Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

Acer grandidentatum

• INTRODUCTORY
• DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
• BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• FIRE ECOLOGY
• FIRE EFFECTS
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
• REFERENCES

INTRODUCTORY

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Tollefson, Jennifer E. 2006. Acer grandidentatum. 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/tree/acegra/all.html [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
ACEGRA

SYNONYMS:
For bigtooth maple:
Acer saccharum Marsh. subsp. grandidentatum (T. & G.) Desmarais [34,81,160]
Acer saccharum Marsh. subsp. grandidentatum (Nutt.) Desmarais [31,65]
Acer saccharum var. grandidentatum (Nutt.) Sudw. [31,65,81,160]

For canyon maple:
Acer saccharum Marsh. var. sinuosum (Rehd.) Sarg. [65,81]
Acer sinuosum Rehd. [65,81]

NRCS PLANT CODE [151]:
ACGR3

COMMON NAMES:
bigtooth maple
canyon maple
western sugar maple

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of bigtooth maple is Acer grandidentatum Nutt. (Aceraceae) [31,61,65,66,67,81,158,160]. There are 2 varieties:

Acer grandidentatum Nutt. var. grandidentatum [65], bigtooth maple
Acer grandidentatum Nutt. var. sinuosum (Rehd.) Little [39,65,81,153], canyon maple

A more detailed discussion of bigtooth maple taxonomy, including its relationship to eastern sugar maple (Acer saccharum), can be found in [52].

LIFE FORM:
Tree-shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
Information on state-level protected status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database.

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

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

ECOSYSTEMS [50]:
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper

STATES/PROVINCES: (key to state/province abbreviations)
UNITED STATES

United States
Arizona:

• bigtooth maple community type [142]
• Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)/bigtooth maple habitat type [2,97,98]
• ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/bigtooth maple habitat type [97,98]
• white fir (Abies concolor)/bigtooth maple habitat type [2,19,35,46,92,98,138,141]

Idaho:

• bigtooth maple community type [56]
• bigtooth maple montane forest alliance [115]
• narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)/bigtooth maple community type [62,104]

Nevada:

• bigtooth maple cover type [29]

New Mexico:

• bigtooth maple community type [142]
• white fir/bigtooth maple habitat type [1,2,19,35,46,92,138,141]

Texas:

• Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica)/bigtooth maple habitat type [90]
• bigtooth maple-Buckley oak-chinkapin oak (Quercus buckleyi-Q. muehlenbergii) forest alliance [115]
• bigtooth maple-Lacey oak (Q. laceyi)-Buckley oak forest [123]
• bigtooth maple montane forest alliance [115]
• bigtooth maple-oak series [145]

Utah:

• bigtooth maple cover type [29]
• bigtooth maple montane forest alliance [115]
• Douglas-fir/bigtooth maple habitat type [21]
• Gambel oak (Q. gambelii)-bigtooth maple community type [3]
• maple brush community [114]
• narrowleaf cottonwood/bigtooth maple community type [104]
• quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)/bigtooth maple/bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) community type [96]

Wyoming:

• bigtooth maple cover type [29]
• bigtooth maple montane forest alliance [115]

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

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

Bigtooth maple is a deciduous, small tree or shrub of variable size. Its life form is dependent upon the moisture regime [40]. In canyon bottoms and along streams it grows as a tree with single or multiple trunks reaching 50 feet (15 m) tall and 1 foot (30 cm) in diameter, while on dry canyon slopes it grows as a shrub with 2 or more stems reaching 26 feet (8 m) tall [11,14,31,66,67,108,149,160].

Bigtooth maple leaves are palmately lobed, 1 to 4 inches (2.5-10 cm) wide, and pubescent beneath [31,66,160]. Plants usually flower every 2 or 3 years [13]. Flowers are umbellate or corymbose and have no petals. The fruit is a dry, indehiscent, double-winged samara, each side with 1 small seed 0.16 to 0.20 inch long. The ovary and young fruit have long, straight hairs [31,58,61,66,107,160]. Twigs are glabrous and the bark is thin and smooth or flaky [148,153]. Bigtooth maple has both lateral surface roots and a deep tap root. An extensive root system develops during the first growing season. Reproduction by layering of the lower branches extends the root system radially [11,27].

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Bigtooth maple reproduces sexually and vegetatively. Reproduction by seed is important for establishment of bigtooth maple in new areas. Layering is common in older plants and is a more effective method of reproduction in the mountain brush zone in central Utah [27,28,101]. Bigtooth maple also sprouts from the root crown [49].

Pollination: Bigtooth maple flowers are wind pollinated [58,102,107]. In a northern Utah study, insects visited male flowers but there was no evidence of insect pollination [13].

Breeding system: Flowers are either male or female. Plants may bear male flowers only or produce both male and female flowers on the same inflorescence [13,58,76,80,107]. Flowers may be bisexual initially, with ultimate sex expression linked to environmental factors such as moisture or temperature. Flower sex ratios differ between mesic and xeric sites and also from year to year in response to climatic changes. In northern Utah, plants produced more female flowers during wet years and on mesic sites and more male flowers during dry years and on dry sites [13]. Schlessman [121] argues that the evidence for sex conversion in bigtooth maple is inconclusive, suggesting instead that some trees in a monoecious population may produce only male flowers under poor conditions.

