Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
Introductory
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Crane, M. F. 1989. Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/salnigc/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
SAMNIGC
SAMNIG
SYNONYMS :
Sambucus glauca
Sambucus cerulea var. glauca
Sambucus caerulea
Sambucus coerulea
Sambucus coerulea var. glauca
Sambucus decipiens
Sambucus ferax
Sambucus fimbriata
Sambucus vestita
Sambucus arizonica
Sambucus neomexicana
Sambucus neomexicana var. vestita
Sambucus velutina
SCS PLANT CODE :
SACE3
SACEC
SACEN
SACEV
COMMON NAMES :
blue elderberry
blueberry elder
blue elder
Arizona elderberry
New Mexican elderberry
velvet-leaf elder
hairy blue elderberry
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of blue elderberry is
Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea (Raf.) R. Balli [97].
The taxonomy of blue elderberry is confusing because of the profusion of
synonyms including alternate spellings of cerulea as coerulea [23] and
caerulea [60,93].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Blue elderberry's range in western North America is from southern
British Columbia and western Alberta to California, Arizona, and New
Mexico [6,9,27,48]. It extends east into western Montana [6,27], western
Colorado [23], and Trans-Pecos Texas and south into northwest Mexico
[40,60].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
STATES :
AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM OR UT WA
WY AB BC MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
Northern Pacific Border
Cascade Mountains
Southern Pacific Border
Sierra Mountains
Columbia Plateau
Upper Basin and Range
Lower Basin and Range
Northern Rocky Mountains
Middle Rocky Mountains
Colorado Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir - Douglas-dir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K007 Red fir forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K025 Alder - ash forest
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K034 Montane chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035
K037 Mountain mahogany - oak scrub
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
256 California mixed subalpine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood - willow
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
226 Coastal true fir - hemlock
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
232 Redwood
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
235 Cottonwood - willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak - gray pine
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Blue elderberry usually occurs in early seral communities or in openings
in moist forest habitats and in moist areas within drier, more open
habitats. It is part of the riparian communities of the Central Valley
of California, and it is frequently associated with alder (Alnus spp.)
and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities. Blue elderberry is
not often used as an indicator species. In Mueggler [51] and Mueggler
and Campbell [53], either S. racemosa or S. cerulea (blue elderberry) are
indicators for the Populus tremuloides/Sambucus racemosa community type.
Published classification schemes listing blue elderberry as an indicator
species in community types or plant associations are presented below:
Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific Northwest plant associations [21]
A taxonomyfor classification of seral vegetation of selected habitat
types in Montana [22]
Aspen community types of the Intermountain Region [51]
Aspen community types of Utah [53]
Associated Species: Blue elderberry tends to grow as individual plants
among other woody plants [44,87]. Some common associates are
serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), rose
(Rosa spp.), gooseberries (Ribes spp.), big sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata), brome (Bromus spp.), and wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.)
[9,86].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Many wildlife species use Sambucus spp. for food [41,64]. It provides
valuable cover, perching, and nesting sites; its fruit provides food for
many species of birds including bluebirds, magpies, warbling vireo,
western tanager, house finch, green-tailed towhee, woodpeckers,
grosbeaks, Townsend solitaire, grouse, quail, pheasant, and hummingbirds
who visit flowers for nectar [19,25,41,75,90]. It also provides cover
and food for other wildlife including rabbits, squirrels, foxes,
woodchucks, chipmunks, ground squirrels, woodrats, mice [41], and
ring-tailed cats in California riparian zones [2]. Early in the year
blue elderberry is less palatable and thus unimportant as browse for
domestic livestock [9,65]. Mule deer also show seasonal preferences for
blue elderberry [37]. When fed to captive mule deer in Utah from May 1
to September 30, it was a preferred food [73]. It was used throughout
the period, but with highest use early in May and again in August and
September. Captive mule deer used blue elderberry lightly in the winter
[71,74]. Elk use blue elderberry both summer and fall [77,95].
Seasonal mule deer use varies by community type with highest use in
October in the aspen (Populus tremuloides) and spruce-fir (Picea
engelmannii-Abies concolor) types and in July in the shrub-browse type
[72]. Blue elderberry is a more important deer browse than red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) [73].
