Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

SPECIES: Artemisia frigida

• Introductory
• Distribution and occurrence
• Botanical and ecological characteristics
• Fire ecology
• Fire effects
• Management considerations
• References

INTRODUCTORY

FEIS ABBREVIATION SYNONYMS NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY LIFE FORM FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OTHER STATUS AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION
	Photo courtesy of Wisconsin State Herbarium Photographer: Emmet J. Judziewicz	Photo courtesy of Wisconsin State Herbarium Photographer: Emmet J. Judziewicz

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
McWilliams, Jack 2003. Artemisia frigida. 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/shrub/artfri/all.html [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
ARTFRI

SYNONYMS:
No entry

NRCS PLANT CODE [122]:
ARFR4

COMMON NAMES:
fringed sagebrush
pasture sage
prairie sagebrush
fringed sagewort

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of fringed sagebrush is Artemisia frigida Willd. (Asteraceae) [53,66,71,74,85].

Numerous ecotypes of fringed sagebrush are known over its broad range, but it is not known to hybridize with other Artemisia spp. [90].

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
A classification of "critically imperiled" has been assigned to fringed sagebrush in Kansas [73] and fringed sagebrush is listed as "imperiled" in Wisconsin [131].

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

• GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
• ECOSYSTEMS
• STATES
• BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
• KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS
• SAF COVER TYPES
• SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES
• HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

In a 1st approximation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-steppe habitat types in northern Colorado, Francis [49] describes a "topographic climax" habitat type of bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata)/fringed sagebrush as part of an effort to classify mule deer winter range. Also in Colorado, Komarkova [80] describes 4 habitat types with fringed sagebrush as a dominant in the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests. Three of these habitat types occur on warm, dry, south-facing slopes and 1 on an area "controlled" by grazing.

Fringed sagebrush is a dominant shrub in the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/fringed sagebrush/needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) community type in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado [2]. A community type of fringed sagebrush/glaucous bluegrass (Poa glauca) occurs in southeastern Yukon. In the montane zone of the Alsek River region, southwestern Yukon, a fringed sagebrush/glaucous bluegrass community type is restricted to extremely dry, well-drained aeolian deposits along the Alsek and Dezadeash rivers [39]. A blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)/ fringed sagebrush community type in Colorado is described by Moir and Trlica [95]. They suggest that it is a result of "environmental stress" induced by grazing.

Nadeau and Corns [97] describe a prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha)/fringed sagebrush/wild blue flax (Linum lewisii) and a thickspike wildrye (Elymus macrourus)/fringed sagebrush vegetation type in Jasper National Park in Alberta.

Associates:
Fringed sagebrush occurs in a wide variety of habitat types encompassing grasslands, shrublands and dry woodlands. Some of the more common associates of fringed sagebrush in these ecosystems are:

mixed prairie -dense clubmoss (Selaginella densa), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), needle-and-thread, blue grama, western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), prairie Junegrass [38], broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) [111], and Hood's phlox (Phlox hoodii) [124].

shortgrass prairie -blue grama, buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), western wheatgrass [43,79], needle-and-thread, threadleaf (Carex filifolia) and needleleaf sedge (C. duriuscula), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), winterfat, rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and broom snakeweed [79].

Alaska steppe-bluebunch wheatgrass [42].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

• GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM
• REGENERATION PROCESSES
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• SUCCESSIONAL STATUS
• SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

The numerous leaves are 0.24 to 0.48 inch (6-12 mm) long and are 2 or 3 times pinnately divided. Numerous small flower heads are borne in nodding racemes or open panicles. Each head contains 10 to 17 outer, seed-producing, pistillate, ray flowers and numerous (25-50) tubular-funnelform, perfect, seed-producing disc flowers [90]. The fruits are achenes bearing tiny seeds [111].

Roots: In a 1965 study of grassland species in Saskatchewan, Coupland and Johnson [31] suggest roots of fringed sagebrush have "sufficient plasticity" to adjust to a semiarid climate by developing taproots in periods when moisture penetration permits, but to make use of moisture near the surface in habitats where deeper supplies are continually limiting due to runoff. In locations where moisture is often deficient near the soil surface, but where occasional moisture penetration to considerable depth permits establishment of deep roots, the taproot system is well developed. Taproots are not found where deep penetration of moisture is prevented by excessive runoff or where moisture supply in the upper layers of soil is more dependable.

Where the taproot is developed extensively it is a woody structure up to 0.4 inch (10 mm) in diameter, which descends vertically. Its thickness decreases rapidly, as many laterals originate just below the soil surface. These mostly descend vertically or obliquely, but a few grow horizontally before turning abruptly downwards. Main laterals are 2-3 mm in diameter and usually penetrate as deeply as the main taproot. Taproots can extend to depths as great as 5.3 feet (1.6 m) [31].

Within medium textured soils lateral spread of roots was greatest in the most arid zone where it reached 7.9 to 9.8 inches (20-25 cm). Under these conditions small branches (0.5-1.0 mm in diameter) from the taproot are usually confined to the top 35.4 inches (90 cm) of soil and these spread more widely than the thicker laterals [31].

In a 1984 study of mycorrhizal inoculum in a ponderosa pine forest in Colorado, Kovacic and others [81] determined fringed sagebrush was mycorrhizal and Dittberner and Olson [36] describe fringed sagebrush as endomycorrhizal.

