T
T
T
Species Review

Rhus glabra, smooth sumac

Written
January, 2000
Contributors
K. Johnson - 1st Author

Johnson, Kathleen A. 2000. Rhus glabra, smooth sumac. 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/rhugla

DOI
10.2737/feis-species-review-rhugla

AbbreviationCommon NameScientific NameClassificationStatus
Plants
RHUGLAsmooth sumacRhus glabraLife Form: Plants/Tree
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Dicot
Order: Sapindales
Family: Anacardiaceae
Genus: Rhus		Fed. Protected: No
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive

A photo of a somewhat small tree with medium-sized opposite leaves growing along branches and bunches of small reddish fruits. A conifer grows behind and dried forbs grow in front.
A photo of smooth sumac plants growing in a dense strip on a hillside, with bare rocks above and trees and shrubs below. A river winds through the valley below.
A close-up photo of leaves and flowers of smooth sumac.
A photo of a small black and white bird perched on the dense panicle of many reddish fruits of a smooth sumac with reddish leaves.

A photo of a somewhat small tree with medium-sized opposite leaves growing along branches and bunches of small reddish fruits. A conifer grows behind and dried forbs grow in front.
Photo Credit
Photo by machaut2, iNaturalist.org, some rights reserved.

Smooth sumac growing in British Columbia, Canada (CC BY 4.0).

Taxonomy

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].

Synonyms

  • No entry

Other Common Names

common sumac, Rocky Mountain sumac, red sumac, western sumac, white sumac

General Distribution

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].

States and Provinces

  • United States: AL AZ AR CO CT DE FL GA ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
  • Canada: AB BC MB ON PQ SK
  • Mexico
A photo of smooth sumac plants growing in a dense strip on a hillside, with bare rocks above and trees and shrubs below. A river winds through the valley below.
Photo Credit
Photo by Brandon Corder, iNaturalist.org, some rights reserved.

Smooth sumac growing on a hillside in Grant County, Wisconsin (CC BY 4.0).

Site Characteristics

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 2,290 meters in Utah [91].

Plant Communities

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]:

Grasses

  • 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 (Koelariamacrantha)
  • Indiangrass

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]

Botanical Description

A close-up photo of leaves and flowers of smooth sumac.
Photo Credit
Photo by Matthew Zappa, iNaturalist.org, some rights reserved.

Flowering smooth sumac in Winona County, Minnesota (CC BY 4.0).

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.

Raunkiaer Life Form

  • Phanerophyte [67]

Seasonal Development

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

LocationBeginning of floweringEnd of flowering
ColoradoMayJuly
MontanaJulyJuly
North DakotaJulyJuly
UtahMayJuly

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

Regeneration Processes

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 °C) and alternating warm and cool temperatures both promoted good germination, whereas a constant temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 °C) 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].

Successional Status

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.

Immediate Fire Effects

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.

Postfire Regeneration Strategy

  • 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) [79]

Fire Adaptations

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].

Plant Response to Fire

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].

PlotFire treatment# of burnsMean stem frequency/plot
1a2 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn70
14 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn100
3Annual burns142
4Annual burns1613
53 yrs burn/3 yrs no burn96
62 yrs burn/1 yr no burn1013
82 yrs burn/2 yrs no burn78
ControlUnburned03

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:

  • Early postfire effects of a prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians of North Carolina
  • Effects of experimental burning on understory plants in a temperate deciduous forest in Ohio

Fire Regimes

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 Regimes."

Community or EcosystemScientific Name of Dominant SpeciesFire Return Interval Range in Years
prairieAndropogon gerardii var. gerardii1-6 [18]
pitch pinePinus rigida6-25 [55]
oak-hickoryQuercus-Carya spp.50-100 [3]

For additional fire regime information, search FEIS for smooth sumac by entering the species name on the Advanced Search page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.

Fire Management Considerations

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:

Modelr2pnSy×x
total = 1.5130 + 0.62920 D2H0.9740.000171.587
foliage = 1.2388 + 0.44405 D2H0.9740.000171.126
stem = 0.27415 + 0.18516 D2H0.9640.000170.548

Sy×x = standard error

H = height

D = diameter measured at about 1.0 cm from ground level

Federal Status

None

Other Status

None

A photo of a small black and white bird perched on the dense panicle of many reddish fruits of a smooth sumac with reddish leaves.
Photo Credit
Photo by Donald Davesne, iNaturalist.org, some rights reserved.

A black-capped chickadee perches on a smooth sumac in fruit (CC BY 4.0).

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

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].

Palatability and Nutritional Value

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]:

AnimalColoradoNorth DakotaUtahWyoming
CattlePoor—PoorPoor
Domestic sheepPoor—PoorPoor
HorsesPoor—PoorPoor
Pronghorn——PoorPoor
Bighorn————
Elk——PoorPoor
Mountain goat————
Mule deer——PoorFair
White-tailed deer—FairFair—
Small mammals——FairGood
Small nongame birds——FairFair
Upland game birds——FairFair
Waterfowl——PoorPoor

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.

Cover Value

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]:

AnimalColoradoNorth DakotaUtahWyoming
Pronghorn——PoorPoor
Elk——FairFair
Mule deer——FairFair
White-tailed deer—Fair—Fair
Small mammalsFairFair—Fair
Small nongame birdsFair—GoodFair
Upland game birds——FairFair
Waterfowl——PoorPoor

Value for Rehabilitation of Disturbed Sites

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].

Other Uses

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 make hot and cold beverages [39], dyes, and medicines from smooth sumac fruits. Young sprouts can be eaten in salads [10].

Other Management Considerations

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].

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
  • 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

BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)

  • 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

Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)

  • 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

SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)

  • 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

SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)

  • 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

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]

Last updated August 28, 2025
Return to top
Share your website feedback