PALATABILITY :
Blue elderberry is a palatable browse plant that is sought and consumed
in excess of its relative importance in the vegetative community by elk
[37,95] and deer [72]. In the spring the foliage of blue elderberry may
be strongly scented when bruised and less palatable. By fall,
especially following frost, it sweetens and becomes more palatable
[9,58]. The highly palatable buds and dried fruit are used in winter by
big game animals [58].
The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for blue
elderberry in several western states is rated as follows [10,65,77]:
ID CO MT UT WY CA
Cattle mod-good fair fair fair ---- fair
Sheep mod-good fair good good ---- good-fair
Horses ---- fair poor poor ---- ----
Goats ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- good
Pronghorn ---- ---- ---- poor poor ----
Elk good ---- ---- good fair ----
Mule deer ---- ---- ---- good good ----
White-tailed
deer ---- ---- ---- ---- good ----
Deer ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- good-poor
Small mammals ---- ---- fair good fair ----
Small nongame
birds ---- good fair good good ----
Upland game
birds ---- ---- fair good good ----
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- poor poor ----
Black bear mod-poor ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Blue elderberry's energy value is rated as fair and its protein value as
poor [10]. Gordon and Sampson [17] list specific values for total ash,
silica, silica-free ash, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, crude protein,
and crude fiber for plant parts sampled during two growing seasons.
Protein values are high in the early leaf stage and decrease with
maturity. Potassium and phosphorus contents also decrease with
maturity, while ash and calcium contents increase. Blue elderberry is
important as late season browse because of a fairly high level of
protein and essential inorganics when herbaceous plants are at their
lowest nutritional ebb.
COVER VALUE :
Blue elderberry provides nesting habitat for a number of bird species in
Arizona including the Dusky flycatcher, MacGillivary warbler,
orange-crowned warbler, broad-tailed hummingbird, white-crowned sparrow,
and Lincoln sparrow [4]. It also provides nest cover and nest support
for the Least Bell's Vireo [18].
The degree to which blue elderberry provides environmental protection
during one or more seasons for wildlife species is as follows [10].
MT UT WY
Pronghorn ---- poor poor
Elk ---- fair fair
Mule deer ---- good good
White-tailed deer ---- ---- good
Small mammals poor good fair
Small nongame birds poor good good
Upland game birds poor good fair
Waterfowl ---- poor poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Blue elderberry has been selected for planting in the Intermountain West
because of its forage and cover value, productivity, adaptability, and
ease of establishment [58,59]. It is also a useful ground cover for
stabilizing eroding sites [58]. It is adapted for use in the forested,
northern desert shrub, pinyon-juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.), and
mountain brush zones [43,58,76]. In Oregon and California it is being
used for riparian plantings [5,15] and streambank stabilization
plantings [39]. Seeding blue elderberry may improve forage production in
some disturbed Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) communities in Utah [81].
Blue elderberry seeds may be planted directly, or seedlings and 1- to
2-year old stock may be transplanted. It also grows from cuttings and
rootstocks [58,75]. Best establishment in Utah has been obtained by
direct seeding [58], but establishment can be erratic [59]. Ratings of
suitability include [58]:
Very Medium Very
Good Good or Fair Poor Poor
Initial establishment X
Growth rate X
Final establishment X
Persistence X
Germination X
Seed production and
handling X
Planting ease X
Natural spread X
Herbage yield X
Availability of
current growth X
Soil stability X
Range of adaptation X
Resistance to disease
and insects X
Compatibility with
other plants X
Ease of transplanting X
Studies of reclaimed mining sites give specific information about
planting methods and survival. In a Utah coal field at Alton it had a
survival rate of 68 percent, but only reached 18 inches (46 cm) 6 years
after planting [13]. Blue elderberry had difficulty on untreated acid
spoils in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California with survival rates
of 23 percent for the first year and 10 percent by the third year. In
competition with seeded grass no blue elderberry survived. On mine