RAUNKIAER [104] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
Chamaephyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Fringed sagebrush reproduces by seed [30] produced by both ray and disc flowers [90]. Under favorable conditions, fringed sagebrush increases in basal cover by layering [121].

Breeding system: Fringed sagebrush ray and disc flowers are fertile [90].

Pollination: Fringed sagebrush is wind pollinated [101].

Seed production: No seed is produced by fringed sagebrush in dry years; even in favorable years less than half of plants produce seed [30].

Bai and Romo [12] conducted experiments in Saskatchewan to determine effects of disturbance on seed production in fringed sagebrush. They utilized clipping, litter removal, tillage, and clipping plus litter removal as disturbance agents at 2 different sites. Data were collected the 1st and 2nd growing season following disturbance. They concluded disturbance was not a major influence on seed production by fringed sagebrush. Other factors, such as climate, exerted a dominant effect. Tillage had a greater effect in stimulating seed production than clipping or removing litter. The authors attributed this to reduced competition from neighboring plants. Average of results over both years were:

Seed dispersal: Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) seed, in general, has very poor dispersal. It lacks appendages for airborne transport by wind or for attachment to animals. Most seed falls beneath the plants and moves 3 feet (1 m) or less per generation [115]. However, Whisenant and Uresk [130] state the "widely dispersed" seed of fringed sagebrush helps it re-establish after fire.

Iverson [69] studied dispersal distance of fringed sagebrush seeds in western North Dakota. He estimated seeds of fringed sagebrush dispersed 55 inches (140 cm) given hypothetical conditions of 18.6 miles/hour (30 km/hr) wind speed and a seed height of 11.8 inches (30 cm).

Seed banking: Fringed sagebrush produces a large amount of seeds that can remain viable in the soil for "many" years until conditions are favorable for germination [28]. In years with limited seed production, the seed bank is sufficient to maintain populations of fringed sagebrush should established plants perish [12]. In a study of revegetation after surface mining in North Dakota, fringed sagebrush germinated after 3 and 4 years in the seed bank. In a 1-year-old soil stockpile, fringed sagebrush contributed 22% of total vegetation after the soil was spread [70].

Germination: Fringed sagebrush seeds in the soil can germinate anytime during the growing season [11].

Seedling establishment/growth: Environmental conditions during June and early July are critical in the emergence and growth of fringed sagebrush. Most seedlings of fringed sagebrush emerge in spring and early summer, enabling them to temporarily exploit the period for growth when soil water is highest and temperatures are moderate. However, fringed sagebrush seeds in the soil can germinate and seedlings can be recruited anytime during the growing season [11].

Fringed sagebrush seedlings withstand short-term drought "very well" and show moderate competitiveness and vigor. A 3-year establishment period is required for plants to reach flowering under dryland conditions [127].

In a laboratory experiment on emergence of fringed sagebrush seedlings, Harvey [60] determined surface plantings gave highest germination but desiccation severely limited seedling survival. Emergence of fringed sagebrush seedlings from 3 different planting depths was [60]:

Asexual regeneration: Fringed sagebrush's ability to reproduce asexually is disputed. Fringed sagebrush can be regenerated from cuttings collected from February through May [68]. Under favorable conditions, fringed sagebrush increases in basal cover by layering [121]. Whisenant and Uresk [130] report 38% of fringed sagebrush resprouted after a prescribed fire in a mixed-prairie in South Dakota.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Fringed sagebrush occupies a wide variety of sites. Most typically, it grows in full sunlight in dry, coarse, shallow soils. However, it tolerates moderate shade well and thrives on ditch banks and along streams [121]. On winter ranges in western Utah and eastern Nevada, fringed sagebrush may occur in dense stands along shallow depressions that collect moisture from summer rains [90].

Elevation: Fringed sagebrush occurs from 4,000 to 11,000 feet (1,200-3,350 m) throughout its range [68]. Specific elevational ranges for fringed sagebrush in various locations show a wider range of elevation. They are:

Alaska: "lowlands" to 3,281 feet (1,000 m) [66]
Arizona: 5,500 to 8,000 feet (1,676-2,438 m) [76]
Colorado: 4,500 to 10,000 feet (1,372-3,048 m) [58]
Nevada: 6,800 to 11,000 feet (2,073-3,353 m) [75]
New Mexico: 5,500 to 8,000 feet (1,676-2,438 m) [89]
Utah: 2,953 to 11,417 feet (900 to 3480 m) [128]

Salt tolerance: Fringed sagebrush has a "fair" tolerance for salt [68].

Drought tolerance: Fringed sagebrush has a "good" drought tolerance, requiring an annual precipitation range of 8 to12 inches (20-30 cm) [68,119].

Soil: Fringed sagebrush does well on shallow to deep, well-drained soils with a pH from neutral to slightly alkaline. Texture of the soil can be fine to coarse [68]. Hann [56] states fringed sagebrush is found on soils with calcareous parent materials.

Dittberner and Olson [36] compiled information on soil types and growth of fringed sagebrush for Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. They describe fringed sagebrush's growth as good on loam, sandy loam, and clay loam; fair on gravel and sand; fair to poor on clay and poor on dense clay.

