Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
Introductory
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Esser, Lora L. 1993. Taraxacum officinale. 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/taroff/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
TAROFF
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
TAOF
COMMON NAMES :
common dandelion
dandelion
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for common dandelion is Taraxacum
officinale Weber [134]. There are no recognized subspecies,
varieties, or forms.
LIFE FORM :
Forb
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Common dandelion is of Eurasian origin but has become naturalized throughout
the United States. It occurs in all 50 states, almost all Canadian
provinces, and Mexico [62,126].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual 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 NV NH NJ
NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC
SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
AB BC MB NB NF NT NS ON PQ 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 :
Dandelion is found in nearly all Kuchler Plant Associations.
SAF COVER TYPES :
Common dandelion is found in nearly all SAF cover types.
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Common dandelion is an indicator species in ruderal vegetation types in North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington [51,137].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Common dandelion is a preferred food of domestic sheep grazing on mountain
meadows [83] and is readily eaten by cattle on rough fescue (Festuca
scabrella) prairies in Alberta [38]. Common dandelion is commonly eaten in the
spring by sharp-tailed grouse [89]. It is a minor component of bighorn
sheep diets in the Upper Yellowstone Valley [63] and is an important
food for pocket gophers on mountain grasslands of Colorado [132].
Common dandelion is an important source of nectar and pollen for bees in Alaska
[96]. Common dandelion is consumed by deer and elk in the spring, summer, and
fall in meadows of the Rocky Mountains [73].
In Yellowstone National Park, common dandelion is an important food for grizzly
bears in summer. Peak use in in June [82]. Leaves, stems, seeds, and
flowers were found in grizzly and black bear scats in Glacier National
Park [65].
In Alberta, black bears browse on earlier phenological stages of
common dandelion (spring and early summer) because of the higher nutrient
quality. Common dandelion is one of the dominant species found in spring bear
scats [52].
During prenesting through incubation of greater prairie chicken broods
(April-May) on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in North Dakota,
common dandelion flowers were one of the primary diet items. Individual fecal
samples contained up to 96 percent common dandelion flowers during April and
May [106].
Common dandelion is one of the favored foods of sage grouse in the spring,
summer, and fall in Nevada. Of all meadow forbs consumed, common dandelion
contributed 82 percent to spring forb diets [40,67].
In British Columbia, deer consumed common dandelion at significantly higher
(P<0.05) rates on harvested lodgepole pine sites than on unharvested
sites [28].
PALATABILITY :
Common dandelion is more palatable to wildlife and livestock in prebloom stages
than in postbloom stages [81]. It is poor to fair in palatability on
ponderosa pine sites throughout the West [85].
Palatability ratings for common dandelion from selected western states are as
follows [37]:
UT CO WY MT ND
Cattle good good fair fair good
Sheep good good good good good
Horses good good fair good good
Elk good ---- good good ----
Mule deer good ---- good fair fair
White-tailed deer ---- ---- good fair fair
Pronghorn good ---- good good fair
Upland game birds good ---- good good good
Waterfowl fair ---- poor ---- good
Small nongame birds fair ---- fair fair fair
Small mammals good ---- fair fair fair
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Protein content of dandelion exceeds the minimum requirement needed for
body maintenance for deer in ponderosa pine communities [94]. Common dandelion
meets the nutritional requirements of beef cattle in Alberta [16].
Protein and manganese content increase from early June to early July,
when it is harvested on ranges in Alberta. By late September, protein
content decreases significantly [16].
Chemical composition (in percent) of common dandelion from an irrigated pasture
during 1986 was as follows [16]:
June 3 July 7 September 24 Average
Acid detergent fiber 28.1 22.4 25.8 25.4
Crude protein 13.8 22.8 14.7 17.1
Ca 1.21 1.55 1.61 1.46
P 0.30 0.48 0.29 0.36
Mg 0.31 0.47 0.50 0.43
K 2.58 2.24 2.46 2.43
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Common dandelion has low short-term and long-term revegetation potential on
disturbed sites. Erosion-control potential is low [37].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The Gwich'in Athabaskan Indians of Fort Yukon, Alaska frequently eat the
leaves of common dandelion in salads or boil and eat them [54]. Roots of
common dandelion can be ground and used as a mild laxative or to treat
heartburn. Tea and wine can be made from flowers [140].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Common dandelion is an invader species that commonly inhabits overgrazed
rangelands [85]. Common dandelion availability for deer decreases on
cattle-grazed sites [7].
Common dandelion meets the nutritional requirements of beef cattle and is
readily grazed by them [16]. Producers may want to control common dandelion in
irrigated pastures to restrict seed movement to adjacent land where
common dandelion may be undesirable [16].
