Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)
 FEIS Home Page 
SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
Photo by Clarence A. Rechenthin, hosted by the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database.

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Aleksoff, Keith C. 1999. Achillea millefolium. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/forb/achmil/all.html [].

Revisions: Photos and Rim Fire information added on 2 June 2015.

ABBREVIATION:
ACHMIL

SYNONYMS:
Achillea lanulosa Nutt. [73]

NRCS PLANT CODE:
ACMI2
ACMIA
ACMIA2
ACMIB
ACMIC
ACMIG
ACMIL2
ACMIM
ACMIO

COMMON NAMES:
common yarrow
western yarrow
wooly yarrow

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of common yarrow is Achillea millefolium L. (Asteraceae) [26,36,44,73]. There are both native and introduced phases of common yarrow in North America. Introduced and native phases differ primarily in chromosome number and are difficult to distinguish morphologically [26,73]. Native and introduced phases hybridize. The intricate pattern of morphologic, geographic, and ecologic variation within the species has frustrated all efforts to organize an intraspecific taxonomy on a circumboreal or even a strictly North American basis [26]. Most authorities do not recognize infrataxa [26,73,74]; however, Kartesz [44] recognizes the following varieties:

Achillea millefolium var. alpicola (Rydb.) Garrolt - common yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. arenicola (Heller) Nobs - common yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. borealis (Bong.) Farw. - boreal yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. californica (Pollard) Jepson - California yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. gigantea (Pollard) Nobs - giant yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. litoralis (Ehrend.) Nobs - coast yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. megacephala (Raup) Bolvin - largehead yarrow
Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis (DC.) Hyl. - western yarrow


LIFE FORM:
Forb

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
Boreal yarrow is state-listed as a species of special concern in Maine [48].

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Common yarrow is circumboreal. In North America, it occurs in every state, province, and in Mexico [19,33]. It is adventitious in Hawaii [62].

ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES17  Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES20  Douglas-fir
FRES21  Ponderosa pine
FRES23  Fir-spruce
FRES29  Sagebrush
FRES30  Desert shrub
FRES34  Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35  Pinyon-juniper
FRES36  Mountain grasslands
FRES38  Plains grasslands
FRES39  Prairie
FRES41  Wet grasslands
FRES44  Alpine:

STATES:
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  
HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  
MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NM  NV  NH  
NJ  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  
SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY
DC  PR

AB  BC  MB  NB  NF  NT  ON  PQ  SK  SK  
YT

Mexico

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
 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:
K011  Western ponderosa forest
K012  Douglas-fir forest
K015  Western spruce-fir forest
K016  Eastern ponderosa forest
K018  Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019  Arizona pine forest
K021  Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023  Juniper-pinyon woodland
K037  Mountain mahogany-oak scrub
K038  Great Basin sagebrush
K040  Saltbush-greasewood
K049  Tule marshes
K051  Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K052  Alpine meadows and barren
K055  Sagebrush steppe
K056  Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K063  Foothills prairie
K064  Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K065  Grama-buffalograss
K066  Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K067  Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
K070  Sandsage-bluestem prairie
K074  Bluestem prairie
K098  Northern floodplain forest

SAF COVER TYPES:
210  Interior Douglas-fir forest
216  Blue spruce
217  Aspen
218  Lodgepole pine
219  Limber pine
237  Interior ponderosa pine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
101  Bluebunch Wheatgrass
102  Idaho Fescue
103  Green Fescue 
104  Antelope Bitterbrush-Bluegrass Wheatgrass
105  Antelope Bitterbrush-Idaho Fescue
107  Western Juniper-Big Sagebrush
109  Ponderosa pine shrubland
110  Ponderosa Pine-Grassland
204  North Coastal Shrub
309  Idaho Fescue-Western Wheatgrass
315  Big Sagebrush-Idaho Fescue
316  Big Sagebrush-Rough Fescue
317  Bitterbrush-Bluebunch Wheatgrass
323  Shrubby Cinquefoil-Rough Fescue
401  Basin Big Sagebrush
402  Mountain Big Sagebrush
409  Tall Forb
411  Aspen Woodland
413  Gambel Oak
608  Wheatgrass-Grama-Needlegrass
610  Wheatgrass
613  Fescue Grassland
805  Riparian
910  Hairgrass

