Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

Figure 1—Salmonberry flower. Photo by Barry Breckling ©2015.	Figure 2—Salmonberry patch in flower. Photo by Jean Pawek ©2011.

Citation:
Zouhar, Kris. 2019. Rubus spectabilis, salmonberry. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/plants/shrub/rubspe/all.html [].

Table of Contents

• SUMMARY
• INTRODUCTORY
• Taxonomy
• Synonyms
• DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
• General Distribution
• Site Characteristics
• Plant Communities
• BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• General Botanical Characteristics
• Botanical Description
• Seasonal Development
• Regeneration Strategies
• Vegetative Regeneration
• Pollination and Breeding System
• Seed Production
• Seed Dispersal and Predation
• Seed Banking
• Germination
• Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth
• Successional Status
• Shade Tolerance
• Succession
• FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT
• Fire Effects
• Immediate Fire Effects
• Fire Adaptations and Plant Response to Fire
• Fuels and Fire Regimes
• Fire Management Considerations
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
• Federal Legal Status
• Other Status
• Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
• Value for Rehabilitation of Disturbed Sites
• Other Uses
• Other Management Considerations
• Management for Wildlife
• Nonnative Invasive Plants
• Insects and Disease
• Management Under a Changing Climate
• Silvicultural Considerations
• APPENDIX
• Table A1—Ecosystems, Associations, Cover Types, and BLM Regions where salmonberry occurs.
• Table A2—Common and scientific names of plants often associated with salmonberry.
• Table A3—Vegetation classifications and related publications that include salmonberry as an important, indicator, or dominant species.
• Table A4—Common and scientific names of wildlife species mentioned in this review.
• REFERENCES

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTORY

The PLANTS Database (2019) recognizes two varieties, both with the common name salmonberry:

• Rubus spectabilis Pursh var. franciscanus (Rydb.) J.T. Howell
• Rubus spectabilis Pursh var. spectabilis [326]

Salmonberry hybridizes with grayleaf raspberry and arctic raspberry in Alaska [238,330].

Common names are used throughout this review. For scientific names and links to other FEIS Species Reviews, see table A2 for plants and table A4 for animals.

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

Coarse distribution of salmonberry. Map courtesy of the PLANTS Database (2019, 8 May) [326].

Salmonberry is native to the Pacific coast states and Idaho. It grows mostly west of the Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon southward to northwestern California [102,267] and along the Pacific Coast northward through coastal British Columbia to southern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands [18,139,274,275]. Its frequency generally declines from west to east [63]. It is uncommon east of the Cascade crest [102], where its distribution often follows watercourses [102] such as the banks of the Columbia River [145]. Disjunct populations occur in Idaho, although they are rare [18,148]. NatureServe (2019) reports its occurrence in West Virginia [227].

Rubus spectabilis var. spectabilis occurs in Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties in California, northward to Alaska, and eastward to Idaho [326]. Rubus spectabilis var. franciscanus occurs only in Oregon and along the Pacific Coast in California, from the Santa Cruz Mountains north to Sonoma County [18,326].

Salmonberry's distribution is limited by cold temperatures and short growing seasons, and it is restricted primarily to mild maritime climates [238], decreasing in abundance inland (e.g., [316]) and where the climate has more continental influence [258].

States and provinces [227,326]:
United States: AK, CA, ID, OR, WA
Canada: BC

SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Salmonberry is most common on moist to wet, water-receiving sites in forested or wooded areas, especially in openings, and along edges and streambanks [16,139,145,238,251,275,324], although it also occurs on relatively dry hillsides and disturbed areas [18]. It is an indicator of warm, wet sites (e.g., [3,201]), is common in riparian areas (e.g., [315]), and is a facultative wetland plant (e.g., [176,201]). It typically occurs in forest openings, along waterways, on river terraces, gravel bars, avalanche chutes, or in seeps and swamps [42,75,102,139,251,330]. Its growth may be reduced in excessively wet areas such as swamps, where it may be confined to hummocks or logs [18]. Salmonberry can be abundant in disturbed areas such as roadsides, fencerows, fallow fields, and logged or burned areas [18,43,324].

Salmonberry typically grows at low to middle elevations [139]. Its frequency of occurrence decreases with increasing elevation [258], and it is generally most abundant below about 2,600 feet (800 m) [238]. However, it occurs up to lower alpine elevations in Alaska [145], and to subalpine elevations in the Pacific Northwest [251]. It occurs from sea level to >4,000 feet (1,200 m) in the Cascade and Coast ranges of Washington and Oregon [324]. In western Washington, it is particularly abundant under forest canopies at lower elevations but is largely restricted to stream and lake margins at higher elevations [18]. It is most abundant below 3,000 feet (900 m) in Oregon [316] and below about 1,600 feet (500 m) in California [16].

Although it may tolerate a range of soil types [18], salmonberry is most abundant and attains maximum size in rich, moist soils of alluvial bottomlands [324]. It is a nitrophytic species and an indicator of nutrient-rich [169,171,238,258] and very moist to wet soils in forests of British Columbia [258]. In western Oregon and Washington, salmonberry is an indicator of fertile soils that are saturated for much of the year [102,189]. In the Coast Ranges of western Oregon, the Douglas-fir/salmonberry–western swordfern community had the greatest nutrient concentrations compared to Douglas-fir communities with other understory types due to the presence of red alder [346]—a nitrogen-fixing species and common associate of salmonberry (see Plant Communities and Succession). In British Columbia, salmonberry was an indicator of fertile sites where black cottonwood grew best [284].

For additional information on soil characteristics on sites occupied or dominated by salmonberry, see table A3 for a list of vegetation classifications, most of which include information on soils and other site characteristics. Also see table 1 for information on studies that examined relationships between site characteristics and vegetation, including salmonberry.

PLANT COMMUNITIES
Salmonberry occurs in deciduous hardwood, mixed hardwood-coniferous evergreen, and coniferous forests and woodlands. It tends to be more frequent and develop greater canopy cover under red alder stands than in conifer or mixed hardwood-conifer stands (e.g., [18,83,307]). Salmonberry is a common to dominant understory species in coniferous forests dominated by Sitka spruce [125], redwood [194], western redcedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir [219], Port-Orford-cedar, grand fir [352], and Pacific silver fir [75,76,188,351]. Salmonberry often forms dense patches within the understories of Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests [308]. It is especially common under red alder on both upland and riparian sites (e.g., [80,104,116]). In the southern portion of its range, salmonberry is considered an especially good indicator of potential red alder habitat [117]. It is a common component of northern coastal scrub communities [292] dominated by baccharis, thimbleberry, and trailing blackberry in northern California [128]. Salmonberry also grows in mixed-evergreen and hardwood forests [18,225,338] and in riparian forests dominated by black cottonwood [60], Sitka alder, and other hardwoods [77]. In Alaska, salmonberry commonly occurs in the understory of Sitka alder thickets [175].

Salmonberry has been identified as a dominant species under Sitka spruce, western hemlock, western redcedar, mountain hemlock, red alder, Sitka alder, California hazelnut, vine maple, and Oregon ash; and a codominant with these shrubs: salal, stink currant, thimbleberry, California blackberry, California huckleberry, devilsclub, common snowberry, northern black currant, and Alaska blueberry. Common understory associates include the forbs seacoast angelica, threeleaf foamflower, coastal miterwort, American skunkcabbage, Pacific golden saxifrage, and Pacific waterleaf; the graminoid bluejoint; and the ferns lady-fern and western swordfern (e.g., [21,22,64,66,82,130,172,176,201]).

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 3—Yellow salmonberry fruit, Thornton Creek watershed, Seattle, Washington. Photo by Ashley Pond 2006.	Figure 4—Red salmonberry fruit. Photo by Vernon Smith ©2011.

Botanical Description
This description covers characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [16,139,145]).

Aboveground: Salmonberry is an erect [16,139,145,251], branching [225,251,330], perennial shrub that typically grows 7 to 13 feet (2-4 m) tall [16,225,251,316,330]. It may reach up to 15 feet (4.6 m) tall [102,189] and is rarely less than 1.6 feet (0.5 m) [139]. Vegetative characteristics of salmonberry stems are affected by light and other resource availability [309,347]. On hot, dry sites (e.g., open hillsides and clearcuts), salmonberry assumes a short, compact form, usually less than about 3 feet (1 m) tall [18]. Leaves are deciduous, alternate, and mostly with three leaflets [102,139,145,225,251,330]. Aerial stems are 0.1 to 0.6 inch (3-15 mm) in diameter, and often have scattered, weak spines [251,330]. As stems age, bark becomes shreddy [102,225,251,330]. Several sources report that salmonberry stems are biennial (e.g., [16,145,225,330]). However, this does not appear to be true. For example, stems at least 10 years old, and possibly 15 years old, have been observed in southern British Columbia and Oregon [99], and Zasada and Tappeiner (2008) indicate that salmonberry has relatively long-lived stems [347].

Salmonberry flowers are a showy, unusual magenta color, and they occur singly or in groups of two to four on short, leafy, slender lateral stalks [16,102,145,225,251,330]. Fruits are raspberry-like, round to ovoid [16,102,145,251], 0.6 to 0.8 inch (1.5-2 cm) in length [225], and made up of many small, glabrous drupelets [139,330] that each contain a single, hard-pitted seed [347]. Seeds are small, around 310 seeds/gram [345]. Fruits vary in color, from yellowish (fig. 3) to orange to deep red (fig. 4) [16,102,139,145]—a quality that has been studied for its effects on seed dispersal. Dominance and variation in fruit color may differ among sites and geographic areas. The orange form is generally more common in the southern part of its range (i.e., Oregon), and the red form in the northern part (i.e., southeastern Alaska), although plants with both fruit colors occur in both areas, and the red form passes through an orange stage as it matures (review by [347]).

Stand structure: Salmonberry clones are made up of a network of rhizomes connecting ramets that consist of a taproot and one to five aerial stems. Stands annually produce enough aerial stems and rhizomes to offset mortality and maintain persistent cover [238,305,309]. Rhizomes spread laterally and produce new aerial stems about 3 to 6 feet (1-2 m) from the parent plant [305]. The number of aerial stems decreases from small to large size classes [238,309,350].

Populations range from small and scattered patches to what are described as large, "dense thickets" [102,145,189,309,316,330], which may be "almost impenetrable" in lower alpine areas of Alaska [145]. Large populations typically occur in openings and along streams, and the largest populations of salmonberry occur on sites with a history of major disturbance such as logged or burned sites, abandoned agricultural land, and sites along waterways and roadsides [347]. Populations can range from several meters [99] to more than ~330 feet (100 m) in diameter [18]. Individual clones can cover areas up to about 377 feet² (35 m²) [350], and density can exceed 8,000 aerial stems/acre (20,000 stems/ha) [305].

Salmonberry clone size (rhizome and aerial stem density and biomass) and population growth are influenced by density of overstory trees [197], stand type, disturbance severity [305,309], and salmonberry basal area [347]. In four common stand types in western Oregon—clearcuts, Douglas-fir, red alder, and riparian—salmonberry stem density was greatest in red alder stands and in clearcuts, and was lowest in riparian and Douglas-fir stands [305]. Salmonberry clones in red alder stands also had more total rhizome length (60 feet (18 m)) than those in Douglas-fir and riparian stands (16-20 feet (5-6 m)) [309]. In plots where all salmonberry stems were cut within 6 inches (15 cm) of the ground, stem production was generally two to three times greater than on uncut plots for 2 to 3 years after plot establishment (table 2). On uncut plots, mean annual salmonberry stem production was related to salmonberry basal area (P < 0.001), and salmonberry stem production, older stem density, and clonal biomass were inversely related to overstory basal area (P < 0.01) [305]. Most salmonberry aerial stem production and annual rhizome growth was in young (2-year-old) clearcuts, and total rhizome length and total above- and below-ground biomass were greater in older (13- to 18-year-old) clearcuts than in undisturbed red alder, Douglas-fir, and riparian stands. Ramet density was significantly greater in the young (11.0 ramets/m²) and older clearcuts (7.0 ramets/m²) than in the understory of alder (3.9 ramets/m²), Douglas-fir (2.0 ramets/m²), and riparian (2.3 ramets/m²) stands [309]. Salmonberry population structure, rhizome length, and biomass could be predicted from salmonberry stem number and basal area and basal area of overstory trees [238,309].

The following publications provide additional metrics describing clone morphology and stem production on different site types in the Oregon Coast Ranges: Tappeiner et al. (2001) [305], Maxwell et al. (1993) [198], Zasada et al. (1992) [350], Tappeiner et al. (1991) [309], and Maxwell (1990) [197].

Belowground: About 30% to 40% of total salmonberry biomass is below ground [309]. The extent of the rhizome network is related to overstory basal area and composition, age of the parent plant, and site characteristics [349]. Rhizome development is often extensive, especially in disturbed areas. Averages of 20 to 30 miles (32-48 km) per stand are common in logged areas, and may reach 42 miles (68 km) per stand in some clearcuts [349].

Belowground morphology differs among stand and site types in the Oregon Coast Ranges. The average rhizome length per clone was greatest in red alder stands (~60 feet (18.3 m)) (P < 0.05), compared to ~16 feet (5 m) in Douglas-fir stands, ~20 feet (6 m) in riparian stands, and ~26 feet (8 m) in 2-year-old clearcuts. In undisturbed stands (red alder, Douglas-fir, and riparian), rhizomes sprouted only from buds at the base of ramets, while in clearcuts rhizomes also sprouted from buds at several points along old rhizomes. Rhizome length and bud number can be estimated from regression equations using overstory basal area and density of salmonberry stems [309]. Salmonberry rhizomes supported many fine roots and occurred about 0.8 to 8 inches (2-20 cm) below the soil surface in study sites. Although the depth of a particular rhizome was generally consistent over its entire length, some varied in depth by as much as 8 inches (20 cm). On steep slopes (>50%) adjoining the study sites, rhizomes occurred at depths of about 3 to 6 feet (1-2 m). Rhizomes 2 to 3 inches (5-8 cm) in diameter were common on study sites, suggesting that rhizomes are long lived. Clones in undisturbed stands produced one to two new rhizomes per year, with annual extension ranging from 4 inches (10 cm) in riparian stands to 28 inches (70 cm) in red alder stands. Clones in recent clearcuts produced an average of seven new rhizomes per clone, with an annual extension of 6.2 feet (1.9 m), higher than in other stand types (P < 0.01) [309].

Raunkiaer [253] Life Form
Phanerophyte

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT
Salmonberry buds may be active in late winter or very early spring, with bud burst and leaf flush occurring from March to April [18,238]. For example, researchers in western Washington observed the first salmonberry leaves by 21 March [18]. Leaves are generally fully expanded from May to late August [238].

Salmonberry flowering usually occurs from early to late spring but varies by geographic location and elevation (table 3). Flowering generally occurs between April and June in its southern range and between April and July in its northern range [238]. In many areas along the Pacific Coast, the time of flowering appears to coincide with the arrival of the migrating rufous hummingbird, which may be an important pollinator [250].

Fruit ripening generally occurs 30 to 36 days after pollination, and it may last for several weeks or more within a population [347]. Salmonberry fruits generally ripen from June to July in its southern range and from July to August in its northern range and at high elevations [198,238]. Fruits ripen from May to July in Bella Coola, British Columbia [188], in July near Ketchikan, Alaska, and in August farther north [319,330]. Fruits may be available into October in southeastern Alaska [319]. Seed dispersal coincides with the time of fruit availability. In many areas, seed is dispersed from June through August [345].

Salmonberry leaves typically fall by late October or November [42,136,198,238]. In the western Cascade Range, 56% of salmonberry leaves dropped during the first 3 weeks after frost [42]. Salmonberry may become dormant in winter, or continue minimum shoot elongation throughout a mild coastal winter (e.g., mean temperature of ~43 °F (6 °C)) [18,238].

Rhizome growth begins in March, and the tips of terminal buds remain active and continue elongating until August [18]. Total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) of rhizome segments removed from intact plants reached a high of 13% of dry weight during winter (February), fell to 6% to 7% during spring shoot production and summer growth, and began rising again during leaf fall in October. Shoot production was more closely associated with TNC content than was root production. Low shoot production coincided with low levels of TNC, suggesting that salmonberry is more susceptible to physical disturbance from May through July, and possibly into October [348]. For more information on rhizome phenology see Zasada et al. (1994) [348].