Seed production: Bigtooth maple produces an estimated 235,000 samaras per acre in the mountain brush zone in central Utah. In most double samaras, only one ovary contains a developed seed [28]. Seed production varied with elevation in northern Utah. Seed filled samaras were most abundant between 5,900 and 6,200 feet (1,800-1,900 m) and least abundant below 5,300 feet (1,600 m) and above 6,500 feet (2,000 m) [11]. Bigtooth maple produces many more seeds than Gambel oak, giving it a reproductive advantage in the mountain brush zone [28,101].

Seed dispersal: Bigtooth maple seeds are dispersed by wind and gravity [58,107]. Wind dispersed samaras are important for successful establishment of bigtooth maple in new areas, particularly on shady sites [28,149].

Seed banking: Although bigtooth maple occurred in the extant vegetation at two sites in the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona, it was not present in the soil seed bank at either site [117]. No other information on seed banking in bigtooth maple is available.

Seed viability: Viability of bigtooth maple seeds is low. Out of 412 mature samaras examined in the mountain brush zone of central Utah, no viable embryos were found [28]. Weevil and moth larvae infestation contribute to seed mortality [11,76,149]. Bigtooth maple is, for example, a host plant for Phyllotrox canyonaceris, a weevil that develops in the seeds. Adults lay eggs directly on the seed in the spring and larvae emerge in August. Larvae are most abundant in seeds in early summer [157].

Germination: Germination in bigtooth maple is epigeal and generally occurs in April and May [28]. Soaking in cold water and exposure to cold temperatures stimulate germination [131,147]. In a greenhouse study, 50% of samaras stratified in moist soil at 40 °F (4.4 °C) for 4 weeks germinated. Only 8% of samaras not subjected to cold treatment germinated [28]. In a study of seed viability, 8.7% of bigtooth maple seeds remained viable after storage at 68 °F (20°C) for 25 days [144].

Seedling establishment/growth: Bigtooth maple samaras exhibit better establishment in new areas than under parent trees where layering is more common [28]. Herbaceous vegetation beneath Gambel oak is often less dense than under bigtooth maple, allowing for easier establishment of bigtooth maple seedlings [101]. Seedling growth in bigtooth maple is slow, especially during the first few growing seasons [131,139]. In a greenhouse study, seedlings averaged 5 inches (13 cm) after 4 months [144]. In another study, seedlings grew only 2 inches (5 cm) in the first growing season [11]. Chilling treatments can accelerate seedling growth [131].

Mature bigtooth maple samaras were stored for 3 months in a dry, cool room, stratified in moist soil at 40 °F (4.4 °C) for 4 weeks, then placed in a greenhouse for 3 months. Seedlings emerged during the first 5 weeks after the flats were placed in the greenhouse. Of single samaras, 30.6% developed into "normal" seedlings [28]. Seedling mortality under field conditions is very high. Although bigtooth maple seedlings can grow under the dense canopy of mature Gambel oak and bigtooth maple [26], only 0.47% of seedlings survived for 5 growing seasons and only 1 new seedling was observed during this time period in an exclosure in Pole Canyon, Utah [28]:

Information on propagation and transplanting is available [11,70,126,144,146,149].

Vegetative regeneration: Bigtooth maple reproduces vegetatively by layering [101] or by sprouting from the root crown when stems are broken off by flooding, beavers, fire, or other disturbances [49,58]. Layering is the most effective means of reproduction in bigtooth maple in the mountain brush zone of central Utah. In a study in Pole Canyon, 1,680 stems per acre originated through layering [28]. In another Pole Canyon study, bigtooth maple vegetative growth from layering made up 78.5% of the total understory canopy coverage of a Gambel oak-bigtooth maple community [42]. Clipping of buds, leaves and stems stimulates production of new growth in bigtooth maple [156].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Bigtooth maple has a broad ecological amplitude [59]. It occurs on a wide range of sites with different aspects, soil types, and soil moisture conditions [11]. Throughout its range it is most often located on cool, moist sites in canyons, ravines, along mountain streams, and on lower slopes [1,3,10,11,28,31,34,60,66]. Physiological research, however, shows that bigtooth maple can grow with oaks on drier, open slopes because it is relatively tolerant of low water potentials [40].

When bigtooth maple grows together with Gambel oak, it occupies ravines while Gambel oak occupies the slopes. When oak is absent, maples occupy the drier sites as well as the moist ravines [76]. It occupies cool, shaded draws and intermittent stream drainages in the high mountains and plateaus of central and southern Arizona and southern New Mexico [19,80] and has been classified as an obligate riparian species in New Mexico [38]. It is more abundant in the bottom than in the top of snow-melt drainages on the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona [84]. In Idaho, it grows on hillsides, below springs and seeps, and on secondary floodplains of narrow canyon drainages [56]. In Texas, it grows in limestone canyons, along creeks, on canyon slopes, and on floodplain terraces [37,39,51,112,162]. It is primarily a riparian species in Utah, but is also found throughout the mountain brush zone and in white fir and Douglas-fir forests. It is found on upper slopes in the Wasatch Mountains, although it is more common on mesic, north-facing slopes than on drier south-facing slopes [40,43,44,103].