Common dandelion is a threat in upper forest and alpine zones of western
Montana because of its ability to invade little disturbed or undisturbed
native vegetation through seed dispersal [133]. In Montana, common dandelion
seedlings compete with conifer seedlings on forest sites. Grass seeding
on these sites will eventually decrease the common dandelion population in 4 to
5 years [14].
Clearcuts and thinning of forests stimulates common dandelion production. Sage
grouse and deer populations benefit from increased production of
common dandelion [10]. Sage grouse habitat loss due to development and
postdevelopment land use can be minimized by regulation of livestock on
important adjacent nondeveloped lands [10].
Common dandelion can be readily controlled with 2,4-D. It is most effective to
spray in early spring before first bloom. Sites should not be mown for
3 to 5 days before spraying or 1 to 2 days after [92].
Strip spraying in Idaho in relatively high annual precipitation (13
inches [33 cm]) areas benefits sage grouse brood-rearing habitat due to
quick recovery of common dandelion and other forbs. Average cover of common dandelion
in sprayed areas was 17.2 percent, whereas average cover in nonsprayed
areas was 11.2 percent [23].
A decrease in the population of common dandelion occurs where pocket gophers
are present. When gophers were removed, common dandelion population increased
by 50 percent in 2 years on mountain grasslands and meadows of Colorado,
Utah, and Oregon [42].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Common dandelion is an introduced, cool-season, perennial forb [140]. It has a
thick taproot up to 6 inches (15.2 cm) long [135]. Stems are very short
and wholly underground, producing a rosette of leaves at the ground
surface. Leaves are 2 to 16 inches (5-40 cm) long [134]. The flower
heads are solitary at the end of naked, hollow stalks. Stalks can reach
heights up to 2 feet (60 cm) [126,135]. One head contains from 100 to
300 flowers [126]. Seeds of common dandelion are topped by a parachute of
bristles that aid in dissemination [55].
Common dandelion forms vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal associations
[15,37].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Hemicryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Common dandelion reproduces apomictically through parthenogenesis [62]. Plants
develop from unfertilized gametes. Common dandelion is an aggressive seed
producer and reproduces mainly from seed [42]. Seeds travel a
considerable distance because of the parachuting effect produced by the
spreading pappus. In a tallgrass prairie in Iowa, achenes of common dandelion
were blown by the wind several hundred meters from the nearest source
population [98].
Common dandelion creates a long-lived seedbank [11,99]. In a seedbank of a
ponderosa pine community in Washington, viable common dandelion seedlings
emerged from litter and soil samples in greenhouse germination trials.
Seed density of spring samples was 160 seeds per square yard (133
seeds/m sq) and of autumn samples was 60 seeds per square yard (50
seeds/m sq) [99]. Seeds of common dandelion were viable up to 5 years in soil
samples from Montana [11]. Seed germination on a control plot in
Wisconsin was inhibited by thick mulch. Light mulch that remained on a
mowed plot also reduced germination [36]. Germination was highest on a
burned plot [36].
Vegetative: Common dandelion sprouts from the caudex after disturbance
[114,126].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Common dandelion tolerates a wide range of site and soil conditions, but it
most commonly occurs in disturbed areas such as cut-over or burned
forests, avalanche areas, overgrazed ranges, and marshy floodplains
[54,133]. It also occurs sites on highway and railroad rights-of-way,
waste places, old fields, pastures, and lawns [114,126].
Common dandelion occurs on soils that vary from thin layers above permafrost in
the subarctic to deep loams in the western United States [37,114]. Soil
texture ranges from clays and clayey loams to sandy loams. Common dandelion
does poorly on dense clay soils, saline soils, and acidic soils [37].
Common dandelion occurs on flat to rolling topography or moderate to steep
slopes [27,37]. It is found from sea level to high alpine elevations
[126]. Regional elevational distributions are as follows [27,37,99]:
feet meters
Utah 4,100-11,300 1,250-3,445
Colorado 4,500-13,500 1,372-4,115
Wyoming 4,100- 9,600 1,250-2,926
Montana 2,900- 9,200 884-2,804
Washington 2,574- 2,722 780-825
Oregon 7,095- 7,920 2,150-2,400
Alberta 4,323- 6,336 1,310-1,920
Common shrubs, grasses, and forbs associated with common dandelion include
common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii),
russet buffalo berry (Shepherdia canadensis), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.),
chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), black sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula
nova), Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis),
Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), rough fescue (Festuca scabrella), Idaho
fescue (F. idahoensis), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus),
prairie Junegrass (Koeleria cristata), timber danthonia (Danthonia
intermedia), Richardson's needlegrass (Stipa richardsonii), timothy
(Phleum pratense), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis), aster (Aster spp.), willowweed (Epilobium
spp.), prairiesmoke avens (Geum triflorum), small-leaf angelica
(Angelica pinnata), Colorado columbine (Aquilegia caerula),
rhexia-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja leonardii), Oregon fleabane
(Erigeron speciousus), wallflower (Erysimum elatum), one-flower
helianthella (Helianthella uniflora), Utah peavine (Lathyrus utahensis),
and Richardson geranium (Geranium richardsonii) [32,83,117,124,129].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Common dandelion is an important colonizer following vegetation disturbances in
temperate climates throughout North America [85,99]. Although the role
of common dandelion as an early seral species does not change, the length of
time common dandelion populations are present varies among ecosystems.