REGENERATION PROCESSES

Salmonberry reproduces vegetatively via buds located on rhizomes, root crowns, and possibly from aerial stems. It also reproduces from animal- and gravity-dispersed seed. On undisturbed sites individual clones and populations increase in cover primarily by aerial stems sprouting from rhizomes. Recruitment of new genets through seedling establishment is relatively rare in existing salmonberry populations [309], but it is the primary means by which salmonberry establishes on new sites [238]. Although disturbance is not necessary for maintaining dense cover of salmonberry, it sprouts "vigorously" after aerial stems are killed [305,309] and after overstory trees die or are removed (e.g., [309]). Salmonberry populations on disturbed sites such as clearcuts are likely dominated by clonal sprouts rather than plants from seedlings [197].

Vegetative Regeneration: Salmonberry maintains stable populations through clonal spread and annual sprouting of new, relatively long-lived ramets [238,347]. Its stems arise from extensive bud banks, located primarily on branching rhizomes [102,189,198,238,251,309,330,347,348,350] that spread laterally beneath the soil surface, producing new aerial stems ~3 to 20 feet (1-6 m) away from the parent plant [99]. Annual production of aerial stems offsets aerial stem mortality and enables salmonberry to maintain persistent cover in disturbed and undisturbed stands [238,305,309], unless disturbance to salmonberry is severe enough to allow for succession of trees and other shrubs [238,309]. For example, salmonberry sprouting in riparian stands was likely reduced by establishment and spread of stink currant the first year after salmonberry stems were top-killed by cutting [305]. Vegetative regeneration is particularly important in perpetuating colonies in shaded understory habitats [18]. However, salmonberry may not sprout following top-kill in shaded habitats; it did not sprout after cutting in dense Douglas-fir stands [305].

Salmonberry stem production varies among stand types and is greatest in relatively open stands (e.g., red alder) and following overstory removal. Salmonberry stem density was maintained for at least 8 years, despite high annual mortality of small, new stems (85%-95%), in four common stand types in western Oregon: clearcuts, Douglas-fir, red alder, and riparian (mixed-age stands of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, red alder, and bigleaf maple). Few large diameter stems (>0.4 inch (11 mm)) died during the 8 years of this study. Based on length of rhizomes and bud density, researchers estimated that only 1% to 5% of the rhizome buds in a stand are needed to maintain annual stem production [305]. Within the first two growing seasons after removal of overstory trees, salmonberry populations were maintained by rapid growth of new rhizomes (1.0-2.5 m/m² annually) and sprouting of aerial stems (25-50 stems/m²). Rhizome and aerial stem biomass were greater in 13- to 18-yr-old clearcuts, than in 2-year-old clearcuts, red alder, Douglas-fir, and riparian stands [309].

Salmonberry sprouts prolifically from buds on stumps, root crowns, and rhizomes following top-kill from fire, mechanical removal, and other types of disturbance [18,238,305,309,348,349]. In clearcuts, Douglas-fir, red alder, and riparian stands in the Oregon Coast Ranges, annual stem production was greater for 2 or 3 years on plots where all salmonberry stems were cut than on plots where stems were not cut. After the first few years, annual stem production was similar among all stand types. Mean annual stem production was somewhat greater on cut plots than uncut plots averaged over 8 years, especially in clearcut and red alder stands (table 2) [305].

Regeneration by layering (from buds on aerial stem tips) has also been reported [18,309].

Rhizomes: Rhizomes are the most extensive segment of the salmonberry bud bank. Sprouting rhizome buds are responsible for local, annual increases in aerial stem density [18,238,347,348] and salmonberry's potential to survive severe soil heating and soil disturbance [309,349]. Bud densities and sprouting potential seem to be greatest on young rhizomes; 1- to 2-year-old rhizomes may have bud densities as high as one to two buds per inch. These young rhizomes are actively growing and expanding the area occupied by salmonberry underground, and producing aerial stems when "conditions are right". Older, larger diameter rhizomes seem to have fewer living buds that are slower to sprout after top-kill [309,349].

Rhizome development is often extensive [309,349], but rhizome morphology varies among stand and site types (e.g., [305,309]). Salmonberry population structure, rhizome length, and total biomass are related to overstory density and composition and disturbance severity [197,305,309] and can be estimated from predisturbance overstory basal area, salmonberry stem number and basal area, and site characteristics [309].

Stumps: Buds present on the stump seem to have the greatest potential for immediate growth after top-kill, but they are also the most susceptible to mortality or removal from burning or cutting [349]. The number of buds remaining on stumps is largely determined by stump height. Stump sprouts may inhibit other less active buds located at or below the ground surface by establishing apical dominance [349].

Root crown: Buds on salmonberry root crowns occur at and below the soil surface, where they are better protected from fire and manual damage than those on stumps. Root crowns can ordinarily be killed only through extreme soil disturbance [23]. Root crown buds may not sprout as quickly as stump buds because of the cooler microenvironment at and below the soil surface. Sprouting response is generally slower the deeper a bud is buried [349].

Layering: Baldwin et al. (2012) indicate that salmonberry does not root at the tips [16]. However, Barber (1976) observed several plants on sites near Sedro Woolley, Washington, that had downward-arching stems with tips that were buried by litter. These had rooted and produced new shoots where they came in contact with the ground. Barber also suggests that aerial stems that are damaged mechanically can root and produce new clones when in contact with the ground [18].

Pollination and Breeding System: Salmonberry flowers occur on perennial stems [347]; they are self-incompatible [84] and require cross-pollination. Flowers are pollinated primarily by insects and also hummingbirds [18,189,238,250]. They are also suited to unspecialized pollinators such as beetles [18,238]. Barber (1976) identifies several pollinators of salmonberry flowers [18].

Seed Production: Fruit production depends on environmental conditions, stand characteristics, and salmonberry plant development [238], although large numbers of seeds are typically produced every year [18,238,345,347]. Lepofsky et al. (1985) estimated that salmonberry produced about 30 fruits on a clone covering a 32-foot² (3-m²) area [188]. The number of seeds per fruit depends on microclimate, pollination, and genetics [347]. Salmonberry averaged 62 seeds/fruit in western Oregon (ranging from 28-128 seeds/fruit) and 40 seeds/fruit in southeastern Alaska (ranging from 17-65 seeds/fruit) [347]. Both red and yellow-orange fruits produce viable seed [238], and samples from Oregon averaged 45 seeds/red fruit and 35 to 42 seeds/orange fruit [319].

Despite abundant seed production, salmonberry seed may not be detected in the seed rain on some sites where it occurs, probably because most fruits are transported offsite by animals (see Seed Dispersal, below). Salmonberry was a common component of the existing vegetation in old-growth western redcedar–western hemlock–Douglas-fir forests (15.9% frequency) and adjacent clearcuts (67.2% frequency) at the University of British Columbia Research Forest near Haney, British Columbia. However, salmonberry seed rain was detected only on clearcuts, and only during 1 of 3 collection years (4 seeds/m², 1.6% frequency) [159]. Salmonberry seed was not detected in seed rain samples from any site in riparian communities along third- and fifth-order streams on the western slope of the Oregon Cascade Range, although it was present to abundant on most sites [113].

Seed Dispersal and Predation: Salmonberry seed is dispersed mostly by birds and mammals that eat the fruit and deposit the seed in their feces. Passage through a consumer's gut usually enhances germination [318], although digestion by some consumers may kill some seeds (e.g., [90,134]). Salmonberry seed is also dispersed by gravity, when ripe fruits drop from the plant [18,238,345,347]. Seed may be further dispersed throughout the soil by burrowing animals [238], or lost through predation—mostly by rodents [20]. A relatively long period of fruiting in salmonberry increases the probability of seed dispersal by animals [18]. See Importance to Wildlife for more information on animals that consume salmonberry fruit and seeds.

Because dispersal away from the parent plant depends on animals, the number of seeds removed and subsequent distribution of those seeds through space and time depends not only on the size of the fruit, but also on the size, eating habits, and movement habits of the animals. For example, large animals such as grizzly and American black bears are important consumers of salmonberry fruits and are effective seed dispersal agents [318]. Grizzly bears may deposit 50,000 to 100,000 salmonberry seeds in a single pile of feces. Seeds may then be predated or dispersed from feces by small rodents and birds [20,347]. In southeastern Alaska, however, seed predation was less likely for seeds within grizzly bear feces than for clean seeds [20].

Although digestion of fruits typically enhances germination by scarifying seeds, digestion by some animals may reduce viability of salmonberry seeds. Pacific martens may disperse salmonberry seeds long distances (>1,600 feet (500 m)); however, salmonberry seed may not be viable after ingestion by martens [13,133,134]. Banana slugs have been observed eating salmonberry fruits, and they disperse seeds over short distances [90,318]. However, seeds were less likely to germinate after passage through banana slug guts than undigested seed. The negative effects on germination were greater on seeds from red fruits than those from orange fruits [90].

Color preferences of avian frugivores varied among individuals, but most studies found that birds favored red fruits over orange fruits (e.g., [37,89,318]). This may be because the red fruits are mistaken for thimbleberry fruits, which are generally preferred [37]. However, preferences may vary among species of birds and mammals (review by [347]), and one study found that American robins either had no preference or preferred orange fruits over red fruits [340].

Several studies have examined the possible causes or implications of fruit color polymorphism and its possible effects on selection by frugivores. For example, Gervais et al. (1999) reported that birds removed red salmonberry fruits faster than orange fruits in Oregon and Alaska (P<0.01), despite wide geographic variation in fruit-color frequencies, fruit-crop densities, and numbers and species composition of avian frugivores. Based on these results, the authors suggest that forces other than animal selective pressure affect occurrence of salmonberry fruit color [89]. For more details on the interactions and mutualism between avian dispersers and salmonberry fruit color and phenology, see the following publications: [36,37,38,39].

Animals that potentially prey on salmonberry seeds are mostly rodents (squirrels, mice, and voles) and ground-foraging birds. Although red squirrels are important seed predators, they can also disperse seeds by dropping partially eaten fruits. Seed predators did not discriminate between seeds from different colored fruits [318]. Given the large numbers of seeds produced and longevity of seeds in the soil seed bank (see below), seed predation appears to have minimal impact on salmonberry reproduction [238]. In thinned, unthinned, and clearcut conifer stands on two sites in the Oregon Coast Ranges, there was little evidence of salmonberry seed predation [306].

Seed Banking: Salmonberry seeds are dormant when ripe, and form a persistent soil seed bank [18,238]. They can remain viable in the soil for many years or decades [347]. A review by Oleskevich (1996) suggests they remain viable at least 100 years [238]. High annual seed production can result in large seed banks [238]. Estimates of 2 to 125 salmonberry seeds/m² have been suggested for soil seed bank density [238].

Early observations of abundant salmonberry seedling establishment after logging and soil scarification suggest that abundant viable salmonberry seed occurred in the top 6 inches (15 cm) of mineral soil in second-growth Sitka spruce–western hemlock–Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Coast Ranges. The author suggested that burrowing moles facilitated salmonberry seed burial on these sites [267].

Several seed banking studies have noted salmonberry emergence from both soil and litter samples on both disturbed and undisturbed sites (e.g., [101,203]), although seed bank density tended to be greater on undisturbed sites (e.g., [203,238]). On some sites, salmonberry was present in the seed bank, despite being absent or infrequent in the aboveground vegetation (e.g., [101,159,203]). Salmonberry tended to be more frequent in the aboveground vegetation on disturbed sites, but it was more frequent in the seed bank of undisturbed sites in British Columbia (e.g., [159,203]). For example, salmonberry was more frequent in the existing vegetation on clearcuts (67.2% frequency) than in adjacent old-growth western redcedar–western hemlock–Douglas-fir forests (15.9% frequency). However, viable salmonberry seed was not detected in the upper 4 inches (10 cm) of surface litter and soil on clearcuts, while 20.3 seeds/m² emerged from samples taken from old growth [159]. In riparian communities along third- and fifth-order streams on the western slope of the Oregon Cascade Range, salmonberry occurred on most site types, but it was most abundant and dominated the understory on vegetated gravel bars along third-order streams, where it also dominated the soil seed bank, along with stink currant and several herbaceous species. It had low cover (0.1%-0.4%) in old growth dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock along both stream types, but it was present in the soil seed bank under old growth along third-order (but not fifth-order) streams [113].

Burial may increase salmonberry seed longevity. On sites in the Sitka spruce-western hemlock zone on the Olympic Peninsula, salmonberry germinants emerged from both soil and litter samples, although germinants were more frequent in soil than litter [101].

Germination: Salmonberry seeds have a dense, impermeable seed coat that contributes to deep dormancy. Dormancy may be broken by a combination of factors including changes in temperature, passage through the digestive system of animals, and activity of fungi and insects on the seedcoat [18,99,347]. Depth of burial, light, and germination substrate (e.g., soil type, feces composition) may affect germination patterns. It is unclear whether seeds from different colored fruits have different germination requirements. Salmonberry seeds from both orange and red fruit showed similar germination patterns in one study [317], and different patterns in another [318]. See Zasada and Tappeiner (2008) for information on germinating salmonberry and other Rubus species under laboratory or greenhouse conditions [347].

Germination patterns vary with microclimate and seed condition when dispersed [347]. Stratification occurs naturally as seeds mature in summer and remain in the soil throughout the cold winter months [238]. Evidence suggests that the action of avian gizzards or exposure to mammalian digestive acids provides beneficial scarification which enhances germination [18,317,318,347]. However, digested seeds receive varying degrees of scarification and may not always remain viable. For example, salmonberry seeds in bear feces may have the fruit wall completely removed or relatively intact [347]. Traveset and Willson (1997) found that passage through vertebrate frugivores enhanced germination of salmonberry seed, with no differences in germination between bear- and bird-ingested seeds. Their results suggest that seed retention time in the guts (much greater in bears than in birds) does not relevantly affect germination [317]. The effect of seed passage through the digestive tract of frugivores (birds and bears) on germination was similar for seeds from both fruit colors, although there were some differences in germination patterns among seeds passed by different frugivores [318].

Most of a given cohort of seeds germinate over a period of 2 to 3 or more years under field conditions, and some seeds apparently lie dormant for decades [347] and germinate when the soil is disturbed. Soil disturbance may be critical for salmonberry germination from the soil seed bank, because germination decreases with increasing depth of burial. Salmonberry consistently emerged on disturbed mineral soils, but it had low emergence rates on undisturbed forest floor [18,238]. Soil scarification after logging results in an excellent seedbed for salmonberry [267].

Salmonberry does not require light to germinate [18,202,347], and germination can occur at relatively low temperatures [18]; however, increased light and temperature (conditions normally associated with soil disturbance) can stimulate germination [238]. Most germination occurs during the first growing season after disturbance. Ruth (1970) observed that germination during the second growing season after overstory thinning was 6% of that which occurred during the first growing season [267].

The type of soil on which seeds are deposited can influence their germination. For example, salmonberry had low germination on alluvial sand and did not germinate at all on reservoir sediments along the Elwha River, Washington [215]. Seeds from one fruit color may germinate better than those from other fruit colors in some soil types. Such differences may contribute to the regional differences in frequencies of the two fruit colors [318].

Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth: Salmonberry seedling establishment is best on bare mineral soil; litter and duff can inhibit establishment [18]. Therefore, seedling establishment is best on disturbed soils [18,268] and is likely to be high after fires that consume surface organic layers (litter and duff). However, seedling establishment is also inhibited by dry conditions, and bare mineral soil can quickly dry, especially in full sun, resulting in high mortality of salmonberry seedlings [238,267]. For example, Ruth (1970) observed up to 500,000 seedlings per acre (1,250,000 seedlings/ha) on scarified soils after overstory thinning but found decreasing numbers of first-year seedlings (although greater overwinter survival) with increasing insolation [267]. Mean salmonberry seedling survival rate was 32% over the first 3 years at four sites in the Oregon Coast Ranges [197].

