Athyrium filix-femina, common ladyfern
Walkup, Crystal J. 1991. Athyrium filix-femina, common ladyfern. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/athfil
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| ATHFIL | common ladyfern | Athyrium filix-femina | Life Form: Plants/Fern or Fern Ally, Plants/Forb Kingdom: Plantae Class: Fern or moonwort Order: Polypodiales Family: Dryopteridaceae Genus: Athyrium | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Native Invasiveness: Noninvasive |
Taxonomy
The scientific name for common ladyfern is Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth (Dryopteridaceae) [12,39,40]. Recognized infrataxa are as follows [37]:
- Athyrium filix-femina subsp. angustum (Willd.) Clausen, subarctic common ladyfern
- Athyrium filix-femina subsp. asplenioides (Michx.) Hulten, asplenium common ladyfern
- Athyrium filix-femina subsp. cyclosorum (Rupr.) C. Chr, subarctic common ladyfern
Synonyms
- Athyrium filix-femina var. angustum (Willdenow) G. Lawson, northern common ladyfern
- Athyrium filix-femina var. asplenioides (Michaux) Farwell, southern common ladyfern
- Athyrium filix-femina var. californicum Butters, southwestern common ladyfern
- Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Ruprecht, northwestern common ladyfern [40]
- Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum (Ledeb.) Moore
- Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii (Spreng.) Farw.
- Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii (Spreng.) Farw. forma michauxii
- Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii (Spreng.) Farw. forma elatius (Link) Clute
- Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii (Spreng.) Farw. forma rubellum (Gilbert) Farw.
- Athyrium filix-femina var. michauxii (Spreng.) Farw. forma laurentianum (Butters) Fern. [12,39]
- Athyrium filix-femina var. rubellum Gilbert
- Athyrium filix-femina var. sitchense (Rupr.) Ledeb. (documented in [37])
Other Common Names
lady fern
General Distribution
Common ladyfern is a circumpolar species, occurring from Alaska to the Atlantic, south to California, Texas, and Florida [38]. The variety cyclosorum is found from Alaska south to California; variety michauxii occurs from Labrador and Newfoundland west to northern Saskatchewan and south to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa [12].
States and Provinces
- United States: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
- Canada: BC LB MB NB NF ON PQ SK
Site Characteristics
Common ladyfern is found growing in meadows, open thickets, moist woods, and occasionally in swamps [12]. In West Virginia it occurred in marshy areas where water stood 2 to 4 inches deep (5.0 to 10.2 cm), even in the dry season [9]. It commonly grows in the understory of western redcedar, western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white spruce (Picea glauca), and black spruce [4]. It may reach 50 to 100 percent cover under some redcedar stands where seepage maintains high soil moisture [36].
Elevations at which common ladyfern occurs vary by geographic location as follows:
| Location | Elevation range |
|---|---|
| Arizona | 7,000 to 9,000 feet (2,134-2,743 m) [21] |
| California | 4,000 to 9,500 feet (1,219-2,896 m) [26] |
| Idaho | 4,100 to 4,300 feet (1,250-1,311 m) [34] |
| Utah | 7,400 to 10,500 feet (2,250-3,200 m) [38] |
| Vermont | 1,600 to 2,200 feet (480-670 m) [33] |
| West Virginia | 1,100 to feet (334 m) [9] |
| British Columbia | 2,950 feet (900) [7] |
| Ontario | 1,000 feet (305 m) [7] |
Plant Communities
Common ladyfern occurs as a dominant or subdominant in the following habitat type (hts), plant association (pas), riparian site type (rst), and community type (cts) classifications:
| Area | Classification | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska, Kenai Peninsula | forest cts | Reynolds 1990 |
| Washington, Mt Rainier Natl Park | forest pas | Moir and others 1988 |
| Oregon, Willamette Valley | forest cts | Thilenius 1968 |
| Idaho, northern | forest cts, hts | Cooper and others 1991 |
| Montana, central and eastern | riparian veg, rst, cts, hts | Boggs and others 1989 |
| Wisconsin, northern | forest hts | Kotar and others 1988 |
Botanical Description
Common ladyfern is an introduced deciduous perennial fern. Tufted, erect fronds may grow to 6.6 feet (2 m). They spread vegetatively from stout, chaffy rhizomes. Common ladyfern is often confused with wood fern (Dryopteris carthusiana) but can be readily distinguished by its elongate, sometimes curved (rather than round) sori, which are covered by an indusium attached on one side [12].
Common ladyfern at Rancho Del Oso Nature Center, Santa Cruz County, California.
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Cryptophyte (geophyte)
Seasonal Development
Common ladyfern fronds began dropping in early October in Oregon, apparently as a result of frost. Usually all fronds have dropped by November [10].
Regeneration Processes
Sporangia on the underside of northwestern common ladyfern fronds.
Common ladyfern reproduces by rhizomes and spores. The spores disperse from the sporangia (spore-bearing case), pictured above.