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Common yarrow occurs in a variety of plant communities across its wide distribution. It is not usually a community dominant [39,54].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Common yarrow varies greatly in forage value, depending on locality and seasonal development. It is generally unpalatable, although domestic livestock and wildlife occasionally consume the flowers. Cattle and horses usually do not graze common yarrow, but bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and deer may use it. They most often graze the flowerheads. common yarrow provides fair forage for domestic sheep and goats [24,43]. The average summer use is 20% for cattle and horses and 40% for domestic sheep and goats [58]. Common yarrow is an important food of 4- to 8-week-old sage grouse chicks [16].

Common yarrow contains volatile oils, alkaloids, and glycosides but is not generally considered a toxic plant because it is so seldom consumed by livestock. Milk from cows consuming common yarrow has a "disagreeable" flavor [64].

PALATABILITY:
The palatability of common yarrow to livestock and wildlife in several western states has been rated as follows [27]: 
                     CO      MT      ND      UT      WY
Cattle              poor    poor    poor    poor    poor
Domestic sheep      fair    fair    fair    good    fair
Horses              poor    poor    poor    poor    poor
Pronghorn           ----    poor    fair    fair    fair
Elk                 ----    poor    ----    fair    fair
Mule deer           ----    poor    fair    fair    fair
White-tailed deer   ----    poor    poor    ----    fair
Small mammals       ----    poor    ----    fair    fair
Small nongame birds ----    poor    ----    fair    poor        
Upland game birds   ----    poor    ----    fair    good
Waterfowl           ----    ----    ----    poor    poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Common yarrow is rated as poor in energy and protein content [27]. In Northern Utah, plants growing on unfavorable sites (defined by slope, exposure, and vegetation cover) were 9% higher in crude protein than plants growing on favorable sites [21]. ,Monthly nutrient values and moisture content of common yarrow collected from Cold Meadows in the River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho, (1977 to 1978) were as follows [29]:

                June        July           Aug
crude fiber    22(2.0)     24(1.8)       25(1.2)
crude protein  20(1.6)     17(0.3)       14(0.9)
moisture       78(5)       64(2)         58(3)
CA:P           2.7:1       4.5:1         5.1:1
COVER VALUE:
The degree to which yarrow provides cover for wildlife has
been rated as follows [27]:

                                 CO     MT      ND      UT     WY
Pronghorn                  ----    ----      fair       poor   poor
Elk                             ----    ----      ----     poor   poor
Mule deer                   ----    ----      fair      poor   poor
Small mammals           good    poor    ----    fair     poor
Small nongame birds   good    poor    fair     fair     poor
Upland game birds      ----    poor     ----    fair     poor
Waterfowl                  ----    ----      ----     poor  poor
White-tailed deer        ----    ----      fair     ----    poor


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Due to its extensive system of rhizomes, common yarrow is a good soil binder [59] and has been used in erosion control projects on the Wasatch Plateau in central Utah [69]. In Massachusetts, seed-grown sod of common yarrow, along with sod of 11 other species, was transplanted onto a roadside site with shallow, infertile soil and direct exposure. After 4 years, common yarrow was one of 3 surviving species on the site [2].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Native Americans used tea made from common yarrow to relieve ear-, tooth-, and headaches; as an eyewash; to reduce swelling; and as a tonic or stimulant. common yarrow varies in taste and in potency depending on where it grows and at what stage of growth it is in. The best time to collect yarrow for tea is right before the flowers are produced, using only the new succulent leaves [34]. During the Civil War, common yarrow was widely used to treat wounds and became known as "soldiers' woundwort." An ethanol extract of common yarrow has mosquito- repelling properties [67].

Common yarrow is used for summer and winter bouquets. When cut fresh and kept in water, common yarrow flavors the air with an aromatic spiciness [43,64].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Common yarrow tends to increase rapidly in disturbed areas or overgrazed rangelands, replacing more valuable forage species and crops [43]. It is often an indicator of past overstocking and excessive utilization [69]. Common yarrow tends to decrease on grazing plots once grazing has ceased [7,20]. Since rhizomes are a major means of common yarrow regeneration, starting control measures early in autumn may prevent spring growth from autumn and winter rhizome dry matter [15]. In New Zealand, barley (Hordeum vulgare) reduced rhizome and seed production in common yarrow [15].