Because salmonberry seed is commonly dispersed in animal feces, the composition of the feces can affect seedling establishment. Often, feces have a fertilizing effect. However, bear feces usually contain tens of thousands of salmonberry seeds such that emerging seedlings are subject to severe competition and subsequent mortality [318].

Tappeiner and Zasada (1993) studied emergence, survival, and growth of salmonberry on disturbed and undisturbed soil in thinned, unthinned, and clearcut conifer stands on two sites in the Oregon Coast Ranges. Emergence of salmonberry was greater on mineral soil than on soil in which the organic layers were intact. Seedling emergence and survival were greater in thinned stands than in clearcuts or unthinned stands. After 4 years, height of salmonberry was greatest in the clearcuts, where it averaged 9 inches (23 cm) [306].

After establishing from seed in a new site, salmonberry stem number increases rapidly for 1 to 2 years, after which vegetative growth and reproduction result in increased stand density and extensive clonal colonies. Within 2 to 3 years after initial establishment, rhizomes may spread up to ~540 feet² (50 m²) from the parent plant, and canopy closure may be complete [197,309]. Sprouts arising from buds on aerial stems and rhizomes show greater initial growth rates and greater mean survival rates than seedlings (100% and 70%, respectively); thus, populations are dominated by ramets [238]. Under favorable conditions, height growth can be as much as 5 to 6.5 feet (1.5-2 m) in a single growing season [18,99].

Caplan and Yeakley (2013) examine and compare the relationship between morphological characteristics and growth rates of salmonberry and other Rubus species [43], and Maxwell et al. (1993) provide a model of salmonberry population establishment and growth based on field data from the Oregon Coast Ranges [198].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Shade tolerance: Salmonberry has relatively high shade tolerance compared to other Rubus species [238], but it does not grow well in deep shade. Seedlings may establish best under moderate shade. Unless soils are moist, seedlings may desiccate and die in areas of high insolation. Established salmonberry plants grow best in full light as long as their roots are in perennially moist soil—the densest salmonberry thickets are in clearings and forest openings rather than under dense overstories [267].

On sites in the central Oregon coast, salmonberry seedlings established better under moderate shade than full sun, and seedlings even tolerated deep shade. Seedling establishment and survival was better under a thinned forest canopy than in a clearcut, and number of seedlings decreased with increasing radiation, indicating that some shade was important for salmonberry seedling survival on these sites. Seedlings that established on open plots did not survive more than 1 year, and no salmonberry seedlings occurred on open plots in the second year. However, little of the variation (6%-16%) was explained by radiation alone. The author suggests that receding soil moisture limited seedling establishment in the open plots more than too much light [267]. Studies in southeastern Alaska compared the response of aboveground growth rates of salmonberry seedlings to simulated variation in light, soil environment [106], and simulated herbivory [105]. Salmonberry growth responded to interactions of canopy and soil (red alder canopy and “mixed” soil producing greatest growth) and to the effects of soil (mixed > mineral) and canopy (red alder canopy > conifer canopy) separately (P < 0.05) [106]. Salmonberry growth and survival were reduced under low light levels and by clipping (P < 0.10) and by low light and clipping combined (P = 0.027), emphasizing the importance of light in determining salmonberry response to herbivory [105].

Salmonberry grows and spreads rapidly after canopy removal and is most abundant on forest sites in early secondary succession, especially on moist soils. In a second-growth Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and Douglas-fir forest on the central Oregon coast, salmonberry cover decreased from 3.1% before overstory thinning, to 1.1% immediately afterward (largely due to mechanical damage), and then consistently increased, reaching 14.6% cover 7 years later [267]. In southwestern British Columbia, increased light availability from partial overstory harvest stimulated salmonberry growth, especially on moist sites [217].

Greater salmonberry biomass in the understory of red alder stands compared with that in conifer stands is likely due to the more open canopy under red alder that allows greater light transmission to the understory [309]. Salmonberry produces leaves earlier in spring than red alder, possibly allowing it to take advantage of the higher light availability before red alder leaves have expanded [18,309].

While it persists in late-successional and old-growth forests in some locations, salmonberry typically declines in abundance as the canopy closes, and it may not persist under a closed canopy. In old-growth forests salmonberry occurs primarily in openings and along edges. In a chronosequence study in southeastern Alaska, for example, salmonberry was most abundant in early succession, up to about 25 to 35 years after removal of the Sitka spruce-western hemlock canopy, declined as tree canopies closed, and increased later in succession (around 140-160 years) as gaps formed in old-growth forests [5].

A comparison of photosynthetic capacity of four endemic plant species in the coastal temperate rainforests of Prince William Sound, Alaska (salmonberry, Sitka alder, Alaska blueberry, oval-leaf huckleberry), showed that differences among species were correlated to their position along the natural light gradient created by the forest canopy [252].

Salmonberry establishes and spreads in early succession in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests and in many Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest [76]. The large number of publications describing its abundance after logging and site preparation provide abundant evidence of its role in early secondary succession (table 5). Salmonberry may establish soon after disturbance by vegetative regeneration or seedling establishment from the soil seed bank (e.g., [8]).

Although most common in early seral stages, salmonberry has also been reported in early immature, second-growth, mature, and old-growth forests in Alaska [5] and British Columbia [170,188]. Percent cover of salmonberry was similar among forest age classes in Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon and Washington (P < 0.05) [287]. In northern California, salmonberry was a common component of the plant community 5 to 10 years after logging in grand fir–Douglas-fir–Sitka spruce and redwood–grand fir communities. Salmonberry persisted in redwood communities, although with reduced abundance, for 30 years or more [351]. In many coniferous stands, parts of salmonberry clones senesce, die, and decay as the overstory canopy closes, but then the clone slowly expands as self-thinning of the conifers occurs [5]. After logging or fire in the coastal Sitka spruce–western hemlock forests of southeastern Alaska, areas with the greatest degree of topsoil disturbance tend to favor salmonberry establishment. It frequently forms a dense canopy with only scattered feather mosses and leaf litter beneath. In areas with less soil disturbance, growth of residual shrubs such as salmonberry increases within 5 years of overstory removal. Understory biomass peaks around 15 to 25 years after logging, with salmonberry, blueberry, and trailing black currant making up >90% of understory production in early succession. As the canopy closes at stand ages of 25 to 35 years, shrubs, graminoids, and forbs are virtually eliminated from the understory. Declines in both standing crop biomass and annual production in the understory are related primarily to the elimination of salmonberry and Alaska blueberry. Bryophytes and ferns dominate understory biomass during the following century. An understory of deciduous shrubs, graminoids, and forbs reestablishes after 140 to 160 years and continues to increase, while bryophyte biomass and tree productivity decline [5].

Salmonberry is a common understory species in old-growth, upland forests in the coastal part of its range, although it may persist in late succession only on moist sites. It occurs in old-growth western hemlock–Sitka spruce forests in southeastern Alaska (e.g., [108,241]), typically in openings, on open streambanks, and in meadows (e.g., [310]). In old-growth Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests on the South Fork Hoh River in Olympic National Park, ungulate herbivory—particularly that of Roosevelt elk—largely determines the distribution and abundance of salmonberry. Salmonberry occurred in "refugia" sites, where it was protected from ungulate herbivory. Refugia were observed most frequently on root mats of fallen trees or behind barriers created by a matrix of fallen trees [272]. Salmonberry is a common component of old-growth western hemlock forests in the northern Oregon Coast Ranges [137]. It averaged 0.1% to 7.7% cover in most old-growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest plots on a site in the northern Oregon Coast Ranges [96]. Salmonberry is not consistently present in old-growth redwood forests (e.g., [313]), but it can be a common component or indicator species on relatively wet and riparian sites (e.g., [186,193]). It averaged >20% cover in old-growth redwood–western hemlock and old-growth redwood–red alder forests in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California [193].

Salmonberry is common in red alder communities on both upland and riparian sites and can reportedly persist almost indefinitely in the understory of red alder or mixed hardwood-conifer stands [18]. Upland red alder sites may be early-seral stages of western hemlock forests [131]. Salmonberry was common under 40-year-old red alders in southeastern Alaska [108]. Its aboveground biomass increased with increasing percentage of red alder basal area in second-growth Sitka spruce–western hemlock–western redcedar in southeastern Alaska [107]. Cover and frequency of salmonberry increased with stand age of red alder in a chronosequence of 14-, 24-, and 64-year-old stands along the Hoh River, Olympic National Park, Washington [191]. In the central Oregon Coast Ranges, salmonberry became increasingly more abundant with increasing age of red alder stands, and stands approaching senescence had dense growth of salmonberry, especially those at low elevations [44].

Because few plants can establish and persist under dense salmonberry cover, salmonberry stands may be quite stable, both in the understory of conifer and hardwood stands and in the open (e.g., [217,307,331]). In areas where salmonberry is dominant, elevated microsites—such as old-growth stumps and other coarse woody debris—may provide refugia for species unable to establish and persist under the salmonberry canopy (e.g., salal and red huckleberry) [162]. As red alder becomes senescent, salmonberry and other brushy vegetation may dominate the riparian area [233,354]. In riparian sites periodic flooding can maintain species such as salmonberry, red alder, and stink currant in long-lived disclimax situations [42,131]. Once salmonberry had established after thinning in a second-growth western hemlock–Douglas-fir forest in British Columbia, continued stem recruitment maintained a dense, stable cover in a riparian area and precluded establishment of conifer seedlings. Even intense disturbance (flooding) did not affect the stability of this salmonberry population [217]. See table 4 for additional studies on succession in riparian communities.

Much information on the role of salmonberry in secondary succession comes from observations following logging. Salmonberry spreads rapidly—from sprouting rhizomes and/or seedling establishment from the soil seed bank—when the overstory is removed and soils are disturbed. Salmonberry dominance in early-seral communities can hinder regeneration and growth of shade-intolerant conifers. In many areas dense stands may form within 2 to 3 years after disturbance. For example, Ruth (1970) observed "almost one-half million seedlings per acre" in the first year after thinning and scarification that removed all ground vegetation but left "as much topsoil as possible" in a 120-year-old Sitka spruce–western hemlock–Douglas-fir stand. Depth of scarification ranged from about 2 to 6 inches (5-15 cm) into the mineral soil [267]. Tappeiner et al. (1991) found that in coastal Oregon forests, the abundance of salmonberry was nearly 300% greater in logged than unlogged stands, and annual rhizome extension averaged 27% in 2- to 3-year-old clearcuts, compared to 2% to 6% in undisturbed stands [264,309]. See table 5 for information on publications that describe succession after logging and site preparation (e.g., scarification, slash burning) and other human-caused disturbances.

Salmonberry may be a component of plant communities in primary succession following deglaciation and volcanic eruption, and on islands (table 6). For example, plant communities on the small islands in Barkley Sound, off the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, were assembled from seeds dispersed by fruit-eating birds [40].

FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT

Fire Adaptations and Plant Response to Fire
Fire Adaptations: Salmonberry reproductive traits (i.e., buried seed, buried rhizomes, and rapid sprouting following top-kill) make it moderately to highly resistant to fire [238]. Stephens et al. (2018) classify salmonberry as a "fire neutral, facultative sprouter", meaning that individual plants are top-killed, but roots and rhizomes generally survive fire. Top-kill from fire stimulates sprouting from buds on rhizomes, root crowns, and stumps; and fire creates a good seedbed for seedling establishment—primarily from the soil seed bank (when present) and secondarily from animal-dispersed seed [292]. High-severity fires (i.e., with high surface fuel consumption and severe soil heating) may reduce salmonberry cover in the short term (~10 years), especially on dry sites, by killing buried seeds and shallow buds on root crowns and rhizomes, reducing postfire seedling establishment and sprouting [99,238].

Plant Response to Fire: Salmonberry is a common component of the postfire environment in coastal forests and shrublands and an early-seral dominant, especially on moist sites [2,25,31,47,181]. It is likely to increase in abundance and productivity (fruiting) after fire [205,238,246]. Severe fire—such as that from slashburning—may limit or slow salmonberry recovery, although the effects of slashburning vary.

Dense stands of salmonberry can develop within 2 to 5 years after fire [127,308], and salmonberry remains abundant in communities on moist sites until the canopy closes [308]. For example, in Engelmann spruce forests of the upper Fraser River valley in central British Columbia, salmonberry occurred in stands 4 to 22 years after fire, but it was not recorded in stands 37 to 75 years after fire [86].

On the Tillamook Burn in northwestern Oregon, postfire plant communities reflected their prefire distribution. Three successive, high-severity (i.e., stand-replacement) fires (1933, 1939, and 1945) in the Tillamook Burn in the northern Oregon Coast Ranges killed the conifers and left vegetation dominated by pioneer species including red alder, vine maple, western brackenfern, salal, salmonberry, and other Rubus spp. over an area of approximately 300,000 acres (~121,000 ha) [135,229]. On burned sites, salmonberry dominated the understory, along with thimbleberry, western swordfern, and Siberian springbeauty, beneath a canopy of red alder and bigleaf maple [14]. One block of unburned forest, approximately 2,500 acres (~1,000 ha) in size, remained in the center of the burn; it was estimated at 300 years old and had no evidence of prior disturbance. Salmonberry was present in the undisturbed forest, but at low frequency (1%); it was more frequent (12%) in the adjacent burned area, which had also been salvage logged [229].

On some upland sites in the Pacific Coast Maritime region, dense shrub communities dominated by salmonberry, salal, red huckleberry, and vine maple develop after stand-replacing fires [2,312]. Postfire shrubfields may persist indefinitely or eventually be replaced by conifers that regenerate beneath the shrub canopy [312]. In northern Humboldt County, California, thickets of salmonberry and thimbleberry established after several prescribed burns; the thickets were sometimes interspersed with thickets of Pacific poison-oak [35]. Near Blaney Lake, British Columbia, in a forest dominated by western redcedar, western hemlock, and Douglas-fir, a severe fire in the mid-1800s was followed by clearcutting and slashburning in the 1920s and another fire in 1931. In depressions where the soil was damp but lacked standing water in summer, shrubby species formed dense thickets that occupied a considerable area of the burn. The most common species was salmonberry, with thimbleberry and rose spirea less common. Salmonberry was 2 to 6 feet (0.6-1.8 m) tall, and its height and abundance varied with soil moisture. Salmonberry also grew under tall western brackenfern in areas where western brackenfern was dominant. Salmonberry was a minor component in the predisturbance forest, occurring at low densities in damp depressions, edges, and openings [205].

Vegetative response: Salmonberry sprouts following top-kill by fire [238]. Overstory mortality, fire intensity, and soil burn severity influence the rate of salmonberry postfire recovery [192]. When stumps survive, stump-sprouting is the predominant mode of postfire regeneration. Apical dominance suppresses sprouting from root crowns and rhizomes [349]. The root crown has some protection from the direct effects of fire because it is located at or below the soil surface, and buds on the root crown may sprout after top-kill if buds on the stump are killed. Root crown buds are generally killed only by extreme soil disturbance. If the root crown is killed, underground rhizomes typically sprout prolifically. Rhizomes are protected from fire by overlying soil, and their extensiveness insures that some are likely to survive. Even an extremely severe fire is unlikely to kill the entire network of well-protected rhizomes. Aerial stem growth from buds on root crowns and rhizomes tends to be somewhat slower than from stumps because of the cool underground environment in which these sprouts develop [349].

Salmonberry plant age and condition, which is related to site characteristics, can affect postfire response. Younger rhizomes tend to grow more actively and sprout more vigorously than larger, older rhizomes, which typically have lower bud densities [349]. Rhizomes tend to be most developed on relatively mesic sites with deep soils, and they may be poorly developed or even lacking on dry, rocky sites [308]. Postfire sprouting could presumably be reduced on sites with shallow or rocky soils, or where the prefire stand was primarily made up of older plants lacking vigor.

Fire timing may affect postfire response of salmonberry. Salmonberry seems to have sufficient carbohydrate stores to sprout after a single fire regardless of timing. However, seasonal changes in TNC content in rhizomes may affect the number of shoots produced after top-kill from fire. Low shoot production coincides with low levels of TNC, which occur during spring shoot production and early summer growth. Therefore, salmonberry regrowth may be slower after fires during the growing season (May through July) [291,348].