Common dandelion enters a disturbed community and rapidly becomes abundant. It
may achieve a peak in dominance within 2 to 3 years [7,14]. Holland
found common dandelion to be a transitory colonist of marsh habitats in
Massachusetts; it was found for 10 years after the disturbance and then
disappeared [53].
Common dandelion was one of the earliest colonizers after tree harvesting in a
maple-beech-birch ecosystem in Michigan [32]. On an abandoned farmland
in Arizona, common dandelion was one of the predominant species following
winter precipitation [30]. Common dandelion was a pioneer species on a
brine-killed forest site after elimination of brine discharge on the
site in the spring of 1982 [7]. On a Douglas-fir clearcut in Colorado,
common dandelion was a dominant species in the understory the second year after
cutting but was not present in the initial community [7]. Common dandelion is
not a member of the climax plant community on rangelands since it cannot
withstand competition for moisture, nutrients, and light with the climax
vegetation. It invades these areas after the preferred species have
been removed by overgrazing [85].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Common dandelion is one of the earliest spring bloomers on western rangelands
[134]. It flowers from March to late fall in most states and will
flower throughout the year in warmer areas [126]. General first
flowering dates are from April 28 to May 19, and sometimes earlier in
some locations [116]. By mid-June, common dandelion has reached its maximum
bloom stage, and the seeds from earlier flowering dates are mostly
disseminated. By mid-July, all seeds are disseminated [40].
Reported dates for anthesis in some states are as follows [16,37,100]:
Utah April-July
Colorado April-August
Wyoming May-August
Montana April-September
North Dakota April-June
Virginia February-June
Georgia February-June
Mississippi February-June
Tennessee February-June
Kentucky February-June
Iowa April-June
Alberta June-July
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Common dandelion is a component of diverse ecosystems in boreal and temperate
regions with variable fire regimes. Common dandelion is primarily adapted to
fire through its prolific production of wind-dispersed seed [123]. Site
colonization after fires occurs in many forested areas because of
common dandelion's persistent, viable seed bank [1].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Caudex, growing points in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire likely top-kills common dandelion.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Common dandelion generally establishes during the first or second postfire
year. It usually increases in frequency after fire [22,36,41]. One
year after a spring burn (May 24, 1983) in Galena Gulch, Montana,
common dandelion showed a 50 percent increase in frequency, but by the second
year showed only a 47.5 percent increase over the prefire level [22].
Common dandelion increased in frequency following a fire in 1974 in a Scotch
pine forest in Scotland, but by postfire year 4, frequency started to
decrease. Maximum frequency occurred at 3 years after fire [119].
Common dandelion frequency was greater in burned than in unburned oak
communities in Utah [74]. Following a prescribed fire in a Douglas-fir
stand in south-central Idaho, common dandelion frequency increased
significantly by postfire year 2. Prefire frequency was 8 percent; at
postfire year 1 frequency was 4 percent; and at postfire year 2
frequency was 24 percent [78].
In the Hedges Mountain area of the Helena National Forest, Montana, a
sagebrush/rough fescue habitat type was burned in spring (May) and fall
(September). Prefire and postfire community types, as named by the
dominant species, were compared. Following the spring burn, bluegrass
and common dandelion were the dominant species during both postfire years 1 and
2. Following the fall burn, the dominant species during postfire year 1
were bluegrass, mountain brome (Bromus marginatus), and common dandelion. By
postfire year 2, common dandelion was no longer a dominant; the site was
dominated by bluegrass, Wood's rose, and common snowberry [109].
A fire on June 28, 1977 in Montana in a rough fescue community minimally
disrupted reproduction and carbohydrate production of common dandelion. Its
frequency increased slightly on burned sites by the summer of 1978 [6].
In the timbered breaks along the Missouri River in central Montana,
common dandelion was favored by big game animals every postfire year except
year 28. At postfire year 17 common dandelion was found at high frequencies.
