Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
Introductory
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott. 1992. 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/calnoo/all.html [].
Revisions :
On 13 January 2016, the scientific name of this species was changed
from: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
to: Callitropsis nootkatensis.
ABBREVIATION :
CHANOO
SYNONYMS :
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach. [32,64]
Cupressus nookatensis D. Don. (documented in [53])
Xanthocyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Farjon & Harder [63]
SCS PLANT CODE :
CHNO
COMMON NAMES :
Alaska-cedar
Alaska cedar
Alaska yellow-cedar
Alaska yellowcedar
yellow-cedar
Alaska cypress
Nootka cypress
Nootka false-cypress
Sitka cypress
yellow cypress
mountain cypress
cypress
TAXONOMY :
The scientific name of Alaska-cedar is Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Oerst. ex D.P. Little
(Cupressaceae)[53,61].
Alaska-cedar hybridizes with members of the genera Xanthocyparis and Cupressus. The hybrids
are as follows [23,24,61]:
Callitropsis nootkatensis × Xanthocyparis vietnamensis
Cupressocyparis × notabilis (Callitropsis nootkatensis × Cupressus glabra)
Cupressocyparis × ovensii (Callitropsis nootkatensis × Cupressus lusitanica)
Cupressocyparis × leylandii (Callitropsis nootkatensis × Cupressus macrocarpa)
The Cupressocyparis hybrids have been extensively introduced in Great Britain [23].
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
Alaska-cedar is Under Review for listing as Threatened or Endangered [65].
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Alaska-cedar is found in the Pacific Coast mountain ranges from
south-central Alaska to southwestern Oregon with isolated groves in the
Siskiyou Mountains of northern California [1,23,24]. The eastern edge of
Alaska-cedar's range is defined by two disjunct populations: one in the
Selkirk Mountains of southeastern British Columbia [33] and one in the
Aldrich Mountains of central Oregon [1].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
STATES :
AK CA OR WA BC
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
4 Sierra Mountains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
205 Mountain hemlock
215 Western white pine
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
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Alaska-cedar is listed as a dominant or codominant overstory species in
the following publications:
A preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska [55].
The forest communities of Mount Rainer National Park [17].
A preliminary classification of forest communities in the central
portion of the western Cascades in Oregon [9].
Preliminary plant associations of the southern Cascade Mountain Province [2].
Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province [3].
Vegetation and the environment in old growth forests of northern
southeast Alaska: A plant association classification [44].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Alaska-cedar commands a high price for stumpage due to its fine texture,
straight grain, durability, freedom from splitting and checking,
resistance to acid, and excellent milling qualities [1,24,33,35]. The
wood is used in window frames, doors, boat building, utility poles,
marine pilings, cabinets [24,56], carving, and greenhouse construction
[33].
Most of the harvested wood is exported to Japan where, because of its
similar bright yellow color, it is used as a substitute for the rare
hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa) [6].
The wood has an unusual and distinct "potato-like" odor [48].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Alaska-cedar is of minor importance to livestock and wildlife as browse.
When densities of black-tailed deer are high, Alaska-cedar is browsed
[51]. The Alaskan brown bear girdles the upslope side of the tree in
the spring to feed on the phloem, which is high in sucrose [27].
PALATABILITY :
Alaska-cedar browse is unpalatable to blue grouse [36].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
Alaska-cedar as a component of old-growth forests can provide critical
thermal and hiding cover for large ungulates [22] and small mammals
[58].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Alaska-cedar seedlings can be planted in the subalpine environment where
disturbance is recurrent, for it is the only conifer capable of
surviving on sites with frequent avalanches [15].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Native Americans used Alaska-cedar wood to produce bows [52], masks,
bowls, and dishes. The roots were split and used for the framework of
baskets and hats [48].
Alaska-cedar is grown as an ornamental in North America and Europe
[41].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
In southeast Alaska, Alaska-cedar is suffering from dieback that started
around the turn of the century [28,30,31]. Most of the mortality has
occurred in bog and semibog sites [28]. The search for a pathogen has
been exhaustive with little results. It now seems likely the cause is
abiotic [28,30,31]. The most plausible hypothesis offered thus far is
that of a warming trend that started in Alaska in the late 1800's which
has decreased the snow pack [28]. Because Alaska-cedar has low frost
resistance [40], the decreased snow pack renders the fine roots
susceptible to frost damage. This is the first sign of Alaska-cedar
decline [28].