Seedling establishment: Salmonberry seeds may remain viable for years when buried in the soil or duff [18], and this soil seed bank is an important mode of postfire establishment. Seedlings require mineral soil for best establishment and growth, so when fire consumes litter and duff and exposes mineral soil, a good seedbed is present for salmonberry seedling establishment [238]. Some seedling establishment can also occur through seed transported from off site (see Seed Dispersal).

Response to Slashburning: Salmonberry response to slashburning depends on its physiological conditions (age and stem density), site characteristics, and overall fire severity (i.e., depth and duration of soil heating). Low- to moderate-severity slash fires generally increase salmonberry cover compared to unburned controls [99]. High-severity slash fires, particularly on dry sites, may reduce salmonberry cover in the short term (~10 years) but can also cause site degradation from severe soil heating [99,238]. In some instances, particularly where salmonberry was abundant before logging, salmonberry grows rapidly despite severe slash fires because only a small portion of the extensive rhizome network is damaged (e.g., [288,349]). Zasada et al. (1989) cite an example where stem growth of salmonberry was rapid, and pretreatment height was reached by mid- to late summer on sites logged and burned in February, March, and April; whereas pretreatment height was not reached until the end of the growing season on sites that were logged and not burned [349]. For additional studies that examine plant community response to slash burning in areas where salmonberry occurs, see table 7.

FUELS AND FIRE REGIMES
Fuels: No information specifically describing salmonberry fuel characteristics was found in the available literature as of 2019. Some studies are available that provide information on salmonberry biomass and stand structure in particular site types. For example, Hanley et al. (2006) provide data on salmonberry leaf, twig, and stem biomass under red alder stands with varying basal area in southeastern Alaska [107], Tappeiner et al. (1991) provide data on salmonberry stand structure and biomass in different plant communities in western Oregon [309], and Van Pelt et al. (2016) give data regarding leaf area and biomass of salmonberry in California redwood forests [328].

Fuel guides that include vegetation associations where salmonberry is an understory dominant are available (e.g., [221,249]). Also see the Natural Fuels Photo Series and Digital Photo Series websites.

Fire Regimes: Fires were historically infrequent in many of the coastal forests where salmonberry occurs (e.g., [181]). For example, Sitka spruce–western hemlock forests were thought to have long fire-free intervals (~300-1,000 years), and fires were thought to be stand replacing when they did occur. Windthrow is a more common disturbance in these forests [181]. Salmonberry occurs in forests that are transitional between coastal Sitka spruce–western hemlock forests and white spruce–paper birch boreal forests of south-central Alaska [226]. Coastal forests in Alaska rarely, if ever, burned historically [355], while white spruce-dominated boreal forests had long intervals (~100-800 years) between high- and mixed-severity fires [1]. Salmonberry also occurs in plant communities with short to moderate historical fire intervals, such as those dominated by redwood, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Stephens et al. (2018) provide a summary of historical fire regimes in redwood forests [292].

Salmonberry occurs in plant communities where lightning fires were historically rare or infrequent, largely due to the rarity of lightning, but also due to the wet climate. For example, lightning is rare in the coastal mountain ranges where salmonberry thrives. However, in those areas fires were regularly ignited by American Indians for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to creating and maintaining patches of fruit-bearing plants, such as salmonberry, and improving their yield (e.g., [24,26,65,180,292]). In addition, the berry patches created by regular burning were also excellent habitat for game animals. For example, elk and deer prefer to browse on young plants growing in burned areas, including the leaves and stems of salmonberry [24]; see Importance to Wildlife for additional information. A burning schedule with 3-year intervals was said to be best for berry production in general. Burning may have been conducted in either spring or fall [187], but often occurred after the berry harvest (e.g., [24,26]). No berries would occur in the burned patch the year after burning, but in 2 years, the berry crop would be larger than before [24].

Because American Indians actively managed salmonberry with fire, areas where salmonberry patches are widespread may have a history of regular fire. Sometimes fires escaped, and berry patches became much larger than intended [24]. Landscape vegetation patterns seem to support this. Salmonberry patches along small rivers and streams in the Oregon Coast Ranges are an example of local-scale patterns of managed vegetation that may have persisted from presettlement times. While shrubs (such as salmonberry and huckleberry), forbs, and perennial grasses are not as reliable for interpreting fire pattern as are trees, they do form identifiable landscape patterns that can persist decades or centuries. Many areas where conifer establishment was prevented by regular burning before Euro-American settlement remained without conifer forests at the turn of the 21st century [356]. This is not the case in all areas. For example, in the absence of fire, areas of former coastal prairie that were once maintained by regular, anthropogenic burning are now dominated by forest species including Sitka spruce, redwood, western hemlock, red alder, Cascara buckthorn, salmonberry, and salal [180].

When fires did occur in coastal forests, they likely covered large areas with high-severity effects (i.e., stand-replacement). Large and high-severity fires were more likely to occur in the wetter landforms, vegetation types, and geographic positions (i.e., the western and central part) of the central Oregon Coast Ranges than in drier sites because fires were less frequent, allowing greater fuel accumulation. The higher fuel loads would then facilitate fire spread across the landscape and into the canopy when weather conditions were suitable for drying fuels and spreading flames [149].

Little is known about presettlement fire regimes in plant communities where salmonberry occurs in northern coastal scrub in the north coast bioregion of California, although fire is thought to have been relatively uncommon. Northern coastal scrub is self-perpetuating with or without fire. Fires that did occur historically were most likely ignited by American Indians, and fire intervals may have ranged anywhere from 1 to 100 years, depending on vegetation composition and proximity to human settlements [292].

Because many of the plant communities in which salmonberry occurs are characterized by infrequent fires, a longer term perspective on fire regime variability may be desirable and informative. Fire history studies that employ methods to analyze fire frequency over millennia (e.g., dating charcoal deposits in lake sediments) include one from the Oregon Coast Ranges [190] and two from Vancouver Island [32,88].

More information on fire regimes in plant communities where salmonberry occurs is available in these literature reviews [2,292] and in the FEIS Fire Regime publications shown in table 8.

Salmonberry provides food and cover for many wildlife species, but it may also have negative impacts on wildlife habitat when it persists and spreads. Therefore, the impacts of both fire and fire exclusion are important considerations for wildlife managers of plant communities where it occurs. Because salmonberry can interfere with conifer establishment—especially after logging—the effects of slash burning on its regeneration and abundance have been the subject of much research. See table 7 for references on salmonberry response to slash burning, and see Other Management Considerations for information and references on salmonberry response to logging and other site preparations.

Fire generally benefits animals that consume the fruits of Rubus spp. [177], because fire increases fruit production (e.g., [205,238,246]). Fire may also benefit ungulates that browse on salmonberry by increasing the abundance of new shoots, which are preferred (see Importance to Wildlife).

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Cattle seldom eat salmonberry, but it is considered fair browse for domestic sheep in parts of west-central Washington [58]. In some areas (e.g., Douglas-fir plantations), it is a preferred summer browse for domestic sheep [184], which have been used to control unwanted woody vegetation including salmonberry in regenerating conifer plantations [185,278]. Aerial parts of salmonberry have been used as food for livestock in British Columbia [182].

Fruits and seeds: Several birds eat salmonberry fruits, including American robin, gray catbird [18], varied thrush [19], and band-tailed pigeon [91,144,228]. In addition, salmonberry fruits are important forage for coyote, American black bear, and grizzly bear [18,103,141,147,330]. Banana slugs have also been observed eating salmonberry fruits [90,318]. Small rodents eat salmonberry seeds [18].

Stems and leaves: The foliage, stems, cambium, and bark of species within the Rubus genus provide food for small mammals such as rabbits, North American porcupine, and American beaver [50,327]. Mountain beaver commonly browse salmonberry during the summer [70,102]. It was not an important component in the diet of white-footed voles in Oregon, despite its dominance on study sites [333].

Salmonberry shoots and leaves are important forage for large mammals such as grizzly bears (e.g., [103,147]), American black bears (e.g., [141]), and several ungulates, including deer, elk, moose, and mountain goats. Deer, moose, and mountain goats browse new leaves and twigs in the spring [330]. The tender, leafy new growth is a preferred deer food in many areas [161]. Deer and elk use is often heavy during summer [102]. In Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Coast Ranges, deer continue to feed on salmonberry leaves until they drop from the plants in autumn [102]. Additional information on use of salmonberry by ungulates is available (table 9).

Salmonberry is an important elk browse in many areas, including the Olympic Peninsula [18,189]. Elk use the leaves and twigs to some extent year-round [273], but use tends to be particularly heavy during the spring and summer [80,102,114,273]. Salmonberry was a common component in elk diets in both old-growth and 1- to 35-year-old second-growth Douglas-fir–western hemlock forests in the Cascade Range, Washington. Greatest use of salmonberry was in early spring and late fall [152]. It was among the shrub and forb species dominating the summer diet of Roosevelt elk in the Mount St. Helens blast zone 5 years after the eruption [211]. Shrub use by Roosevelt elk peaked in September in the blast zone, but comprised >20% of feces sampled during all months (June through November). Willows, red elderberry, blue elderberry, salmonberry, and huckleberry consistently made up most of the shrubs consumed [212].

In Sitka spruce–western hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest, Roosevelt elk greatly influence the composition and structure of the forest understory by grazing and browsing. Preferred species such as salmonberry are found only in protected microsites [79]. A long-term ungulate exclosure study in Olympic National Park showed greater abundance of salmonberry within exclosures [343].

Mountain goats and moose may browse the young stem tips of salmonberry early in the season [18,192,330]. Only light browsing of salmonberry by mountain goats was observed in subalpine habitats in south-central Alaska in winter [140].

Palatability and Nutritional Value: The fruit of salmonberry is highly palatable to many species of birds and mammals, including humans [18]. Salmonberries are described as deliciously flavored, although somewhat variable in taste [58,102,329]. Salmonberry leaves and twigs are reportedly highly palatable to elk from spring through fall [273]. However, the leafy new growth of salmonberry appears to be more palatable to most wild ungulates than the tougher mature foliage [7,58,330]. Dormant twigs are rarely eaten [136] and are presumably somewhat less palatable than those of many shrub associates.

Nutritional value of salmonberry fruits and browse varies both seasonally and annually. For example, crude protein values may be higher in the spring or early summer than in winter [67]. Lipid and sugar content suggest that salmonberry fruits are among those with the highest relative energy reward of fruiting species in southeast Alaska [319]. Table 10 shows additional studies that provide information on salmonberry nutrient composition.

Cover Value: Salmonberry provides cover for birds and small animals, such as mountain beaver [102]. It was commonly dominant in the shrub stratum of ruffed grouse drumming sites in western Washington. Salmonberry has no leaves during most of the drumming season and therefore does not substantially obstruct visibility [270]. It is a common component of streamside vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, where it enhances fish habitat by providing shade and helping prevent or reduce soil erosion [30].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
Salmonberry is used for rehabilitation of many types of disturbed sites (e.g., [283]). Its deep rhizome and root system can help prevent or reduce soil erosion [18,210].

Salmonberry seedlings and cuttings can be transplanted onto disturbed sites with good results. Salmonberry can be established from root crown or rhizome cuttings under field conditions in coastal Oregon with little post-planting care if planted during the wet season in the winter [197,347]. Cultivars are available [293]. The NRCS's online Plant Guide (2000) has information on establishing salmonberry from cuttings and seeds. See Barber (1976) [18] and Maxwell (1990) [197] for additional information on establishing salmonberry from cuttings, and see Zasada and Tappeiner (2008) for information on collecting, extracting, storing, and germinating salmonberry seeds [347].

OTHER USES
Salmonberry is a traditional food and medicinal plant of American Indians and First Nations peoples along the Pacific Coast (e.g., [18,24,156,188,234,235,236,254,320,322,353]). It is still a very important wild food and medicinal plant in the maritime region of Alaska (e.g., [146,235]), and the fruits may be a potential income source as a nontraditional forest product [321].

People eat young shoots of salmonberry in the spring when little other wild food is available [18,24,102]. The bark and leaves are used to make various medicinal preparations [24,102,182,188,321].

Salmonberry fruits are one of the earliest to ripen (May-June). The ripening is associated with the song of Swainson's thrush, which is called "salmonberry bird" in many languages [251]. Fruits can be eaten fresh or preserved but are rarely dried [58,102,188,320,329].

The plants are ornamental and often cultivated (e.g., [27]) but can become weedy and difficult to eradicate [139].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Management of plant communities where salmonberry is a common or dominant species includes considerations for wildlife, nonnative invasive plants, insects and disease, and climate change. Much information is available regarding salmonberry response to logging and site preparation, including means to reduce its cover using a variety of control methods.

Management for Wildlife: Salmonberry provides important habitat for many bird species, therefore disturbances that reduce salmonberry cover may have adverse effects on bird populations. For example, a study conducted in Haida Gwaii suggests that overabundance of Sitka black-tailed deer can decrease songbird habitat quality by decreasing cover of shrubs such as salmonberry, which provide food and nest sites. In areas with severe browsing, the shrub understory—dominated by salal, red huckleberry, and salmonberry—was replaced by an open understory with a ground layer of mosses, reducing both food and cover for birds. Songbird abundance was 55% to 70% lower on islands browsed by deer for more than 50 years than on islands without deer, and alpha diversity was lower on islands browsed by deer. Bird species dependent on understory vegetation were most affected [10]. Pearson and Manuwal (2001) recommend a minimum buffer of 148 feet (45 m) in forested riparian areas along both sides of second- and third-order streams during logging operations to maintain berry-producing shrubs (especially salmonberry) and deciduous trees such as red alder and bigleaf maple, which support breeding bird populations associated with riparian habitats in Douglas-fir forests of the coastal Northwest [245].

Salmonberry can reduce habitat for some birds. For example, Cassin's auklets tend to avoid salmonberry and prefer tufted hairgrass for nesting (e.g., [138,261]). Declines in Cassin's auklet burrow density and population size from 1989 to 2009 on Triangle Island, British Columbia, were associated with increases in salmonberry and decreases in tufted hairgrass cover. Soil disturbance by these burrow-nesting seabirds negatively affected and reduced percent cover of salmonberry, but only when burrow densities were high or increasing. At lower or declining burrow densities, seabird activities were inadequate to halt succession to salmonberry dominance on this nonforested island [261].

Additional studies that examined habitat use by birds in areas where salmonberry is a common component of the vegetation include a comparison of diurnal bird communities among several coniferous and deciduous forest types in Alaska and adjacent Canada [341]; an examination of bird community structure on early-growth clearcuts in western Oregon [224]; and a comparison of bird assemblages in riparian and upland habitats in old-growth coastal western hemlock forest on western Vancouver Island, British Columbia [282].

Large and small mammals that use salmonberry for food and cover may be adversely affected by logging operations. In British Columbia, forest silvicultural practices were altered in coastal riparian areas to provide for adequate fruit production by salmonberry and other species that are important food sources for grizzly bear (review by [347]). Studies that examine the effects of logging and site preparation on small mammals in habitats where salmonberry occurs in Oregon [142,143], Alaska [121], and British Columbia [299] are available.

Site preparations aimed at removing slash and reducing tree seedling interference from shrubs such as salmonberry can have adverse impacts on stream habitat. For example, removing slash and other debris from stream channels after logging by burning or other means can have detrimental effects on fish habitat due to increased water temperatures and soil erosion, and decreased abundance of insects [30].

Nonnative Invasive Plants: Nonnative invasive plants are a common management concern in all wildlands of the Pacific Northwest (e.g., [129]). Nonnative knotweeds are of particular concern in communities where salmonberry occurs. Giant knotweed is invasive in riparian corridors in the Pacific Northwest, where it can reduce richness and abundance of native plants and the quantity and quality of litter inputs [325]. Information on controlling Bohemian knotweed and other invasive plants (Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, and reed canarygrass) in western Washington is provided by Danvenport (2006). Part of the control strategy involves planting competitive native species such as salmonberry [56].