Soils: Bigtooth maple is adapted to a range of soil depths and a variety of soil textures including silt loam, clay loam, sand, gravel, and cobble. It prefers moist, well-drained soil [56,66,69,105,139]. Plants can grow in both moderately acidic and alkaline soils in the 6.0 to 8.0 pH range [11,14,110,139]. In north-central Utah it is abundant on calcium-rich soils [149].

Moisture: Bigtooth maple is drought tolerant [11,14,131,139,149]. Plants require 16 to 20 inches (40-50 cm) of annual precipitation [32,105]. In southeastern Idaho, the water table is generally well below the surface where bigtooth maple grows but may occur within 24 inches (60 cm) [56]. In Red Butte Canyon, Utah, precipitation is the most important water source for small trees (<20 cm DBH) located away from the stream, while the stream is the major water source for small trees located adjacent to the stream. Larger trees (>20 cm DBH) do not use stream water even if they grow adjacent to the stream. Roots are distributed throughout the soil profile but active sites of water absorption are in the deep soil horizons [47]. The effects of flooding on bigtooth maple are unclear. One source states that plants are intolerant of "prolonged or frequent flooding" [56], while another states that bigtooth maple can withstand flooding for most of one growing season [155].

Temperature: Bigtooth maple is cold hardy to at least -31 °F (-35 °C) and tolerates summer temperatures above 100 °F (38 °C) [11,14,131].

Bigtooth maple commonly invades Gambel oak stands in Utah and northern Arizona [42,59]. The general trend in these mountain brush communities is toward an increase in bigtooth maple in the canopy along with a decrease in Gambel oak. In a grazing exclosure in Pole Canyon, bigtooth maple increased from 52% to 64% cover between 1949 and 1967 while Gambel oak decreased from 26% to 23% cover [42]. In a review of the literature, Harper and others [59] state that stream courses, slope bases, and intermittent drainages serve as sites from which bigtooth maple can invade upland Gambel oak stands. Because bigtooth maple leafs and flowers earlier and grows faster in stem and crown diameter than Gambel oak, it becomes more important in the canopy over time [26,42]. On some sites, it may eventually replace Gambel oak [73,101,103]. Bigtooth maple is the dominant climax species in many maple-oak woodlands from north-central Utah to south-central Idaho [21].

On cooler sites, bigtooth maple may replace Gambel oak, but further succession could lead to dominance by white fir [42,59]. In Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Idaho, bigtooth maple occurs as a shade-tolerant, seral understory tree or shrub in Douglas-fir, white fir, and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) habitat types [21,35,46,85,135]. In Douglas-fir habitat types in Utah, bigtooth maple sprouts are likely to form a dense canopy after fire. Douglas-fir will eventually dominate the canopy, but bigtooth maple often remains in the understory for many years [21].

In Green Canyon near Logan, Utah, leaf development proceeded as follows [25]:

Samaras begin to form in May and mature by August or September  [28,42,120]. Samaras drop from the trees between mid-August and early October [42].

FIRE ECOLOGY

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

Fire regimes: Fire plays a role in many plant communities where bigtooth maple is a common or dominant species. Bigtooth maple is, for example, an important component of montane riparian communities in the Intermountain West and southwest United States. These moist sites burn less frequently than nearby uplands [46,91]. In Big Bend National Park, Texas, fire-scarred Arizona cypress trees provided evidence of historic fire in an Arizona cypress/bigtooth maple canyon bottom community, but fire dates could not be determined [90]. In riparian deciduous forests in the Central Texas Hill Country, fire frequency is "low" to "very low." Crown fires may occur during drought or at long return intervals [36,37].

Bigtooth maple is also a dominant species in montane maple-oak woodlands. In Utah, fire frequency in these communities is low. Historically, more extensive grass cover allowed more frequent fires that inhibited the establishment of Gambel oak and bigtooth maple seedlings and killed smaller stems along the edges of existing clones. Due to a combination of fire suppression, cessation of livestock grazing, and climatic changes, however, Gambel oak and bigtooth maple have increased in these communities. As bigtooth maple increases in the canopy, stands become less susceptible to fire. Shading by bigtooth maple foliage prevents the buildup of understory fuels. Bigtooth maple leaf litter decomposes rapidly, which results in lower surface-fuel loads, making fire spread difficult [21,119].

The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where bigtooth maple is important. Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".

FIRE EFFECTS

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

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No additional information is available on this topic.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
There is little information about immediate or long-term postfire response in bigtooth maple. Limited research suggests that bigtooth maple can survive low- and moderate-severity burns but may be killed by a severe burn [49,58]. In a field experiment near Logan, Utah, clipping of buds, leaves and stems stimulated production of new growth in bigtooth maple. Loss of buds and other plant tissue, therefore, does not cause a meristematic constraint that limits production of new growth, suggesting that bigtooth maple can recover from tissue loss after a fire [156]. In Ephraim Canyon, Utah, bigtooth maple sprouted "vigorously" from the root crown following prescribed burning in the mountain brush vegetation type. There was no mortality in the individuals observed [49].

