing understory species may be necessary in some instances [57]. Chemical control: Oaks often produce basal sprouts in response to herbicide treatments [24]. Herbicides such as tebuthiuron and triclopyr can reduce crowns of chinquapin oaks by 88 to 98 percent and kill 74 to 94 percent of chinquapin oak trees [67]. Insects/disease: Chinquapin oak is relatively resistant to insects and disease [48]. It is, however, susceptible to attack by oak wilt, acorn weevils, and the gypsy moth [23].


SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Chinquapin oak is a spreading, medium to large, deciduous tree which generally reaches 16 to 52 feet (5-16 m) in height [50] but occasionally grows to 80 or 90 feet (24-27 m) [46,66]. On exceptional sites in the lower Wabash and Ohio valleys, individuals can reach 160 feet (48 m) in height and up to 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter [23]. Chinquapin oak typically has large, low branches and a rounded crown [66]. In closed forest stands it develops a straight, columnar trunk, a dense rounded crown, and fairly small branches [23]. In the open, plants usually develop a short trunk and broad crown. Grayish-brown twigs are rigid and glabrous [66]. The thin bark is light gray to silvery, and rough or scaly [50,66]. The alternate, simple leaves are coriaceous and variable in shape [66]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM: Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES: Chinquapin oak is monoecious. Staminate catkins form from the base of new growth or from lateral buds on the previous year's growth. Pistillate flowers grow from the axils of the current year's growth [66]. Flowers are wind pollinated [52]. Acorns are borne singly or in pairs, and are dark brown to nearly black [23]. About half of the nut is enclosed by the cup [27]. Acorns mature in one season [23]. Most eastern oaks produce good seed crops at variable intervals [28]. Best seed crops are generally produced by large trees (> 20 inches [51 cm] d.b.h.) with vigorous crowns. Cold or wet weather during flowering can result in poor seed production [28,47]. Acorns are disseminated by gravity, and rodents and birds [66]. Groups of seedlings commonly originate from the caches of blue jays [30]. Although effective dispersal agents, birds and mammals also consume many seeds. In some areas, 90 to 100 percent of the annual acorn crop may be lost to seed predators [71]. Acorns of chinquapin oak germinate soon after falling to the ground [47]. Stratification is not required [46]. Acorns of chinquapin oak remain viable for only short periods, even when properly stored. Bonner and Vozzo [9] reported that germination of fresh acorns was 91.3 percent, but that germination declined to 39.0 percent after 1 year in storage and to only 2.0 percent after 2 years. Seedlings of chinquapin oak develop best on well-drained calcareous soil [23]. They can tolerate moderate shrub-tree cover [23] but require sufficient light for good early growth. Seedlings are rare in gallery forests of Kansas but are common at nearby prairie-forest borders [5]. Roots of developing seedlings must quickly reach mineral soil; in many areas, establishment is limited by the presence of a thick organic layer [3,55]. Vegetative regeneration: Chinquapin oak sprouts readily after disturbance [23]. Stump sprouting often occurs [48], but in many areas, it is less common than root sprouting [65]. Hannah [28] reported that the best sprouts often develop at or below the ground level. Small poles, saplings, and even seedlings can sprout when cut or burned [28]. Repeated sprouting is also common [74]. Seedlings often develop an "s"-shaped curve at ground level, which helps protect dormant buds from fire. After repeated fires, these stems may develop "stools" or areas comprised of callus tissue filled with dormant buds [55]. Epicormic buds located beneath the bark of older oaks commonly sprout when these trees are damaged [74]. Bud dormancy in oaks is largely controlled by auxins rather than by levels of carbohydrate reserves [74]. Apical dominance can restrict the development of belowground buds when buds survive on aboveground portions of the plant. Sprouting is reduced by low light levels [74] and decreases as the stand ages [41]. McIntyre [41] reported that the number of sprouts per group tends to decrease from poor to good sites. Initial sprout growth is typically rapid [55]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Chinquapin oak grows on dry, rocky sites [11], such as calcareous bluffs, rocky hillsides, and protected slopes and canyons [20]. It also occurs in glades and valleys, and along rocky streambanks [26,27,66]. In parts of the Midwest, chinquapin oak grows in rich forests and on stabilized