Topography: Fringed sagebrush occurs on rocky ridges and foothills [68].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Fringed sagebrush is well represented in all successional stages, depending on location and ecosystems. It is well adapted in northern mixed prairie in a successional continuum from early to late seral stages [11]. It is also part of both seral and climax communities in a ponderosa pine/bunchgrass biogeoclimatic zone in the Junction Wildlife Management Area of British Columbia [46].

Early: In a discussion of winter game range in southern Idaho by Rosentreter and Jorgenson [108], they describe fringed sagebrush as a "good" pioneer species on harsh sites.

Mid-successional: Burgess [21] studied succession in the sandhills of southeastern North Dakota. He found fringed sagebrush to be a "transitional" plant species. Frequency and cover percentages for 60 quadrats were:

Climax: A community type of fringed sagebrush/glaucous bluegrass in southeastern Yukon is considered an edaphic climax [39]. Coupland [29] describes fringed sagebrush as "...the most abundant species among the herbs and dwarf half-shrubs" in the climax vegetation of northern mixed-grass prairie.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Phenology of fringed sagebrush is influenced by geographic location. Generally development begins later in northern areas and earlier in southern locations.

In the mixed-grass prairie of Canada, fringed sagebrush begins growth about mid-April. Flower stalks appear towards the end of July and flower buds are present about the end of the 1st week in August. Fringed sagebrush is in full bloom 2 weeks later. Seed ripens by mid-September and the foliage dries "soon" afterward [30].

A shortgrass prairie in Colorado observed by Dickinson and Dodd [33] showed fringed sagebrush began growth at the beginning of April with flower buds present in mid-July and mature floral buds by the end of the month. Floral buds and open flowers were present by the end of August and ripening fruit by the beginning of September. By the end of September, the plants had buds, flowers, green and ripe fruit and were dispersing seeds. Early November brought winter dormancy but seeds continued to disperse. Flowering of fringed sagebrush was delayed because of a dry autumn during the study and after flowering; the same conditions apparently brought on earlier seed dispersal.

FIRE ECOLOGY

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

Resprouting has been observed after fire in fringed sagebrush. Cawker [24] states fringed sagebrush "may stump sprout" after burning, and Anderson and Bailey [3] noted an increase in fringed sagebrush cover after 24 years of spring burning due to "the suckers of fringed sagebrush ."

Fire regimes: There is no specific information in the literature concerning fire regimes for fringed sagebrush. Fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems in which fringed sagebrush occurs are summarized below. Find further 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

• IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT
• PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE
• FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

During prescribed fire experiments in a mixed-prairie in Badlands National Park, South Dakota, fire killed "many" fringed sagebrush plants [130]. In a wildlife habitat improvement study for California bighorn sheep in British Columbia, burning of big sagebrush stands resulted in killing "most" fringed sagebrush plants [100]. Wasser [127] states wildfire generally kills "some" fringed sagebrush plants and sometimes "most" plants.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Whisenant and Uresk [130] noted density of fringed sagebrush changed "little" following fire. Seedlings established quickly following fire. Size of fringed sagebrush plants after fire was "greatly" reduced. About 38% of fringed sagebrush plants resprouted following fire. Wasser [127] states fringed sagebrush plants recover from wildfire in 3 years.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
In a discussion of plant response to fire in various ecosystems, Wright and Thompson [133] describe fringed sagebrush as "reduced" by spring burning in a mixed-grass prairie and "seriously harmed" by both spring and fall burning in the Canadian Great Plains.

Kirsch and Kruse [78] state cover of fringed sagebrush was "unchanged" by burning on the mixed-grass prairie of North Dakota. However, their definition of unchanged includes a range of change in cover from plus 99% to minus 49% for the plants studied.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Bailey and Anderson [13] conducted an experiment in Alberta designed to determine effects of spring and fall prescribed burning of a rough fescue (Festuca altaica)/short bristle needle and thread (Hesperostipa curtiseta) grass community. They noted fringed sagebrush canopy coverage was reduced by both spring and fall burns. After an August, 1994, wildfire in northern dry mixed prairie in southeastern Alberta, fringed sagebrush appeared to decline in overall abundance. Pooled data from 1995 to 1997 show a decrease in estimates of fringed sagebrush's percent weight of total vegetation weight on burned sites relative to unburned sites for both upland and lowland areas [44]:

Grassland sites burned by wildfire were compared the 1st year after burning to unburned sites in western North Dakota by Dix [37]. His results show an increase in frequency of fringed sagebrush on the site burned in summer, but a decrease in frequency for sites burned in fall and spring.

After 24 years of annual spring burning in the aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands of east-central Alberta, fringed sagebrush increased in both canopy cover and frequency [3]. Increase in canopy cover was significant at P<0.05.

The Research Project Summary Seasonal fires in Saskatchewan rough fescue prairie provides information on prescribed fire use and postfire response of plains grassland community species including fringed sagebrush.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

• IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
• VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
• OTHER USES
• OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Fringed sagebrush is considered a "fair" forage species for domestic sheep by Hutchings [67]. Dittberner and Olson [36] rate fringed sagebrush as good forage for domestic sheep in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and fair in Montana and North Dakota. They rate fringed sagebrush as fair forage for horses in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, and poor in Montana and North Dakota.