Fire does not significantly change the species composition in bigtooth maple and Gambel oak stands in the oakbrush vegetation type in Utah [74]. Burned stands "return quickly" to prefire species composition [73]. Bigtooth maple may become more important in the canopy after fire. A severe fire can spread quickly through Gambel oak and bigtooth maple canopy during dry, windy weather and on steep terrain. After a stand- replacing fire, sprouts of Gambel oak and bigtooth maple appear within a few weeks. Dense clones develop until some stems gain dominance and increase in diameter. With self-thinning, the clones open up, allowing understory production to increase. Although maple and oak codominate in the canopy at this point, oak seedlings are eventually shaded out and maple seedlings and sprouts from stem layering dominate the understory. Over time, bigtooth maple becomes the canopy dominant [21].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
No additional information is available on this topic.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
The mountain brush vegetation type, dominated by Gambel oak and bigtooth maple, is important for big game winter range in Utah [73]. Prescribed burning can be used to top-kill bigtooth maple and Gambel oak to open up dense stands for easier big game access [74]. Because mature bigtooth maple stands have sparse understories and therefore reduced surface fuel loads to carry fire, burning should take place before maple clones become large [21]. Seeding of mountain brome (Bromus carinatus var. marginatus) and other grasses following burning or mechanical removal of brush reduces the regrowth of bigtooth maple and Gambel oak [111].

Because flames can spread quickly through Gambel oak and bigtooth maple canopy during dry, windy weather and on steep terrain, fuel reduction is recommended for property owners in the oak-maple zone in Utah [21]. The white fir/bigtooth maple habitat type in Arizona and New Mexico may be important as a fire barrier since it generally occurs along streams in mountain canyons [46].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

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

Lower elevation Gambel oak-bigtooth maple communities in Utah are regularly used by big game animals for winter range [74,111]. Throughout its range, bigtooth maple provides foraging, nesting, and roosting habitat for a variety of birds [58,99]. Bigtooth maple seeds are an important food source for many wildlife species [56,75]. Squirrels and chipmunks eat maple seeds, storing them in caches after removing the hull and wing [83].

In Arizona and New Mexico, the white fir/bigtooth maple habitat type typically occurs along stream courses. These riparian areas are considered high quality fish and wildlife habitat [46]. Bigtooth maple is a dominant species in broadleaf riparian woodlands in Arizona which are used by a variety of wildlife including canyon tree frog, leopard frog, Mexican garter snake, Arizona alligator lizard, Sonoran mud turtle, zone-tailed hawk, pygmy owl, downy woodpecker, western flycatcher, red-faced warbler, American dipper, Bullock's oriole, valley pocket gopher, Arizona gray squirrel, black bear, and raccoon [22,116].

Palatability/nutritional value: The palatability of bigtooth maple for livestock and game species is generally poor to fair [41]. Bigtooth maple is less palatable to elk and moose than Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum) [56] and is undesirable for domestic sheep and deer on Utah rangelands [152]. Although mule deer generally prefer bigtooth maple over Gambel oak in the southwestern United States [110,130], bigtooth maple ranked 24th in preference out of 32 plants eaten by mule deer in the summer in northern Utah [128]. Palatability of bigtooth maple for mule deer and cattle on the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona is 5% (palatability is based on the amount of leaves and annual shoot growth consumed) [64].

Honey bees near Tuscon, Arizona, preferred bigtooth maple pollen over pollens of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), dandelion (Taraxacum spp.) and aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis). Bigtooth maple had the highest protein content (>25%) of any of these species, although the effect of protein content on preference in this study was not clear [122].

Palatability of bigtooth maple in 2 western states has been rated as follows [41]:

The protein value of bigtooth maple forage is rated as "poor" and the energy value is rated as "fair" [41]. Crude protein concentration was 9.5% and in-vitro organic matter digestibility was 58.5% in bigtooth maple leaves harvested in mid-September after tissue growth ceased but before the first frost. Mastication of bigtooth maple leaves by cattle resulted in lower tannin levels and significantly (P<0.05) higher crude protein content compared to unmasticated controls [24]. In-vitro organic matter digestibility of leaves decreases as the growing season progresses [25].

Cover value: Bigtooth maple provides cover for a variety of livestock and wildlife species in canyon bottoms, along riparian zones, and where it occurs in uplands [56,58,63,75]. In the Great Basin, bigtooth maple copses provide cover and bedding grounds for mule deer [76]. In central and southern Arizona and southern New Mexico, the dense cover in white fir-bigtooth maple forests serves as excellent black bear habitat [19]. Although white fir-bigtooth maple forest occurred on only 1% of a study area on the Mogollon Plateau, Arizona, it accounted for 12% of black bear use. The thicker cover created by this forest type provides females with better security than adjacent, open, ponderosa pine ridgetops [93]. Overall, however, bigtooth maple provides poorer cover for large animals than Gambel oak because the leaves fall earlier in the autumn and maple tends to form dense, self-pruning stands [59].

Of the 392 bird species known from Utah, 67 were found feeding and/or nesting in oakbrush habitat dominated by Gambel oak, bigtooth maple, and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) in the Wasatch Mountains. California quail, ring-necked pheasant, scrub jay, black-billed magpie, black-capped chickadee, and rufous-sided towhee are all permanent residents of this habitat [82]. Twelve percent of sharp-shinned hawk nests documented in a Utah study were located in bigtooth and Rocky Mountain maple trees [109]. In southern Utah, Mexican spotted owls roost in riparian deciduous woodlands in steep canyons where bigtooth maple is a dominant species [161,163]. In snow-melt drainages on the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona, red-faced and orange-crowned warblers prefer mesic sites dominated by bigtooth maple and small firs (Pseudostuga menzeisii and Abies concolor) [84]. Ruffed and blue grouse use bigtooth maple stands in the spring, summer and fall on the Caribou National Forest in southeastern Idaho. Bigtooth maple provides nesting habitat for black-billed magpies [76] and is the preferred habitat of blue grouse in the summer [133,134].