dunes [70]. Chinquapin oak is particularly common near forest margins [27]. It is fairly tolerant of shade and drought [5,19]. Plant communities: Chinquapin oak is common in only one cover type, the post oak (Quercus stellata)-black oak (Q. velutinus) type [23]. Elsewhere, it grows as scattered individuals or in relatively isolated groves. It occurs in a variety of communities, including gallery forests along stream channels and ravines in the southern and central Great Plains at the edge of eastern deciduous forests [1]. It is also present in the Cross Timbers, Blackland prairies, post oak savannas, and pine-oak forests of Texas [48,61]. In the eastern United States, chinquapin oak grows in a number of mixed mesophytic or submesic woodlands, including beech (Fagus spp.)-maple (Acer spp.), maple-basswood (Tilia spp.), oak-hickory (Carya spp.), oak-chestnut (Castanea dentata), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and northern red oak (Q. rubra)-basswood [6,23,26,39,49,60]. In parts of southern Indiana, it occasionally codominates the crown canopy with northern red oak. In Ohio, chinquapin oak commonly grows in areas transitional from swamp forest to mesophytic forests [23]. Chinquapin oak was a prominent species in several presettlement, open woodland communities of the Midwest and middle South, including portions of Inner Bluegrass region of Kentucky [15]. Plant associates: Common plant associates in different geographic locations include: Midwest - Common associates in gallery forests of the prairies include hackberry, American elm (Ulmus americana), bur oak, and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) [3,63]. Bur oak, white oak, black oak, northern red oak, and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) grow with chinquapin oak in parts of the upper Midwest [12]. Texas - In pine-oak forests of Texas, chinquapin grows in association with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [16,48]. Other common associates in Texas include American elm, hackberry (Celtis spp.), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), Shumard oak (Q. shumardii), western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria ssp. drummundii), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) [61]. South - Chinquapin oak occurs with white oak, black oak (Quercus velutinus), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), hickory, black cherry, ash (Fraxinus spp.), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), yellow-poplar (Lirodendron tulipifera), and cucumbertree (Magnolia acuminata) in the Southeast [23]. In remnants of open woodlands common in portions of the Inner Bluegrass region of Kentucky during presettlement times, chinquapin oak occurs with bur oak, blue ash (Fraxinus quadrangulata), Shumard oak, shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), shagbark hickory, sugar maple, black cherry, yellow-poplar, and red mulberry (Morus rubra) [15]. In the deep South, it grows with holly (Ilex spp.) and other oaks in stands dominated by beech and magnolia (Magnolia spp.) [23]. In Arkansas, butternut (Juglans cinera), Arizona walnut, and other oaks are particularly common associates [23]. Soils: Chinquapin oak commonly occurs on calcareous soils which are derived from limestone [23]. It also grows on deep, well-drained soils of river and creekbottoms [61] and on limestone outcrops [23]. Soils are often of low fertility and deficient in nutrients such as phosphorus [33]. Chinquapin oak grows on medium acidic to highly alkaline soils [23] but reaches greatest abundance on basic soils [50]. In parts of the Midwest, it is absent in relatively level areas where soil leaching has resulted in an acidicification of a glacial till mantle [23]. Edaphic factors can greatly influence growth rate of chinquapin oak [1]. Climate: Chinquapin oak grows in moist subhumid to humid zones throughout most of its range but grows in dry subhumid conditions at the southwestern edge of its range [23]. Growing-season precipitation ranges from 10 inches (25 cm) in Texas to 80 inches (203 cm) in the southern Appalachians. The length of the growing season ranges from 120 to 240 days [23]. Elevation: Chinquapin oak grows from 400 to 3,000 feet (122-914 m) [79]. It is absent or rare at higher elevations in the Appalachian Mountains [23]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS: Chinquapin oak is a climax tree on dry soils, particularly those of limestone origin. It is seral on more moist sites [23]. Chinquapin oak is moderately shade tolerant when young, but becomes increasingly intolerant of shade with age. Upper Midwest: Chinquapin oak and bur oak commonly dominate oak savannas of the upper Midwest. Evidence suggests that tree density in these