Following the eruption of Mount St. Helens, common ladyfern sprouted from axillary buds of transported rhizomes [1].
Successional Status
Common ladyfern can colonize cracks in rocks and crevices between rocks, making it a true pioneer species. More frequently it occurs as a dominant on perennially wet soil with other herbs. It can survive severe battering if roots are protected and in constant contact with water [10].
Common ladyfern is not a pioneer species in Sitka spruce floodplains on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. It appears initially in the young seral stage under the cover of red alder (Alnus rubra), and increases in cover value from the young seral to the mature climax stage. It is a dominant herb in these mature climax floodplain forests dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock [11]. In Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska, common ladyfern, along with spreading woodfern (Dryopteris austriaca) and bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), tends to dominate in the early stages of succession (1 to 25 years after logging) on moist microsites where tree and shrub regeneration is sparse [2]. In Glacier National Park, Montana, common ladyfern is characteristically restricted to climax cedar-hemlock forests [18].
Immediate Fire Effects
Common ladyfern is top-killed by fire.
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Survivor species; on-site surviving rhizomes
Fire Adaptations
Common ladyfern often occurs on wet sites that burn infrequently. The redcedar/common ladyfern habitat type is characterized by infrequent (>200 years), low-intensity fires [3].
Common ladyfern sprouts from surviving rhizomes following fire.
Plant Response to Fire
Fire decreases common ladyfern cover and frequency on drier sites, but sprouting is likely on subhygric sites [20]. Common ladyfern did not survive a moderate severity fire in mature western red cedar and western hemlock stands in northern Idaho[34].
The Research Papers (Hamilton 2006a, Hamilton 2006b) and Research Project Summary of Hamilton's studies provide information on prescribed fire and postfire response of many plant species, including common ladyfern, that was not available when this species review was originally written.
Fire Regimes
For fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name or acronym on the home page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.
Fire Management Considerations
No entry.
Federal Status
None
Other Status
No entry.
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
The fronds of common ladyfern provide a food source for grizzly bears [5,19,30]. Roosevelt elk consume common ladyfern in the fall on the Olympic Peninsula, but it is not a major food species [32]. It is listed as fair elk and deer food in the Olympic National Forest of Washington [14]. Common ladyfern contains filicic acid and therefore may be poisonous to some classes of livestock [14,28].
Palatability and Nutritional Value
No entry.
Cover Value
No entry.
Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites
No entry.
Other Uses
No entry.
Other Management Considerations
Silvicultural treatments have had variable effects on common ladyfern. In western Montana common ladyfern was absent from logged redcedar (Thuja plicata) sites, but in black spruce (Picea mariana) clearcuts in Ontario, Canada, common ladyfern was present only on the logged sites [8]. Common ladyfern is a major competing species in boreal and sub-boreal spruce (Picea spp.) forests. Scarification decreases presence and height of common ladyfern, thereby benefiting tree regeneration [7].
Common ladyfern may indicate high mass wasting potential when found growing vigorously or in significant numbers (coverage of 10 percent or more). Its absence, however, does not imply slope stability [27].
Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.
Forest and Range Ecosystems (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES10 White - red - jack pine
- FRES11 Spruce - fir
- FRES15 Oak - hickory
- FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
- FRES19 Aspen - birch
- FRES20 Douglas-fir
- FRES21 Ponderosa pine
- FRES22 Western white pine
- FRES23 Fir - spruce
- FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
- FRES25 Larch
- FRES27 Redwood
- FRES28 Western hardwoods
- FRES37 Mountain meadows
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- 1 Northern Pacific Border
- 2 Cascade Mountains
- 3 Southern Pacific Border
- 4 Sierra Mountains
- 5 Columbia Plateau
- 8 Northern Rocky Mountains
- 9 Middle Rocky Mountains
- 11 Southern Rocky Mountains
- 12 Colorado Plateau
- 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
- 15 Black Hills Uplift
Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)
- K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
- K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
- K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
- K004 Fir - hemlock forest
- K006 Redwood forest
- K007 Red fir forest
- K012 Douglas-fir forest
- K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
- K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
- K015 Western spruce - fir forest
- K017 Black Hills pine forest
- K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
- K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
- K025 Alder - ash forest
- K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
- K095 Great Lakes pine forest
- K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
- K102 Beech - maple forest
- K104 Appalachian oak forest
- K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 5 Balsam fir
- 12 Black spruce
- 16 Aspen
- 20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
- 21 Eastern white pine
- 22 White pine - hemlock
- 23 Eastern hemlock
- 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
- 26 Sugar maple - basswood
- 31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
- 32 Red spruce
- 33 Red spruce - balsam fir
- 35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
- 37 Northern white cedar
- 52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
- 53 White oak
- 55 Northern red oak
- 60 Beech - sugar maple
- 201 White spruce
- 202 White spruce - paper birch
- 204 Black spruce
- 205 Mountain hemlock
- 206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
- 207 Red fir
- 212 Western larch
- 213 Grand fir
- 215 Western white pine
- 217 Aspen
- 221 Red alder
- 223 Sitka spruce
- 224 Western hemlock
- 225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
- 226 Coastal true fir - hemlock
- 227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
- 228 Western redcedar
- 229 Pacific Douglas-fir