Alaska-cedar is relatively free of damaging agents due to chemical
composition of the wood [24]. It is virtually rot-free, and the snags
can persist for 100+ years [29]. Hennon [26] lists the 77 known fungi
associated with Alaska-cedar.
Clearcutting changes the species compostion of second-growth forests in
the Western Hemlock Zone, increasing Alaska-cedar's percent composition
[23]. The recommended silvicultural practice of cutting old-growth
Alaska-cedar is clearcut with planting [60].
Plantation-grown Alaska-cedar has a growth rate comparable to that of
Douglas-fir; this is much greater than natural regeneration of
Alaska-cedar within its range [34].
Equations have been developed for Alaska-cedar based on growth percent
as an estimation of future productivity on different soil types [54].
Hamilton [21] explored the response of Alaska-cedar to single-tree
selection method, and he determined that Alaska-cedar will respond
favorably to the method.
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Alaska-cedar is a native, evergreen, long-lived (as long as 3,500 years
[16]), monoecious tree [1,24]. It is slow growing with a narrow crown;
the twigs are four-angled [56]. The boles of mature trees have
buttressed and fluted bases, and the bark is shreddy [33].
Alaska-cedar is a medium-sized tree, although at treeline it is reduced
to a shrub. It can obtain heights of 100 to 125 feet (30-38 m) with a
d.b.h. as great as 12 feet (3.7 m) [24]. The root system is shallow
with complex layering [24]. The leaves are scalelike and roughly 0.125
inch (0.32 cm) in length [1,46]. The stroboli are borne on the tips of
branchlets. The male strobili are yellow. The female strobili are
green, spherical, and 0.5 inch (1 cm) in diameter [23].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Ligneous Chamaephyte
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: The frequency of good seed crops is irregular (4 or more years)
[59], and germination rates are low [35]. A germination rate of around
12 percent can be obtained with a warm stratification (30 days at 68 to
86 degrees Fahrenheit [20-30 deg C]) followed by a moist stratification
(30 days at 40 degrees Fahrenheit [4 deg C]). A tetrazolium stain has
been recommended for a test of seed viability [23]. The seed are quite
small with an average of 108,000 seeds per pound (240,000 seeds/kg)
[23,24]. The seed can be stored dry at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 deg C)
for 3 to 5 years [59]. Bower and others [5] recommend foliar
application of gibberellin A3 to increase flowering and filled seed.
From the parent tree the mean dissemination distance is about 400 feet
(120 m) [24]. Germination is epigeal [24], and mineral soil or well
decomposed organic matter are the preferred germination substrates [37].
Vegetative: Alaska-cedar reproduces asexually by layering. It layers
readily under the deep, heavy coastal snowpacks [49]. Vegetative
reproduction is the method of choice to meet the demands for
containerized stock, due to the low germination rate and infrequent good
seed crops [35]. Cuttings, treated with indolebutyric acid and potted
in the greenhouse, were ready for planting in 1 year [24]. Clones have
advantages over seedlings such as fewer multiple leaders and uniformity
in size [35]. Karlsson [34] and Karlsson and Russell [35] provide
in-depth information on age of the donor, clone survival, establishment,
and planting guidelines.
Preliminary results indicate that there is genetic variation between
provenances for shoot growth; however, further testing is needed to
establish transfer zones [6].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Alaska-cedar occurs in hypermaritime to submaritime, subalpine, boreal,
and summer-wet, cool mesothermal climates [39]. It occurs from
shoreline to treeline in the northern portion of its range but is
restricted to higher elevations in the southern portion [24].
Elevation: Elevational ranges for Alaska-cedar in several western
states are as follows [24,49]:
Feet Meters
Alaska 0 to 3,000 0 - 910
Washington and Oregon 2,000 to 7,500 600 - 2300
California 4,950 to 7,260 1,500 - 2,200
Soil: Alaska-cedar has a strong affinity for deep, well-drained soils
rich in calcium and magnesium, and derived from parent materials of
andesite, diorite, gabbro, or basalt (Histosol and Spodosol soil orders)
[24]. It also can be found on the poor, rocky soils of the alpine
environment far above the limits of other conifers [1].