Insects and Disease: Ellis et al. (1997) provide an overview of insects and diseases that affect salmonberry and other Rubus spp. [69]. Salmonberry is a host for the pathogen that causes sudden oak death [259].

Management Under a Changing Climate: Ecosystems where salmonberry occurs include those in which the impacts of global climate change have been evident for decades. For example, Alaskan coastal forests have shown reduced frequency of snow avalanches at low and moderate elevations due to more winter precipitation falling as rain and less as snow. One result of this change is that salmonberry is spreading into meadows formerly dominated by mountain heather and sedges [155]. More information on the impacts of climate change in southeast Alaska is available (e.g., [160,355]).

Silvicultural Considerations: Portions of both rhizomes and aboveground stems of salmonberry damaged during silvicultural operations can sprout [18], and salmonberry seedling establishment can be dense in areas with soil disturbance (e.g., [7]). This often results in dense and persistent stands of salmonberry after clearcutting and other types of logging and thinning [7,117,258,264,267,295,315,330]. Brushfields dominated by salmonberry and other shrubs are particularly common at low to middle elevations on moist slopes in the Coast Ranges of Washington and Oregon [93,95,158,179] and on moist valley bottoms in Alaska [330].

Salmonberry brushfields interfere with establishment of conifer and other seedlings [4,9,102,161,184,258,266,268,295,305,323,330]. Dominance of salmonberry in cut-over forestland in the Oregon Coast Ranges likely contributes to a reduction in floral diversity in these ecosystems [207]. Opalach et al. (1990) provide a simulation model of Douglas-fir and salmonberry competition [239,240]. Additional information on salmonberry response to silvicultural operations and its impacts on tree regeneration is available in the publications shown in table 11.

Control of Salmonberry: Because it spreads rapidly and forms dense stands after overstory removal, salmonberry is considered a weed in some management contexts (i.e., after logging) [311], and much has been written on methods for controlling it (e.g., [94,230]). Because of its extensive rhizome network, salmonberry is difficult to remove once established. When top-killed, plants sprout from the stumps, root crowns, rhizomes, and/or aerial stems [294,296]. Salmonberry sprouting ability may decline after repeated, successive (i.e., monthly) top-kill [349], or when top-kill occurs between May and June [348]. Simulated response of canopy cover and height to manual cutting was compared at each phenological stage: establishment (early spring bud break in May), reproductive (early summer fruit set in late June and early July), and senescence (fall, October). The longest-duration reduction of cover occurred following cutting at the reproductive stage [198].

Approaches to control salmonberry include various types and combinations of site preparation, mechanical, biological, and chemical control (table 12). This information is beyond the scope of this review. The reader is encouraged to review the publications of interest in table 12, noting that some of the information included may be outdated and may not represent current best management practices. In addition, the reader is encouraged to consider all potential impacts of control methods (e.g., see Clarren 2014).

APPENDIX

• Table A1—Ecosystems, Associations, Cover Types, and BLM Regions where salmonberry occurs.
• Table A2—Common and scientific names of plants often associated with salmonberry.
• Table A3—Vegetation classifications in which salmonberry is listed as an indicator or dominant species.
• Table A4—Common and scientific names of wildlife species mentioned in this review.

REFERENCES:

1. Abrahamson, Ilana L. 2014. Fire regimes of Alaskan white spruce communities. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/fire_regimes/AK_white_spruce/all.html. [93394]

2. Agee, James K. 1993. Sitka spruce, coast redwood, and western hemlock forests. In: Agee, James K. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press: 187-225. [90490]

3. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. [6327]

4. Ahlgren, I. F.; Ahlgren, C. E. 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. Botanical Review. 26(4): 483-533. [205]

5. Alaback, Paul B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Ecology. 63(6): 1932-1948. [7305]

6. Alaback, Paul B. 1984. Plant succession following logging in the Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-173. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [7849]

7. 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]

8. Alaback, Paul B.; Tappeiner, John C., II. 1991. Response of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and early huckleberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium) seedlings to forest windthrow. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 534-539. [15051]

9. Allen, Hollis Howard. 1969. The inter-relationship of salmonberry and Douglas-fir in cutover areas. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 56 p. Thesis. [7140]

10. Allombert, Sylvian; Gaston, Anthony J.; Martin, Jean-Louis. 2005. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer on songbird populations. Biological Conservation. 126(1): 1-13. [54519]

11. Antos, Joseph A.; Zobel, Donald B. 1985. Plant form, developmental plasticity and survival following burial by volcanic tephra. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63(12): 2083-2090. [12553]

12. Atzet, Thomas; White, Diane E.; McCrimmon, Lisa A.; Martinez, Patricia A.; Fong, Paula Reid; Randall, Vince D., tech. coords. 1996. Field guide to the forested plant associations of southwestern Oregon. Tech. Pap. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-17-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 11 p. [49881]

13. Aubry, Keith B.; Hayes, John P.; Biswell, Brian L.; Marcot, Bruce G. 2003. The ecological role of tree-dwelling mammals in western coniferous forests. In: Zabel, C. J.; Anthony, R. G., eds. Mammal community dynamics: management and conservation in the coniferous forests of western North America. New York: Cambridge University Press: 405-443. [51939]

14. Bailey, Arthur W.; Poulton, Charles E. 1968. Plant communities and environmental interrelationships in a portion of the Tillamook Burn, northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 49(1): 1-13. [6232]

15. Bailey, Arthur Wesley. 1966. Forest associations and secondary succession in the southern Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 166 p. Thesis. [5786]

16. Baldwin, Bruce G.; Goldman, Douglas H.; Keil, David J.; Patterson, Robert; Rosatti, Thomas J.; Wilken, Dieter H., eds. 2012. The Jepson manual. Vascular plants of California, second edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 p. [86254]

17. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. [12148]

18. Barber, Hollis William, Jr. 1976. An autecological study of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Pursh) in western Washington. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 154 p. Thesis. [7189]

19. Beck, Maurie J.; George, T. Luke. 2000. Song post and foraging site characteristics of breeding varied thrushes in northwestern California. The Condor. 102(1): 93-103. [85078]

20. Bermejo, Teresa; Traveset, Anna; Willson, Mary F. 1998. Post-dispersal seed predation in the temperate rainforest of southeast Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist. 112(3): 510-512. [30895]

21. Boggs, Keith. 2000. Classification of community types, successional sequences, and landscapes of the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-469. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 244 p. [38491]

22. Boggs, Keith; Klein, Susan C.; Flagstad, Lindsey; Boucher, Tina.; Grunblatt, Jess; Koltun, Beth. 2008. Landcover classes, ecosystems and plant associations: Kenai Fjords National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/KEFJ/NRTR-2008/136. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center. 222 p. [90194]

23. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1988. The hardwoods of California's timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-148. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 148 p. [5291]

24. Bonnicksen, Thomas M. 2000. Fire masters. In: Bonnicksen, Thomas M. America's ancient forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 143-216. [46248]

25. Boyd, Robert. 1999. Introduction. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 1-30. [35565]

26. Boyd, Robert. 1999. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 94-138. [35572]

27. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rubus L. blackberry, raspberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 738-743. [7743]

28. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2002. Red alder-salmonberry complex: Operational summary for vegetation management. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch. 16 p. [69002]

29. Brown, Ellsworth R. 1961. The black-tailed deer of western Washington. Biological Bulletin No. 13. Olympia, WA: Washington State Game Commission. 124 p. [8843]

30. Brown, George W. 1974. Fish habitat. In: Cramer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: E-1 to E-15. [7161]

31. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. 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. 257 p. [36581]

32. Brown, K. J.; Hebda, R. J. 2002. Origin, development, and dynamics of coastal temperate conifer rainforests of southern Vancouver Island, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32(2): 353-372. [65423]

33. Buma, Brian; Bisbing, Sarah; Krapek, John; Wright, Glenn. 2017. A foundation of ecology rediscovered: 100 years of succession on the William S. Cooper plots in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology. 98(6): 1513-1523. [91984]

34. Bunnell, F. L. 1990. Ecology of black-tailed deer. In: Nyberg, J. B.; Janz, D. W., tech. eds. Deer and elk habitats in coastal forests of southern British Columbia. Special report series 5. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch: 31-63. In cooperation with Wildlife Habitat Canada. [84971]

35. Burcham, L. T. 1974. Fire and chaparral before European settlement. In: Rosenthal, Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral: Proceedings; 1973 March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The Sierra Club: 101-120. [4669]

36. Burns, K. C. 2003. Broad-scale reciprocity in an avian seed dispersal mutualism. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 12(5): 421-426. [69000]

37. Burns, K. C. 2005. Does mimicry occur between fleshy-fruits? Evolutionary Ecology Research. 7: 1067-1076. [85079]

38. Burns, K. C. 2005. Is there limiting similarity in the phenology of fleshy fruits? Journal of Vegetation Science. 16(6): 617-624. [68999]

39. Burns, K. C. 2006. A simple null model predicts fruit-frugivore interactions in a temperate rainforest. Oikos. 115: 427-432. [85080]

40. Burns, K. C. 2007. Patterns in the assembly of an island plant community. Journal of Biogeography. 34 (5): 760-768. [68981]

41. Calflora. 2019. The Calflora database: Information on California plants for education and conservation, [Online]. Berkeley, CA: Calflora (Producer). Available: http://www.calflora.org/. [76012]

42. Campbell, Alsie Gilbert; Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. Riparian vegetation in Oregon's western Cascade Mountains: composition, biomass, and autumn phenology. Bull. No. 14. Seattle, WA: U.S./International Biological Program, University of Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 90 p. [8433]

43. Caplan, Joshua S.; Yeakley, J. Alan. 2013. Functional morphology underlies performance differences among invasive and non-invasive ruderal Rubus species. Oecologia. 173(2): 363-374. [87492]

44. Carlton, Gary C. 1988. The structure and dynamics of red alder communities in the central Coast Range of western Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 173 p. Thesis. [10549]

45. Chan, Samuel S.; Larson, David J.; Maas-Hebner, Kathleen G.; Emmingham, William H.; Johnston, Stuart R.; Mikowski, Daniel A. 2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2696-2711. [65481]

46. Chatelain Edward Frank. 1947. Food preferences of the Columbian black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus columbianus (Richardson) on the Tillamook Burn, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State College. 64 p. Thesis. [85105]

47. Chen, Shu-Huei. 1997. Characterization of fire effects on forest ecosystems in the Tillamook Forest, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 108 p. Thesis. [36502]

48. Clement, C. J. E. 1985. Floodplain succession on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(1): 34-39. [8928]

49. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Land Management Handbook No. 9. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 88 p. [17453]

50. Core, Earl L. 1974. Brambles. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M., compilers. Shrubs and vines for northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-9. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 16-19. [8923]

51. Cowan, Ian McTaggart. 1945. The ecological relationships of the food of the Columbian black-tailed deer, Odocoileus hemionus columbianus (Richardson), in the coast forest region of southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 15(2): 110-139. [16006]

52. Crisafulli, Charles M.; Hawkins, Charles P.; Pickett, Steward T. A. 1998. Ecosystem recovery following a catastrophic disturbance: lessons learned from Mount St. Helens. In: Mac, M. J.; Opler, P. A.; Puket-Haecker, C. E.; Doran, P. D., eds. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: 23-35. [39416]

53. Cromack, K.; Swanson, F. J.; Grier, C. C. 1979. A comparison of harvesting methods and their impact on soils and environment in the Pacific Northwest. In: Youngberg, Chester T., ed. Proceedings: Forest soils and land use: 5th North American forest soils conference; 1978 August 6-9; Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University: 449-476. [8420]

54. Crouch, Glenn L. 1968. Forage availability in relation to browsing of Douglas-fir seedlings by black-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(3): 542-553. [16105]

55. Curtis, Robert O.; DeBell, Dean S.; Harrington, Constance A.; Lavender, Denis P.; St. Clair, J. Bradley; Tappeiner, John C.; Walstad, John D. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-435. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p. [30402]

56. Davenport, Roberta. 2006. Control of knotweed and other invasive species and experiences restoring native species in the Pacific Northwest US. Native Plants Journal. 7(1): 20-26. [77567]

57. Davidson, Eric Duncan. 1967. Synecological features of a natural headland prairie on the Oregon coast. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 78 p. Thesis. [8901]

58. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. No. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]

59. DeBell, Dean S. 1980. Black cottonwood-willow. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 100-101. [50036]

60. DeBell, Dean S. 1990. Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray black cottonwood. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: Volume 2, Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 555-569. [38483]

61. del Moral, R.; Titus, J. H.; Cook, A. M. 1995. Early primary succession on Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 6: 107-120. [27129]

62. del Moral, Roger; Thomason, Lindsay A.; Wenke, Anthony C.; Lozanoff, Natasha; Abata, Mario D. 2012. Primary succession trajectories on pumice at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Journal of Vegetation Science. 23(1): 73-85. [86460]

63. del Moral, Roger; Watson, Alan F. 1978. Gradient structure of forest vegetation in the central Washington Cascades. Vegetatio. 38(1): 29-48. [8800]

64. DeMeo, Tom; Martin, Jon; West, Randolph A. 1992. Forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-210. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 405 p. [22498]

65. Derr, Kelly Marie. 2012. Intensifying with fire: Floral resource use and landscape management by the precontact Coast Salish of southwestern British Columbia. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 300 p. Dissertation. [87935]

66. DeVelice, R. L.; Hubbard, C. J.; Boggs, K.; Boudreau, S.; Potkin, M.; Boucher, T.; Wertheim, C. 1999. Plant community types of the Chugach National Forest: Southcentral Alaska. Tech. Pub. R10-TP-76. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest. 375 p. [87936]

67. Einarsen, Arthur S. 1946. Crude protein determination of deer food as an applied management technique. Transactions, 11th North American Wildlife Conference. 11: 309-312. [17031]

68. Einarsen, Arthur S. 1946. Management of black-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 54-59. [8727]

69. Ellis, Michael A.; Converse, Richard H.; Williams, Roger N.; Williamson, Brian. 1997. Compendium of raspberry and blackberry diseases and insects. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society. 100 p. [73168]

70. Feldhamer, George A.; Rochelle, James A.; Rushton, Clifford D. 2003. Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). In: Feldhamer, George A.; Thompson, Bruce C.; Chapman, Joseph A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 179-187. [82074]

71. Fierke, Melissa K.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 2006. Invasive species influence riparian plant diversity along a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Natural Areas Journal. 26(4): 376-382. [65074]

72. Fierke, Melissa K.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 2006. Riverscape-level patterns of riparian plant diversity along a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Plant Ecology. 185: 85-95. [63671]

73. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2019. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]

74. Fonda, R. W. 1974. Forest succession in relation to river terrace development in Olympic National Park, Washington. Ecology. 55(5): 927-942. [6746]

75. Fonda, R. W. 1979. Ecology of alpine timberline in Olympic National Park. In: Linn, Robert M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on scientific research in the National Parks; 1976 November 9-12; New Orleans, LA. National Park Serv. Trans. & Proceedings Series No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 209-212. [6683]

76. Fonda, R. W. 1979. Fire resilient forests of Douglas-fir in Olympic National Park: A hypothesis. In: Linn, Robert M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on scientific research in the National Parks, Vol. 2; 1976 November 9-12; New Orleans, LA. NPS Transactions and Proceedings No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 1239-1242. [6698]

77. Fowells, H. A., comp. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p. [12442]

78. Franklin, Jerry F. 1981. Vegetation and habitats. In: Maser, Chris; Mate, Bruce R.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T., eds. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 17-34. [66383]

79. Franklin, Jerry F. 1988. Pacific Northwest forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. New York: Cambridge University Press: 103-130. [13879]

80. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 452 p. [961]

81. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 468 p. [92533]

82. Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Greene, Sarah E.; Smith, Bradley G. 1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park. Scientific Monograph Series No. 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 194 p. [12392]

83. Franklin, Jerry F.; Pechanec, Anna A. 1968. Comparison of vegetation in adjacent alder, conifer, and mixed alder-conifer communities. I. Understory vegetation and stand structure. In: Trappe, J. M.; Franklin, J. F.; Tarrant, R. F.; Hansen, G. M., eds. Biology of alder: Proceedings of a symposium: 40th annual meeting of the Northwest Scientific Association; 1967 April 14-15; Pullman, WA. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 37-43. [6188]