First peak in frequency occurred at postfire year 4 [41].
On ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities in the Blue Mountains
of northeastern Oregon, common dandelion cover and frequency were higher
on unburned control sites than on prescribed burned, thinned, or
thinned-and-burned sites. Common dandelion was determined to be an indicator
species for unburned sites (P≤0.05). For further information on the effects
of thinning and burning treatments on common dandelion and 48 other species,
see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [141] study.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Lyon's Research Paper, Hamilton's Research Papers
(Hamilton 2006a, Hamilton 2006b), and the following Research
Project Summaries also provide information on prescribed fire use
and postfire response of many plant species including common dandelion:
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Late spring burning in the tallgrass prairies of Kansas reduced
common dandelion cover compared with burning at earlier dates. In shortgrass
prairies of western Kansas, common dandelion was less affected by dormant
season (fall and winter) burns than by spring burns [20]. Burning to
decrease cover of common dandelion on rangelands should be done in the spring
after growth initiation. Annual burning in March or November in
Nebraska resulted in the highest total cover of common dandelion. Burning in
April decreased cover [46].
Following logging, bulldozing, and slash burning, common dandelion will
establish in the open spots [14].
Common dandelion competes with tree seedlings on burned sites. Grasses
aerially seeded on burns may compete with and displace common dandelion. After
4 to 5 years of grass seeding on sites in Montana common dandelion populations
eventually decreased [14].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Taraxacum officinale
REFERENCES :
1. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1979. Buried seed in the forest floor of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minnesota Forestry Research Note No. 271.
St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Forestry. 4 p. [3459]
2. Alaback, Paul B.; Herman, F. R. 1988. Long-term response of understory
vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga forests. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research. 18: 1522-1530. [6227]
3. Allen, Eugene O. 1968. Range use, foods, condition, and productivity of
white-tailed deer in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(1):
130-141. [16331]
4. Almack, Jon. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements
in the Selkirk Mountains, northern Idaho. 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: 150-157. [10815]
5. Anderson, Murray L.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1979. Effect of fire on a
Symphoricarpos occidentalis shrub community in central Alberta. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 57: 2820-2823. [2867]
6. Antos, Joseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire
on an ungrazed western Montana grassland. American Midland Naturalist.
110(2): 354-364. [337]
7. Auchmoody, L. R.; Walters, R. S. 1988. Revegetation of a brine-killed
forest site. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 277-280.
[11374]
8. Austin, D. D.; Urness, Philip J. 1982. Vegetal responses and big game
values after thinning regenerating lodgepole pine. Great Basin
Naturalist. 42(4): 512-516. [8354]
9. Austin, Dennis D.; Urness, Philip J. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on
mule deer diet and area selection. Journal of Range Management. 39(1):
18-21; 1986. [364]
10. Autenrieth, Robert; Molini, William; Braun, Clait, eds. 1982. Sage
grouse management practices. Tech. Bull No. 1. Twin Falls, ID: Western
States Sage Grouse Committee. 42 p. [7531]
11. Bard, Gily E. 1952. Secondary succession on the Piedmont of New Jersey.
Ecological Monographs. 22(3): 195-215. [4777]
12. Barmore, William J., Jr.; Taylor, Dale; Hayden, Peter. 1976. Ecological
effects and biotic succession following the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire
in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975.
Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p.
[16109]
13. Basile, Joseph V.; Jensen, Chester E. 1971. Grazing potential on
lodgepole pine clearcuts in Montana. Res. Pap. INT-98. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [8280]
14. Bedunah, Don; Pfingsten, William; Kennett, Gregory; Willard, E. Earl.
1988. Relationship of stand canopy density to forage production. In:
Schmidt, Wyman C., compiler. Proceedings--future forests of the Mountain
West: a stand culture symposium; 1986 September 29 - October 3;
Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 99-107.
[5070]
15. 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]
16. Bergen, Peter; Moyer, James R.; Kozub, Gerald C. 1990. Dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale) use by cattle grazing on irrigated pasture. Weed
Technology. 4(2): 258-263. [14775]
17. 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]
18. Bowes, G. G. 1991. Long-term control of aspen poplar and western
snowberry with dicamba and 2,4-D. Canadian Journal of Plant Science.
71(4): 1121-1131. [19502]
19. Bowns, James E.; Bagley, Calvin F. 1986. Vegetation responses to
long-term sheep grazing on mountain ranges. Journal of Range Management.
39(5): 431-434. [15584]
20. Bragg, Thomas B. 1991. Implications for long-term prairie management
from seasonal burning of loess hill and tallgrass prairie. In: Nodvin,
Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment:
ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international
symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69.