Many large game animals utilize fringed sagebrush throughout western United States and Canada. In a 1971 literature review, Bayless [17] discusses use of fringed sagebrush by big game in Montana. He summarized big game use of fringed sagebrush as:

Importance of key winter forage plants for British Columbia ungulates is ranked by Blower [19]. His results for fringed sagebrush are:

Bison in northeastern Colorado browsed fringed sagebrush in March and October. In March on a pasture that had been "heavily" browsed by cattle, fringed sagebrush was 20.2 % of the bison diet with a standard error of 13.6. In October it was 11.3 % with a standard error of 5.6 [99].

Food habits of Rocky Mountain elk in the northern Great Plains were studied by Wydeven and Dahlgren [134] in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota. They found fringed sagebrush was an "important" or "major" plant in the diet of Rocky Mountain elk in fall, winter, and spring. Percent of fringed sagebrush in elk rumen contents, along with standard deviation, from July, 1976, to August, 1977 was:

In a literature review of Rocky Mountain mule deer foods, Kufeld and others [84] rated deer use of fringed sagebrush as "moderate" in winter and "light" in spring and fall.

Bartman [15] utilized tame mule deer to determine diet of mule deer in pinyon (Pinus spp.)/juniper (Juniperus spp.)/mixed shrub winter range during a 2-year experiment in Colorado. Fringed sagebrush was used most heavily by mule deer in February and March during both years. No use or only trace amounts were noted in the remaining winter months. Currie and others [32] also utilized tame mule deer in a Colorado study in managed ponderosa pine habitats to determine if diets of mule deer and cattle were in competition. Their results indicate mule deer utilize fringed sagebrush during the growing season, not just winter months. Fringed sagebrush was ranked 9th of 129 species grazed by mule deer and percentage of total diet of fringed sagebrush by month was:

Bayless [16] studied pronghorn winter diet in Montana. He found pronghorn utilized fringed sagebrush more than would be expected when compared to percentage of total vegetation available in February and March:

As part of the same study, Bayless [16] analyzed contents of 18 pronghorn rumen samples collected during the winter of 1966/1967. Frequency of occurrence and volume of plant taxa, both in percentages, for fringed sagebrush were:

In a 1963 study of pronghorn diet at 2 sites in Saskatchewan, Dirschl [35] analyzed rumens of pronghorns and determined they utilized fringed sagebrush year-round. His results, presented as percent of diet by weight, were:

Fringed sagebrush is also important to small game and nongame mammals. White-tailed jackrabbits in Colorado utilize fringed sagebrush in spring and autumn. Fringed sagebrush composes 15% of their spring diet and is an "important" part of their fall diet [41]. Also in Colorado, Hansen and Gold (1977) [57] observed black-tailed prairie dogs from June, 1973, to June, 1975, and desert cottontails from June, 1974, to June, 1975, as part of a study to determine competition with cattle for food. Fringed sagebrush was not part of the cattle's diet but the researchers reported fringed sagebrush to be part of the diet of both black-tailed prairie dogs and desert cottontails. Fringed sagebrush was one of the "most important" food items for black-tailed prairie dogs and made up 8% of their total diet. Fringed sagebrush made up 15% of the total diet of desert cottontails. Their results expressed as an average (± Standard Error) percentage of seasonal diets were:

Sage-grouse and greater prairie-chickens utilize fringed sagebrush as both adults and juveniles. Food habits of greater sage-grouse in central Montana were studied by Peterson [102] during the summers of 1966 and 1968. Fringed sagebrush was 1 of the 5 most utilized plants and began to appear in the diet of sage-grouse chicks when they were 4 weeks old but only as a trace. Use of fringed sagebrush increased until the chicks were 11 to 12 weeks old.

Use of fringed sagebrush by adult sage-grouse occurred in August and September. Percent frequency and volume of fringed sagebrush in the diet of adult sage-grouse for these 2 months were:

Another study of sage-grouse in central Montana [126] observed food habits of adult sage-grouse. Use of fringed sagebrush began in March and continued through November. Percent frequency and volume of fringed sagebrush in 299 sage-grouse crops was:

In a study of greater prairie-chicken food habits on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in North Dakota, Rumble and others [109] found fringed sagebrush was part of greater prairie-chicken brood diets. Adult birds utilized fringed sagebrush in both winter and summer. Percent composition and standard error of fringed sagebrush in adult greater prairie-chickens diet was [109]:

In Wind Cave National Park, Forde [48] found higher vesper sparrow numbers were associated with several plants, including fringed sagebrush.

Palatability/nutritional value: Because of its range and diverse habitats, fringed sagebrush varies considerably in its value as forage for livestock. Brand and Goetz [20] rate fringed sagebrush as unpalatable to cattle. In North Dakota, Hooper and Nesbitt [64] state fringed sagebrush is bitter and the least palatable forage in the mixed-prairie. Stock will not begin to eat it until other forage becomes scarce. However, in the Southwest, fringed sagebrush rates "fairly good" in palatability for cattle and "very good" for domestic sheep and goats, especially during winter and spring. It is highly prized for domestic sheep forage during lambing season [121].