84. Fryxell, Paul A. 1957. Mode of reproduction of higher plants. Botanical Review. 23(3): 135-233. [67749]

85. Fuller, R. N.; del Moral, R. 2003. The role of refugia and dispersal in primary succession on Mount St. Helens, Washington. Journal of Vegetation Science. 14(5): 637-644. [50307]

86. Garman, E. H. 1929. Natural reproduction following fires in central British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle. 5(3): 28-44. [20224]

87. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R., comps. 1977. Forest and range ecosystems of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1:7,5000,000; map, colored. [86817]

88. Gavin, Daniel G.; Brubaker, Linda B.; Lertzman, Kenneth P. 2003. Holocene fire history of a coastal temperate rain forest based on soil charcoal radiocarbon dates. Ecology. 84(1): 186-201. [43924]

89. Gervais, Jennifer A.; Noon, Barry R.; Willson, Mary F. 1999. Avian selection of the color-dimorphic fruits of salmonberry, Rubus spectabilis: A field experiment. Oikos. 84(1): 77-86. [44084]

90. Gervais, Jennifer A.; Traveset, Anna; Willson, Mary F. 1998. The potential for seed dispersal by the banana slug (Ariolimax columbianus). The American Midland Naturalist. 140(1): 103-110. [93332]

91. Glover, Fred A. 1953. A nesting study of the band-tailed pigeon (Columba f. fasciata) in northwestern California. California Fish and Game. 39(3): 397-407. [64168]

92. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush problems in southwestern Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 53 p. [8596]

93. Gratkowski, H. 1971. Midsummer foliage sprays on salmonberry and thimbleberry. PNW-171. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [6540]

94. Gratkowski, H. 1974. Brushfield reclamation and type conversion. In: Cramer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: I-1 to I-31. [6418]

95. Gratkowski, H. 1978. Herbicides for shrub and weed control in western Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-77. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [6539]

96. Gray, Andrew N.; Monleon, Vicente J.; Spies, Thomas A. 2009. Characteristics of remnant old-growth forests in the northern Coast Range of Oregon and comparison to surrounding landscapes. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-790. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 45 p. [81007]

97. Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Klinka, K.; Slaco, R. J.; Ray, C. A. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region. Land Management Handbook Number 8 [Abridged version]. Burnaby, BC: Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Forest Region. 143 p. [9475]

98. Green, R. N.; Marshall, P. L.; Klinka, K. 1989. Estimating site index of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) from ecological variables in southwestern British Columbia. Forest Science. 35(1): 50-63. [6839]

99. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: a literature review. FRDA Report 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Center; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]

100. Hall, Frederick C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-418. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 290 p. [7650]

101. Halpern, Charles B.; Evans, Shelley A.; Nielson, Sarah. 1999. Soil seed banks in young, closed-canopy forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: Potential contributions to understory reinitiation. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(7): 922-935. [33078]

102. Halverson, Nancy M., comp. 1986. Major indicator shrubs and herbs on national forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. R6-TM-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 180 p. [3233]

103. Hamilton, Anthony; Archibald, W. Ralph. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit River valley, coastal British Columbia: evaluation. 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: 50-56. [10811]

104. Hanley, Thomas A.; Barnard, Jeffrey C. 1998. Red alder, Alnus rubra, as a potential mitigating factor for wildlife habitat following clearcut logging in southeastern Alaska. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 112(4): 647-652. [51443]

105. Hanley, Thomas A.; Barnard, Jeffrey C. 2014. Responses of southeast Alaska understory species to variation in light and simulated herbivory. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-599. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p. [88453]

106. Hanley, Thomas A.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Barnard, Jeffrey C.; Nay, S. Mark. 2014. Responses of southeast Alaska understory species to variation in light and soil environments. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-598. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p. [88455]

107. Hanley, Thomas A.; Deal, Robert L.; Orlikowska, Ewa H. 2006. Relations between red alder composition and understory vegetation in young mixed forests of southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(3): 738-748. [63861]

108. Hanley, Thomas A.; Hoel, Terje. 1996. Species composition of old-growth and riparian Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests in southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26(9): 1703-1708. [27657]

109. Hanley, Thomas A.; McKendrick, Jay D. 1983. Seasonal changes in chemical composition and nutritive values of native forages in a spruce-hemlock forests, southeastern Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-312. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [8770]

110. Hanley, Thomas P. 1984. Relationships between Sitka black-tailed deer and their habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-168. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p. [14397]

111. Hanson, Herbert C. 1951. Characteristics of some grassland, marsh, and other plant communities in western Alaska. Ecological Monographs. 21(4): 317-378. [62710]

112. Happe, Patricia J.; Jenkins, Kurt J.; Starkey, Edward E.; Sharrow, Steven H. 1990. Nutritional quality and tannin astringency of browse in clear-cuts and old-growth forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(4): 557-566. [13290]

113. Harmon, Janice M.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1995. Seed rain and seed bank of third- and fifth-order streams on the western slope of the Cascade Range. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-480. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. [25915]

114. Harper, James A. 1962. Daytime feeding habits of Roosevelt elk on Boyes Prairie, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 26(1): 97-100. [8876]

115. Harper, James A.; Harn, Joseph H.; Bentley, Wallace W.; Yocom, Charles F. 1967. The status and ecology of the Roosevelt elk in California. Wildlife Monographs. 16: 3-49. [83304]

116. Harrington, Constance A. 1990. Alnus rubra Bong. red alder. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 116-123. [13958]

117. Harrington, Constance A. 2006. Biology and ecology of red alder. In: Deal, Robert L.; Harrington, Constance A., tech. eds. Red alder: A state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-669. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 21-43. [63767]

118. Harrington, Timothy B.; Wagner, Robert G.; Radosevich, Steven R.; Walstad, John D. 1995. Interspecific competition and herbicide injury influence 10-year responses of coastal Douglas-fir and associated vegetation to release treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 76: 55-67. [26029]

119. Harris, A. S. 1966. Effects of slash burning on conifer regeneration in southeast Alaska. Research Note NOR-18. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. [7304]

120. Harris, A. S. 1967. Natural reforestation on a mile-square clearcut in southeast Alaska. Research Paper PNW-52. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [85389]

121. Harris, A. S. 1968. Small mammals and natural reforestation in southeast Alaska. Research Note PNW-75. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. [25536]

122. Harris, A. S. 1980. Sitka spruce. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 101-102. [50037]

123. Harris, A. S. 1980. Western redcedar-western hemlock. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 104-105. [50042]

124. Harris, A. S. 1980. Western redcedar. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 105-106. [50043]

125. Harris, A. S. 1990. Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. Sitka spruce. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 260-267. [13389]

126. Harris, Arland S.; Farr, Wilbur A. 1974. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska. Chapter 7: Forest ecology and timber management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-25. Portland. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 109 p. [21534]

127. Hawkes, B. C.; Feller, M. C.; Meehan, D. 1990. Site preparation: Fire. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; Montgomery, G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R. A.; Winston, D., eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 131-149. [10712]

128. Heady, Harold F.; Foin, Theodore C.; Hektner, Mary M.; Taylor, Dean W.; Barbour, Michael G.; Barry, W. James. 1977. Coastal prairie and northern coastal scrub. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 733-760. [7211]

129. Heckman, Charles W. 1999. The encroachment of exotic herbaceous plants into the Olympic National Forest. Northwest Science. 73(4): 264-276. [36188]

130. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Logan, Sheila E. 1986. Plant association and management guide: Siuslaw National Forest. R6-Ecol 220-1986a. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 121 p. [10321]

131. Henderson, Jan A. 1978. Plant succession on the Alnus rubra/Rubus spectabilis habitat type in western Oregon. Northwest Science. 52(3): 156-167. [6393]

132. Hibbs, David E.; Giordano, Peter A. 1996. Vegetation characteristics of alder-dominated riparian buffer strips in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science. 70(3): 213-222. [93396]

133. Hickey, Jena R. 1997. The dispersal of seeds of understory shrubs by American martens, Martes americana, on Chichagof Island, Alaska. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 41 p. Thesis. [76899]

134. Hickey, Jena R.; Flynn, Rodney W.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Gerow, Kenneth G.; Willson, Mary F. 1999. An evaluation of a mammalian predator, Martes americana, as a disperser of seeds. Oikos. 87(3): 499-508. [93333]

135. Highsmith, Richard M., Jr.; Beh, John L. 1952. Tillamook burn: The regeneration of a forest. The Scientific Monthly. 75(3): 139-148. [35262]

136. Hines, William W.; Land, Charles E. 1974. Black-tailed deer and Douglas-fir regeneration in the Coast Range of Oregon. In: Black, Hugh C., ed. Wildlife and forest management in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a symposium; 1973 September 11-12; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory: 121-132. [7999]

137. Hines, William Wester. 1971. Plant communities in the old-growth forests of north coastal Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 146 p. Thesis. [10399]

138. Hipfner, J. Mark; Lemon, Moira J. F.; Rodway, Michael S. 2010. Introduced mammals, vegetation changes and seabird conservation on the Scott Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Bird Conservation International. 20: 295-305. [93380]

139. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]

140. Hjeljord, Olav. 1973. Mountain goat forage and habitat preference in Alaska. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 37(3): 353-362. [16004]

141. Holcroft, Anne C.; Herrero, Stephen. 1991. Black bear, Ursus americanus, food habits in southwestern Alberta. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105(3): 335-345. [18673]

142. Hooven, Edward F. 1969. The influence of forest succession on populations of small animals in western Oregon. In: Black, Hugh C., ed. Wildlife and reforestation in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a symposium; 1968 September 12-13; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 30-34. [7943]

143. Hooven, Edward F. 1973. Effects of vegetational changes on small forest mammals. In: Hermann, Richard K.; Lavender, Denis P., eds. Even-age management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1972 August 1; [Corvallis, OR]. Paper 848. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 75-97. [16241]

144. Houston, Douglas B. 1963. A contribution to the ecology of the band-tailed pigeon, Columba fasciata, Say. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 74 p. Thesis. [64166]

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

146. Hupp, Jerry; Brubaker, Michael; Wilkinson, Kira; Williamson, Jennifer. 2015. How are your berries? Perspectives of Alaska's environmental managers on trends in wild berry abundance. International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 74(1): 28704. [93357]

147. I'Anson, Bill. 1995. Saving berries for the bears. FS284 95/6. Victoria, BC: BC Environment, Forest Service, Wildlife Branch. 6 p. [29200]

148. Idaho Native Plant Society. 2004. The Idaho Native Plant Society rare plant list: State rare species list, [Online]. In: Results of the 20th annual Idaho rare plant conference. Idaho Native Plant Society (Producer). Available: https://idahonativeplants.org/rare-plants-list/ [2019, May 8]. [51534]

149. Impara, Peter C. 1998. Spatial and temporal patterns of fire in the forests of the central Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 343 p. Dissertation. [29985]

150. Isaac, Leo A. 1940. Vegetative succession following logging in the Douglas-fir region with special reference to fire. Journal of Forestry. 38(9): 716-721. [4964]

151. Jenkins, Kurt J.; Starkey, Edward E. 1991. Food habits of Roosevelt elk. Rangelands. 13(6): 261-265. [17351]

152. Jenkins, Kurt J.; Starkey, Edward E. 1993. Winter forages and diets of elk in old-growth and regenerating coniferous forests in western Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 130(2): 299-313. [82438]

153. Jones, Chad C.; del Moral, Roger. 2005. Patterns of primary succession on the foreland of Coleman Glacier, Washington, USA. Plant Ecology. 180(1): 105-116. [56127]

154. Jones, Chad C.; del Moral, Roger. 2009. Dispersal and establishment both limit colonization during primary succession on a glacier foreland. Plant Ecology. 204(2): 217-230. [81532]

155. Juday, Glenn Patrick; Ott, Robert A.; Valentine, David W.; Barber, Valerie A. 1998. Forests, climate stress, insects, and fire. In: Weller, G.; Anderson, P. A., eds. Implications of global change in Alaska and the Bering Sea Region, proceedings of a workshop; 1997 June; Fairbanks, AK. Fairbanks, AK: The Center for Global Change an Arctic System Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks: 23-49. [86058]

156. Kari, Priscilla Russell. 1987. Tanaina plantlore. Dena'ina K'et'una: An ethnobotany of the Dena'ina Indians of southcentral Alaska. 2nd ed. [Revised]. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alaska Region. 205 p. [67343]

157. Kartesz, J. T. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2015. Taxonomic Data Center, [Online]. Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America Program (Producer). Available: http://bonap.net/tdc [Maps generated from Kartesz, J. T. 2010. Floristic synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). [in press]. [84789]

158. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]

159. Kellman, Martin. 1974. Preliminary seed budgets for two plant communities in coastal British Columbia. Journal of Biogeography. 1(2): 123-133. [71054]

160. Kelly, Brendan P.; Ainsworth, Thomas; Boyce, Douglas A., Jr.; Hood, Eran; Murphy, Peggy; Powell, Jim. 2007. Climate change: Predicted impacts on Juneau. Report to: Mayor Bruce Botelho and the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly. Juneau, AK: Scientific Panel on Climate Change, City and Borough of Juneau. 86 p. [91331]

161. Kelpsas, B. R. 1978. Comparative effects of chemical, fire, and machine site preparation in an Oregon coastal brushfield. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 97 p. Thesis. [6986]

162. Kennedy, Peter G.; Quinn, Timothy. 2001. Understory plant establishment on old-growth stumps and the forest floor in western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management. 154(1-2): 193-200. [38836]

163. Kercher, J. R.; Axelrod, M. C. 1984. Analysis of SILVA: a model for forecasting the effects of SO2 pollution and fire on western coniferous forests. Ecological Modelling. 23: 165-184. [6663]

164. Klinka, K.; Carter, R. E. 1980. Ecology and silviculture of the most productive ecosystems for growth of Douglas-fir in southwestern British Columbia. Land Management Report Number 6. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 12 p. [48957]

165. Klinka, K.; Carter, R. E.; Feller, M. C.; Wang, Q. 1989. Relations between site index, salal, plant communities, and sites in coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems. Northwest Science. 63(1): 19-28. [6276]

166. Klinka, K.; Feller, M. C.; Lowe, L. E. 1981. Characterization of the most productive ecosystems for growth of Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii in southwestern British Columbia. Supplement to Land Management Report Number 6. Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Forests. 49 p. [16925]

167. Klinka, K.; Feller, M. C.; Scagel, R. K. 1982. Characterization of the most productive ecosystems for the growth of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) in southwestern British Columbia. Land Management Report Number 9. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 80 p. [+ Appendices]. [48958]

168. Klinka, K.; Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Nuszdorfer, F. C. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No. 25. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 180 p. [15448]

169. Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. 288 p. [10703]

170. Klinka, K.; Scagel, A. M.; Courtin, P. J. 1985. Vegetation relationships among some seral ecosystems in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forestry. 15(3): 561-569. [5985]

171. Klinka, K.; Wang, Q.; Carter, R. E. 1990. Relationships among humus forms, forest floor nutrient properties, and understory vegetation. Forest Science. 36(3): 564-581. [13012]

172. Klinka, Karel; Qian, Hong; Pojar, Jim; Meidinger, Del V. 1996. Classification of natural forest communities of coastal British Columbia, Canada. Vegetatio. 125(2): 149-168. [28530]

173. Knight, Harold A. W. 1961. Some effects of slash burning on regeneration and growth of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 90 p. Thesis. [36677]

174. Knowe, Steven A.; Stein, William I.; Shainsky, L. J. 1997. Predicting growth response of shrubs to clear-cutting and site preparation in coastal Oregon forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27: 217-226. [28529]

175. Komarek, Edwin V., Sr. 1979. Fire: control, ecology, and management. In: Fire management in the northern environment: Proceedings of symposium; 1976 October 19-21; Anchorage, AK. BLM/AK/PROC-79/01. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 48-78. [15391]

176. Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 2004. Classification and management of aquatic, riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: Series description. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-593. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 354 p. [53329]