The dense canopy formed by bigtooth maple in riparian zones provides shade and helps to maintain cooler stream temperatures for fish and other aquatic biota during hot summer months [56].

The cover value of bigtooth maple in 2 western states has been rated as follows [41]:

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Bigtooth maple has deep roots that can stabilize soil on roadcuts, streambanks, and other disturbed sites in the Intermountain West [56,70,86,94,110,136,149]. It is suitable for restoration planting in mountain brush, quaking aspen, and juniper-pinyon (Juniperus spp.-Pinus spp.) vegetation types in Utah [86]. Bigtooth maple is moderately valuable for range restoration in Utah [86] and is recommended for urban planting on the Colorado Great Plains [53]. Bigtooth maple can be used in restoration plantings on strip-mined areas and on denuded recreation sites [12]. It is best to transplant 2-year-old bare root stock or container-grown seedlings in the early spring when dormant [94]. Bigtooth maple can also be established by seed planted 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) deep in sunny areas and covered by straw mulch [149]. Information on commercial sources of bigtooth maple seed is available [139,150].

Wood Products: Bigtooth maple is a good source of fuelwood [58,63,67,80]. The wood is heavy and hot-burning and regenerates quickly after cutting [21,76,153]. The wood is used for posts, and small amounts can be sawed into lumber [63]. Commercial harvest, however, is not economically viable due to the restricted distribution of the species [35,46,75].

Logging activity that allows increased light in the understory accelerates growth and development of bigtooth maple. Although bigtooth maple can be a dominant species in logged areas, it does not restrict establishment of conifer seedlings [92].

Since mule deer prefer bigtooth maple over Gambel oak, managers may wish to maintain bigtooth maple stands in wintering areas [74]. In Arizona, mixed conifer-bigtooth maple communities with horizontal visibility <45 feet (14 m) should be created or preserved to provide secure cover for black bears [93]. Maintaining a diversity of stand ages benefits wildlife by providing a balance of forage and cover. Firewood cutting reduces bigtooth maple density in mature stands [21].

Bigtooth maple is a grazing increaser [105].

Information on the susceptibility of bigtooth maple to aerially applied herbicides is available [100].

Acer grandidentatum: REFERENCES

1. Alexander, Billy G., Jr.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.; Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Ludwig, John A. 1984. A classification of forest habitat types of the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-104. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [300]

2. Alexander, Robert R.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation on the national forests of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Note RM-469. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. [3515]

3. Allan, John S. 1962. The plant communities of the big cottonwood canyon drainage. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. 108 p. Thesis. [9104]

4. Allman, Verl Phillips. 1953. A preliminary study of the vegetation in an exclosure in the chaparral of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah. Utah Academy Proceedings. 30: 63-78. [9096]

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

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

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

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

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

10. Baker, Frederick S. 1925. Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain region. Department Bulletin No. 1291. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 47 p. [15589]

11. Barker, Philip A. 1975. Acer grandidentatum and its propagation. International Plant Propagators' Society, Proceedings. 25: 33-38. [9252]

12. Barker, Philip A. 1977. Canyon maple--a colorful mountaineer. American Forests. 83(12): 22-25. [9058]

13. Barker, Philip A.; Freeman, D. Carl; Harper, Kimball T. 1982. Variation in the breeding system of Acer grandidentatum. Forest Science. 28(3): 563-572. [9060]

14. Barker, Philip A.; Williams, C. Frank. 1977. Fall foliage coloration as an objective for genetic improvement of a Utah maple (Acer grandidentatum Nutt.). Hortscience. 12(4): 410. Abstract. [63098]

15. Barker, Phillip A.; Salunkhe, D. K. 1974. Maple syrup from bigtooth maple. Journal of Forestry. 72(8): 491-492. [9065]

16. Barrett, Stephen W. 1993. Fire regimes on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests north-central Idaho. Final Report: Order No. 43-0276-3-0112. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 21 p. [41883]

17. Barrett, Stephen W.; Arno, Stephen F.; Key, Carl H. 1991. Fire regimes of western larch - lodgepole pine forests in Glacier National Park, Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1711-1720. [17290]

18. Bartlein, Patrick J.; Whitlock, Cathy; Shafer, Sarah L. 1997. Future climate in the Yellowstone National Park region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conservation Biology. 11(3): 782-792. [40063]

19. Bassett, Dick; Larson, Milo; Moir, Will. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim and southwestern New Mexico. 2nd ed. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Variously paginated. [20308]

20. 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]

21. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18211]

22. 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 Station: 201-211. [5348]

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

24. Burritt, E. A.; Malechek, J. C.; Provenza, F. D. 1987. Changes in concentrations of tannins, total phenolics, crude protein, and IVOMD of browse due to mastication and insalivation by cattle. Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 409-411. [9757]

25. Burritt, E. A.; Pfister, J. A.; Malechek, J. C. 1988. Effect of drying method on the nutritive composition of esophageal fistula forage samples: influence of maturity. Journal of Range Management. 41(4): 346-349. [5239]