oak savannas increased after settlement [12]. Fire frequencies were presumably much reduced at this time, enabling chinquapin oak to reach extremely large sizes. With continued fire suppression, these oak savannas are being replaced by more shade-tolerant species such as elm (Ulmus spp.), sugar maple, and buckeye (Aesculus spp.) [42]. In the absence of disturbance, sugar maple assumes dominance in climax stands [42]. Central Midwest: In oak-hickory forests of southern Indiana, chinquapin oak stands are seral to climax beech-ash-maple forests. Chinquapin oak grows in the final successional stages of Ozark floodplain communities which are dominated by sugar maple and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformia) at climax. On south- and west-facing slopes near these communities, it is considered a subclimax or seral species [23]. Southeast: Chinquapin oak and bur oak dominate certain early seral forests in Mississippi Valley lowlands [3]. These forests are replaced first by black oak, then northern red oak-shagbark hickory, and finally American basswood (Tilia americana)-eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) forests [3]. Chinquapin oak also grows in certain climax floodplain oak-hickory communities in the lower Mississippi Valley [60]. Hickories and the rapidly growing southern red oak (Quercus falcata) develop first following disturbance on sites in this region. Seedlings of chinquapin oak generally appear 75 to 100 years after the initial disturbance [60]. Martin and DeSelm [39] reported that in eastern Tennessee, chinquapin oak occasionally occurs in old-growth forests in limestone valleys. Middle South: In presettlement times chinquapin oak grew as an overstory codominant in certain unique open woodland communities of the Inner Bluegrass region of Kentucky [15]. Evidence suggests that these communities were maintained by a combination of factors such as soil, climate, grazing, and fire history. With changes in fire frequency and increased grazing brought about by settlement, these communities declined and were ultimately replaced by cultivated fields and pastures dominated by cool-season grasses [15]. Eastern Great Plains: During settlement times, reductions in fire frequency enabled woody species, such as chinquapin oak, to expand westward into parts of the prairie [3,10]. However, with further reductions in fire frequency, oak woodlands dominated by chinquapin oak and bur oak are being replaced by maple-basswood forests [3]. Historically, these narrow oak forests burned periodically as fires from grasslands spread into adjacent woodlands. In the Kansas prairie, chinquapin oak is a component of early seral forests [5]. In many of these forests, this oak apparently grew and reproduced beneath the overstory canopy until approximately 50 years ago [3]. At this point, development of a thick organic seedbed, attributed to fire exclusion, may have limited oak establishment. Continued overstory development within the past 10 to 30 years has led to the proliferation of more shade-tolerant species [3]. Species such as hackberry ultimately replace the oaks on moist sites, whereas redbud (Cercis spp.) assumes dominance on more xeric sites [3,52]. A return to more frequent fires could permit the oaks to assume dominance on these sites [52]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chinquapin oak leafs out in mid-spring [52]. Plants flower when leaves are approximately 25 percent grown [23]. Fruit ripens at the end of the first growing season [27]. Generalized flowering and fruiting dates by geographic location are as follows: Location Flowering Fruiting Authority WI May ---- Curtis 1959 New England May 21-June 8 ---- Seymour 1985 n-c Great Plains early May September Stephens 1973 NC-SC April October Radford and others 1968 Great Plains April-May ---- Great Plains Flora Association 1986 KS May ---- Reichman 1987 Blue Ridge Mtns. April-May ---- Wofford 1989


SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS: Chinquapin oak often sprouts from the stump or root crown after fire [23]. Reestablishment through seed may occur on favorable sites in good years. Rouse [55] reported that seedling establishment of oaks is often favored on mineral seedbeds produced by fire. Mean fire intervals in gallery forests of northeastern Kansas have been estimated at approximately 11 to 20 years [2]. These fires most likely originated in adjacent prairies which historically burned every 2 to 3 years. Since settlement times, gallery forests have expanded into prairie because of increased fire suppression [3] [See Successional Status]. Litter in gallery forests presumably decomposes more rapidly, and the areal extent of fire may have been limited by the lower fuel accumulations typical of these sites [2]. Killingbeck [33] observed that patches of chinquapin oak predominate on infertile, phosphorus-deficient sites in gallery forests. Intense, damaging fires are unlikely to occur on these sites because biomass and litter accumulations are low. Increased cattle grazing may also have led to reduced fuels and less destructive fires [10]. Oak woodlands are currently being replaced by maple-basswood forests because of reductions in fire frequencies [3]. 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: survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex survivor species; on-site surviving roots off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2