Associates: In addition to those previously listed under Distribution
and Occurrence, Alaska-cedar's overstory associates include California
red fir (Abies magnifica), subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), Pacific silver
fir (A. anabilis), noble fir (A. procera), Brewer spruce (Picea
breweriana), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), shore pine (P.
contorta), incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens), and Pacific yew (Taxus
brevifolia) [24].
Understory associates include big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum),
Alaska blueberry (V. alaskaense), fool's huckleberry (Menziesia
ferruginea), and copperbush (Cladathamnus pyroliflorus) [24].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Depending on the site, Alaska-cedar can be a long-lived seral species or
a climax species [14,16]. In the subalpine environment it is the first
tree species to become established, later forming large krummholz stands
from layering [15]. Alaska-cedar is classified as shade tolerant; it
will respond to 10 percent of full light and reach photosynthetic
saturation at 60 percent [20].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Flowering of Alaska-cedar occurs progressively earlier in the spring as
elevation decreases, suggesting that bud development is based on heat
sums [5]. Alaska-cedar flowers from April to June depending on latitude
and elevation [24]. The cones of trees in the southern portion of its
range mature from September to October, and dispersal begins in October
and lasts through spring. In the northern portion of its range and in
alpine environments, maturation of the cones is also based on heat sums,
with 2- and 3-year reproductive cycles, respectively, being the norm
[10]. In the northern portion of its range pollination of cones
initiated the previous summer occurs from mid-April to late May; cones
mature the following year [24]. The mature cones can be identified by
their yellow-brown color [23].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Fire is not an important factor in Alaska-cedar's cool, wet habitats.
Alaska-cedar's bark is thin and offers little protection from fire [1].
The fire regime of Alaska-cedar's habitats is one of long-interval (150
to 350+ years) severe crown or surface fires resulting in stand
replacement [44].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree without adventitious-bud root crown
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The immediate effect of a cool to hot fire on Alaska-cedar is damage to
the cambium layer, usually resulting in the death of the tree [1].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Fire resistance is rated as low for Alaska-cedar [49], although a few
individuals will survive a cool fire [7,25].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Alaska-cedar will invade a burned site via wind-dispersed seed from
adjacent unburned forests [24].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
The burning of slash is controversial. Fyles and others [18] recommend
the burning of slash to improve access for planters, increase plantable
sites, reduce brush competition, and reduce fire hazard; however, there
is little information about the effects of slash burning on Alaska-cedar
[12,38]. Feller [13] gives information on the effects of slashburning
on nutrient loss (see Fire Case Study).
After fire in the subalpine environment Alaska-cedar is slow to
regenerate in the krummholz zone [8].
FIRE CASE STUDY
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott, compiler. 1992. Fuel properties and slash-burning-induced
nutrient losses in a western hemlock forest in British Columbia. In: Callitropsis
nootkatensis. 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/calnoo/all.html#FireCaseStudies
[].
REFERENCE :
Feller, M. C. 1988. Relationships between fuel properties and
slashburning induced nutrient losses. Forest Science. 34(4): 998-1015.
[13].
SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION :
The plots were burned on 10 different days in July, August, and
September 1984 to incorporate a range of fuel moisture conditions.
STUDY LOCATION :
The prescribed fire took place on a clearcut area of the University of
British Columbia's Research forest which is located approximately 24
miles (40 km) east of Vancouver, British Columbia. The coordinates are
49 degrees 17 minutes N latitude, 122 degrees 35 minutes W longitude.
PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY :
The preburn community was a productive coastal western hemlock forest
composed of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western redcedar
(Thuja plicata), Alaska-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis), and
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) that had been clearcut.
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
Not provided
SITE DESCRIPTION :
The study site was on a gentle, easterly slope at an elevation of 500 m
(1,650 ft). The climate of the area is marine, warm-temperate, rainy.