Dicamba and mixtures with triclopyr are effective in controlling common yarrow [74].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Common yarrow is a perennial forb 11 to 40 inches (30-100 cm) in height with extensive rhizomes. It has few to numerous erect stems. The basal rosette of leaves may remain green throughout the winter [43]. Plants grow in a somewhat scattered fashion and seldom form pure stands in areas larger than 5 square meters [69]. Typical European Achillea millefolium is hexaploid with flat leaves. Native forms are mostly tetraploid, with narrow leaf-segments disposed in various planes so that the leaf is 3-dimensional [33].

McLean [49] reported that in a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest zone in British Columbia, the fibrous roots and rhizomes of yarrow grew mostly in the duff layer or between it and the mineral soil.

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Hemicryptophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Common yarrow regenerates from fragments of rhizomes and from colonization through short-distance (1-2 m) wind dispersal of seeds [15,47,61]. In disturbed soils, fragmented rhizomes regenerate shoots which can emerge from soil depths as great as 12 inches (30 cm). In undisturbed soil the rhizomes remain attached to the parent plant, forming new plants at the rhizome apices [15].

The fruit is a small achenes weighing about 0.17 mg. They are produced in large numbers. Several thousand achenes may be produced per flowering stem. The viability of freshly shed seeds exceeds 90%. Common yarrow seed showed 41% germination after 9 years in dry storage [15].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Common yarrow usually occupies dry, open sites in a variety of habitats across its range including sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-grassland, canyon bottoms, glades, roadsides, and vacant lots. It is prevalent in brushlands, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), open timber, and subalpine zones. It is intolerant of dense shade. It is common on thin soils and sandy gravelly loam on open flats, parks, and dry meadows [69]. The elevational distribution in several western states is as follows [19]:

Colorado: 4,000-12,000 feet (1220-3660 m)
Montana: 2,400-10,000 feet ( 730-3050 m)
Utah: 4,300-10,300 feet (1210-3040 m)
Wyoming: 4,600-11,000 feet (1400-3350 m)

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Common yarrow is a pioneer species everywhere it is found [1]. It is an invader species on disturbed rangeland sites. Common yarrow also appears to be tolerant of competition but not tolerant of excessive shade. It is usually present in the earliest stages of vegetation development and persists throughout succession [42]. It dominates on overgrazed high summer ranges, where the undisturbed climax vegetation would be made up of wheatgrasses (Triticeae) [69].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Common yarrow has a long flowering season throughout its range, which varies as follows [19]:
    State     Earliest     Most Frequent     Latest
                Month         Month           Month
---------------------------------------------------
     CO          May           May             Jun
     ID          Apr           May             Jun
     MT          May           May             Jun
     UT          Apr           May             Jun
     WY          May           Jun             Aug

Average dates of different growth stages at different elevations in Utah were recorded as follows [22]:

Elev.   Flower buds  Flowers    Seeds    Seeds         Plant
(ft)    evident      in bloom   ripe     disseminated  dried
---------------------------------------------------------------
7,150   May 30       Jun 29     Sept 28  Sept 19       Oct 10
7,655   Jun 01       Jul 05     Aug 26   Sept 24       Oct 13
8,450   Jun 06       Jul 10     Sept 04  ---           Sept 25
9,000   Jun 18       Jul 15     Sept 08  Sept 29       Oct 01
10,100  Jun 25       Jul 21     Sept 20  Oct 08        Oct 08

Average heights (cm) of plants at various dates and altitudes from Ephraim Canyon in Utah were as follows (1925-1934) [22]:

Alt.(ft) May 1  May 15  Jun 1   Jun 15  Jul 1  Jul 15
-----------------------------------------------------
7,150    4.9    9.1     16.2    26.2    30.8   33.9
7,655    3.9    8.0     12.9    20.0    28.4   31.1
8,450    1.4    4.6      7.7    15.8    24.2   29.3
9,000    --     0.5      3.5     7.9    19.0   28.3
10,100   --     --       --      5.1    11.1   19.9