SPECIES: Quercus muehlenbergii
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT: The fire resistance of chinquapin oak has not been well documented [15]; the results of several studies have been somewhat contradictory. Abrams [3] observed no fire-caused overstory mortality in gallery forests of northeastern Kansas. Many large individuals were scarred from recurrent fires [2] but still exhibited good growth and vigor. Killingbeck [33], however, reported that chinquapin oak is very susceptible to fire in gallery forests. These observed differences in fire effects on chinquapin oak may be attributable to variation in fire severity and intensity, site characteristics, plant age or size, form, vigor, season of burn, and stocking levels [55]. Saplings and pole-sized chinquapin oaks are easily damaged by fire [23]; trees become more fire resistant as the bark thickens with age [28]. Most acorns are characterized by a relatively high moisture content. As the moisture within the acorns is heated, the seeds swell and often rupture [55]. Therefore, few acorns present on a site survive fire. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT: Oaks tend to be less susceptible to fire during the dormant season. Weak individuals are less likely to heal than healthy, vigorous ones. Oaks growing in overstocked stands typically exhibit lower vigor and are more susceptible to fire-caused damage. Crooked or leaning trees are particularly vulnerable to damage since the flames are more likely to be directly below the stem, thereby increasing the amount of heat received at the bark's surface. Basal injuries often permit the entry of insects or decay that may ultimately kill the tree [55]. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE: Chinquapin oak commonly sprouts after aboveground portions of the plant are damaged or destroyed [23]. Specific response is presumably related fire severity and intensity, season of burn, and plant age and vigor. Most oaks sprout from the stump after moderate fires [28], and from underground portions when completely top-killed [55]. Hannah [28] reported that the best sprouts often originate from buds located at or below ground level. These sprouts may be more vigorous and less susceptible to rot or other damage. Seedlings, saplings, and small pole-sized trees commonly sprout if girdled by fire. Damaged seedlings often sprout several times and may ultimately grow beyond the fire-susceptible stage [28]. Sprouting ability appears to decrease as plants age. Large trees are much less likely to sprout when severely damaged by fire. Large oaks that survive fire frequently serve as seed sources [28]. Dying trees often produce a massive seed crop [55]. Also, some seed is transported from adjacent, unburned areas by birds and mammals. Fire may favor seedling establishment because it exposes mineral soil, creating an optimal seedbed [55]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE: Vegetation in a gallery forest on the Konza Prairie in northeastern Kansas was surveyed before and after 2 years of annual prescribed burning in April. The number of chinquapin oak seedlings increased from 100 per hectare before burning to 250 per hectare after 1 year of burning, but no chinquapin oak seedlings or saplings were present on the plots after 2 years of burning [4]. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: Prescribed fire: Prescribed fire can be an important tool for regenerating oak stands because it tends to promote vigorous sprouting, reduce competing vegetation [55], and expose mineral soil, which favors seedling establishment. A series of low-intensity prescribed fires prior to timber harvest can promote advanced regeneration in oaks [72]. [See Management Considerations]. The effects of fire on oaks may vary; in some cases fire can kill or injure oaks, but in others fire has little effect [55]. In the southern Appalachians, biennial summer burns are often effective in promoting advance regeneration, while single preharvest or postharvest burns generally have little effect [72].