The mean annual precipitation is from 87 to 138 inches (220-350 cm),
which is received mainly in the form of rain. The soil over most of the
area was a Typic Haplorthod with a mor forest floor with a mean depth of
10 inches (26 cm).
The area had been logged during a snow-free period using a high lead
harvesting system. After clearcutting the slash was sorted by species*
into five diameter classes:
(1) < 1 cm
(2) 1.1-3.0 cm
(3) 3.1-5.0 cm
(4) 5.1-7.0 cm
(5) > 7 cm
*Alaska-cedar and western redcedar were combined and shall be henceforth
referred to as cedar.
The area was then divided into 50 2.25-square-meter plots that were
greater than 0.5 meter apart. These were slpit into 10 groups of 5
plots; within each group the plots were randomly assigned a species.
Western hemlock slash had three fuel loadings (4.4, 9.9, 17.7 kg/m2)
while cedar and Douglas-fir had one fuel loading (9.9 kg/m2). Each plot
received all size classes of slash. Ten samples of slash were oven
dried and used to determine prefire chemical and percent composition.
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
The fire was ignited on each plot using a strip of gasoline around the
perimeter of the plot. The five plots within a group were ignited
separatly, but within minutes of each other.
Atmospheric conditions and fuel moisture at the time of ignition of each
fire were as follows:
Temp. Relative Wind speed Fine fuel
C Humidity (km/hr) moisture (%)
July 17 23.8 68 7 15
23 27.7 37 5 14
26 21.4 59 6 20
30 25.1 59 7 15
August 2 20.5 64 7 18
13 14.8 82 4 19
16 25.1 52 3 13
22 22.4 58 7 15
Sept. 14 22.2 49 5 32
26 15.3 64 4 20
Depth of burn into the forest floor (L, F, H layers combined) averaged
1.9 cm on the cedar plots, 1.6 cm on Douglas fir plots, and 1.8 on the
western hemlock. The total mean slash consumption per species in
kilograms per square meter was 4.2, 3.3, and 3.6 for cedar, Douglas-fir,
and western hemlock, respectively.
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
Cedar slash had the greatest depth of burn, which in turn ment greater
losses of nutrients to the atmosphere. The mean nutrient loss (grams
per square meter) for seven elements from the three types of slash were
as follows:
N P S K Na Mg Ca
Cedar 26.3 1.3 2.7 3.7 0.1 2.0 19.5
Douglas-fir 19.5 1.2 2.2 2.3 0.1 1.1 11.0
Western hemlock 20.9 0.2 2.3 1.0 0.1 0.9 3.8
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
This study revealed that western hemlock/western redcedar/Alaska-cedar
forests produce greater nutrient losses to the atmosphere when the slash
composition has a greater proportion of Alaska-cedar and western
redcedar. One can expect smaller nutrient losses when western hemlock
makes up the majority of the slash.
Nutrient losses can be limited if the the forest floor and larger fuels
are moist when burned. This limits fuel consumption. Also nutrient
loss can be reduced by more complete utilization during harvest, thus
reducing the slash load.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Callitropsis nootkatensis
REFERENCES :
1. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle,
WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
2. Atzet, Thomas; McCrimmon, Lisa A. 1990. Preliminary plant associations
of the southern Oregon Cascade Mountain Province. Grants Pass, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 330
p. [12977]
3. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of
the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p. [9351]
4. 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]
5. Bower, R. C.; Ross, S. D.; Dunsworth, B. G. 1989. Effect of GA3
treatment timing in relation to natural day length on flowering and sex
expression in Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research. 19: 1422-1428. [10044]
6. Cherry, M. L.; Lester, D. T. 1992. Genetic variation in Chamaecyparis
nootkatensis from coastal British Columbia. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry. 7(1): 25-29. [18313]
7. Dale, Virginia H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1984. The
effect of disturbance frequency on forest succession in the Pacific
Northwest. In: New forests for a changing world: Proceedings of the 1983
convention of The Society of American Foresters; 1983 October 16-20;
Portland, OR. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 300-304.