In a 1946 study of white-tailed deer diet in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Hill [62] ranked palatability of fringed sagebrush for the 4 seasons as:

Nutritional value of fringed sagebrush for wildlife in some western states is rated [36]:

Fringed sagebrush is "moderately" nutritious and is more important for fattening than body-building or energy-producing feed. Chemical analysis of fringed sagebrush indicates it ranks with alfalfa hay in proportions of crude fiber and carbohydrates and contains about 4 times as much fat, 1/2 the ash and 2/3rds as much protein as alfalfa [121].

Fringed sagebrush collected over base-metal deposits in Precambrian rocks of west-central Colorado showed the following concentrations of elements when the ash was analyzed [88]:

Dietz [34] discusses fringed sagebrush as part of a study to determine nutritive value of  shrubs in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Seasonal values of nutrients for stems and leaves of fringed sagebrush, oven-dry basis, were:

He also describes dry matter and nutritive production of fringed sagebrush in fall on a deer range in the Black Hills [34]:

Cover value: Dittberner and Olson [36] rate fringed sagebrush's cover value for wildlife in some western states as generally low.

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Germination of fringed sagebrush differs between field and laboratory conditions with field germination lower than laboratory germination. Fringed sagebrush had an overall field germination rate of 8.9 ± 2.3% after being tested at 3 different sites in Montana for 3 years [60].

In a laboratory study of fringed sagebrush germination [111], heads of the achenes had to be threshed and extra plant material sifted and removed. No other pretreatment was necessary for germination. Cleaned seed of fringed sagebrush averages 3,875,000 per pound (8,545/gm) [90].

The achenes germinated very well over most of a range of temperatures from 63 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit (17-24 ^oC) for 8 hours and 53 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5- 31 ^oC) for 16 hours. Temperatures of 93 degrees Fahrenheit (34 ^oC) or higher strongly depressed germination percentages and lengthened germination times. Optimum germination was at a constant temperature of approximately 63 degrees Fahrenheit (17 ^oC) with a mean germination time of 5.4 days, and alternating temperatures 56 to 75 degrees (13.5-17 ^oC) for 8 hours and 74 degrees Fahrenheit (23.5 ^oC) for 16 hours with a mean germination time of 5.3 days.

Harvey [60] utilized a temperature gradient bar for 14 days to measure percent germination of fringed sagebrush seeds. His results were:

Germination of fringed sagebrush achenes is "strikingly" affected by increase in moisture stress [111]. Total percentage germination and time required to reach 75% of total germination at 7 levels of moisture stress with a constant temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit (17 ^oC) (n = 2) were:

No response to either presence or absence of light was noted in germinating seeds of fringed sagebrush by Sabo and others [111]. However, Wasser [127] states surface seeding of fringed sagebrush is beneficial because light induces greater germination where surface moisture is assured, e.g., with irrigation or where snowmelt extends for a few weeks.

Fringed sagebrush is well adapted to northerly cool climates and is especially useful for stabilization of disturbed soils [91]. It can be used for soil stabilization during erosion control [68], because of its root system [90] (see General Botanical Characteristics).

Fringed sagebrush is 1 of the plants recommended by Rosentreter and Jorgenson [108] for restoring winter game range in southern Idaho. They state it has limited distribution in Idaho but would do well on cold sites and be a good pioneer on harsh sites.

Meier and Weaver [92] discuss use of native plants for roadside vegetation management in the northern Rocky Mountains. They conclude fringed sagebrush would grow best if seeded in Douglas-fir, shortgrass, or foothill bunchgrass types. It would do well in a ponderosa pine type and have least success if seeded in a mixed-grass type.

In North Dakota a study was done to observe number of seedlings emerging from "prairie hay" when used as mulch to provide a seed source for revegetating disturbed sites. Number of established fringed sagebrush seedlings increased significantly (P<0.05) after the hay was stored for a year [106].

OTHER USES:
Since fringed sagebrush increases in grazed pastures [30,87], it is often considered an indicator of overgrazing [30]. As an example of this, in an early study (1960) of grazing effects in Colorado on short-grass range, average green forage production of fringed sagebrush in heavily grazed (60% by weight of current herbage growth of dominant forage grasses in 6 months) pastures was 26 pounds (11.8 kg); moderately grazed (40%) yielded 21 pounds (9.5 kg); and lightly grazed (20%) only produced 18 pounds (8.2 kg) of forage [79]. However, Reed and Peterson [105] caution against indiscriminate use of fringed sagebrush as a range condition indicator. They feel abundance of fringed sagebrush may be related to weather, and considerable damage to the range from grazing may occur long before increases in fringed sagebrush are apparent.

Lovering and Hedal [88] investigated use of fringed sagebrush as a biogeochemical indicator species for base-metal deposits in Precambrian rocks in west-central Colorado. They concluded that because of its wide distribution, fringed sagebrush could be useful in mineral exploration since the chemical composition of fringed sagebrush may mirror composition of the soil where it grows.

Native Americans used fringed sagebrush in a variety of ways. The northern Cheyenne tribe wove fringed sagebrush into a braid and wore it like a head-band to treat nosebleed [59]. In the Fort Yukon region of northeastern Alaska, native people boil leaves and stems of fringed sagebrush in water for bathing sore or painful feet. The steam is inhaled to relieve congestion and steam baths are used to soothe varicose veins. Leaves of fringed sagebrush are boiled in water to make a strong tea used for relief of colds or mixed with spruce pitch and applied to wounds [63].