References for species: Quercus muehlenbergii

1. Abrams, Marc D. 1985. Age-diameter relationships of Quercus species in relation to edaphic factors in gallery forests of northeast Kansas. Forest Ecology and Management. 13: 181-193. [10377]
2. Abrams, Marc D. 1985. Fire history of oak gallery forests in a northeast Kansas tallgrass prairie. The American Midland Naturalist. 114(1): 188-191. [1]
3. Abrams, Marc D. 1986. Historical development of gallery forests in northeast Kansas. Vegetatio. 65: 29-37. [3255]
4. 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]
5. Abrams, Marc D.; Knapp, Alan K. 1986. Seasonal water relations of three gallery forest hardwood species in northeast Kansas. Forest Science. 32(3): 687-696. [256]
6. Albertson, F. W.; Weaver, J. E. 1945. Injury and death or recovery of trees in prairie climate. Ecological Monographs. 15: 393-433. [4328]
7. Bartlett, H. H. 1951. Regression of X Quercus deamii toward Quercus macrocarpa and Quercus muhlenbergii. Rhodora. 53(635): 249-264. [10664]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Bragg, Thomas B.; Hulbert, Lloyd C. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem prairie. Journal of Range Management. 29(1): 19-24. [10383]
11. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]
12. Brewer, Richard; Kitler, Steven. 1989. Tree distribution in southwestern Michigan bur oak openings. Michigan Botanist. 28(2): 73-79. [13005]
13. Briggs, John M.; Smith, Kimberly G. 1989. Influence of habitat on acorn selection by Peromyscus leucopus. Journal of Mammalogy. 70(1): 35-43. [10387]
14. Britton, N. L. 1886. Notes on Quercus muhlenbergia Engelm. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 13: 40-41. [6422]
15. Bryant, William S.; Wharton, Mary E.; Martin, William H.; Varner, Johnnie B. 1980. The blue ash-oak savanna--woodland, a remnant of presettlement vegetation in the Inner Bluegrass of Kentucky. Castanea. 45(3): 149-165. [10375]
16. Buechner, Helmut K. 1950. Life history, ecology, and range use of the pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos Texas. The American Midland Naturalist. 43(2): 257-354. [4084]
17. Carey, Andrew B.; Gill, John D. 1980. Firewood and wildlife. Res. Note 299. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. [9925]
18. Clark, F. Bryan; Watt, Richard F. 1971. Silvicultural methods for regenerating 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: 37-43. [9080]
19. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p. [7116]
20. Dooley, Karen. 1983. Description and dynamics of some western oak forests in Oklahoma. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. 62 p. Dissertation. [12145]
21. Elowe, Kenneth D.; Dodge, Wendell E. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(4): 962-968. [10339]
22. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
23. Fowells, H. A., compiler. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p. [12442]
24. Garrett, H. E.; Thomas, M. W.; Pallardy, S. G. 1989. Susceptibility of sugar maple and oak to eleven foliar-applied herbicides. 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: 81-85. [9371]
25. 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]
26. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
27. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
28. Hannah, Peter R. 1987. Regeneration methods for oaks. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4: 97-101. [3728]
29. Harlow, Richard F.; Whelan, James B.; Crawford, Hewlette S.; Skeen, John E. 1975. Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(2): 330-336. [10088]
30. Knapp, Eric E.; Rice, Kevin J. 1998. Genetic structure and gene flow in Elymus glaucus (blue rye): implications for native grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology. 4(1): 1-10. [11875]
31. 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]
32. Kendig, James W. 1979. Nomenclatural history of Quercus muehlenbergii. Bartonia. 46: 45-48. [10141]
33. Killingbeck, Keith T. 1988. Microhabitat distribution of two Quercus (Fagaceae) species in relation to soil differences within a Kansas gallery forest. The Southwestern Naturalist. 33(2): 244-247. [5249]
34. 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]
35. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1971. Atlas of the United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 320 p. [1462]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021]
39. Martin, William H.; DeSelm, Hal R. 1976. Forest communities of dissected uplands in the Great Valley of east Tennessee. In: Fralish, James S.; Weaver, George T.; Schlesinger, Richard C., eds. Central hardwood forest conference: Proceedings of a meeting; 1976 October 17-19; Carbondale, IL. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University: 11-29. [3810]
40. Maze, Jack. 1968. Past hybridization between Quercus macrocarpa and Quercus gambelii. Brittonia. 20: 321-333. [1559]
41. McIntyre, A. C. 1936. Sprout groups and their relation to the oak forests of Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry. 34: 1054-1058. [10086]
42. Miceli, J. C.; Rolfe, G. L.; Pelz, D. R.; Edgington, J. M. 1977. Brownfield Woods, Illinois: woody vegetation and changes since 1960. The American Midland Naturalist. 98(2): 469-176. [10371]