26. Christensen, Earl M. 1958. Growth rates and vegetation change in the oak-maple brush in lower Provo Canyon, Utah. Proceedings of Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 35: 167-168. [9635]

27. Christensen, Earl M. 1962. The root system of bigtooth maple. The Great Basin Naturalist. 22: 114-115. [9972]

28. Christensen, Earl M.; Nixon, Elray S. 1964. Observations on reproduction of bigtooth maple. Leaflets of Western Botany. 10(7): 97-99. [9200]

29. Collins, Ellen I. 1984. Preliminary classification of Wyoming plant communities. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Natural Heritage Program/The Nature Conservancy. 42 p. [661]

30. Cooper, Charles F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological Monographs. 30(2): 129-164. [3927]

31. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]

32. Davis, James N. 2004. Climate and terrain. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 33-38. [52821]

33. Dent, Thomas Curtis. 1969. Relationships of two isolated groups of sugar maple in central Oklahoma to eastern and western species. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. 50 p. Dissertation. [63099]

34. Desmarais, Yves. 1952. Dynamics of leaf variation in the sugar maples. Brittonia. 7(5): 347-387. [64555]

35. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A. 1983. Forest habitat types south of the Mogollon Rim, Arizona and New Mexico. Final report: Cooperative Agreement No. 28-K2-240. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 47 p. [780]

36. Diamond, David D. 1997. An old-growth definition for western juniper woodlands: Texas ashe juniper dominated or codominated communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-15. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 10 p. [28040]

37. Diamond, David D.; Rowell, Gareth A.; Keddy-Hector, Dean P. 1995. Conservation of Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei Buchholz) woodlands of the central Texas Hill Country. Natural Areas Journal. 15(2): 189-197. [26519]

38. Dick-Peddie, William A.; Hubbard, John P. 1977. Classification of riparian vegetation. 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, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 85-90. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5338]

39. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany, No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]

40. Dina, Stephen J.; Klikoff, Lionel G. 1973. Carbon dioxide exchange by several streamside and scrub oak community species of Red Butte. The American Midland Naturalist. 89(1): 70-80. [9102]

41. 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]

42. Eastmond, Robert J. 1968. Vegetational changes in a mountain brush community of Utah during eighteen years. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 64 p. Thesis. [9097]

43. Ehleringer, James R.; Arnow, Lois A.; Arnow, Ted; McNulty, Irving B.; Negus, Norman C. 1992. Red Butte Canyon Research Natural Area: history, flora, geology, climate, and ecology. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(2): 95-121. [19687]

44. Erdman, Kimball S. 1961. Distribution of the native trees of Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11(3): 1-34. [35781]

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

46. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206]

47. Flanagan, Lawrence B.; Ehleringer, James R.; Dawson, Todd E. 1992. Water sources of plants growing in woodland, desert, and riparian communities: evidence from stable isotope analysis. 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: 43-47. [19093]

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

49. Frischknecht, Neil C.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1955. A comparison of seeded grasses under grazing and protection on a mountain brush burn. Journal of Range Management. 8: 170-175. [979]

50. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

51. Gehlbach, Frederick R. 1967. Vegetation of the Guadalupe Escarpment, New Mexico-Texas. Ecology. 48(3): 404-419. [5149]

52. Gehlbach, Frederick R.; Gardner, Robert C. 1983. Relationships of sugar maples (Acer saccharum and A. grandidentatum) in Texas and Oklahoma with special reference to relict populations. Texas Journal of Science. 35(3): 231-237. [9103]

53. Gosnell, Ron. 1993. A Halloween tree killer. American Forests. 99(1&2): 34-36. [20049]

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

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

56. Hall, James B.; Hansen, Paul L. 1997. A preliminary riparian habitat type classification system for the Bureau of Land Management districts in southern and eastern Idaho. Tech. Bull. No. 97-11. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Riparian and Wetland Research Program. 381 p. [28173]

57. Halloran, Arthur F.; Glass, Bryan P. 1959. The carnivores and ungulates of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. Journal of Mammalogy. 40(3): 360-370. [24597]

58. Harper, K. T.; Sanderson, S. C.; McArthur, E. D. 1992. Riparian ecology in Zion National Park, Utah. 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: 32-42. [19092]

59. Harper, Kimball T.; Wagstaff, Fred J.; Kunzler, Lynn M. 1985. Biology management of the Gambel oak vegetative type: a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-179. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [3286]

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

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

62. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 141 p. [29900]

63. Johnson, Carl M. 1970. Common native trees of Utah. Special Report 22. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. [9785]

64. Julander, Odell. 1937. Utilization of browse by wildlife. In: Transactions of the 2nd North American Wildlife Conference. Washington, DC: American Wildlife Institute: 276-287. [25031]

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

66. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]

67. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]

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

69. Kelly, George W. 1970. A guide to the woody plants of Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing Co. 180 p. [6379]

70. Kjelgren, Roger; Rupp, Larry. 1997. Shelters affect tree seedling establishment under grass competition. Journal of Arboriculture. 23(4): 131-135. [63104]

71. 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]

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

73. Kunzler, L. M.; Harper, K. T.; Kunzler, D. B. 1981. Compositional similarity within the oakbrush type in central and northern Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(1): 147-153. [1390]

74. Kunzler, L. M. [n.d.]. Oakbrush management plan: Herber, Pleasant Grove, and Spanish Forks Ranger Districts, Uinta National Forest. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Department of Botany and Range Science. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 5 p. [9640]

75. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to wildlife. Bulletin No. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 80 p. [9818]

76. Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p. [1401]

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

78. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1939. The vegetation of the Caddo County Canyons, Oklahoma. Ecology. 20(1): 1-10. [64556]

79. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1944. Acer grandidentatum in Oklahoma. Rhodora. 46: 445-450. [9100]

80. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. No. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]

81. 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]

82. Marti, Carl D. 1977. Avian use of an oakbrush community in northern Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist. 22(3): 367-374. [1530]

83. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021]

84. Martin, Thomas E. 2001. Abiotic vs. biotic influences on habitat selection of coexisting species: climate change impacts? Ecology. 82(1): 175-188. [64561]

85. Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 89 p. [1553]

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

87. McClaran, Mitchel P.; Brady, Ward W. 1994. Arizona's diverse vegetation and contributions to plant ecology. Rangelands. 16(5): 208-217. [29721]

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

89. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [25666]

90. Moir, William H. 1980. Forest and woodland vegetation monitoring, Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National Park, Texas: Baseline 1978. Contribution No. 83. [Fort Davis, TX]: Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute. 63 p. [20380]

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

92. Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p. [1677]

93. Mollohan, Cheryl; Brady, Ward W.; LeCount, Albert L. 1989. Habitat use of an Arizona ponderosa pine-mixed conifer forest by female black bears. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(1): 6-10. [63136]

94. Monsen, Stephen B. 1983. Plants for revegetation of riparian sites within the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comps. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 83-89. [9652]

95. Mower, Kerry J.; Smith, H. Duane. 1989. Diet similarity between elk and deer in Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 552-555. [9929]

96. 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]

97. Muldavin, Esteban H.; DeVelice, Robert L. 1987. A forest habitat type classification of southern Arizona and its relationship to forests of the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Gonzales Vicente, Carlos E.; Moir, William H., tech. coords. Strategies for classification and management of native vegetation for food production in arid zones: Proceedings; 1987 October 12-16; Tucson, AZ. Gen, Tech. Rep. RM-150. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 24-31. [2728]

98. Muldavin, Esteban H.; DeVelice, Robert L.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1996. A classification of forest habitat types: southern Arizona and portions of the Colorado Plateau. RM-GTR-287. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 130 p. [27968]

99. Newman, George A. 1979. Compositional aspects of breeding avifaunas in selected woodlands of the southern Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. In: Genoways, Hugh H.; Baker, Robert J., eds. Biological investigations in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park: Proceedings of a symposium; 1975 April 4-5; Lubbock, TX. Proceedings and Transactions Series No. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 181-237. [16021]

100. 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]

101. Nixon, Elray S. 1967. A comparative study of the mountain brush vegetation in Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 27(2): 59-66. [9099]

102. Ostler, W. Kent; Harper, K. T. 1978. Floral ecology in relation to plant species diversity in the Wasatch Mountains of Utah and Idaho. Ecology. 59(4): 848-861. [62227]

103. Ostler, William K.; Buchanan, Hayle. 1973. The effects of slope exposure on plant communities. Proceedings, Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 50(2): 58-63. [42486]

104. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. [11360]

105. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878]

106. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

107. Pendleton, Rosemary L.; Pendleton, Burton K.; Harper, Kimball T. 1989. Breeding systems of woody plant species in Utah. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., comps. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 5-22. [5918]

108. Phillips, Susan L.; Ehleringer, James R. 1995. Limited uptake of summer precipitation by bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum Nutt) and Gambel's oak (Quercus gambelii Nutt). Trees. 9(4): 214-219. [63137]

109. Platt, Joseph B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. The Condor. 78(1): 102-103. [23781]

110. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [27411]

111. 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]

112. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees and shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas: Including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]

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

114. Ream, Robert Ray. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah and Idaho. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 178 p. Dissertation. [5506]

115. Reid, M.; Schulz, K.; Schindel, M.; Comer, P.; Kittel, G.; [and others], compilers. 2000. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the western United States--Chihuahuan Desert subset. Report from Biological Conservation Datasystem and working draft of April 23, 2000. Boulder, CO: Association for Biodiversity Information/The Nature Conservancy, Community Ecology Group. 154 p. In: Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (Producer). Available: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/nm/Chihuahua.pdf [2005, May 6]. [52906]

116. Reynolds, Hudson G.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1964. Habitat relations of vertebrates of the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest. Res. Pap. RM-4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [13485]

117. Richter, Rebecca; Stromberg, Juliet C. 2005. Soil seed banks of two montane riparian areas: implications for restoration. Biodiversity and Conservation. 14(4): 993-1016. [60044]

118. Ritchie, Brent W. 1978. Ecology of moose in Fremont County, Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 7. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 33 p. [4482]

119. Rogers, Garry F. 1982. Then and now: a photographic history of vegetation change in the central Great Basin Desert. Salt Lake, UT: University of Utah Press. 152 p. [9932]

120. Rusby, Henry H. 1882. Notes on the trees of the South-west. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 9(8): 106. [64564]

121. Schlessman, Mark A. 1986. Interpretation of evidence for gender choice in plants. The American Naturalist. 128(3): 416-420. [64559]