spoils the shade of blue elderberry may aid the establishment of other
species [43]. Initial survival was good on Montana roadcuts, but
decreased to 30 percent after 4 years and to one plant after 9 years
[29]. Factors that influenced this mortality appeared to be the hot,
dry slopes and infertile, rocky soil.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The fruit of blue elderberry is frequently gathered for wine, jellies,
candy, pies, and sauces [49,60] and it is cultivated commercially in
Oregon. Native Americans gathered the fruit to cook, dry, or to eat
raw. They used a liquid made from the flowers and leaves for medicinal
purposes [86]. In the spring the young vegetative sprouts can be cooked
and eaten; however, some caution should be used in eating elderberries
since other species in the genus contain a cyanogenetic glycoside and an
alkaloid that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal
pain [33,80]. The berries contain very little of these substances,
while the roots contain enough to cause death in hogs, and intermediate
amounts are found in the stems. A dye can be made from the bark and an
insecticide from the dried leaves of elderberry [60]. The name Sambucus
is derived from the Greek sambuca which was a stringed instrument
supposed to be made from elder wood. The hollow stems have been
fashioned into flutes and blowguns. The wood is hard and has been used
for combs, spindles, and pegs [49].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Browsing: Blue elderberry is persistent and recovers well from heavy
grazing in the Great Basin [43,58]. In Oregon grasslands grazing
pressure may cause it to decrease, and in the mountains of northern New
Mexico blue elderberry may increase from 5 percent to 20 percent under
grazing pressure on various sites [91].
Competition: In the Douglas-fir/twinflower-pinegrass (Pseudotsuga
menziesii/Linnaea borealis-Calamagrostis rubescens) habitat type,
clear-cutting or seed tree cutting with high soil surface disturbance
caused by dozer scarification and slash removal favors blue elderberry
and leads to a blue elderberry-prickly currant/elk sedge (Sambucus
cerulea-Ribes lacustre/Carex geyeri) seral community type [22].
Chemical control: Picloram pellets are moderately effective on blue
elderberry [8].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Blue elderberry is a short lived, shade intolerant (or slightly tolerant
[58]) shrub or small tree [50,61], usually between 6.5 to 13 feet (2 to
4 m) tall, but sometimes reaching 20 feet (6 m) [6,27]. Young twigs are
soft and pithy but the wood is quite hard [49] with grayish bark [76] or
thin, dark brown irregularly furrowed and ridged bark [56]. There may
be a thick taproot with fibrous, spreading, lateral roots [20,69]. The
leaves are opposite and odd-pinnate with five to nine serrate leaflets
[56]. The flowers are perfect, white or cream colored, and borne in a
cyme. The entire inflorescence is about 1.6 to 5.9 (7.9) inches (4 to
15 [20] cm) across and nearly flat topped. The fruit is globose, edible,
and blue-black with a glaucous bloom that makes it appear to be powder
blue [6,27,56].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Reproduction of blue elderberry is sexual through small nutlets, three
to five of which are contained in each edible, berrylike fruit [27,76].
There are good seed crops almost every year, and the seeds are dispersed
by birds and other animals that eat the fruit [20,86]. Seeds retain
their viability for up to 16 years in storage [20]. Blue elderberry
seeds have a hard seed coat and dormant embryos that delay germination
[58]. Heat treatment or sulfuric acid scarification and stratification
hasten germination. Detailed descriptions of seed gathering and
germination are in Schopmeyer [68], Heit [26], Landis and Simonich [38],
Shaw [69], and Stanton [75]. Without treatment, germination of
seedlings may be delayed from 2 to 5 years after planting.
Seedlings of blue elderberry develop extensively branched shoot systems
with numerous large leaves [69]. They also grow expansive root systems
that make it difficult to cultivate blue elderberry seedlings in seed
beds [38,69]. Seedlings may bloom and bear fruit by their 2nd or 3rd
year [16]. Plants can reach full size in 3 to 4 years in the
Intermountain region [58].
Vegetative reproduction is limited to vigorous coppicing if the stems
are killed or injured [61,90].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Blue elderberry prefers moist, well-drained sunny sites [9,76,75,90].