[4781]
8. Douglas, George W.; Ballard, T. M. 1971. Effects of fire on alpine plant
communities in the North Cascades, Washington. Ecology. 52(6):
1058-1064. [6738]
9. Dyrness, C. T.; Franklin, J. F.; Moir, W. H. 1974. A preliminary
classification of forest communities in the central portion of the
western Cascades in Oregon. Bulletin No. 4. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 123 p.
[8480]
10. El-Kassaby, Y. A.; Maze, J.; MacLeod, D. A.; [and others]. 1991.
Reproductive-cycle plasticity in yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis
nootkatensis). Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1360-1364.
[16222]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. Feller, M. C. 1982. The ecological effects of slashburning with
particular reference to British Columbia: a literature review. Victoria,
BC: Ministry of Forests. 60 p. [10470]
13. Feller, M. C. 1988. Relationships between fuel properties and
slashburning induced nutrient losses. Forest Science. 34(4): 998-1015.
[3752]
14. Franklin, Jerry Forest. 1966. Vegetation and soils in the subalpine
forests of the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University. 132 p. Thesis. [10392]
15. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
16. Franklin, Jerry F.; Hemstrom, Miles A. 1981. Aspects of succession in
the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. In: Forest succession:
concepts and application. New York: Springer-Verlag: 212-229. [7931]
17. Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; [and others].
1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park. Scientific
Monograph Series No 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. 194 p. [12392]
18. Fyles, J. W.; Fyles, I. H.; Beese, W. J.; Feller, M. C. 1991. Forest
floor characteristics and soil nitrogen availability on slash- burned
sites in coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
21: 1516-1522. [18312]
19. 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]
20. Grossnickle, Steve C.; Russell, John H. 1991. Gas exchange processes of
yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) in response to environmental
variables. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69: 2684-2691. [18343]
21. Hamilton, Ronald C. 1991. Single-tree selection method: An uneven-aged
silviculture system. In: Genetics/silviculture workshop proceedings;
1990 August 27-31; Wenatchee, WA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Management Staff: 46-84. [16562]
22. Hanley, Thomas A.; Robbins, Charles T.; Spalinger, Donald E. 1989.
Forest habitats and the nutritional ecology of Sitka black-tailed deer:
a research synthesis with implications for forest management. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-230. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. [7509]
23. Harris, A. S. 1974. Chamaecyparis Spach white-cedar. In: Schopmeyer,
C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United
States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 316-320. [7586]
24. Harris, A. S. 1990. Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach
Alaska-cedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical
coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric.
Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service: 97-102. [13373]
25. Hemstrom, Miles A.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1982. Fire and other disturbances
of the forests in Mount Rainier National Park. Quaternary Research. 18:
32-51. [6747]
26. Hennon, P. E. 1990. Fungi on Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. Mycologia.
82(1): 59-66. [13291]
27. Hennon, P. E.; Hansen, E. M.; Shaw, C. G., III. 1990. Causes of basal
scars on Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska. Northwest
Science. 64(1): 45-54. [11028]
28. Hennon, P. E.; Hansen, E. M.; Shaw, C. G., III. 1990. Dynamics of
decline and mortality of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 68: 651-662. [10727]
29. Hennon, P. E.; Loopstra, E. M. 1991. Persistence of western hemlock and
western red cedar trees 38 years after girdling at Cat Island in
southeast Alaska. Research Note PNW-RN-507. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 5 p. [18341]
30. Hennon, P. E.; Shaw, C. G., III; Hansen, E. M. 1990. Dating decline and
mortality of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast Alaska. Forest
Science. 36(3): 502-515. [13011]
31. Hennon, P. E.; Shaw, C. G., III; Hansen, E. M. 1990. Symptoms and fungal
associations of declining Chamaecyparis nootkatensis in southeast
Alaska. Plant Disease. 74: 267-273. [13292]
32. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
33. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
34. Karlsson, Ingemar. 1982. Propagation of Alaska yellow cedar
(Chamaecyparis nootkatensis [D. Don] Spach.) by rooted cuttings for
production plantings. In: Combined Proceedings International Plant
Propagators Society; [Date of conference unknown]; Boulder, CO. Vol. 31.
[Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 112-116. [18762]
35. Karlsson, Ingemar; Russell, John. 1990. Comparisons of yellow cypress
trees of seedling and rooted cutting origins after 9 and 11 years in the
field. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20: 37-41. [11041]
36. King, R. Dennis; Bendell, James F. 1982. Foods selected by blue grouse
(Dendragapus obscurus fuliginosus). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 60(12):
3268-3281. [10169]
37. Klinka, K.; Feller, M. C.; Green, R. N.; [and others]. 1990. Ecological
principles: applications. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C.
M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests.
Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 55-72. [10710]
38. Klinka, K.; Green, R. N.; Courtin, P. J.; Nuszdorfer, F. C. 1984. Site
diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the
Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No.
25. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch. 180
p. [15448]
39. Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator
plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British
Columbia Press. 288 p. [10703]
40. Krajina, V. J.; Klinka, K.; Worrall, J. 1982. Distribution and
ecological characteristics of trees and shrubs of British Columbia.
Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Department of Botany and
Faculty of Forestry. 131 p. [6728]
41. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
42. 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]
43. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
44. Martin, Jon Randall. 1989. Vegetation and environment in old growth
forests of northern southeast, Alaska: a plant association
classification. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 221 p. Thesis.
[18760]
45. Parminter, John. 1991. Fire history and effects on vegetation in three
biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.;
Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and
cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990
March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 263-272. [16651]
46. Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa
State College Press. 371 p. [1913]
47. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
48. Robuck, O. Wayne. 1985. The common plants of the muskegs of southeast
Alaska. Miscellaneous Publication/July 1985. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 131 p. [11556]
49. Sawyer, John O.; Thornburgh, Dale A. 1977. Montane and subalpine
vegetation of the Klamath Mountains. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley &
Sons: 699-732. [685]
50. Scagel, Rob; Green, Bob; Von Hahn, Helmar; Evans, Richard. 1989.
Exploratory high elevation regeneration trials in the Vancouver forest
region: 10-year species performance of planted stock. FRDA Report 098.
Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 40 p. [1477]
51. Sullivan, T. P.; Harestad, A. S.; Wikeem, B. M. 1990. Control of mammal
damage. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others],
eds. Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, BC: University
of British Columbia Press: 302-318. [10722]
52. Turner, Nancy J. 1988. Ethnobotany of coniferous trees in Thompson and
Lillooet Interior Salish of British Columbia. Economic Botany. 42(2):
177-194. [4542]
53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016.
PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov
/. [34262]
54. Hees, Willem W. S. van. 1988. Timber productivity of seven forest
ecosystems in southeastern Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-391. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 10 p. [7877]
55. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The
Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 278 p. [2431]
56. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and
shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. [6884]
57. Vitt, Dale H.; Horton, Diana G.; Slack, Nancy G.; Malmer, Nils. 1990.
Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of the hyperoceanic British Columbia coast:
patterns in surface water chemistry and vegetation. Canadian Journal of
Forestry Research. 20: 696-711. [11739]
58. Walters, Bradley B. 1991. Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest
and clearcuts. Northwest Science. 65(1): 27-31. [15155]
59. Wang, B. S. P. 1974. Tree-seed storage. Publication No. 1335. Ottawa,
Canada: Department of the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service. 32 p.
[17267]
60. Weetman, G.; Vyse, A. 1990. Natural regeneration. In: Lavender, D. P.;
Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British
Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press:
118-129. [10711]
61. Kartesz, J. T.; The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2016.
Taxonomic Data Center, [Online]. Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America
Program (Producer). Available online: bonap.org. [maps generated from Kartesz,
J. T. 2010. Floristic synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North
America Program (BONAP). (in press)]. [84789]
62. Little, Damon P.; Schwarzbach, Andrea E.; Adams, Robert P.; Hsieh, Chang-Fu.
2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationship of Callitropsis and
the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal
of Botany. 91: 1872-1881. [62352]
63. Farjon, A.; Hiep, Nguyen Tien; Harder, D. K.; Loc, Phan Ke; Averyanov, L. 2002.
A new genus and species in the Cupressaceae (Coniferales) from northern Vietnam,
Xanthocyparis vietnamensis. Novon. 12: 179-189. [62863]
64. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2013. Flora of North America north
of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available:
http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]
65. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered Species
Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. [86564]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/calnoo/all.html