122. Schmidt, J. O. 1982. Pollen foraging preferences of honey bees. The Southwestern Entomologist. 7(4): 255-259. [63138]

123. Schneider, Rick E.; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Crawford, Rex C.; Weakley, Alan S. 1997. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation classification. Supplemental Document 1. In: Ostlie, Wayne R.; Schneider, Rick E.; Aldrich, Janette Marie; Faust, Thomas M.; McKim, Robert L. B.; Chaplin, Stephen J., compilers. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains, [Online]. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy (Producer). 75 p. Available: http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/02/greatplains_vegclass_97.pdf [2006, May 16]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [62020]

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

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

126. Shaw, Nancy L. 2004. Production and use of planting stock. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 745-768. [42197]

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

128. Smith, Arthur D. 1953. Consumption of native forage species by captive mule deer during summer. Journal of Range Management. 6: 30-37. [2161]

129. 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]

130. Smith, J. G. 1949. Deer forage observations in Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 13(3): 314-315. [9758]

131. Sorenson, E.; Williams, C. F.; Walser, R. H.; Davis, T. D.; Barker, P. 1984. Growth response of Acer grandidentatum Nutt. to chilling treatments. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 2(4): 128-130. [9101]

132. Spence, John R. 2005. Notes on significant collection and additions to the flora of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, between 1992 and 2004. Western North American Naturalist. 65(1): 103-111. [60370]

133. Stauffer, Dean F.; Peterson, Steven R. 1985. Ruffed and blue grouse habitat use in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(2): 459-466. [9639]

134. Stauffer, Dean F.; Peterson, Steven R. 1986. Seasonal microhabitat relationships of blue grouse in southeastern Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 117-122. [9638]

135. Steele, Robert; Cooper, Stephen V.; Ondov, David M.; Roberts, David W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p. [2230]

136. Stevens, Richard; Monsen, Stephen B. 2004. Guidelines for restoration and rehabilitation of principal plant communities. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 199-294. [52829]

137. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]

138. Stuever, Mary C.; Hayden, John S. 1996. Plant associations (habitat types) of the forests and woodlands of Arizona and New Mexico. Final report: Contract R3-95-27. Placitas, NM: Seldom Seen Expeditions, Inc. 520 p. [28868]

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

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

141. Szaro, Robert C. 1990. Southwestern riparian plant communities: site characteristics, tree species distributions, and size-class structures. Forest Ecology and Management. 33/34: 315-334. [10031]

142. Szaro, Robert C.; Patton, David R. 1986. Riparian habitat classification in the southwestern United States. In: Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 215-221. [3516]

143. Tande, Gerald F. 1979. Fire history and vegetation pattern of coniferous forests in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 57: 1912-1931. [18676]

144. Tankersley, Boyce E.; Emino, E. R. 1980. Acer grandidentatum: a potential new ornamental tree for the Southwest. Hortscience. 15(3): 274. Abstract. [63140]

145. Texas Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Plant communities of Texas (Series level). Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 26 p. [23810]

146. Tinus, Richard W. 1978. Production of container-grown hardwoods. Tree Planters' Notes. 29(4): 3-9. [63157]

147. Tipton, J. L.; Craver, J. L. 1980. Cold water soak increases emergence rate of Acer grandidentatum Nutt. from Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Hortscience. 15(3): 397. Abstract. [63158]

148. Trelease, William. 1894. The sugar maples, with a winter synopsis of all North American maples. Missouri Botanical Garden Annual Report. 1894: 88-106. [64562]

149. 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. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [2388]

150. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson Plant Materials Center. 2001. Commercial sources of conservation plant materials, [Online]. Available: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/azpmsarseedlist0501.pdf [2003, August 25]. [44989]

151. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

152. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National range handbook. NRH-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 132 p. [2389]

153. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

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

155. Walters, M. Alice; Teskey, Robert O.; Hinckley, Thomas M. 1980. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Volume 7: Mediterranean Region; Western Arid and Semi-Arid Region. Biological Services Program: FWS/OBS-78/93. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 84 p. [52899]

156. Wandera, J. L.; Richards, J. H.; Mueller, R. J. 1992. The relationships between relative growth rate, meristematic potential and compensatory growth of semiarid-land shrubs. Oecologia. 90(3): 391-398. [49400]

157. Warner, Rose Ella. 1977. Description of a new species of Phyllotrox infesting seeds of Acer grandidentatum, with new synonomy and a note on Euclyptus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Erirhininae). The Great Basin Naturalist. 36(4): 463-466. [63159]

158. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]

159. Welch, Bruce L.; Criddle, Craig. 2003. Countering misinformation concerning big sagebrush. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-40. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p. [47361]

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

161. Willey, David W.; van Riper, Charles, III. 1998. Ecology of Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) in the canyonlands of southern Utah and potential relationships to the GSENM. In: Learning from the past: Grand Staircase-Escalente National Monument science symposium proceedings; 1997 November 4-5; Cedar City, UT. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 219-228. [36467]

162. Wood, Carl E.; Wood, Judith K. 1989. Riparian forests of the Leona and Sabinal Rivers. Texas Journal of Science. 41(4): 395-412. [11869]

163. Woyda, Ann L.; Kessler, Winifred B. 1982. The response of selected owl species to silvicultural treatments on the Dixie National Forest, Utah. Final Report on Cooperative Agreement No. INT-81-129-CA. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 46 p. [17159]