Over a 10-year period in Saskatchewan, Canada, flowering dates were recorded for yarrow [18]:

                                                         Mean
------------First flowering date-----------  Latest date flowering
earliest date & yr  latest date & yr  mean   in flower   period
------------------  ----------------  -----  --------    ------
May 28/1946         Jun 30/1950       Jun 19 Sept 23     78 days

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
The life cycle of common yarrow in grasslands is completed by the onset of the summer drought and fire season in July [6]. Following fire, regeneration is from rapid rhizome spread [72] and wind dispersal of seeds onto burned sites from adjacent unburned areas [41].

Common yarrow occurs in plant communities with a variety of fire regimes. The range of fire intervals reported for some species that dominate communities where common yarrow occurs are listed below. To learn more about the fire regimes in these communities, refer to the FEIS summary for that species, under "FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS."

Community dominant        Range of fire interval (yr)
                                           
interior ponderosa pine   20-42
   (Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum)
Rocky Mt. Douglas-fir     10-30
   (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca)
quaking aspen             7-10
   (Populus tremuloides)            
rough fescue              5-10
   (Festuca altaica)

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

FIRE REGIMES: Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Common yarrow's rhizomes and mycorrhizae are usually only slightly damaged by fire [10,38,60], although common yarrow is susceptible to fire-kill and reduction by severe fire [51].

Common yarrow is not highly flammable. Out of 14 species commonly found in boreal forests, common yarrow has the lowest potential ignitability based on chemical characteristics measured on live stem, live leaf and dead leaf tissues. These rankings rely primarily on total ash, silica-free ash and energy content [40]. Ignitability is measured as time to ignition.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Fire results in fragmentation of common yarrow's rhizomes stimulating regeneration [15]. Cover and frequency of common yarrow generally increase 1 to 2 years after fire but not with any consistent pattern [4,13,14,32,40,56,71]. After initially increasing in cover, common yarrow may decrease to unburned levels as early as 3 years after fire [17,37,65,75]. Production doubled within 3 to 4 years postfire near Missoula, Montana [6] and other ponderosa pine/mountain grassland ecosystems [32,69]. In another study of fire effects in ponderosa pine, common yarrow increased by 0.37 stem/m in 6 years, a negligible amount [55].

Common yarrow ground layer on the Stanislaus National Forest, 15 months after the 2013 Rim Fire. Photo by Becky Howard.

Common yarrow is responsive to season of burning. Late spring burning usually reduces common yarrow [4,12,66].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
The initial surge of common yarrow is probably caused by extensive rhizome sprouting; mineral soil exposure and the resulting favorable seedbed; less competition from tree, grass and shrub cover; and nutrient release [28,53].

A burn was conducted each April for at least 24 years on a rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) grassland in a quaking aspen parkland in east-central Alberta. Average frequency and canopy cover for common yarrow were as follows [3]:

% Frequency               % Cover              
burned  unburned         burned   unburned
36         23                   3.0         1.1

Density and crown area of common yarrow (per 180,000 in2)following an August wildfire of moderate severity in a northeastern California range dominated by bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and various perennial bunchgrasses were as follows [23]:

                             Number of plants     Crown area (in2)
Unburned plots      99                             153
postfire yr 1             3                              29
postfire yr 2             9                            101
postfire yr 3           88                            531
postfire yr 4          269                           252
postfire yr 5            48                         1391

Productivity values (kg/ha) of common yarrow before and after a late August fire in western Wyoming quaking aspen communities are listed below for plots of different burn intensities [9]:

Before burning:  14 kg/ha 
After a "light" burn:  40 kg/ha 
After a "moderate" burn:  16 kg/ha 
After a "heavy" burn:  14 kg/ha

On ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, common yarrow cover and frequency were higher on sites that had been burned 4 years previously than on thinned, thinned-and-burned, or control sites. Common yarrow was determined to be
an indicator species for burned sites (P≤0.05). For further information on the effects of thinning and burning treatments on common yarrow and 48 other species, see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [50] study.