Thus it is found as a seral species on forested sites where it may
persist in openings, in ravines, and alongside roads in drier habitat
types, and as a riparian species in California's Central Valley and in
Arizona [2,4,16,25]. In the Northwest it grows in valley bottoms and on
open slopes with sufficient moisture [6,27]. It is the most common
elderberry in eastern Oregon and Washington and is generally found along
fence rows or in stream valleys [24]. In Utah it is found in the
riparian, sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), mountain brush, pinyon-juniper
(Pinus edulis-Juniperus utahensis), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),
aspen (Populus tremuloides), and spruce-fir (Picea engelmannii-Abies
lasiocarpa) communities [58,93]. Near the limits of its range it is
more restricted. In southeastern British Columbia and Vancouver Island
it is found only in the valley bottoms where the growing seasons are
longer [20]. In western Colorado it grows along creeks, in valleys, and
at the base of cliffs [23]. In Arizona it is found locally in boreal,
riparian shrublands and becomes more important below 8,500 feet (2,591
m) [4]. In general, blue elderberry is more common on warmer sites than
the closely related red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), although their
preferred sites overlap [34].
Soils: Blue elderberry grows on a variety of soils from gravelly or
stony [28] to heavy clay loam [11]. However, growth is good on loam,
and sandy loam soils; fair to good on sand; fair to poor on clay or
gravel and poor on dense clay. There is no consensus about elderberry's
growth on organic and acidic soils; however, there is agreement that it
grows poorly on saline, sodic, and saline-sodic soils, and optimum soil
depth is given as 20+ inches (51 cm) [10]. Mueggler [50] found that
elderberries were associated with soils that contained 5.6 to 8.0+
percent organic matter.
Elevation: Blue elderberry is most common from sea level to moderate
elevations in the mountains [9,27]. However, it grows to 10,000 feet in
California (3,048 m) [54] and 9,514 feet (2,900 m) in the Pacific
Northwest [6]. In western Colorado it is reported at 5,500 to 8,000
feet (1,692 to 2,438 m) [23].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Blue elderberry is a short lived seral species that is shade intolerant
[50,61] or slightly shade tolerant [58]. It is a component of the seral
shrub field complex that can inhibit tree regeneration following fire in
moist Northwest forests but it is seldom a primary competitor
[7,20,50]. In an Idaho study elderberries were absent from stands
where over 40 years had passed since fire [50]. In open forests,
woodlands, chaparral or riparian zones, blue elderberry can remain in
the community, usually as scattered individuals rather than assuming
dominance [2,4,16,25,51,52].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
The average dates of phenological events in Montana and Idaho are presented
below [67].
Average Date Average Date
West of the East of the
Continental Divide Continental Divide
Leaf Buds Burst 4/30 6/1
Leaves Full Grown 6/4 6/28
Flowers Start 6/2 6/27
Flowers End 6/28 7/16
Fruits Ripe 8/21 8/22
Seed Fall Starts 9/18
Leaves Start to
Color and Wither 8/31
Leaves Begin to Fall 9/19
Leaves Fallen 10/12 9/20
In Idaho May to July is the flowering time [56]. In California bloom is
from June to September with fruiting in September [54]. In Utah bloom
occurs in July and August with fruiting from August to October [86].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Blue elderberry is fire tolerant [1]. Although blue elderberry is
favored by fire, its frequency and cover remain relatively low in most
areas where it has been studied [30,50,79]. In Utah [158 blue elderberry
is often prominent in burned areas where it establishes from dormant
seed.
Blue elderberry is able to resprout [61,75,90], and seed buried in seed
banks germinates following fire [26]. Since it is short lived and shade
intolerant, blue elderberry is usually absent from the understory of
closed-canopy forests before fire occurs and must rely on seed banks for
regeneration. There may also be occasional sprouts where plants had been
growing in openings in the prefire forest [45]. Idaho studies found
elderberry seeds consistently throughout seed bank samples despite the
lack of elderberry plants in the forest understory [34,35,45]. Viable
seed was found to a depth of 3.9 inches (10 cm) [35]. In the Blue
Mountains of Oregon elderberry seed was not consistently present in
samples from different stands in mixed forests, and it was found in the
top 0.8 inches (2.0 cm) [83].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
taxon may occur by entering the plant name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire effects vary with season, severity and intensity, site
characteristics, and the age and vigor of the plants; however, fire
generally kills aboveground parts of blue elderberry which then sprout
vigorously from the root crown [40,61,78]. A severe fire might expose
and kill the root and stem buds from which sprouting occurs. Fire also
scarifies buried seed, and germination usually occurs the first growing
season following the fire [26,45].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Blue elderberry can respond to fire by resprouting, although only one
fire study in California chaparral shows blue elderberry relying on
resprouting [66]. In that study no seedlings of elderberry were found.
