T
T
T
Species Review

Shepherdia canadensis, russet buffaloberry

Written
August, 1991
Contributors
C. J. Walkup - 1st Author

Walkup, Crystal J. 1991. Shepherdia canadensis, russet buffaloberry. 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/shecan

DOI
10.2737/feis-species-review-shecan

AbbreviationCommon NameScientific NameClassificationStatus
Plants
SHECANrusset buffaloberryShepherdia canadensisLife Form: Plants/Shrub
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Dicot
Order: Rhamnales
Family: Elaeagnaceae
Genus: Shepherdia		Fed. Protected: No
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive

Photo of russet buffaloberry.
Photo Credit: Photo by Jamie Latham, iNaturalist.org, no rights reserved.
Russet buffaloberry.

Taxonomy

The currently accepted scientific name for russet buffaloberry is Shepherdia canadensis (L.) Nutt. (Elaeagnaceae). There is one recognized form which produces only yellow fruit: S. canadensis forma xanthocarpa Rehd. [58].

Synonyms

  • No entry

Other Common Names

buffalo-berry, Canadian buffaloberry, russet red buffaloberry, soapberry, soopolallie

General Distribution

Russet buffaloberry is found from Nova Scotia, southwest across Maine to western New York and northern Ohio, west to the Black Hills of South Dakota and Alaska, avoiding most of the Great Basin. From Alaska it follows the Rocky Mountains south to Arizona and New Mexico and extends east across northern Canada to Newfoundland. The northern limits are within the Arctic Circle [6,35,37,50,52,57].

States and Provinces

  • United States: AK AZ CA CO ID ME MA MI MN MT NV NH NM NY OH OR PA SD UT VT WA WI WY
  • Canada: AB BC MB NB NF NT NS ON PQ SK YT

Site Characteristics

Russet buffaloberry is generally found on sandy, gravelly, or rocky soils, and is able to thrive on nutrient-poor soils due to its nitrogen-fixing ability [5,57]. Nodulation is variable and appears to be most abundant in nutrient-poor, sandy soils [37,57]. Russet buffaloberry grows on shores, riverbanks, dry slopes, moist north slopes, open rocky woods, and occasionally in calcareous marshes [50]. It forms dense thickets along riparian zones and valley bottoms [37].

In Alaska it is uncommon or locally common in openings and forests of dry uplands and in aspen forests on old burns [57]. It has been reported dominating dry, rocky sites in the Mission and Rattlesnake mountains of Montana [37]. It also dominates the most xerophytic communities in Banff and Jasper National Parks, Alberta [29], the driest sites for tree growth in interior Alaska [57], and the drier situations in the Black Hills of South Dakota [21]. Other sources have described it as mesophilic and occurring on moist north slopes [3,37].

Elevations have been reported from 4,950 to 5,250 feet (1,500-1,600 m) in Alberta [46] and 6,600 to 8,200 feet (2,012-2,499 m) in Idaho [43].

Plant Communities

Russet buffaloberry occurs in the understory of plant communities. Dominant overstory species vary by geographic location and include: subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in Montana [37]; spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) in the northern and far northern Rocky Mountains [8]; subalpine fir, white spruce (P. glauca), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in southern British Columbia [54]; white spruce, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and quaking aspen in Alberta [29,37]; white spruce in the Yukon Territory [37]; quaking aspen in interior Alaska [37,57]; and old-growth lodgepole pine with a mixture of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir in Colorado [1].