177. Kramp, Betty A.; Patton, David R.; Brady, Ward W. 1983. The effects of fire on wildlife habitat and species. Wildlife Unit Tech. Rep. RUN WILD: Wildlife/habitat relationships. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Wildlife Unit. 29 p. [152]

178. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest (Thuja-Tsuga-Pseudotsuga). In: Kuchler, A. W. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society: 2. [66986]

179. 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. 166 p. [1384]

180. Lake, Frank K. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion: Management and restoration of culturally significant habitats. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 732 p. Dissertation. [88360]

181. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R#SSHE--Sitka Spruce - Hemlock, [Online]. In: Rapid assessment reference condition models. In: LANDFIRE. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/zip/PNW/RSSHE_Aug08.pdf [2011, October 27]. [83815]

182. Lans, Cheryl; Turner, Nancy; Khan, Tonya; Brauer, Gerhard; Boepple, Willi. 2007. Ethnoveterinary medicines used for ruminants in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 3(11): [1-22]. [77791]

183. Larson, Frederic R. 1994. SRM 901: Alder. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 125-126. [67490]

184. Leininger, Wayne C.; Sharrow, Steven H. 1987. Seasonal diets of herded sheep grazing Douglas-fir plantations. Journal of Range Management. 40(6): 551-555. [8398]

185. Leininger, Wayne C.; Sharrow, Steven H. 1989. Seasonal browsing of Douglas-fir seedlings by sheep. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(3): 73-76. [7506]

186. Lenihan, James M. 1990. Forest associations of Little Lost Man Creek, Humboldt County, California: reference-level in the hierarchical structure of old-growth coastal redwood vegetation. Madrono. 37(2): 69-87. [10673]

187. Leopold, Estella B.; Boyd, Robert. 1999. An ecological history of old prairie areas in southwestern Washington. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 139-163. [35570]

188. Lepofsky, Dana; Turner, Nancy J.; Kuhnlein, Harriet V. 1985. Determining the availability of traditional wild plant foods: an example of Nuxalk foods, Bella Coola, British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 16: 223-241. [7002]

189. Lesher, Robin D.; Henderson, Jan A. 1989. Indicator species of the Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP003-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 79 p. [15376]

190. Long, Colin J.; Whitlock, Cathy. 2002. Fire and vegetation history from the coastal rain forest of the western Oregon Coast Range. Quaternary Research. 58(3): 215-225. [45558]

191. Luken, J. O.; Fonda, R. W. 1983. Nitrogen accumulation in a chronosequence of red alder communities along the Hoh River, Olympic National Park, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 13(6): 1228-1237. [6648]

192. Lyon, L. Jack; Hooper, Robert G.; Telfer, Edmund S.; Schreiner, David Scott. 2000. Fire effects on wildlife foods. In: Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 51-58. [44448]

193. Mahony, Thomas M.; Stuart, John D. 2000. Old-growth forest associations in the northern range of coastal redwood. Madrono. 47(1): 53-60. [36678]

194. Mahony, Thomas M.; Stuart, John D. 2007. Status of vegetation classification in redwood ecosystems. In: In: Standiford, Richard B.; Giusti, Gregory A.; Valachovic, Yana; Zielinski, William J.; Furniss, Michael J., tech. eds. Proceedings of the redwood region forest science symposium: What does the future hold? 2004 March 15-17; Rohnert Park, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RSW-GTR-194. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 207-214. [71149]

195. Martin, Jon R.; Trull, Susan J.; Brady, Ward W.; West, Randolph A.; Downs, Jim M. 1995. Forest plant association management guide: Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest. R10-TP-57. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. Variously paginated. [67100]

196. Martin, Jon Randall. 1989. Vegetation and environment in old growth forests of northern southeast, Alaska: A plant association classification. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 221 p. Thesis. [18760]

197. Maxwell, Bruce D. 1990. The population dynamics and growth of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 286 p. Dissertation. [14726]

198. Maxwell, Bruce D.; Zasada, John C.; Radosevich, Steven R. 1993. Simulation of salmonberry and thimbleberry population establishment and growth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23(10): 2194-2203. [22733]

199. May, Christine L. 2002. Debris flow through different forest age classes in the central Oregon Coast Range. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(4): 1097-1113. [43955]

200. McArthur, C.; Robbins, C. T.; Hagerman, A. E.; Hanley, T. A. 1993. Diet selection by a ruminant generalist browser in relation to plant chemistry. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 71(11): 2236-2243. [85648]

201. McCain, Cindy; Christy, John A. 2005. Field guide to riparian plant communities in northwestern Oregon. Tech. Pap. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-01-05. [Portland, OR]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 357 p. [63114]

202. McGee, Ann Bradshaw. 1988. Vegetation response to right-of-way clearing procedures in coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 196 p. Dissertation. [85319]

203. McGee, Ann; Feller, M. C. 1993. Seed banks of forested and disturbed soils in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 71: 1574-1583. [25756]

204. McGeough, Dean M. 1985. Effects of prescribed burning on vegetation and natural tree regeneration in mature cedar-hemlock forests in the Pacific Rim National Park. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 72 p. Thesis. [85067]

205. McMinn, Robert G. 1951. The vegetation of a burn near Blaney Lake, British Columbia. Ecology. 32(1): 135-140. [16498]

206. Mead, Bert R. 2002. Constancy and cover of plants in the Petersburg and Wrangell Districts, Tongass National Forest and associated private and other public lands, southeast Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-540. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p. [43304]

207. Means, Joe; Spies, Tom; Chen, Shu-huei; Kertis, Jane; Teensma, Pete. 1996. Forests of the Oregon Coast Range--considerations for ecological restoration. In: Hardy, Colin C.; Arno, Stephen F., eds. The use of fire in forest restoration: A general session at the annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1995, 14-16 September; Seattle, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 68-71. [28680]

208. Means, Joseph E.; McKee, W. Arthur; Moir, William H.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1982. Natural revegetation of the northeastern portion of the devastated area. In: Keller, S. A. C., ed. Mount St. Helens: One year later: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 May 17-18; Cheney, WA. Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University Press: 93-103. [5977]

209. Means, Joseph E.; Sabin, Thomas E. 1989. Height growth and site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(4): 136-142. [9234]

210. Menashe, Elliott. 1993. Appendix A: Plants commonly found on Puget Sound shoreland sites, [Online]. In: Vegetation Management: A program for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Publication 93-31. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program (Producer). Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-31/app-a.html [2010, June 11]. [68858]

211. Merrill, Evelyn H. 1994. Summer foraging ecology of wapiti (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) in the Mount St. Helens blast zone. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72(2): 303-311. [23945]

212. Merrill, Evelyn H.; Callahan-Olson, Angela; Raedeke, Kenneth J.; Taber, Richard D.; Anderson, Robert J. 1995. Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) dietary composition and quality in the Mount St. Helens blast zone. Northwest Science. 69(1): 9-18. [26633]

213. Merrill, Evelyn; Raedeke, Kenneth; Taber, Richard. 1987. Population dynamics and habitat ecology of elk in the Mount St. Helens blast zone. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Wildlife Science Group. 186 p. [82037]

214. Messier, Christian; Kimmins, James P. 1991. Above- and below-ground vegetation recovery in recently clearcut and burned sites dominated by Gaultheria shallon in coastal British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 46(3-4): 275-294. [17206]

215. Michel, James T.; Helfield, James M.; Hooper, David U. 2011. Seed rain and revegetation of exposed substrates following dam removal on the Elwha River. Northwest Science. 85(1): 15-29. [85091]

216. Miller, Richard E. 1980. Red alder. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 100. [50035]

217. Minami, Yoshi; Oba, Mai; Kojima, Satoru; Richardson, John S. 2015. Distribution pattern of coniferous seedlings after a partial harvest along a creek in a Canadian Pacific Northwest forest. Journal of Forest Research. 20(3): 328-336. [93338]

218. Minore, Don. 1980. Western hemlock-Sitka spruce. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 103. [50040]

219. Minore, Don. 1990. Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don western redcedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 590-600. [13419]

220. Minore, Don; Weatherly, Howard G. 1994. Riparian trees, shrubs, and forest regeneration in the coastal mountains of Oregon. New Forests. 8: 249-263. [23455]

221. Morgan, Penelope; Shiplett, Brian. 1989. Photographic series: Appraising slash fire hazard in Idaho, western hemlock, grand fir, western redcedar, ponderosa pine. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Lands. 117 p. [90887]

222. Morris, William G. 1958. Influence of slash burning on regeneration, other plant cover, and fire hazard in the Douglas-fir region: A progress report. Res. Pap. PNW-29. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 49 p. [4803]

223. Morris, William G. 1970. Effects of slash burning in overmature stands of the Douglas-fir region. Forest Science. 16(3): 258-270. [4810]

224. Morrison, Michael L.; Meslow, E. Charles. 1983. Bird community structure on early-growth clearcuts in western Oregon. The American Midland Naturalist. 110(1): 129-137. [15162]

225. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]

226. Murphy, Karen A.; Witten, Evie. 2006. Coastal boreal transition forest. In: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Interagency Guidebook reference conditions (DRAFT). [90208]

227. NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life, [Online]. Version 7.1. Arlington, VA: NatureServe (Producer). Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. [69873]

228. Neff, Johnson A. 1947. Habits, food, and economic status of the band-tailed pigeon. North American Fauna 58. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 76 p. [64170]

229. Neiland, Bonita J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn area of northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 39(4): 660-671. [8879]

230. Newton, M.; Comeau, P. G. 1990. Control of competing vegetation. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; Montgomery, G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R. A.; Winston, D., eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 256-265. [10719]

231. Newton, M.; White, D. E. 1983. Effect of salmonberry on growth of planted conifers. In: Western Society of Weed Science, compiler. Proceedings of Western Society of Weed Science; [Date of conference unknown]; Las Vegas. Vol. 36. [Place of publication unknown]. Western Society of Weed Science: 59-64. [6700]

232. Newton, Michael; Roberts, Catherine A. 1977. Brush control alternatives for forest site preparation. In: Proceedings and research progress report, 28th annual Oregon weed control conference; [Date of conference unknown]; Salem, OR. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 1-10. [21477]

233. Nierenberg, Tara R.; Hibbs, David E. 2000. A characterization of unmanaged riparian areas in the central Coast Range of western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 129(1/3): 195-206. [36583]

234. Norton, H. H.; Hunn, E. S.; Martinsen, C. S.; Keely, P. B. 1984. Vegetable food products of the foraging economies of the Pacific Northwest. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 14(3): 219-228. [10327]

235. Norton, Helen H. 1981. Plant use in Kaigani Haida culture: Correction of a ethnohistorical oversight. Economic Botany. 35(4): 434-449. [85093]

236. Norton, Helen H.; Boyd, Robert; Hunn, Eugene. 1999. The Klikitat Trail of south-central Washington: A reconstruction of seasonally used resource sites. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 65-93. [35569]

237. Ohmann, Janet L.; Spies, Thomas A. 1998. Regional gradient analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forests. Ecological Monographs. 68(2): 151-182. [62828]

238. Oleskevich, Carmen; Shamoun, Simon F.; Punja, Zamir K. 1996. The biology of Canadian weeds. 105. Rubus strigosus Michx., Rubus parviflorus Nutt., and Rubus spectabilis Pursch. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 76: 187-201. [73659]

239. Opalach, D.; Wagner, R. G.; Maxwell, B. D.; Dukes, J. H., Jr.; Radosevich, S. R. 1990. A simulation model of competing Douglas-fir and salmonberry. In: Wensel, Lee C.; Biging, Greg S., technical coordinators. Forest simulation systems: Proceedings of the IUFRO conference; 1988 November 2-5; Berkely, CA. Bulletin 1927. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources: 331-338. [13427]

240. Opalach, Daniel; Wagner, Robert G.; Radosevich, Steven R. 1990. An interspecific competition model for young Douglas-fir plantations of coastal Oregon and Washington. In: Hamilton, Evelyn, comp. Vegetation management: An integrated approach--Proceedings of the 4th annual vegetation management workshop; 1989 November 14-16; Vancouver, BC. FRDA Report 109. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Research Branch: 112-113. [10971]

241. Orlikowska, Ewa H.; Deal, Robert L.; Hennon, Paul E.; Wipfil, Mark S. 2004. The role of red alder in riparian forest structure along headwater streams in southeastern Alaska. Northwest Science. 78(2): 111-123. [53332]

242. Otchere-Boateng, J.; Herring, L. J. 1990. Site preparation: chemical. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; Montogmery, G.; Vyse, A.; Wilis, R. A.; Winston, D., eds. Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 164-178. [10714]

243. Pabst, Robert J.; Spies, Thomas A. 1998. Distribution of herbs and shrubs in relation to landform and canopy cover in riparian forests of coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Botany. 76: 298-315. [28627]

244. Pabst, Robert J.; Spies, Thomas A. 2001. Ten years of vegetation succession on a debris-flow deposit in Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37(6): 1693-1708. [41709]

245. Pearson, Scott F.; Manuwal, David A. 2001. Breeding bird response to riparian buffer width in managed Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications. 11(3): 840-853. [61156]

246. Pendergrass, Kathy L. 1996. Vegetation composition and response to fire of native Willamette Valley wetland prairies. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 241 p. Thesis. [66083]

247. Peter, David H.; Harrington, Constance. 2009. Six years of plant community development after clearcut harvesting in western Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39(2): 308-319. [83132]

248. Pickering, Debbie L. 1997. The influence of fire on west coast grasslands and concerns about its use as a management tool: a case study of the Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene Hippolyta (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). In: Greenlee, Jason M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats; 1995 November 13-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 37-46. [28121]

249. Pierovich, John M.; Clarke, Edward H.; Pickford, Stewart G.; Ward, Franklin R. 1975. Forest residues management guidelines for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-33. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 273 p. [44131]

250. Pojar, Jim. 1975. Hummingbird flowers of British Columbia. Syesis. 8: 25-28. [6537]

251. Pojar, Jim; MacKinnon, Andy, eds. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 526 p. [25159]

252. Quigg, Antonietta. 2012. Comparing the ecophysiology of four tree species growing in the coastal temperate rainforests of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Trees. 26: 1123-1136. [93339]

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

254. Reagan, Albert B. 1934. Plants used by the Hoh and Quileute Indians. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 37: 55-70. [66487]

255. Reukema, Donald L. 1980. Douglas-fir--western hemlock. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 107-108. [50045]

256. Rhodes, B. D.; Sharrow, S. H. 1983. Effect of sheep grazing on big game habitat in Oregon's Coast Range. In: 1983 Progress report--research in rangeland management. Special Report 682. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. [3610]

257. Rhodes, Bruce D.; Sharrow, Steven H. 1990. Effect of grazing by sheep on the quantity and quality of forage available to big game in Oregon's Coast Range. Journal of Range Management. 43(3): 235-237. [11763]

258. Ringius, Gordon S.; Sims, Richard A. 1997. Indicator plant species in Canadian forests. Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 218 p. [35563]

259. Rizzo, David M.; Garbelotto, Matteo. 2003. Sudden oak death: endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(4): 197-204. [68680]

260. Roberts, Catherine Anne. 1975. Initial plant succession after brown and burn site preparation on an alder-dominated brushfield in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 90 p. Thesis. [9786]

261. Rodway, Michael S.; Wilson, Laurie K.; Lemon, Moira J. F.; Millikin, Rhonda L. 2017. The ups and downs of ecosystem engineering by burrow-nesting seabirds on Triangle Island, British Columbia. Marine Ornithology. 45: 47-55. [93379]

262. Rose, Robin; Ketchum, J. Scott. 2002. The effect of hexazinone, sulfometuron, metsulfuron, and atrazine on the germination success of selected Ceanothus and Rubus species. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(4): 195-201. [43063]

263. Roy, Douglass F. 1980. Redwood--Forest Cover Type 232. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 109-110. [50047]

264. Royo, Alejandro A.; Carson, Walter P. 2006. On the formation of dense understory layers in forests worldwide: consequences and implications for forest dynamics, biodiversity, and succession. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(6): 1345-1362. [80655]