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 34-44. [16631]
21. Brown, David E. 1982. Great Basin montane scrubland. In: Brown, David
E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 83-84. [8890]
22. Bushey, Charles L. 1985. Summary of results from the Galena Gulch 1982
spring burns (Units 1b). Missoula, MT: Systems for Environmental
Management. 9 p. [567]
23. Call, Mayo W. 1979. Habitat requirements and management recommendations
for sage grouse. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Denver Service Center. 37 p. [591]
24. Canon, S. K.; Urness, P. J.; DeByle, N. V. 1987. Habitat selection,
foraging behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in burned aspen forest.
Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 443-438. [3453]
25. Carleton, T. J.; Maycock, P. F. 1981. Understorey - canopy affinities in
boreal forest vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany. 59: 1709-1716.
[14576]
26. Cole, C. Andrew. 1991. The seedbank of a young surface mine wetland.
Wetlands Ecology and Management. 1(3): 173-184. [19468]
27. Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 1992. Trends in campsite condition: Eagle
Cap Wilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Grand Canyon National Park.
Res. Pap. INT-453. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station. 40 p. [17764]
28. Collins, William B.; Urness, Philip J. 1983. Feeding behavior and
habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah summer range.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 646-663. [6915]
29. Cooper, David J. 1990. Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Colorado. Biological Report 90(15). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 45 p.
[16106]
30. Cox, J. R.; Madrigal, R. M. 1988. Establishing perennial grasses on
abandoned farmland in southeastern Arizona. Applied Agricultural
Research. 3(1): 36-43. [11177]
31. Crouch, Glenn L. 1985. Effects of clearcutting a subalpine forest in
central Colorado on wildlife habitat. Res. Pap. RM-258. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [8225]
32. Crow, T. R.; Mroz, G. D.; Gale, M. R. 1991. Regrowth and nutrient
accumulations following whole-tree harvesting of a maple-oak forest.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1305-1315. [16600]
33. Currie, P. O.; Reichert, D. W.; Malechek, J. C.; Wallmo, O. C. 1977.
Forage selection comparisons for mule deer and cattle under managed
ponderosa pine. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 352-356. [4697]
34. Davis, James N.; Harper, Kimball T. 1990. Weedy annuals and
establishment of seeded species on a chained juniper-pinyon woodland in
central Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley
D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass
invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and
management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station: 72-79. [12872]
35. Deschamp, Joseph A.; Urness, Philip J.; Austin, Dennis D. 1979. Summer
diets of mule deer from lodgepole pine habitats. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 43(1): 154-161. [4524]
36. Diboll, Neil. 1986. Mowing as an alternative to spring burning for
control of cool season exotic grasses in prairie grass plantings. In:
Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present
and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984
July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University
Center for Environmental Studies: 204-209. [3574]
37. 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]
38. Dormaar, Johan F.; Willms, Walter D. 1990. Sustainable production from
the rough fescue prairie. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45(1):
137-140. [11389]
39. Dunn, Peter O.; Braun, Clait E. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female
and juvenile sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(2):
228-235. [4490]
40. Eckert, R. E. 1975. Improvement of mountain meadows in Nevada. Research
Report. Reno, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land
Managment. 45 p. [8124]
41. 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]
42. Ellison, L.; Aldous, C. M. 1952. Influence of pocket gophers on
vegetation of subalpine grassland in central Utah. Ecology. 33(2):
177-186. [3427]
43. Evans, Keith E.; Probasco, George E. 1977. Wildlife of the prairies and
plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-29. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 18
p. [14118]
44. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
45. 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]
46. Gibson, David J. 1989. Hulbert's study of factors effecting botanical
composition of tallgrass prairie. In: Bragg, Thomas B.; 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: 115-133. [14029]
47. Girard, Michele M.; Goetz, Harold; Bjugstad, Ardell J. 1987. Factors
influencing woodlands of southwestern North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist.