Early settlers used fringed sagebrush to make a bitter tea which they believed was a tonic and remedy for typhoid fever [65].

Fringed sagebrush is used for landscaping because of its attractive, fine, silvery-green foliage [68].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Wasser [127] recommends using seed stock of fringed sagebrush from habitats similar to seeding site.

In a clipping experiment designed to simulate grazing in Colorado, Buwai and Trlica [23] found fringed sagebrush detrimentally affected by any 2 multiple defoliation treatments. Plants were most affected by heavy defoliation (90% of current year's growth removed) during rapid growth and near maturity. Effects were least severe when fringed sagebrush plants were moderately defoliated (60% of current year's growth removed) during the quiescence and rapid growth phenological stages. Plant vigor and herbage yields were less for all defoliated plants than for control plants. Root total nonstructural carbohydrates of fringed sagebrush were reduced by multiple defoliations except when plants were defoliated at a "moderate" level during quiescence and rapid growth. The authors conclude "complete rest from grazing during later phenological stages during some years may be required to maintain fringed sagebrush vigor, production, and carbohydrate reserve levels."

Hutchings [67] recommends 40% use of annual growth of fringed sagebrush by domestic sheep.

Herbicides: A 1970 review of herbicidal treatments for fringed sagebrush is provided by Ryerson and others [110].

Artemisia frigida: References

1. Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment). [22991]

2. Allen, Robert B.; Peet, Robert K.; Baker, William L. 1991. Gradient analysis of latitudinal variation in Southern Rocky Mountain forests. Journal of Biogeography. 18(2): 123-138. [14875]

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. 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]

5. Arno, Stephen F. 1976. The historical role of fire on the Bitterroot National Forest. Res. Pap. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [15225]

6. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990]

7. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984]

8. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]

9. Arno, Stephen F.; Scott, Joe H.; Hartwell, Michael G. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire history. Res. Pap. INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 25 p. [25928]

10. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]

11. Bai, Yuguang; Romo, J. T. 1996. Fringed sagebrush response to sward disturbances: seedling dynamics and plant growth. Journal of Range Management. 49(3): 228-233. [26610]

12. Bai, Yuguang; Romo, J. T. 1997. Seed production, seed rain, and the seedbank of fringed sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 50(2): 151-155. [28879]

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

14. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1559-1569. [14986]

15. Bartmann, Richard M. 1983. Composition and quality of mule deer diets on pinyon-juniper winter range, Colorado. Journal of Range Management. 36(4): 534-541. [35261]

16. Bayless, Stephen R. 1969. Winter food habits, range use, and home range of antelope in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 538-550. [16590]

17. Bayless, Steve. 1971. Relationships between big game and sagebrush. Paper presented at: Annual meeting of the Northwest Section of the Wildlife Society; 1971 March 25-26; Bozeman, MT. 14 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17098]

18. 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]

19. Blower, Dan. 1982. Key winter forage plants for B.C. ungulates. In: [Source unknown]. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Terrestrial Studies Branch: 57. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17065]

20. Brand, M. D.; Goetz, H. 1978. Secondary succession of a mixed grass community in southwestern North Dakota. Annual Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of Science. 32(2): 67-78. [7512]

21. Burgess, Robert L. 1965. A study of plant succession in the sandhills of southeastern North Dakota. In: Annual proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of Science; 1965 May 7-8; Fargo, ND. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science: 62-80. [4471]

22. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565]

23. Buwai, M.; Trlica, M. J. 1977. Multiple defoliation effects on herbage yield, vigor, and total nonstructural carbohydrates of five range species. Journal of Range Management. 30(3): 164-171. [576]

24. Cawker, K. B. 1983. Fire history and grassland vegetation change: three pollen diagrams from southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 1126-1139. [611]

25. Cole, G. F. 1956. The pronghorn antelope--its range use and food habits in central Montana with special reference to alfalfa. Technical Bulletin 516. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 63 p. [43976]

26. Constan, K. J. 1967. Food habits, range use and relationships of bighorn sheep to mule deer and elk in winter, Gallatin Canyon, Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 43 p. Thesis. [43975]

27. Cooper, Charles F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology. 42(3): 493-499. [5780]

28. Cooperrider, Allen Y.; Bailey, James A. 1986. Fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida)--a neglected forage species of western ranges. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 46-54. [686]

29. Coupland, R. T. 1992. Mixed prairie. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.: 151-182. [23825]

30. Coupland, Robert T. 1950. Ecology of mixed prairie in Canada. Ecological Monographs. 20(4): 271-315. [700]

31. Coupland, Robert T.; Johnson, R. E. 1965. Rooting characteristics of native grassland species of Saskatchewan. Journal of Ecology. 53: 475-507. [702]

32. 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]

33. Dickinson, C. E.; Dodd, Jerrold L. 1976. Phenological pattern in the shortgrass prairie. The American Midland Naturalist. 96(2): 367-378. [799]

34. Dietz, Donald R. 1972. Nutritive value of shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium; Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 289-302. [801]

35. Dirschl, Herman J. 1963. Food habits of the pronghorn in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management. 27(1): 81-93. [5939]

36. 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]

37. Dix, Ralph L. 1960. The effects of burning on the mulch structure and species composition of grasslands in western North Dakota. Ecology. 41(1): 49-56. [808]