265. Russell, Will. 2009. The influence of timber harvest on the structure and composition of riparian forests in the coastal redwood region. Forest Ecology and Management. 257(5): 1427-1433. [73792]

266. Ruth, Robert H. 1956. Plantation survival and growth in two brush-threat areas in coastal Oregon. Res. Pap. 17. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [6722]

267. Ruth, Robert H. 1970. Effect of shade on germination and growth of salmonberry. Res. Pap. PNW-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. [6543]

268. Ruth, Robert H. 1974. Regeneration and growth of west-side mixed conifers. In: Camer, Owen P., ed. Environmental effects of forest residues in the Pacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledge compendium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: K-1 to K-21. [6381]

269. Ruth, Robert H. 1976. Harvest cuttings and regeneration in young-growth western hemlock. In: Berg, A. B., ed. Managing young forests in the Douglas-fir region: Proceedings of a symposium; 1973 June 11-13; Corvallis, OR. Vol. 5. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 41-74. [19143]

270. Salo, Leo J. 1978. Characteristics of ruffed grouse drumming sites in western Washington and their relevance to management. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 15(4): 261-278. [79059]

271. Sarr, D. A.; Hibbs, D. E. 2007. Woody riparian plant distributions in western Oregon, USA: comparing landscape and local scale factors. Plant Ecology. 190(2): 291-311. [84241]

272. Schreiner, Edward G.; Krueger, Kirsten A.; Happe, Patricia J.; Houston, Douglas B. 1996. Understory patch dynamics and ungulate herbivory in old-growth forests of Olympic National Park, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26(2): 255-265. [26590]

273. Schwartz, John E., II; Mitchell, Glen E. 1945. The Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 295-319. [8878]

274. Schwartz, Mark W. 1988. Species diversity patterns in woody flora on three North American peninsulas. Journal of Biogeography. 15: 759-774. [8975]

275. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Part 3: Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). National Museum of Natural Sciences: Publications in Botany, No. 7(3). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 1115 p. [75493]

276. Shamoun, Simon F.; Sieber, Thomas N. 2000. Colonisation of leaves and twigs of Rubus parviflorus and R. spectabilis by endophytic fungi in a reforestation site in British Columbia. Mycological Research. 104(7): 841-845. [93388]

277. Sharpe, Grant William. 1956. A taxonomical - ecological study of the vegetation by habitats in eight forest types of the Olympic Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, WA. Seattle, WA: University of Seattle. 313 p. Dissertation. [12386]

278. Sharrow, Steven H.; Leininger, Wayne C.; Osman, Khalid A. 1992. Sheep grazing effects on coastal Douglas-fir forest growth: A ten-year perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 50(1-2): 75-84. [19403]

279. Shatford, Jeff; Hibbs, David; Norris, Logan. 2003. Identifying plant communities resistant to conifer establishment along utility rights-of-way in Washington and Oregon, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3): 172-176. [48570]

280. Shatford, Jeffrey P. A.; Bailey, John D.; Tappeiner, John C. 2009. Understory tree development with repeated stand density treatments in coastal Douglas-fir forests of Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(1): 11-16. [73400]

281. Sheridan, Chris D.; Spies, Thomas A. 2005. Vegetation-environment relationships in zero-order basins in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35(2): 340-355. [60361]

282. Shirley, Susan M. 2005. Habitat use by riparian and upland birds in old-growth coastal British Columbia rainforest. The Wilson Bulletin. Wilson Ornithological Society. 117(3): 245-257. [93342]

283. Slagle, Kevin; Wilson, Mark Griswold. 1992. Revegetation efforts accompany campsite rehabilitation in a Pacific silver fir plant community. Restoration & Management Notes. 10(1): 82-83. [20624]

284. Smith, J. H. G. 1957. Some factors indicative of site quality for black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray). Journal of Forestry. 55: 578-580. [8917]

285. Society of American Foresters. 1954. Forest cover types of North America (exclusive of Mexico). Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters. 67 p. [2196]

286. Sonnenfeld, Nancy L. 1987. A guide to the vegetative communities at the Valley of the Giants, Outstanding Natural Area, northwestern Oregon, USA. Arboricultural Journal. 11(3): 209-225. [7453]

287. Spies, Thomas A. 1991. Plant species diversity and occurrence in young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., tech. coords. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 111-121. [17309]

288. Stathers, R. J.; Trowbridge, R.; Spittlehouse, D. L.; Macadam, A.; Kimmins, J. P. 1990. Ecological principles: basic concepts. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; Montgomery, G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R. A.; Winston, D., eds. Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 45-54. [10708]

289. Stein, William I. 1995. Ten-year development of Douglas-fir and associated vegetation after different site preparation on Coast Range clearcuts. PNW-RP-473. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 115 p. [93386]

290. Stein, Willian I. 1990. Site preparation on coastal sites. In: Hamilton, Evelyn, comp. Vegetation management: An integrated approach--Proceedings of the 4th annual vegetation management workshop; 1989 November 14-16; Vancouver, BC. FRDA Report 109. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Research Branch: 63-64. [10962]

291. Stephan, Kirsten; Miller, Melanie; Dickinson, Matthew B. 2010. First-order fire effects on herbs and shrubs: Present knowledge and process modeling needs. Fire Ecology. 6(1): 95-114. [81913]

292. Stephens, Scott L.; Kane, Jeffrey M.; Stuart, John D. 2018. North Coast bioregion. In: van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Sugihara, Neil G.; Stephens, Scott L.; Thode, Andrea E.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Jo Ann, eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. 2nd edition. Oakland, CA: University of California Press: 149-170. [93241]

293. Stevens, M.; Darris, D. 2000. Plant guide for salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, OR. [93395]

294. Stewart, R. E. 1974. Repeated spraying to control four coastal brush species. Res. Note PNW-238. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [5636]

295. Stewart, R. E. 1977. Ammonium thiocyanate does not increase herbicidal control of salmonberry. Res. Note PNW-308. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [6542]

296. Stewart, R. E. 1978. Origin and development of vegetation after spraying and burning in a coastal Oregon clearcut. Res. Note PNW-317. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [6541]

297. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]

298. Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Bird community structure in alder forests in Washington. The Condor. 82(1): 20-30. [61171]

299. Sullivan, Thomas P.; Boateng, Jacob O. 1996. Comparison of small-mammal community responses to broadcast burning and herbicide application in cutover forest habitats. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26(3): 462-473. [27102]

300. Sumampong, Grace; Shamoun, Simon F.; Punja, Zamir K. 2008. Occurrence of Phoma argillacea on Rubus spectabilis in British Columbia and an evaluation of its potential as a forest weed biological control agent. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 30: 74-84. [93387]

301. Suring, Lowell H.; Goldstein, Michael I.; Howell, Susan M.; Nations, Christopher S. 2008. Response of the cover of berry-producing species to ecological factors on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38(5): 1244-1259. [83935]

302. Suring, Lowell H.; Vohs, Paul A., Jr. 1979. Habitat use by Columbian white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 610-619. [37245]

303. Swanson, Donald Oscar. 1970. Roosevelt elk-forest relationships in the Douglas-fir region of the southern Oregon Coast Range. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 173 p. Dissertation. [83259]

304. Tappeiner, John C., II; McDonald, Philip M.; Newton, Michael; Harrington, Timothy B. 1992. Ecology of hardwoods, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation: Effects on conifer regeneration. In: Hobbs, Stephen D.; Tesch, Steven D.; Owston, Peyton W.; Stewart, Ronald E.; Tappeiner, John C., II; Wells, Gail E., eds. Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 136-164. [22157]

305. Tappeiner, John C., II; Zasada, John C.; Huffman, David W.; Ganio, Lisa M. 2001. Salmonberry and salal annual aerial stem production: the maintenance of shrub cover in forest stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 31(9): 1629-1638. [93326]

306. Tappeiner, John C.; Zasada, John C. 1993. Establishment of salmonberry, salal, vine maple, and bigleaf maple seedlings in the coastal forests of Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23(9): 1775-1780. [83176]

307. Tappeiner, John; Zasada, John. 1988. Ecology and management of shrubs and hardwoods in Oregon's Coast Range forests. Cope Report. Newport, OR: Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center. 1(4): 3-4. [15445]

308. Tappeiner, John; Zasada, John; Ryan, Peter. 1988. Structure of salmonberry clones and understories in western coastal Oregon forests: the basis for stable shrub communities. Unpublished paper on file at: College of Forestry, Oregon State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR: 27 p. [7061]

309. Tappeiner, John; Zasada, John; Ryan, Peter; Newton, Michael. 1991. Salmonberry clonal and population structure: The basis for a persistent cover. Ecology. 72(2): 609-618. [13789]

310. Taylor, R. F. 1932. The successional trend and its relation to second-growth forests in southeastern Alaska. Ecology. 13(4): 381-391. [10007]

311. Taylor, Ronald J. 1990. Northwest weeds: The ugly and beautiful villains of fields, gardens, and roadsides. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 177 p. [72431]

312. Telfer, Edmund S. 2000. Regional variation in fire regimes. In: Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 9-15. [44434]

313. Teraoka, Emily King. 2010. Structure and composition of old-growth and unmanaged second-growth riparian forests at Redwood National Park, USA. Humboldt, CA: Humboldt State University. 59 p. Thesis. [83893]

314. Thysell, David R.; Carey, Andrew B. 2000. Effects of forest management on understory and overstory vegetation: A retrospective study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-488. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p. [47255]

315. Topik, Christopher; Halverson, Nancy M.; Brockway, Dale G. 1986. Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-ECOL-230A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 132 p. [2351]

316. Topik, Christopher; Hemstrom, Miles A., comps. 1982. Guide to common forest-zone plants: Willamette, Mt. Hood, and Siuslaw National Forests. R6-Ecol 101-1982. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 95 p. [3234]

317. Traveset, Anna; Willson, Mary F. 1997. Effect of birds and bears on seed germination of fleshy-fruited plants in temperate rainforests of southeast Alaska. Oikos. 80(1): 89-95. [67728]

318. Traveset, Anna; Willson, Mary F. 1998. Ecology of the fruit-colour polymorphism in Rubus spectabilis. Evolutionary Ecology. 12: 331-345. [93334]

319. Traveset, Anna; Willson, Mary F.; Verdu, Miguel. 2004. Characteristics of fleshy fruits in southeast Alaska: Phylogenetic comparison with fruits from Illinois. Ecography. 27(1): 41-48. [93329]

320. Turner, Nancy Chapman; Bell, Marcus A. M. 1973. The ethnobotany of the southern Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia. Economic Botany. 27(3): 257-310. [21015]

321. Turner, Nancy J.; Cocksedge, Wendy. 2001. Aboriginal use of non-timber forest products in northwestern North America: Applications and issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3-4): 31-57. [39451]

322. Turner, Nancy J.; Ignace, Marianne Boelscher; Ignace, Ronald. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1275-1287. [40982]

323. Turpin, Thomas C. 1989. Successful silvicultural operations without herbicides in a multiple use environment. In: Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop: Silviculture for all resources; 1987 May 11-14; Sacramento. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 176-183. [6402]

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

325. Urgenson, Lauren S.; Reichard, Sarah H.; Halpern, Charles B. 2009. Community and ecosystem consequences of giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) invasion into riparian forests of western Washington, USA. Biological Conservation. 142(7): 1536-1541. [77565]

326. USDA, NRCS. 2019. The PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]

327. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Misc. Publ. No. 303. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]

328. Van Pelt, Robert; Sillett, Stephen C.; Kruse, William A.; Freund, James A.; Kramer, Russell D. 2016. Emergent crowns and light-use complementarity lead to global maximum biomass and leaf area in Sequoia sempervirens forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 375: 279-308. [91258]

329. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T., tech. eds. 1979. Ecological effects of the Wickersham Dome fire near Fairbanks, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-90. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 71 p. [6392]

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

331. Villarin, Lauren A.; Chapin, David M.; Jones, John E., III. 2009. Riparian forest structure and succession in second-growth stands of the central Cascade Mountains, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 257(5): 1375-1385. [73721]

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

333. Voth, Elver H.; Maser, Chris; Johnson, Murray L. 1983. Food habits of Arborimus albipes, the white-footed vole, in Oregon. Northwest Science. 57(1): 1-7. [9122]

334. Wagner, Robert G.; Newton, Michael; Cole, Elizabeth C.; Miller, James H.; Shiver, Barry D. 2004. The role of herbicides for enhancing forest productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1028-1041. [53983]

335. Wall, R. E.; Prasad, R.; Shamoun, S. F. 1992. The development and potential role of mycoherbicides for forestry. Forestry Chronicle. 68(6): 736-741. [20925]

336. Wallmo, Olof C.; Schoen, John W. 1980. Response of deer to secondary forest succession in southeast Alaska. Forest Science. 26(3): 448-462. [14394]

337. Waring, R. H.; Major, J. 1964. Some vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light, and temperature. Ecological Monographs. 34(2): 167-215. [8924]

338. Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs. 30(3): 279-338. [6836]

339. Williamson, Richard L.; Ruth, Robert H. 1976. Results of shelterwood cutting in western hemlock. Res. Pap. PNW-201. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 25 p. [12290]

340. Willson, Mary F. 1994. Fruit choices by captive American robins. The Condor. 96(2): 494-502. [86038]

341. Willson, Mary F.; Comet, Tallchief A. 1996. Bird communities of northern forests: patterns of diversity and abundance. The Condor. 98(2): 337-349. [63238]

342. Wimberly, Michael C.; Spies, Thomas A. 2001. Influences of environment and disturbance on forest patterns in coastal Oregon watersheds. Ecology. 82(5): 1443-1459. [45219]

343. Woodward, A.; Schreiner, E. G.; Houston, D. B.; Moorhead, B. B. 1994. Ungulate-forest relationships in Olympic National Park: Retrospective exclosure studies. Northwest Science. 68(2): 97-110. [23143]

344. Yerkes, Vern P. 1960. Occurrence of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation after clear cutting old-growth Douglas-fir. Res. Pap. PNW-34. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [8937]

345. Young, James A.; Young, Cheryl G. 1992. Seeds of woody plants in North America. [Revised and enlarged edition]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 407 p. [72640]

346. Youngberg, C. T. 1979. Organic matter of forest soils. In: Heilman, Paul E.; Anderson, Harry W.; Baumgartner, David M., eds. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. Chapter VII. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service: 137-144. [8208]

347. Zasada, John C.; Tappeiner, John C., III. 2008. Rubus spp.: blackberry raspberry. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook No. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 984-996. [73150]

348. Zasada, John C.; Tappeiner, John C., III; Maxwell, Bruce D.; Radwan, M. A. 1994. Seasonal changes in shoot and root production and in carbohydrate content of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) rhizome segments from the central Oregon coast ranges. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 24(2): 272-277. [51015]

349. Zasada, John; Tappeiner, John; Maxwell, Bruce. 1989. Manual treatment of Salmonberry or which bud's for you? Cope Report, Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhancement Program. 2(2): 7-9. [7060]

350. Zasada, John; Tappeiner, John; O'Dea, Mary. 1992. Clone structure of salmonberry and vine maple in the Oregon Coast Range. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., comps. 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: 56-60. [19096]

351. Zinke, Paul J. 1977. The redwood forest and associated north coast forests. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 679-698. [7212]

352. Zobel, Donald B. 1990. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Parl. Port-Orford-cedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 88-96. [13372]

353. Zobel, Donald B. 2002. Ecosystem use by indigenous people in an Oregon coastal landscape. Northwest Science. 76(4): 304-314. [64344]

354. Zobrist, Kevin W.; Mason, C. Larry. 2006. Alternate plans for riparian hardwood conversion: Challenges and opportunities. In: Deal, Robert L.; Harrington, Constance A., tech. eds. Red alder: A state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-669. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 145-149. [63779]

355. Zouhar, Kristin. 2017. Fire regimes of Alaskan Pacific maritime ecosystems. 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/fire_regimes/AK_Pacific_maritime/all.html. [93393]

356. Zybach, Bob. 2003. The great fires: Indian burning and catastrophic forest fire patterns of the Oregon Coast Range, 1491-1951. Eugene, OR: Oregon State University. 451 p. Dissertation. [89479]