19(3): 189-198. [2763]
48. Girard, Michele M.; Goetz, Harold; Bjugstad, Ardell J. 1989. Native
woodland habitat types of southwestern North Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-281.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [6319]
49. Gliessman, S. R. 1976. Allelopathy in a broad spectrum of environments
as illustrated by bracken. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 73:
95-104. [9135]
50. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
51. Hodorff, Robert A.; Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Linder, Raymond L. 1988.
Wildlife response to stand structure of deciduous woodlands. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 52(4): 667-673. [6668]
52. Holcroft, Anne C.; Herrero, Stephen. 1991. Black bear, Ursus americanus,
food habits in southwestern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105(3):
335-345. [18673]
53. Holland, Marjorie M.; Burk, C. John. 1990. The marsh vegetation of three
Connecticut River oxbows: a ten-year comparison. Rhodora. 92(871):
166-204. [14521]
54. Holloway, Patricia S.; Alexander, Ginny. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Fort
Yukon region, Alaska. Economic Botany. 44(2): 214-225. [13625]
55. Holmgren, Arthur H. 1958. Weeds of Utah. Special Report 12. Logan, UT:
Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 85 p. [2935]
56. Hungerford, C. R. 1970. Response of Kaibab mule deer to management of
summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(40): 852-862. [1219]
57. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat
improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference.
[Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]
58. Johnson, A. H.; Strang, R. M. 1983. Burning in a bunchgrass/sagebrush
community: the southern interior of B.C. and northwestern U.S. compared.
Journal of Range Management. 36(5): 616-618. [1273]
59. Johnson, Kendall L. 1987. Description and discussion of field tour
sites. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings of the fourth Utah shrub
ecology workshop: The genus Chrysothamnus; 1986 September 17-18; Cedar
City, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural
Resources: 55-59. [2724]
60. Johnston, A.; Dormaar, J. F.; Smoliak, S. 1971. Long-term grazing
effects on fescue grassland soils. Journal of Range Management. 24:
185-188. [13793]
61. Johnston, A.; Smoliak, S.; Stringer, P. W. 1969. Viable seed populations
in Alberta prairie topsoils. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 49:
75-82. [1294]
62. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
63. Keating, Kimberly A.; Irby, Lynn R.; Kasworm, Wayne F. 1985. Mountain
sheep winter food habits in the upper Yellowstone Valley. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 49(1): 156-161. [15521]
64. Keck, Wendell M. 1972. Great Basin Station--Sixty years of progress in
range and watershed research. Res. Pap. INT-118. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [16085]
65. Kendall, Katherine C. 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in
Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress Report. West Glacier, Montana:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National
Park Biosphere Preserve, Science Center. 42 p. [19361]
66. Klebenow, Donald A. 1973. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and
the role of fire in management. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers
fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. No. 12.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 305-315. [1345]
67. Klebenow, Donald A. 1984. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada.
World Pheasant Association Journal. 10: 34-46. [1346]
68. Klott, James H.; Lindzey, Frederick G. 1989. Comparison of sage and
sharp-tailed grouse leks in south central Wyoming. Great Basin
Naturalist. 49(2): 275-278. [10562]
69. Knapp, Paul A. 1991. The response of semi-arid vegetation assemblages
following the abandonment of mining towns in south-western Montana.
Journal of Arid Environments. 20: 205-222. [14894]
70. Kramer, Neal B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of
three habitat types in central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65:
1961-1966. [3961]
71. Kucera, Clair L. 1952. An ecological study of a hardwood forest area in
central Iowa. Ecological Monographs. 22(4): 283-299. [254]
72. 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]
73. Kufeld, Roland C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal
of Range Management. 26(2): 106-113. [1385]
74. Kunzler, L. M.; Harper, K. T.; Kunzler, D. B. 1981. Compositional
similarity within the oakbrush type in central and northern Utah. Great
Basin Naturalist. 41(1): 147-153. [1390]
75. 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]
76. Lewis, James K.; Van Dyne, George M.; Albee, Leslie R.; Whetzal, Frank
W. 1956. Intensity of grazing: Its effect on livestock and forage
production. Bulletin 459. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College,
Agricultural Experiment Station. 44 p. [11737]
77. Lowe, Philip Orval. 1975. Potential wildlife benefits of fire in
ponderosa pine forests. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 131 p. M.S.
thesis. [5115]
78. Lyon, L. Jack. 1966. Initial vegetal development following prescribed
burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-29. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [1494]
79. MacCracken, James G.; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1985. Habitat
used by shrews in southeastern Montana. Northwest Science. 59(1): 24-27.
[15523]
80. Malanson, George P.; Butler, David R. 1991. Floristic variation among
gravel bars in a subalpine river, Montana, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine
Research. 23(3): 273-278. [16470]
81. 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]
82. Mattson, David J.; Blanchard, Bonnie M.; Knight, Richard R. 1991. Food
habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977-1987. Canadian Journal of
Zoology. 69(6): 1619-1629. [19515]
83. McInnis, Michael L.; Vavra, Martin. 1986. Summer diets of domestic sheep
grazing mountain meadows in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science.