Russet buffaloberry occurs as a dominant or subdominant in the following habitat type and community type classification systems:

State/RegionAreaClassificationAuthority
ColoradoArapaho & Roosevelt National ForestForest habitat typesHess & Alexander 1986
White River & Arapaho National ForestGrassland, shrubland, & forest habitat typesHess & Wasser 1982
Rout National ForestForest habitat typesHoffman & Alexander 1980
Montana—Forest habitat typesPfister, Kovalchick, Arno, & Presby 1977
WyomingBighorn MountainsForest habitat typesHoffman & Alexander 1976
Wind River MountainsForest habitat typesReed 1976
Intermountain region—Aspen community typesMueggler 1988

Botanical Description

Russet buffaloberry is a native, deciduous, nitrogen-fixing shrub ranging in height from 3 to 13 feet (0.9-3.9 m) [5]. Plants are generally dioecious but occasionally monoecious [52]. Fruits are drupelike, ovoid achenes enveloped in a fleshy perianth which turns yellowish red to bright red when ripe [6,50,54]. Roots have been variously reported as rhizomatous with relatively deep underground parts, fibrous and shallow [37], and a taproot with no rhizomes [34].

Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)

  • Phanerophyte

Seasonal Development

Across its range, russet buffaloberry flowers from April to June, and the fruits ripen from June to August [37]. In Saskatchewan, anthesis begins in mid to late April, 3 to 7 days earlier in pistillate plants than in staminate plants. Bloom occurs in late April to early May in Ontario [51] and in Alaska plants bloom in early May following snowmelt [57]. Fruits mature during July in all three areas. Shoot elongation was visible in Saskatchewan from the last week of April, 3 to 5 days after anthesis, until the end of June. The majority of growth occurs from early May until mid-June [20].

The averages of significant phenological dates were reported east and west of the Continental Divide [48].

Continental DivideLeaf buds burstLeaves full grownFloweringFruits ripeSeed fallLeaf drop
East17 May25 June14 May–29 May28 July5 Aug–11 Sept10 Sept–1 Oct
West19 May14 June15 May–3 June9 July—11 Sept–4 Oct

Regeneration Processes

Photo of russet buffaloberry.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jamie Latham, iNaturalist.org, no rights reserved.

Russet buffaloberry.

Sexual: Seed production begins at 4 to 6 years of age, with good seed crops generally produced every year after that. The small, hard seed shows poor, highly erratic, or delayed germination. Cold stratification for a minimum of 60 days appears to be a requirement for embryo development [34,53]. Sulfuric acid scarification for 20 to 30 minutes resulted in 72 to 80 percent germination [53]. Seeds are disseminated by animals and gravity.

Vegetative: Sprouts arise from both surviving root crowns and dormant buds on the taproot [38]. However, russet buffaloberry is not very aggressive in terms of regeneration. It had the lowest aggressive ability of 20 shrubs and trees in Canada [17].

Successional Status

Russet buffaloberry occurs as a dominant with willow (Salix spp.) in the second stage of succession on glacial moraines between Alaska and the Yukon Territory [4]. As succession moves from immature forest to old-growth forest there is a significant decrease in percent cover of russet buffaloberry [2]. It is also a dominant species in the climax vegetation of ponderosa pine forests and hardwood climax forests on alluvial floodplains along major rivers in Montana [45]. Following fire, russet buffaloberry is found in the first stage of succession (the seedling/herb stage) which lasts from 1 to 15 years [19], and remains after the canopy closes [3].

Immediate Fire Effects

Severe fires will consume all aboveground leaves and stems of russet buffaloberry, while light to moderate fires will leave some stems standing [37].

Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)

  • Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown

Fire Adaptations

Sprouting from surviving root crowns and establishment from seed transported from off-site allow russet buffaloberry to survive fire [38]. As fire suppression culminates in closed-canopy, old-growth forests, fire generally increases russet buffaloberry density and vigor, although full benefits may not be realized for at least 25 years [37].

Plant Response to Fire

Russet buffaloberry is normally fire resistant but can be eliminated by fire [34]. As a result it is classified as moderately resistant to burning [34,38]. Following a Montana wildfire, regrowth of buffaloberry was slow; 4 to 5 years were required for 25 percent of the eventual crown size to be obtained [30]. Recurrent, low-intensity ground fires are closely linked to maintaining russet buffaloberry density and vigor in stands with lodgepole pine and quaking aspen overstories, and dry upland meadows where it dominates the shrub layer [37].