43. Moser, Harold C. 1971. Manufacture of oak furniture, cabinets, and panels. In: White, D. E.; Roach, B. A., co-chairmen. Oak symposium proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 100-102. [13732]
44. Muth, Gilbert Jerome. 1980. Quercus saderiana R. Br. Campst., its distribution, ecology, and relationships to other oaks. 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: 75-80. [7017]
45. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 p. [1731]
46. Olson, David F., Jr. 1974. Quercus L. oak. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 692-703. [7737]
47. Olson, David F., Jr.; Boyce, Stephen G. 1971. Factors affecting acorn production and germination and early growth of seedlings and seedling sprouts. In: Oak symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 44-48. [9081]
48. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]
49. Quigley, Kenneth L. 1971. The supply and demand situation for oak timber. In: Oak symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 30-36. [9079]
50. 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]
51. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
52. Reichman, O. J. 1987. Forests. In: Konza Prairie: A tallgrass natural history. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 115-124. [4255]
53. Reynolds, Hugh W. 1971. Manufacture of industrial products from oak. In: White, D. E.; Roach, B. A., co-chairmen. Oak symposium proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 103-105. [13733]
54. Rogers, Lynn. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Transactions, North American Wildlife Conference. 41: 431-438. [8951]
55. Rouse, Cary. 1986. Fire effects in northeastern forests: oak. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-105. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [3884]
56. 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]
57. Sander, Ivan L. 1979. Regenerating oaks. In: Proceedings of the National siviculture workshop. Theme: The shelterwood regeneration method; 1979 September 17-21; Charleston, SC. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of Timber Management: 212-22. [11670]
58. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
59. Shaw, Samuel P. 1971. Wildlife and oak management. In: Oak symposium: Proceedings; 1971 August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 84-89. [9087]
60. Shelford, V. E. 1954. Some lower Mississippi valley flood plain biotic communities; their age and elevation. Ecology. 35(2): 126-142. [4329]
61. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708]
62. Smallwood, Peter D.; Peters, W. David. 1986. Grey squirrel food preferences: the effects of tannin and fat concentration. Ecology. 67(1): 168-175. [10519]
63. Smith, David L. 1986. Leaf litter processing and the associated invertebrate fauna in a tallgrass prairie stream. The American Midland Naturalist. 116(1): 78-86. [10384]
64. Stapanian, Martin A.; Smith, Christopher C. 1984. Density-dependent survival of scatterhoarded nuts: an experimental approach. Ecology. 65(5): 1387-1396. [10380]
65. Stapanian, Martin A.; Smith, Christopher C. 1986. How Fox Squirrels influence the invasion of prairies by nut-bearing trees. Journal of Mammalogy. 67(2): 326-332. [11978]
66. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]
67. Wells, Philip V.; Hunziker, Juan H. 1976. Origin of the creosote bush (Larrea) deserts of southwestern North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens. 63: 843-861. [3492]
68. Thomson, Paul M. 1977. Quercus X introgressa, a new hybrid oak. Rhodora. 79: 453-464. [10372]
69. Tucker, John M. 1961. Studies in the Quercus undulata complex. I. A preliminary statement. American Journal of Botany. 48(3): 202-208. [2361]
70. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer). Available: [34262]
71. Van Dersal, William R. 1940. Utilization of oaks by birds and mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 4(4): 404-428. [11983]
72. Van Lear, David H.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 1988. Effects of fire on natural regeneration in the Appalachian Mountains. 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: 56-70. [13934]
73. Van Lear, David H.; Waldrop, Thomas A. 1989. History, uses, and effects of fire in the Appalachians. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 20 p. [10126]
74. Vogt, Albert R.; Cox, Gene S. 1970. Evidence for the hormonal control of stump sprouting by oak. Forest Science. 16(2): 165-171. [9872]
75. 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]
76. 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]
77. Webb, Sara L. 1986. Potential role of passenger pigeons and other vertebrates in the rapid holocene migrations of nut trees. Quaternary Research. 26: 367-375. [11982]
78. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]
79. Thompson, Robert S.; Anderson, Katherine H.; Bartlein, Patrick J. 1999. Digital representations of tree species range maps from "Atlas of United States trees" by Elbert L. Little, Jr. (and other publications). In: Atlas of relations between climatic parameters and distributions of important trees and shrubs in North America. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services (Producer). On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files. [92575]

FEIS Home Page