60(4): 265-2170. [1604]
84. McKell, Cyrus M. 1950. A study of plant succession in the oak brush
(Quercus gambelii) zone after fire. Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah. 79 p. Thesis. [1608]
85. McLean, Alastair; Marchand, Leonard. 1968. Grassland ranges in the
southern interior of British Columbia. Publication 1319. Ottawa, Canada:
Canada Department of Agriculture, Division. 18 p. [1622]
86. Mealey, Stephen P.; Jonkel, Charles J.; Demarchi, Ray. 1977. Habitat
criteria for grizzly bear management. In: Peterie, T., ed. Proceedings,
13th international congress of game biologists; 1977 March 11-15;
Atlanta, GA. No. 13. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher
unknown]. 276-289. [17030]
87. Medve, Richard J. 1984. The mycorrhizae of pioneer species in disturbed
ecosystems of western Pennsylvania. American Journal of Botany. 71(6):
787-794. [8544]
88. Mueggler, Walter F. 1987. Status of aspen woodlands in the West. In:
Pendleton, Beth Giron,, ed. Proceedings of the western raptor management
symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific and
Technical Series No. 12. [Place of publication unknown]. National
Wildlife Federation: 32-37. [19146]
89. Nemick, Joseph J. 1987. Sharp-tailed grouse management and ecology in
Wyoming. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings,
16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY.
Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management,
Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 45-47. [13920]
90. Nimir, Mutasim Bashir; Payne, Gene F. 1978. Effects of spring burning on
a mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 259-263. [1756]
91. Nixon, Charles M.; McClain, Milford W.; Russell, Kenneth R. 1970. Deer
food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 34(4): 870-886. [16398]
92. Pacific Northwest Extension Service. 1983. Common and false dandelion.
PNW 117. Corvallis, OR: Pullman, WA; Moscow, ID. 2 p. [6612]
93. Padgett, Wayne George. 1981. Ecology of riparian plant communities in
southern Malheur National Forest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University. 143 p. Thesis. [14933]
94. Patton, David R. 1988. Selection of silvicultural systems for wildlife.
In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Ponderosa pine:
The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29
- October 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University,
Cooperative Extension: 179-184. [9416]
95. Paulsen, Harold A., Jr. 1970. The ecological response of species in a
Thurber fescue community to manipulative treatments. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University. 145 p. Dissertation. [1843]
96. Petersen, Stephen F. 1989. Beekeeping under northern lights. American
Bee Journal. 129(1): 33-35. [12332]
97. Pfister, James A.; Ralphs, Michael H.; Manners, Gary D. 1988. Cattle
grazing tall larkspur on Utah mountain rangeland. Journal of Range
Management. 41(2): 118-121. [3003]
98. Platt, William J. 1975. The colonization and formation of equilibrium
plant species associations on badger disturbances in a tall-grass
prairie. Ecological Monographs. 45: 285-305. [6903]
99. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed
in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52.
[16219]
100. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
101. Ratliff, Raymond D.; Denton, Renee G. 1991. Site preparation + 1 year:
Effect on plant cover and soil properties. Res. Note PSW-RN-412.
Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station. 5 p. [18638]
102. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
103. Reader, R. J. 1991. Control of seedling emergence by ground cover: a
potential mechanism involving seed predation. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 69: 2084-2087. [17118]
104. Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in
wetlands: Alaska (Region A). Biological Report 88(26.11). Washington,
DC: U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. In
cooperation with: National and Regional Interagency Review Panels. 86 p.
[9328]
105. Rosie, Rhonda. 1991. Continuation of #18,205 - Keywords. Canadian
Field-Naturalist. 105(3): 315-324. [18206]
106. Rumble, Mark A.; Newell, Jay A.; Toepfer, John E. 1988. Diets of greater
prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. In: Bjugstad,
Ardell J., technical coordinator. Prairie chickens on the Sheyenne
National Grasslands [symposium proceedings]; 18 September 18; Crookston,
MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-159. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 49-54. [5202]
107. Sabinske, Darold W.; Knight, Dennis H. 1978. Variation within the
sagebrush vegetation of Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Northwest
Science. 52(3): 195-204. [2046]
108. Schiffman, Paula M.; Johnson, W. Carter. 1992. Sparse buried seed bank
in a southern Appalachian oak forest: implications for succession.
American Midland Naturalist. 127(2): 258-267. [18191]
109. Schwecke, Deitrich A.; Hann, Wendell. 1989. Fire behavior and vegetation
response to spring and fall burning on the Helena National Forest. In:
Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; [and
others], compilers. Prescribed fire in the Intermountain region:
Symposium proceedings; 1986 March 3-5; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 135-142. [11260]
110. Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1983.
Plant-soil relationships on bentonite mine spoils and sagebrush-
grassland in the northern High Plains. Journal of Range Management.