Following an intense wildfire in Colorado, essentially all aboveground vegetation in the perimeter died. The fire was the most intense where dominated by lodgepole pine, with lower intensities in areas dominated by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. Russet buffaloberry increased rapidly following this fire due to sprouting from surviving roots. A combination of delayed sprouting and seeds originating from outside the burn was hypothesized to be responsible for an increase in frequency over the study period. Three years after the fire, russet buffaloberry was mainly found on sites with a somewhat lower slope, a higher prefire tree basal area, and a higher number of prefire tree stems per acre. These factors appear to be conducive to russet buffaloberry establishment and growth [3].

The Research Project Summary, Vegetation response to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests of western Montana provides information on prescribed fire and postfire response of plant community species, including russet buffaloberry, that was not available when this species review was written.

Fire Regimes

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

Fire Management Considerations

Low- to moderate-intensity fires may increase vigor and density of russet buffaloberry in old-growth stands. Berry production may also be increased for several years after fire [3,37].

Federal Status

None

Other Status

Russet buffaloberry is endangered in Maine [10].

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

Russet buffaloberry provides only fair forage for sheep and poor forage for cattle and horses [35]. Feral horses in western Alberta used it as a small part of their diet [47]. Mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk use has been rated from fair to good [35,37,59,60], with one Montana study listing it as a key food source of white-tailed deer [14]. However, in the Black Hills, it was absent from the white-tailed deer diet for the entire year [24]. Russet buffaloberry provided only 1 to 10 percent of the June to September diet of mule deer in Colorado [59]. Snowshoe hares utilize russet buffaloberry as browse, but it is not preferred [39,49]. Bighorn sheep use it as a low-preference shrub, with moderate to heavy use of new growth in early June [51]. Dormant plants are used in proportions equal to or greater than their availability [44].

Wildlife use berries more frequently than browse. Black bears, grizzly bears, and grouse make substantial use of them in the fall [33,37,42,55,57]. Berries provide the major food from midsummer until frost for black bears in the Yukon Territory [32].

Palatability and Nutritional Value

Palatability of russet buffaloberry browse is considered poor; it is usually utilized only in the absence of other browse. It is listed as unpalatable to both mule deer and white-tailed deer in the Black Hills [16], and to moose in British Columbia and Wyoming [7,16]. Extensive use of the berries indicates their high palatability.

The relish and degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for russet buffaloberry in several western states is rated as follows [7,11,14,16,59]:

Russet buffaloberry browse palatability by animal and state.
AnimalColoradoMontanaNorth DakotaOregonUtahWyoming
CattlePoorPoorPoorPoorPoorFair
SheepPoorFairFairFairFairFair
HorsesPoorPoorPoorPoorPoorFair
PronghornFairFairFairFairPoorPoor
ElkPoorPoorPoorPoorFairFair
MoosePoorPoorPoorPoorPoorPoor
Mule deer—PoorPoorPoorPoorFair
White-tailed deerPoorGoodPoorPoorFairPoor
Russet buffaloberry fruit palatability by animal and state.
AnimalColoradoMontanaNorth DakotaOregonUtahWyoming
Small mammalsGoodGoodGoodGoodFairGood
Small nongame birdsFairFairFairFairFairGood
Upland game birdsGoodGoodGoodGoodFairFair
Waterfowl—GoodGoodGoodPoorPoor
Grizzly bear—Good———Good
Black bearGoodGoodGoodGoodGoodGood

Russet buffaloberry browse has one of the highest protein values, but its low palatability warrants a low food value rating [7,16]. Chemical analyses indicate a high total sugar content in the browse, which should make it palatable. Cyanide, which animals avoid, may be present, but this has not been verified by chemical analysis [16]. Another problem may be the phosphorus:calcium ratio. Less than 1:5 is poor, due to calcium's inhibition of phosphorus uptake. Leaves have a 1:6 ratio, stems have a 1:10 ratio and fruit has a 1:1 ratio. This makes the fruit the only palatable portion. Carotenoids (0.97 percent of the fruit's dry weight) provide a source of vitamins to wildlife using the berries [37].