Fire also scarifies the hard seed coat and stimulates germination of
buried seeds [26,75,94]. Buried seeds respond to fire very quickly. In
northern Idaho elderberry seedlings established the first growing season
after the fire [45]. There were no new seedlings after that year.
There was some resprouting of shrubs that had been growing in stand
openings as well. In Oregon [46,47,79] blue elderberry responded from
buried seed more strongly on logged and burned plots than on logged but
unburned plots. Blue elderberry dominated several burned plots and only
one or two unburned plots during the 3rd to 5th growing seasons. Other
shrubs were dominant by the 11th to 16th seasons [47,78].
The severity of the fire appeared to make little or no difference to the
frequency of elderberry seedlings in studies of high and low severity
burns after clearcutting in northern Idaho [45,50].
Repeated fires may reduce elderberry [50]. Isaac [30] stated that blue
elderberry spread slowly by seed and so was eliminated by a second fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea
REFERENCES :
1. Aro, Richard S. 1971. Evaluation of pinyon-juniper conversion to
grassland. Journal of Range Management. 24(2): 188-197. [355]
2. Belluomini, Linda; Trapp, Gene R. 1984. Ringtail distribution and
abundance in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press: 906-914. [5880]
3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
4. Brown, David E.; Lowe, Charles H.; Hausler, Janet F. 1977. Southwestern
riparian communities: their biotic importance and management in Arizona.
In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance,
preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium:
Proceedings; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 201-211. [5348]
5. Carson, Robert G.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1989. Creating riparian wildlife
habitat along a Columbia River impoundment in northcentral Washington.
In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R.,
compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and
biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 64-69. [5924]
6. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others].
1984. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West,
U.S.A. Vol. 4. Subclass Asteridae, (except Asteraceae). New York: The
New York Botanical Garden. 573 p. [718]
7. Daubenmire, Rexford F.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of
eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Technical Bulletin 60. Pullman,
WA: Washington State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 104 p.
[749]
8. Davis, E. A.; Gottfried, G. J. 1983. Picloram pellets control New Mexico
locust sprouts on a cleared forest site in Arizona. Down to Earth.
39(1): 18-21. [6827]
9. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
10. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information
network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
11. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at
the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
13. Ferguson, Robert B.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1985. Reclamation on Utah's
Emery and Alton coal fields: techniques and plant materials. Res. Pap.
INT-335. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 78 p. [917]
14. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
15. Goldner, Bernard H. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts associated with
structurally modified flood control channels. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 445-451. [5852]
16. Goldner, Bernard H. 1988. The Alamitos Creek revegetation project-the
lessons learned. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds.
Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987
April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin -
Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 185-192.
[4113]
17. Gordon, Aaron; Sampson, Arthur W. 1939. Composition of common California
foothill plants as a factor in range management. Bull. 627. Berkeley,
CA: University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 95 p. [3864]
18. Gray, M. Violet; Greaves, James M. 1984. Riparian forest as habitat for
the least Bell's vireo. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M.,
eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive
management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis,
CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 605-611. [5862]
19. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions
toward a flora of Nevada No. 49. Beltsville, MD: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops
Research Division. 170 p. [6729]
20. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D. 1986. Autecological characteristics of
selected species that compete with conifers in British Columbia: a
literature review. Land Management Report No. 33. Victoria, BC: Ministry
of Forests, Information Services Branch. 180 p. [1055]
21. Hall, Frederick C. 1984. Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific
Northwest plant associations. R6 Ecol 173-1984. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 83
p. [7650]
22. Hann, Wendel John. 1982. A taxonomy for classification of seral
vegetation of selected habitat types in western Montana. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho. 235 p. Dissertation. [1073]
23. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed.
Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]
24. Hayes, G. L. 1959. Forest and forest-land problems of southwestern
Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 54 p. [8595]
25. Hehnke, Merlin; Stone, Charles P. 1979. Value of riparian vegetation to
avian populations along the Sacramento River Sy. In: Johnson, R. Roy;
McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for protection
and management of floodplain wetlands & other riparian ecosystems: Proc.
of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. General
Technical Report WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 228-235. [4363]
26. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six
hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45.
[1120]
27. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular
plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through
Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.
[1170]
28. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
29. Hungerford, Roger D. 1984. Native shrubs: suitability for revegetating
road cuts in northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. INT-331. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [1220]
30. Isaac, Leo A. 1940. Vegetative succession following logging in the
Douglas-fir region with special reference to fire. Journal of Forestry.
38: 716-721. [4964]
31. Katibah, Edwin F.; Nedeff, Nicole E.; Dummer, Kevin J. 1984. Summary of
riparian vegetation aerial and linear extent measurements from the
Central Valley Riparian Mapping Project. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 46-50. [5824]
32. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
33. Kingsbury, John M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and
Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 626 p. [122]
34. Kramer, Neal B. 1984. Mature forest seed banks on three habitat types in
central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 106 p. Thesis. [1375]
35. Kramer, Neal B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of
three habitat types in central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65:
1961-1966. [3961]
36. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
37. Kufeld, Roland C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal
of Range Management. 26(2): 106-113. [1385]
38. Landis, Thomas D.; Simonich, Edward J. 1984. Producing native plants as
container seedlings. In: Murphy, Patrick M., compiler. The challenge of
producing native plants for the Intermountain area: proceedings:
Intermountain Nurseryman's Association 1983 conference; 1983 August
8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 16-25. [6849]
39. Lines, Ivan L., Jr.; Carlson, Jack R.; Corthell, Robert A. 1979.
Repairing flood-damaged streams in the Pacific Northwest. In: Johnson,
R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for
protection and management of floodplain wetlands & other riparian
ecosystems: Proc. of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway
Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 195-200. [4361]
40. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
41. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
42. Mason, Herbert L. 1957. A flora of the marshes of California. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press. 878 p. [16905]
43. Monsen, Stephen B. 1984. Use of shrubs on mine spoils. In: Murphy, P.
M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the
Intermountain area: Proceedings: Intermountain Nurseryman's Association
1983 conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 26-31. [6847]
44. Monsen, Stephen B. 1987. Shrub selections for pinyon-juniper plantings.
In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper
conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station: 316-329. [4925]
45. Morgan, Penelope; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1988. Shrub response to high
and low severity burns following clearcutting in northern Idaho. Western
Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(1): 5-9. [3895]
46. 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]
47. Morris, William G. 1970. Effects of slash burning in overmature stands
of the Douglas-fir region. Forest Science. 16(3): 258-270. [4810]
48. Moss, E. H. 1959. Flora of Alberta. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press. 546 p. [8948]
49. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
50. Mueggler, Walter F. 1965. Ecology of seral shrub communities in the
cedar-hemlock zone of northern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 35:
165-185. [4016]
51. Mueggler, Walter F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain
Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-250. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 135 p.
[5902]
52. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1982. Aspen community
types on the Caribou and Targhee National Forests in southeastern Idaho.
Res. Pap. INT-294. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.
[1713]
53. Mueggler, Walter F.; Campbell, Robert B., Jr. 1986. Aspen community
types of Utah. Res. Pap. INT-362. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 69 p.
[1714]
54. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
55. Ourecky, D. K. 1970. Chromosome morphology in the genus Sambucus.
American Journal of Botany. 57(3): 239-244. [6721]
56. Patterson, Patricia A.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Tonn, Jonalea. 1985. Field
guide to forest plants of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-180.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 246 p. [1839]
57. Peck, Morton E. 1941. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Portland,
OR: Binfords & Mort. 800 p. [12444]
58. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.
Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah
Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
59. Plummer, A. Perry; Hull, A. C., Jr.; Stewart, George; Robertson, Joseph
H. 1955. Seeding rangelands in Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho and western
Wyoming. Agric. Handb. 71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 p. [11736]
60. Powell, David C. 1988. Aspen community types of the Pike and San Isabel
National Forests in south-central Colorado. R2-ECOL-88-01. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
254 p. [15285]
61. Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa
State College Press. 371 p. [1913]
62. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
63. Ritter, C. M.; McKee, G. W. 1964. The elderberry, history,
classification and culture. Pa. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 709 22 pgs. [1221]
64. Robinette, Sadie L. 1974. Checkerberry wintergreen (Gaultheria
procembens L. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M., compiler (also
revised). 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: 20-22. [10109]
65. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range
brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment
Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]
66. Sauer, Jonathan D. 1977. Fire history, environmental patterns, and
species patterns in Santa Monica Mountain chaparral. In: Mooney, Harold
A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symp.
of the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in
Mediterranean ecosystems; 1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service: 383-386. [4866]
67. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest
flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082]
68. Schopmeyer, C. S. 1974. Nemopanthus mucronatus (L.) Trel.
Mountain-holly. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the
United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington: U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 553. [7713]
69. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In:
Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for
the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's
Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]
70. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
71. Smith, Arthur D. 1950. Feeding deer on browse species during winter.
Journal of Range Management. 3(2): 130-132. [68]
72. Smith, Arthur D. 1952. Digestibility of some native forages for mule
deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 16(3): 309-312. [2160]
73. Smith, Arthur D. 1953. Consumption of native forage species by captive
mule deer during summer. Journal of Range Management. 6: 30-37. [2161]
74. Smith, Arthur D.; Hubbard, Richard L. 1954. Preference ratings for
winter deer forages from northern Utah ranges based on browsing time and
forage consumed. Journal of Range Management. 7: 262-265. [2163]
75. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation.
Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 90 p. [2221]
76. Stark, N. 1966. Review of highway planting information appropriate to
Nevada. Bull. No. B-7. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of
Agriculture, Desert Research Institute. 209 p. In cooperation with:
Nevada State Highway Department. [47]
77. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1987. The grand fir/blue
huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-228. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 66 p. [8133]
78. Steen, Harold K. 1965. Variation in vegetation following slash fires.
Res. Note PNW-25. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
[4797]
79. Steen, Harold K. 1966. Vegetation following slash fires in one western
Oregon locality. Northwest Science. 40(3): 113-120. [5671]
80. Stephens, H. A. 1980. Poisonous plants of the central United States.
Lawrence, KS: The Regents Press of Kansas. 165 p. [3803]
81. Stevens, Richard; Davis, James N. 1985. Opportunities for improving
forage production in the Gambel oak types of Utah. In: Johnson, Kendall
L., ed. Proceedings, 3rd Utah shrub ecology workshop; 1983 August 30-31;
Provo, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural
Resources: 37-41. [3085]
82. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
83. Strickler, Gerald S.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1976. Emergent seedlings from
coniferous litter and soil in eastern Oregon. Ecology. 57: 801-807.
[2039]
84. Strahan Jan. 1984. Regeneration of riparian forests of the Central
Valley. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California
riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management:
Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 58-67. [5825]
85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
86. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 1976. Some important native shrubs of the
west. Ogden, UT. 16 p. [2388]
87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 1974.
Elk-logging-roads study providing tentative guidelines for use by
resource managers. News from the Forest Service. R1-1155:081674.
Missoula, MT: [pages unknown]. [16523]
88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
89. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
90. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
91. Van Dyne, George M.; Payne, Gene F., compilers. 1964. Grazing responses
of western range plants. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Department
of Animal and Range Sciences. 69 p. [2418]
92. Warner, Richard E. 1984. Structural, floristic, and condition inventory
of central valley riparian systems. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix,
Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation,
and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September
17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 356-374.
[5840]
93. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
94. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
95. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range
habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bull. No. 9. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. [6831]
96. Zamora, Benjamin Abel. 1975. Secondary succession on broadcast-burned
clearcuts of the Abies grandis - Pachistima myrsinites habitat type in
northcentral Idaho. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 127 p.
Dissertation. [5154]
97. ITIS Database. 2004. Integrated taxonomic information system, [Online].
Available: http://www.itis.usda.gov/index.html. [51776]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/samnigc/all.html