For further information on prescribed fire use and common yarrow response to fire, see Fire Case Studies, Lyon's Research Paper (Lyon 1966), Hamilton's Research Paper (Hamilton 2006b), and the following Research Project Summaries:

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Common yarrow's good sprouting ability, high germination percentages, and competitive seedlings result in a remarkable persistence under fire disturbance. Common yarrow often appears in the first stages of succession [15,63]; however, no consistent trends relative to age of burns seem evident for the common yarrow [4,57].

Common yarrow has low ignitability, and can be used as a fire barrier, created by replacing highly flammable vegetation with species that are less likely to burn [41]. Planting less-flammable vegetation in fire-prone areas, or around property and fire-sensitive areas, may help prevent ignition or slow fire spread [40].

FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Achillea millefolium
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION:

Aleksoff, Keith C., compiler. 1999. Effects of a wildfire on common yarrow at White Cap Creek, Idaho. In: Achillea millefolium. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/ [].

REFERENCE:

Merrill, Evelyn H.; Mayland, Henry F.; Peek, James M. 1980. Effects of a fall wildfire on herbaceous vegetation on xeric sites in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 33(5): 363-367. [50].

SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
late summer/moderate

STUDY LOCATION:
The fire occurred in the Upper Selway River (White Cap Creek) drainage, Idaho. The area is a portion of a fire management zone in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness where fires are allowed to burn under natural conditions.

PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:
The fire occurred in a ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest and adjacent montane grassland. Important understory species included common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and prairie june grass (Koeleria macrantha).

TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:
unknown but most likely in flowering or seed ripening stage

SITE DESCRIPTION:
Aspect: south
Elevation: 3,200-4,160 feet (1000-1300 m)
Average annual precipitation: 760 mm, with peaks occurring from November to January and April to June

Soils are derived from Idaho batholith parent material consisting of decomposed granite, gneiss, and rhyolite. They are described as low in fertility, water-holding capacity, and of weak structure.

FIRE DESCRIPTION:
The fire occurred under extremely dry conditions, with relative humidity as low as 11%, maximum temperatures of 87 degrees Fahrenheit (32oC), and winds gusting up to 27 miles/h (45 km/hr). The fire was a lightning-ignited and began 10 August, 1973, and burned for 43 days until extinguished by rain. The fire burned quickly and little ash was left.

FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:
Cover and frequency of common yarrow were equal to or lower than those on unburned sites during the 1st postfire year, but by the 3rd postfire year were greater than on unburned sites:

postfire     % Cover (+/- S.D.)     % Frequency (+/- S.D.)
  year       burned   unburned      burned        unburned
--------     ------------------     ----------------------
   1          2 (2)   2 (2)         5 (4)         5 (2)
   3          12 (12) 4 (5)         11 (5)        6 (12)
Common yarrow plants on the burned sites grew to only 55% of the average height of plants on unburned sites in the 1st postfire year, but by the 2nd growing season were 51% taller than those on unburned sites. By the 3rd postfire year, heights on both sites were comparable.

Achillea millefolium: References

1. Agee, James K. 1996. Fire in the Blue Mountains: a history, ecology, and research agenda. In: Jaindl, R. G.; Quigley, T. M., eds. Search for a solution: sustaining the land, people and economy of the Blue Mountains. Washington, DC: American Forests: 119-145. [28827]

2. Airhart, Douglas L.; Falls, Kathleen M. 1988. Experiments with seed-grown sod as plant introduction technique described (Massachusetts). Restoration & Management Notes. 6(1): 51. [5558]

3. Anderson, Howard G.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Effects of annual burning on grassland in the aspen parkland of east-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 58: 985-996. [3499]

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

5. Anderson, R. Scott. 1990. Modern pollen rain w/i and adjacent to two giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) groves, Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1289-1305. [15166]

6. Antos, Joseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire on an ungrazed western Montana grassland. The American Midland Naturalist. 110(2): 354-364. [337]

7. Austin, Dennis D.; Urness, Philip J. 1998. Vegetal change on a northern Utah foothill range in the absence of livestock grazing between 1948 and 1982. The Great Basin Naturalist. 58(2): 188-191. [1483]