38. Dormaar, Johan F.; Adams, Barry W.; Willms, Walter D. 1994. Effect of grazing and abandoned cultivation on a Stipa-Bouteloua community. Journal of Range Management. 47(1): 28-32. [22922]

39. Douglas, George W. 1974. Montane zone vegetation of the Alsek River region, southwestern Yukon. Canadian Journal of Botany. 52: 2505-2532. [17283]

40. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982]

41. Dunn, John P.; Chapman, Joseph A.; Marsh, Rex E. 1982. Jackrabbits: Lepus californicus and allies. In: Chapman, J. A.; Feldhamer, G. A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press: 124-145. [25016]

42. Edwards, M. E.; Armbruster, W. S. 1989. A tundra-steppe transition on Kathul Mountain, Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 21(3): 296-304. [9673]

43. Ellis, James E.; Travis, Michael. 1975. Comparative aspects of foraging behaviour of pronghorn antelope and cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology. 12(2): 411-420. [4645]

44. Erichsen-Arychuk, Catherine; Bork, Edward W.; Bailey, Arthur W. 2002. Northern dry mixed prairie responses to summer wildfire and drought. Journal of Range Management. 55(2): 164-170. [40694]

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

46. Feller, M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. 1988. Wildlife and range prescribed burning workshop: Proceedings; 1987 October 27-28; Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. 224 p. [3095]

47. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590]

48. Forde, Jon D. 1983. The effect of fire on bird and small mammal communities in the grasslands of Wind Cave National Park. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University. 140 p. Thesis. [937]

49. Francis, Richard E. 1983. Sagebrush-steppe habitat types in northern Colorado: a first approximation. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 67-71. [955]

50. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 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]

51. Gordon, F. A. 1968. Range relationships of elk and cattle on elk winter range, Crow Creek, Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 52 p. Thesis. [43974]

52. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; [and others]. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-132. [26188]

53. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]

54. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [3862]

55. Hall, Harvey M.; Clements, Frederic E. 1923. The phylogenetic method in taxonomy: the North American species of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus, and Atriplex. Publication No. 326. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institute of Washington. 355 p. [43183]

56. Hann, Wendel John. 1982. A taxonomy for classification of seral vegetation of selected habitat types in western Montana. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 235 p. Dissertation. [1073]

57. Hansen, Richard M.; Gold, Ilyse K. 1977. Black-tailed prairie dogs, desert cottontails and cattle trophic relations on shortgrass range. Journal of Range Management. 30(3): 210-214. [4644]

58. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]

59. Hart, Jeffrey A. 1981. The ethnobotany of the northern Cheyenne Indians of Montana. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 4: 1-55. [35893]

60. Harvey, Stephen John. 1981. Life history and reproductive strategies in Artemisia. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 132 p. Thesis. [1102]

61. Heyerdahl, Emily K.; Berry, Dawn; Agee, James K. 1994. Fire history database of the western United States. Final report. Interagency agreement: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DW12934530; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service PNW-93-0300; University of Washington 61-2239. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station; University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 28 p. [+ Appendices]. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [27979]

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

63. Holloway, Patricia S.; Alexander, Ginny. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Fort Yukon region, Alaska. Economic Botany. 44(2): 214-225. [13625]

64. Hopper, T. H.; Nesbitt, L. L. 1930. The chemical composition of some North Dakota pasture and hay grasses. Bull. 236. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p. [3265]

65. Houston, Kent E.; Hartung, Walter J.; Hartung, Carol J. 2001. A field guide for forest indicator plants, sensitive plants, and noxious weeds of the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-84. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 184 p. [40585]

66. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]

67. Hutchings, Selar S. 1954. Managing winter sheep range for greater profit. Farmers' Bulletin No. 2067. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [23306]

68. Institute for Land Rehabilitation. 1979. Selection, propagation, and field establishment of native plant species on disturbed arid lands. Bulletin 500. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 49 p. [1237]

69. Iverson, Louis R. 1986. Competitive, seed dispersal, and water relationships of winterfat (Ceratoides lanata) in western North Dakota. 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: 25-31. [3510]

70. Iverson, Louis R.; Wali, Mohan K. 1982. Buried, viable seeds and their relation to revegetation after surface mining. Journal of Range Management. 35(5): 648-652. [23855]

71. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]

72. Kamps, G. F. 1969. Whitetail deer and mule deer relationships in the Snowy Mountains of central Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 59 p. Thesis. [43973]

73. Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory. 2000. Rare plants of Kansas, [Online]. Available: http://www.kbs.ukans.edu/ksnhi/database/plant.htm [2003, March 31]. [35548]

74. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]

75. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 3 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]

76. 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]

77. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. [4395]

78. Kirch, Leo; Kruse, Arnold. 1978. Fire effects: mixed prairie - North Dakota. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 5 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [30648]

79. Klipple, G. E.; Costello, David F. 1960. Vegetation and cattle responses to different intensities of grazing on short-grass ranges on the Central Great Plains. Technical Bulletin No. 1216. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 82 p. [4284]

80. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final report: Contract No. 28-K2-234. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]

81. Kovacic, D. A.; St. John, T. V.; Dyer, M. I. 1984. Lack of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum in a ponderosa pine forest. Ecology. 65(6): 1755-1759. [5776]

82. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. [4389]

83. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

84. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [1387]

85. 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]

86. Laven, R. D.; Omi, P. N.; Wyant, J. G.; Pinkerton, A. S. 1980. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine ecosystem in the central Rocky Mountains, Colorado. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 46-49. [7183]

87. 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]

88. Lovering, T. G.; Hedal, J. A. 1983. The use of sagebrush (Artemisia) as a biogeochemical indicator of base-metal deposits in Precambrian rocks of west-central Colorado. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 18: 205-230. [1479]

89. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]

90. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens, Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571]

91. McArthur, E. Durant; Giunta, Bruce C.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Shrubs for restoration of depleted range and disturbed areas. Utah Science. 35: 28-33. [25035]

92. Meier, Gretchen; Weaver, T. 1997. Desirables and weeds for roadside management--a northern Rocky Mountain catalogue. Report No. RHWA/MT-97/8115. Final report: July 1994-December 1997. Helena, MT: State of Montana Department of Transportation, Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Program. 145 p. [29135]

93. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [26669]

94. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [26637]

95. Moir, W. H.; Trlica, M. J. 1976. Plant communities and vegetation pattern as affected by various treatments in shortgrass prairies of northeastern Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist. 21(3): 359-371. [2803]

96. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the High Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. [5916]

97. Nadeau, L. B.; Corns, I. G. W. 2002. Post-fire vegetation of the montane natural subregion of Jasper National Park. Forest Ecology and Management. 163: 165-183. [41546]

98. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

99. Peden, Donald G. 1976. Botanical composition of bison diets on shortgrass plains. The American Midland Naturalist. 96(1): 225-229. [24596]

100. Peek, James, M.; Demarchi, Dennis A.; Demarchi, Raymond A.; Stucker, Donald E. 1985. Bighorn sheep and fire: seven case histories. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effect on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 36-43. [1864]

101. Pendleton, Rosemary L.; Pendleton, Burton K.; Harper, Kimball T. 1989. Breeding systems of woody plant species in Utah. 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: 5-22. [5918]

102. Peterson, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 147-155. [7527]

103. Quinnild, Clayton L.; Cosby, Hugh E. 1958. Relicts of climax vegetation on two mesas in western North Dakota. Ecology. 39(1): 29-32. [1925]

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

105. Reed, Merton J.; Peterson, Roald A. 1961. Vegetation, soil, and cattle responses to grazing on northern Great Plains range. Tech. Bull. 1252. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 79 p. [4286]

106. Ries, R. E.; Hofmann, L. 1983. Number of seedlings established from stored prairie hay. In: Brewer, Richard, ed. Proceedings, 8th North American prairie conference; 1982 August 1-4; Kalamazoo, MI. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of Biology: 3-4. [3112]

107. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. [9696]

108. Rosentreter, Roger; Jorgensen, Ray. 1986. Restoring winter game ranges in southern Idaho. Tech. Bull. 86-3. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 26 p. [5295]

109. 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; 1987 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]

110. Ryerson, D. E.; Taylor, J. E.; Baker, L. O.; [and others]. 1970. Clubmoss on Montana rangelands: Distribution, control, range relationships. Bulletin 645. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. 116 p. [10855]

111. Sabo, David G.; Johnson, Gordon V.; Martin, William C.; Aldon, Earl F. 1979. Germination requirements of 19 species of arid land plants. Res. Pap. RM-210. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [2047]

112. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579]

113. Schallenberger, Allen Dee. 1966. Food habits, range use and interspecific relationships of bighorn sheep in the Sun River area, west-central Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 44 p. Thesis. [43977]

114. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]

115. Schultz, Brad; McAdoo, Kent. 2002. Common sagebrush in Nevada. Special Publication SP-02-02. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension. 9 p. Available: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/Spec%20Pubs/SP-02-02.doc [2002, October 1]. [42043]

116. Seklecki, Mariette T.; Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1996. Fire history and the possible role of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 238-246. [28082]

117. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

118. 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. 10 p. [20090]

119. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 135 p. [49]

120. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a Mexican oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: perspectives in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. [19759]

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

122. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2003. PLANTS database (2003), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

123. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]

124. Vogel, W. G.; Van Dyne, G. M. 1966. Vegetation responses to grazing management on a foothill sheep range. Journal of Range Management. 19: 80-85. [12263]

125. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. [36983]

126. 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]

127. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 347 p. [4837]

128. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

129. Wentland, H. J. 1968. Summer range habits of the pronghorn antelope in central Montana with special reference to proposed sagebrush control study plots. Bozemen, MT: Montana State University. 65 p. Thesis. [43984]

130. Whisenant, Steven G.; Uresk, Dan W. [n.d.]. Effects of fire on vital attributes of a South Dakota, mixed prairie. Draft manuscript. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 23 p. [17135]

131. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Natural Heritage Inventory working list: rare vascular plants, [Online]. Available: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/working_list/taxalists/plants.htm [2003, March 13]. [43646]

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

133. Wright, Henry A.; Thompson, Rita. 1978. Fire effects. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: V-1 to V-12. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [3249]

134. Wydeven, Adrian P.; Dahlgren, Robert B. 1983. Food habits of elk in the northern Great Plains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(4): 916-923; 1983. [2630]

135. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]