Cover Value

The degree to which russet buffaloberry provides environmental protection during one or more seasons for wildlife species is as follows [11]:

Russet buffaloberry cover value by animal and state.
AnimalColoradoMontanaUtahWyoming
Elk—PoorFairFair
Mule deer—FairFairGood
white-tailed deerGood——Fair
Pronghorn——PoorPoor
Upland game birds—GoodFairGood
Waterfowl—PoorPoorPoor
Small nongame birdsFairGoodGoodGood
Small mammalsFairFairFairGood

Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites

Russet buffaloberry is desirable for revegetating disturbed sites because it is native, provides food and cover for wildlife, and is a nitrogen-fixing plant. Its nitrogen-fixing ability allows it to grow in soils with low amounts of mineral nitrogen, which are common in disturbed areas. It also enhances the growth of associated species by producing "an island of fertility" around its perimeter [61].

A 1979 survey of all Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationists indicated only one Southwestern state is currently using russet buffaloberry for amenity plantings [13]. It naturally invaded two of six subalpine mine sites in Alberta, being rare at one site and abundant at the other [46]. It was used as a preferred species for revegetation of three mining sites in Idaho [43].

Several methods have been tried for propagation of russet buffaloberry. Vegetative propagation is best accomplished using root cuttings. Stem cuttings have been unsuccessful [27]. Transplanting containerized material has been successful in Ontario [61] and Alaska [9]. Seeds are very susceptible to greenhouse pathogens and have limited germination ability (see Regeneration Processes), making root cuttings a better method of propagating containerized material [9]. Formation of short suckers allows a gradual increase in the size of the planting [61]. Direct planting of properly scarified seeds may be successful but has not been reported in the literature.

Other Uses

Food: Native Americans either pressed the berries into cakes, which were smoked and eaten, or mixed them with water and beat them to make a frothy dessert [57].

Ornamental: Plants are occasionally grown for ornamental use [37].

Medicinal: The Salish and Kootenai tribes boiled debarked branches and used the solution as an eyewash. The Sioux boiled the roots, strained them through cloth and the tea to cure diarrhea [37].

Other Management Considerations

Wildlife managers plant russet buffaloberry for habitat improvement and watershed management [37].

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
  • FRES17 Elm - ash – cottonwood
  • FRES19 Aspen – birch
  • FRES20 Douglas-fir
  • FRES21 Ponderosa pine
  • FRES23 Fir – spruce
  • FRES25 Larch
  • FRES26 Lodgepole pine
  • FRES28 Western hardwoods
  • FRES29 Sagebrush
  • FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
  • FRES35 Pinyon – juniper
  • FRES38 Plains grasslands
  • FRES44 Alpine

BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)

  • 2 Cascade Mountains
  • 4 Sierra Mountains
  • 5 Columbia Plateau
  • 6 Upper Basin and Range
  • 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)

  • K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
  • K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
  • K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
  • K011 Western ponderosa forest
  • K012 Douglas-fir forest
  • K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
  • K015 Western spruce - 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
  • K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
  • K025 Alder - ash forest
  • K037 Mountain mahogany - oak scrub
  • K038 Great Basin sagebrush
  • K052 Alpine meadows and barren
  • K055 Sagebrush steppe
  • K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
  • K063 Foothills prairie
  • K064 Grama - needlegrass – wheatgrass
  • K066 Wheatgrass – needlegrass
  • K081 Oak savanna
  • K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
  • K095 Great Lakes pine forest
  • K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
  • K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
  • K098 Northern floodplain forest
  • K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
  • K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest

SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)

  • 1 Jack pine
  • 5 Balsam fir
  • 15 Red pine
  • 16 Aspen
  • 22 White pine – hemlock
  • 32 Red spruce
  • 33 Red spruce - balsam fir
  • 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir
  • 35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
  • 39 Black ash - American elm - red maple
  • 42 Bur oak
  • 107 White spruce
  • 201 White spruce
  • 206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
  • 208 Whitebark pine
  • 210 Interior Douglas-fir
  • 211 White fir
  • 212 Western larch
  • 216 Blue spruce
  • 217 Aspen
  • 218 Lodgepole pine
  • 219 Limber pine
  • 221 Red alder
  • 230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
  • 236 bur oak
  • 237 Interior ponderosa pine
  • 238 Western juniper
  • 239 Pinyon – juniper
  • 251 White spruce - aspen

SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)

  • No entry

1. Alexander, Robert R. 1966. Harvest cutting old-growth lodgepole pine in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Forestry. 64(2): 113-116. [8348]

2. Antos, J. A.; Habeck, J. R. 1981. Successional development in Abies grandis (Dougl.) Forbes forests in the Swan Valley, western Montana. Northwest Science. 55(1): 26-39. [12445]

3. Barth, Richard C. 1970. Revegetation after a subalpine wildfire. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 142 p. Thesis. [12458]

4. Birks, H. J. B. 1980. The present flora and vegetation of the moraines of the Klutlan Glacier, Yukon Territory, Canada: a study in plant succession. Quaternary Research. 14(1): 60-86. [13490]

5. Bormann, Bernard T. 1988. A masterful scheme: Symbiotic nitrogen-fixing plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Arboretum Bulletin. 51(2): 10-14. [6796]

6. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]

7. Cowan, I. McT.; Hoar, W. S.; Hatter, J. 1950. The effect of forest succession upon the quantity and upon the nutritive values of woody plants used by moose. Canadian Journal of Research. 28(5): 249-271. [12820]

8. Daubenmire, R. F. 1943. Vegetational zonation in the Rocky Mountains. Botanical Review. 9(6): 326-393. [737]

9. Densmore, Roseann V.; Dalle-Molle, Lois; Holmes, Katherine E. 1990. Restoration of alpine and subalpine plant communities in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, U.S.A. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration `89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 509-519. [14720]

10. Dibble, Alison C.; Campbell, Christopher S.; Tyler, Harry R., Jr.; Vickery, Barbara St. J. 1989. Maine's official list of endangered and threatened plants. Rhodora. 91(867): 244-269. [4258]

11. 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]

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

13. Fessenden, R. J. 1979. Use of actinorhizal plants for land reclamation and amenity planting in the U.S.A. and Canada. In: Gordon, J. C.; Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April 2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 403-419. [4308]

14. Freedman, June D. 1983. The historical relationship between fire and plant succession within the Swan Valley white-tailed deer winter range, western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 139 p. Dissertation. [6486]

15. 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]

16. Gastler, George F.; Moxon, Alvin L.; McKean, William T. 1951. Composition of some plants eaten by deer in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 15(4): 352-357. [3996]

17. Guy, Peter R.; Bateman, J. Cam. 1989. Determining optimal initial stocking densities during mine reclamation. In: Walker, D. G.; Powter, C. B.; Pole, M. W., compilers. Reclamation, a global perspective: Proceedings of the conference; 1989 August 27-31; Calgary, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council: 317-326. [14349]

18. Harry, G. Bryan. 1957. Winter food habits of moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21(1): 53-57. [8429]

19. Hawkes, Brad C. 1982. Fire history and ecology of forest ecosystems in Kluane National Park. In: Wein, Ross W.; Riewe, Roderick R.; Methven, Ian R., eds. Resources and dynamics of the Boreal Zone; [Date of conference unknown]; Thunder Bay, ON. [Place of publication unknown]. Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies: 266-280. [7444]

20. Hayes, P. A.; Steeves, T. A.; Neal, B. R. 1989. An architectural analysis of Shepherdia canadensis and Shepherdia argentea: patterns of shoot development. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 1870-1877. [7981]

21. Hayward, Herman E. 1928. Studies of plants in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Botanical Gazette. 85(4): 353-412. [1110]

22. Hess, Karl; Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-266. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1141]

23. Hess, Karl; Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Grassland, shrubland, and forestland habitat types of the White River-Arapaho National Forest. Final Report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 335 p. [1142]

24. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270]

25. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1976. Forest vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-170. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p. [1180]

26. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1980. Forest vegetation of the Routt National Forest in northwestern Colorado: a habitat classification. Res. Pap. RM-221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [1179]

27. Holloway, Patricia; Zasada, John. 1979. Vegetative propagation of 11 common Alaska woody plants. Res. Note PNW-334. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [1183]

28. 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]

29. La Roi, George H.; Hnatiuk, Roger J. 1980. The Pinus contorta forests of Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study in comparative synecology and syntaxonomy. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 1-29. [8347]

30. Lyon, L. Jack. 1984. The Sleeping Child Burn--21 years of postfire change. Res. Pap. INT-330. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [6328]

31. 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]

32. MacHutchon, A. Grant. 1989. Spring and summer food habits of black bears in the Pelly River Valley, Yukon. Northwest Science. 63(3): 116-118. [12249]

33. Mace, Richard D.; Bissell, Gael N. 1986. Grizzly bear food resources in the flood plains and avalanche chutes of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. 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: 78-91. [10812]

34. McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122. [1621]

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

36. Mueggler, Walter F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-250. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 135 p. [5902]

37. Noble, William. 1985. Shepherdia canadensis: its ecology, distribution, and utilization by the grizzly bear. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT: 28 p. [14917]

38. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]

39. Pease, James L.; Vowles, Richard H.; Keith, Lloyd B. 1979. Interaction of snowshoe hares and woody vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(1): 43-60. [12465]

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

41. Reed, Robert M. 1976. Coniferous forest habitat types of the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. American Midland Naturalist. 95(1): 159-173. [1950]

42. 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]

43. Richardson, Bland Z. 1985. Reclamation in the Intermountain Rocky Mountain Region. In: McCarter, M. K., ed. Design of non-impounding mine waste dumps; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.: 177-192. [12780]

44. Riggs, Robert Alexander. 1977. Winter habitat use patterns and populations of bighorn sheep in Glacier National Park. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [112]

45. Ross, Robert L.; Hunter, Harold E. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana based on soils and climate. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 64 p. [2028]

46. Russell, W. B. 1985. Vascular flora of abandoned coal-mined land, Rocky Mountain Foothills, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(4): 503-516. [10461]

47. Salter, R. E.; Hudson, R. J. 1979. Feeding ecology of feral horses in western Alberta. Journal of Range Management. 32(3): 221-225. [11490]

48. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082]

49. Smith, J. N. M.; Krebs, C. J.; Sinclair, A. R. E.; Boonstra, R. 1988. Population biology of snowshoe hares. II. Interactions with winter food plants. Journal of Animal Ecology. 57: 269-286. [6713]

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

51. Stelfox, John G. 1976. Range ecology of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Canadian national parks. Report Series Number 39. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service. 50 p. [13851]

52. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]

53. Thilenius, John F.; Evans, Keith E.; Garrett, E. Chester. 1974. Shepherdia Nutt. buffaloberry. 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: 771-773. [7753]

54. Tisdale, E. W.; McLean, A. 1957. The Douglas-fir zone of southern interior British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 27(3): 247-266. [8866]

55. Unsworth, James W.; Beecham, John J.; Irby, Lynn R. 1989. Female black bear habitat use in west-central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 668-673. [8407]

56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]

57. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. [6884]

58. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

59. Wallmo, O. C.; Gill, R. Bruce. 1973. Middle Park deer study: physical characteristics and food habits. In: Federal Aid Completion Report: Project W-38-R-27: WP-14: J4. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife: 83-103. [2445]

60. Wallmo, Olof C.; Regelin, Wayne L.; Reichert, Donald W. 1972. Forage use by mule deer relative to logging in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36: 1025-1033. [4486]

61. Winterhalder, Keith. 1990. The trigger-factor approach to the initiation of natural regeneration of plant communities on industrially-damaged lands at Sudbury, Ontario. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 215-226. [14697]

Last updated September 17, 2025
Return to top
Share your website feedback