8. Bailey, Arthur W.; Anderson, Murray L. 1978. Prescribed burning of a Festuca-Stipa grassland. Journal of Range Management. 31: 446-449. [373]

9. Bartos, D. L.; Mueggler, W. F. 1981. Early succession in aspen communities following fire in western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 34(4): 315-318. [5100]

10. Berch, Shannon M.; Gamiet, Sharmin; Deom, Elisabeth. 1988. Mycorrhizal status of some plants of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 1924-1928. [8841]

11. 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]

12. Bidwell, Terrence G.; Engle, David M.; Claypool, P. Larry. 1990. Effects of spring headfires and backfires on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management. 43(3): 209-212. [11141]

13. Blaisdell, James P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the Upper Snake River Plains. Tech. Bull. 1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 39 p. [462]

14. Bork, Edward; Smith, Darrell; Willoughby, Michael. 1996. Prescribed burning of bog birch. Rangelands. 18(1): 4-7. [26567]

15. Bourdot, G. W.; Field, R. J.; White, J. G. H. 1985. Growth analysis of Achillea millefolium L. (yarrow) in the presence and ansence of a competitor--Hordeum vulgare L. (barley). New Phytologist. 101: 507-519. [3052]

16. Braun, Clait E.; Britt, Tim; Wallestad, Richard O. 1977. Guidelines for maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 5: 99-106. [5621]

17. Brown, James K.; DeByle, Norbert V. 1989. Effects of prescribed fire on biomass and plant succession in western aspen. Res. Pap. INT-412. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 p. [9286]

18. Budd, A. C.; Campbell, J. B. 1959. Flowering sequence of a local flora. Journal of Range Management. 12: 127-132. [552]

19. Clausen, Jens; Keck, David D.; Hiesey, William M. 1948. Experimental studies on the nature of species. III: Environmental responses of climatic races of Achillea. Publication 581; Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 129 p. [648]

20. Collins, Scott L. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology. 68(5): 1243-1250. [2708]

21. Cook, C. Wayne; Harris, Lorin E. 1950. The nutritive value of range forage as affected by vegetation type, site, and stage of maturity. Bulletin 344 (Technical). Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station; 1950. 45 p. [678]

22. Costello, David F.; Price, Raymond. 1939. Weather and plant-development data as determinants of grazing periods on mountain range. Tech. Bull. 686. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [694]

23. Countryman, Clive M.; Cornelius, Donald R. 1957. Some effects of fire on a perennial range type. Journal of Range Management. 10: 39-41. [699]

24. Crawford, Hewlette S.; Kucera, Clair L.; Ehrenreich, John H. 1969. Ozark range and wildlife plants. Agric. Handb. 356. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 236 p. [18602]

25. Cronquist, Arthur. 1955. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest: Part 5: Compositae. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 343 p. [716]

26. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. [28653]

27. 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]

28. Eichhorn, Larry C.; Watts, C. Robert. 1984. Plant succession on burns in the river breaks of central Montana. Proceedings, Montana Academy of Science. 43: 21-34. [15478]

29. Elliott, Charles R.; Flinders, Jerran T. 1984. Plant nutrient levels on two summer ranges in the River of No Return Wilderness Area, Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 44(1): 621-626. [859]

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

31. 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]

32. Gibson, David J.; Hulbert, Lloyd C. 1987. Effects of fire, topography and year-to-year climatic variation on species composition in tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio. 72: 175-185. [3866]

33. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

34. Hart, J. 1976. Montana--native plants and early peoples. Helena, MT: Montana Historical Society. 75 p. [9979]

35. Heikens, Alice Long; West, K. Andrew; Robertson, Philip A. 1994. Short-term response of chert and shale barrens vegetation to fire in southwestern Illinois. Castanea. 59(3): 274-285. [27228]

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

37. 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. [14749]

38. Higgins, S. S.; Mack, R. N. 1987. Comparative responses of Achillea millefolium ecotypes to competition and soil type. Oecologia. 73: 591-597. [3271]

39. Hironaka, M.; Fosberg, M. A.; Winward, A. H. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [1152]

40. Hogenbirk, J. C.; Sarrazin-Delay, C. L. 1995. Using fuel characteristics to estimate plant ignitability for fire hazard reduction. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 82: 161-170. [26985]