36(3): 289-294. [4642]
111. Sosebee, R. E.; Wan, C. 1989. Plant ecophysiology: a case study of honey
mesquite. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall
R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and
biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 103-118. [5931]
112. Spence, John R.; Shaw, Richard J. 1981. A checklist of the alpine
vascular flora of the Teton Range, Wyoming, with notes on biology and
habitat preferences. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(2): 232-242. [9839]
113. Spence, John R.; Shaw, Richard J. 1983. Observations on alpine
vegetation near Schoolroom Glacier, Teton Range, Wyoming. Great Basin
Naturalist. 43(3): 483-491. [8265]
114. Staniforth, Richard J.; Scott, Peter A. 1991. Dynamics of weed
populations in a northern subarctic community. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 69: 814-821. [14944]
115. 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]
116. Stevens, O. A. 1956. Flowering dates of weeds in North Dakota. North
Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bimonthly Bulletin. 18(6):
209-213. [5168]
117. Stevens, Richard; McArthur, E. Durant; Davis, James N. 1992.
Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and sedimentation on
two watersheds -- 1912-1983. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant;
Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on
ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31;
Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 123-128.
[19105]
118. Sugihara, Neil G.; Reed, Lois J.; Lenihan, James M. 1987. Vegetation of
the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California.
Madrono. 34(3): 193-208. [3788]
119. Sykes, J. M.; Horrill, A. D. 1981. Recovery of vegetation in a
Caledonian pinewood after fire. Transactions of the Botanical Society of
Edinburgh. 43(4): 317-325. [19768]
120. Taye, Alan C. 1983. Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah. Great Basin
Naturalist. 43(4): 619-646. [14669]
121. Taylor, Dale L. 1969. Biotic succession of lodgepole pine forests of
fire origin in Yellowstone National Park. Laramie, WY: University of
Wyoming. 320 p. M.S. thesis. [9481]
122. Thill, Ronald E.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Patton, David R. 1983. Deer and
elk forage production in Arizona mixed conifer forests. Res. Pap.
RM-248. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p.
[14381]
123. Toth, Barbara L. 1991. Factors affecting conifer regeneration and
community structure after a wildfire in western Montana. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University. 124 p. Thesis. [14425]
124. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands
adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana
(U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. [19435]
125. Urness, P. J.; Neff, D. J.; Watkins, R. K. 1975. Nutritive value of mule
deer forages on ponderosa pine summer range in Arizona. Res. Note
RM-304. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
[15854]
126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971.
Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
463 p. [2378]
127. 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]
128. Viro, P. J. 1974. Effects of forest fire on soil. In: Kozlowski, T. T.;
Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press:
7-45. [18305]
129. Wakimoto, Ronald H.; Willard, E. Earl. 1991. Monitoring post-fire
vegetation recovery in ponderosa pine and sedge meadow communities in
Glacier National Park, NW Montana. Research Joint Venture Agreement
INT-89441. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 17 p. Progress Report. [17635]
130. Wallestad, Richard; Peterson, Joel G.; Eng, Robert L. 1975. Foods of
adult sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management.
39(3): 628-630. [2444]
131. 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]
132. Ward, A. Lorin; Keith, James O. 1962. Feeding habits of pocket gophers
on mountain grasslands, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology. 43(4): 744-749;
1962. [2453]
133. Weaver, T.; Lichthart, J.; Gustafson, D. 1990. Exotic invasion of
timberline vegetation, Northern Rocky Moutnains, USA. In: Schmidt, Wyman
C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark
pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource;
1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 208-213. [11688]
134. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
135. Whitson, Tom D., ed. 1987. Weeds and poisonous plants of Wyoming and
Utah. Res. Rep. 116-USU. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 281 p. [2939]
136. Wilkins, Bruce T. 1957. Range use, food habits, and agricultural
relationships of the mule deer, Bridger Mountains, Montana. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 21(2): 159-169. [1411]
137. Willard, E. Earl. 1990. Use and impact of domestic livestock in
whitebark pine forests. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J.,
compilers. Proceedings-symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology
and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman,
MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 201-207. [11687]
138. Willms, W. D.; Smoliak, S.; Dormaar, J. F. 1985. Effects of stocking
rate on a rough fescue grassland vegetation. Journal of Range
Management. 38(3): 220-225. [2570]
139. Wilson, Robert E. 1989. The vegetation of a pine-oak forest in Franklin
County, Texas, and its comparison with a similar forest in Lamar County,
Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 41(2): 167-176. [8771]
140. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North
American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press. 465 p. [2270]
141. 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/taroff/all.html