- 230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
- 232 Redwood
- 237 Interior ponderosa pine
- 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
- 244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
- 251 White spruce
- 252 Paper birch
- 253 Black spruce - white spruce
- 254 Black spruce - paper birch
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry
1. Adams, A. B.; Dale, V. H.; Smith, E. P.; Kruckeberg, A. R. 1987. Plant survival, growth form and regeneration following the 18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Northwest Science. 61(3): 160-170. [6886]
2. Alaback, Paul B. 1984. Plant succession following logging in the Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-173. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [7849]
3. Arno, Stephen F.; Davis, Dan H. 1980. Fire history of western redcedar/hemlock forests in northern Idaho. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 21-26. [12809]
4. Bailey, Arthur Wesley. 1966. Forest associations and secondary succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 166 p. Thesis. [5786]
5. Banner, Allen; Pojar, Jim; Trowbridge, Rick; Hamilton, Anthony. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit River Valley, coastal British Columbia: classification, description, and mapping. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers. Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 - May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 36-49. [10810]
6. Boggs, Keith; Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian Association. 217 p. Draft Version 1. [8447]
7. Brand, David G. 1991. The establishment of boreal and sub-boreal conifer plantations: an integrated analysis of environmental conditions and seedling growth. Forest Science. 37(1): 68-100. [14408]
8. Brumelis, G.; Carleton, T. J. 1989. The vegetation of post-logged black spruce lowlands in central Canada. II. Understory vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 26: 321-339. [7864]
9. Bush, Eleanor M. 1988. A floristic study of a wet meadow in Barbour County, West Virginia. Castanea. 53(2): 132-139. [10117]
10. Campbell, Alsie Gilbert; Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. Riparian vegetation in Oregon's western Cascade Mountains: composition, biomass, and autumn phenology. Bull. No. 14. Seattle, WA: U.S./International Biological Program, University of Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 90 p. [8433]
11. Clement, C. J. E. 1985. Floodplain succession on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(1): 34-39. [8928]
12. Cody, William J.; Britton, Donald M. 1989. Ferns and fern allies of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Agriculture Canada, Research Branch. 430 p. [13078]
13. Cooper, Stephen V.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Roberts, David W. 1991. (Rev.) Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a second approximation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-236. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 143 p. [14792]
14. Dayton, William A. 1960. Notes on western range forbs: Equisetaceae through Fumariaceae. Agric. Handb. 161. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 254 p. [767]
15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
16. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319]
17. 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]
18. Habeck, James R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880. [6479]
19. Hamilton, Anthony; Archibald, W. Ralph. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit River Valley, coastal British Columbia: evaluation. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers. Proceedings-grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 - May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 50-56. [10811]
20. Hawkes, B. C.; Feller, M. C.; Meehan, D. 1990. Site preparation: fire. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 131-149. [10712]
21. 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]
22. Kotar, John; Kovach, Joseph A.; Locey, Craig T. 1988. Field guide to forest habitat types of northern Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Forestry; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 217 p. [11510]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. Moir, W. H.; Hobson, F. D.; Hemstrom, M.; Franklin, J. F. 1979. Forest ecosystems of Mount Rainier National Park. In: Linn, Robert M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on scientific research in the National Parks: Vol I; 1976 Nov. 9-12; New Orleans, LA. National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 201-207. [1674]
26. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
27. Pole, Michael W.; Satterlund, Donald R. 1978. Plant indicators of slope instability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Sept-Oct: 230-232. [8199]
28. Ratliff, Raymond D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [8275]
29. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
30. Reichert, Chris. 1989. Silviculture in grizzly bear habitat. In: Silviculture for all resources: Proceedings of the national silviculture workshop; 1987 May 11-14; Sacramento, CA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 48-60. [6398]
31. Reynolds, Keith M. 1990. Preliminary classification of forest vegetation of the Kenai Penninsula, Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-424. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 67 p. [14581]
32. Schwartz, John E., II; Mitchell, Glen E. 1945. The Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 295-319. [8878]
33. Siccama, T. G.; Bormann, F. H.; Likens, G. E. 1970. The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: productivity, nutrients and phytosociology of the herbaceous layer. Ecological Monographs. 40(4): 389-402. [8875]
34. Stickney, Peter F. 1985. Data base for early postfire succession on the Sundance Burn, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-189. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 121 p. [7223]
35. Thilenius, John F. 1968. The Quercus garryana forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Ecology. 49(6): 1124-1133. [8765]
36. Turner, David P.; Franz, Eldon H. 1986. The influence of canopy dominants on understory vegetation patterns in an old-growth cedar-hemlock forest. American Midland Naturalist. 116(2): 387-393. [7469]
37. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]
38. 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]
39. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]
40. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2016. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]