41. Howe, Henry F. 1994. Response of early- and late-flowering plants to fire season in experimental prairies. Ecolgical Applications. 4(1): 121-133. [27810]

42. Humphrey, L. David. 1984. Patterns and mechanisms of plant succession after fire on Artemisia-grass sites in southeastern Idaho. Vegetatio. 57: 91-101. [1214]

43. Johnson, James R.; Nichols, James T. 1970. Plants of South Dakota grasslands: A photographic study. Bull. 566. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 163 p. [18500]

44. 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]

45. Kruger, E.; Sucoff, E. 1989. Aluminium and the hydraulic conductivity of Quercus rubra L. root systems. Journal of Experimental Botany. 40(215): 659-665. [9280]

46. 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]

47. Kuntz, David Edward. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/ Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 73 p. Thesis. [1388]

48. Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Information and Mapping Center. 1997. Maine's rare, threatened, and endangered plants. In: Maine Department of Conservation, [Online]. Available: http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mnap/factsheets/snameindex.htm [2000, June 20]. [35090]

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

50. Merrill, Evelyn H.; Mayland, Henry F.; Peek, James M. 1980. Effects of a fall wildfire on herbaceous vegetation on xeric sites in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 33(5): 363-367. [1642]

51. Mitchell, Jerry M. 1984. Fire management action plan: Zion National Park, Utah. Record of Decision. 73 p. Report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17278]

52. Monsen, Stephen B. 1994. Selection of plants for fire suppression on semiarid sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 363-373. [24310]

53. Mueggler, Walter F. 1976. Ecological role of fire in western woodland and range ecosystems. In: Use of prescribed burning in western woodland and range ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1976 March 18-19; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station: 1-9. [1709]

54. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1986. Aspen community types of Utah. Res. Pap. INT-362. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 69 p. [1714]

55. Oswald, Brian P.; Covington, W. Wallace. 1984. Effect of a prescribed fire on herbage production in southwestern ponderosa pine on sedimentary soils. Forest Science. 30(1): 22-25. [2805]

56. Raper, Bob; Clark, Bob; Matthews, Marion; Aldrich, Ann. 1985. Early effects of a fall burn on a western Wyoming mountain big sagebrush-grass community. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of a symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office: 88-92. [1938]

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

58. Reitz, Louis P.; Morris, H. E. 1939. Important grasses and other common plants on Montana ranges: description, distribution and relative value. Bull. 375. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 35 p. [1954]

59. Shaw, Nancy L.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1983. Nonleguminous forbs for rangeland sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 123-131. [2121]

60. Smith, Michael A.; Busby, Fee. 1981. Prescribed burning: effective control of sagebrush in Wyoming. RJ-165. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 12 p. [2175]

61. Smyth, C. R. 1997. Early succession patterns with a native species seed mix on amended and unamended coal mine spoil in the Rocky Mountains of southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research. 29(2): 184-195. [27405]

62. St. John, Harold. 1973. List and summary of the flowering plants in the Hawaiian islands. Hong Kong: Cathay Press Limited. 519 p. [25354]

63. 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]

64. Stubbendieck, James; Nichols, James T.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1989. Nebraska range and pasture forbs and shrubs (including succulent plants). Extension Circular 89-118. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 153 p. [10168]

65. Swan, Frederick R., Jr. 1970. Post-fire response of four plant communities in south-central New York state. Ecology. 51(6): 1074-1082. [3446]

66. 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]

67. Tunon, H.; Thorsell, W.; Bohlin, L. 1994. Mosquito repelling activity of compounds occurring in Achillea millefolium L. (Asteraceae). Economic Botany. 48(2): 111-120. [23929]

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

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

70. 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]

71. Vogl, Richard J.; Ryder, Calvin. 1969. Effects of slash burning on conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Science. 43(3): 135-147. [8546]

72. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]

73. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Nowot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]

74. William, Ray D.; Ball, Dan; Miller, Terry L; [and others], compilers. 1997. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Services; Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension; Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Agriculture. 373 p. [27982]

75. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]

76. Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. [64992]

FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/forb/achmil/all.html