|
|
FEIS Home Page |
Recognized infrataxa are as follows:
Populus
fremontii ssp. fremontii Wats. Fremont cottonwood [49,82,96]
Populus
fremontii ssp. mesetae Eckenwalder meseta cottonwood [82,95,96]
Fremont cottonwood hybridizes with narrowleaf cottonwood (P.
angustifolia) to produce P. × hinkleyana Correll
[45,94,108] and with black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) to produce P. ×
parryi Sarg. [45,108]. In California, where the ranges of black and Fremont cottonwood
overlap, the 2 species are reported to occur together without hybridization [86].
LIFE FORM:
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
In Texas, the Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii)
Series is listed as "very rare
and local throughout range or found locally in restricted range, 21 to 100
occurrences (threatened throughout range)" and "rare or uncommon, 21 to 100 occurrences" [151].
Fremont cottonwood occurs in riparian habitats from western Texas west through New Mexico, Arizona, and California, northward into Nevada and Utah [49,82,92,97,104,108,120,128,139,162]. It also occurs in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts of Mexico [88,128]. The Natural Resource Conservation Service's PLANTS database provides a distributional map of Fremont cottonwood and its infrataxa in the United States. Distribution by subspecies is as follows [73,82,108,162]:
Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii --- southwestern New Mexico westward through Arizona and California, extending north into southern and western Nevada, and southern and eastern Utah
P. f. ssp. mesetae --- southwestern and Trans-Pecos Texas to southwestern New Mexico and Arizona and extending south on the Central Plateau into northern Mexico
Fremont cottonwood does not occur in Colorado. Cottonwoods previously misidentified there as Fremont cottonwood have been reassigned as Rio Grande cottonwood (Populus deltoides var. wislizeni) [160,161].
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES40 Desert grasslands
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [20]:
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K027 Mesquite bosques
K030 California oakwoods
K031 Oak-juniper woodland
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush-bursage
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
68 Mesquite
222 Black cottonwood-willow
235 Cottonwood-willow
239 Pinyon-juniper
240 Arizona cypress
242 Mesquite
255 California coast live oak
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
211 Creosote bush scrub
212 Blackbush
303 Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass
401 Basin big sagebrush
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
422 Riparian
501 Saltbush-greasewood
503 Arizona chaparral
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
509 Transition between K031 and K037
Fremont cottonwood can occur in pure stands but more often grows in association with willows (Salix spp.), other trees, and shrubs [26,49]. Groves of cottonwoods were used as an indicator of water, especially in low desert areas, during the early exploration of the western United States [104]. Historically, Fremont cottonwood dominated many of the riparian woodlands of the Central Valley of California [86].
Published classification systems listing varieties of Fremont cottonwood as indicator species or as dominant components of community types or plant associations are listed below.
Community ecology and distribution of California hardwood forests and woodlands
[12]
Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south of Mogollon
Rim and southwestern New Mexico [16]
Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon Watershed [21]
Flora and vegetation of the Rincon Mountains [23]
Southwestern wetlands - their classification and characteristics [30]
Association types in the North Coast Ranges of California [38]
Riparian vegetation and flora of the Sacramento Valley [39]
A framework for plant community classification and conservation in Texas [42]
New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future [43]
Classification of riparian vegetation [44]
Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert [81]
Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California [84]
Vegetation types of the San Bernardino Mountains [87]
Preliminary classification for the coniferous forest and woodland series of Arizona
and New Mexico [107]
Biotic communities in the sub-Mogollon region of the inland Southwest [109]
Wetlands [115]
A series vegetation classification for Region 3 [119]
Classification of riparian habitat in the Southwest [124]
A survey of riparian forest flora and fauna in California [133]
Desert grassland (riparian community in desert grassland region) [138]
Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico [148]
Riparian habitat classification in the southwestern United States [150]
Plant communities of Texas (Series level) [151]
Vegetation of the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona [158]
Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona [163]
In Nevada, Fremont cottonwood is listed as a community codominant with Goodding willow, with a basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata)-cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) understory [21].
In California riparian woodlands, Fremont cottonwood is associated with northern California walnut (Juglans hindsii) [19,80,112], coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) [14], valley oak (Q. lobata) [19,54,80,110], Goodding willow [28,65], sandbar willow (Salix exigua) [28], arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis) [28,121], red willow (S. laevigata) [111,112,121], Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) [19,110,111,112], green ash (F. pennsylvanica) [65], white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) [14,110,111,112,118], California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) [14,19,67,110,118,125], box elder (Acer negundo) [19,67,110], bigleaf maple (A. macrophyllum) [118], red alder (Alnus rubra) [67], Arizona alder (A. oblongifolia) [80], Tecate cypress (Cupressus forbesii) [7], Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) [28], and saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) [28]. Understory species include Oregon false goldenaster (Heterotheca oregona var. oregona), California wild grape (Vitis californica) [19,80], Douglas' sagewort (Artemisia douglasiana) [19,80], Pacific dewberry (Rubus vitifolius) [19,80], lemonade sumac (Rhus integrifolia), woolly bluecurls (Trichostema lanatum), wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), bush rue (Cneoridium dumosum), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) [7], rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), Torrey's saltbush (Atriplex torreyi) [28], common elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) [121], California wildrose (Rosa californica) [19], and stretchberry (Forestiera pubescens) [28].
In New Mexico riparian woodlands, Fremont cottonwood is listed as a codominant with Goodding willow, sandbar willow, box elder, Arizona walnut (Juglans major), Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii) [27,52,54,89], Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), Emory oak (Q. emoryi) [109], green ash, velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), saltcedar, and box elder [27]. Understory species include stretchberry, desert false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), mule's fat (Baccharis salicifolia), screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) [52,56,89], and western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii) [27].
Riparian forests in Arizona consist of Fremont cottonwood, black cottonwood [121], Goodding willow [27,75,83,88], velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina) [83,113], Arizona sycamore [27,83,88,92,113], Arizona walnut [27,88,92,113,116], box elder [27,116], green ash [27,88], true pinyon (Pinus edulis) [61], Emory oak, Ajo Mountain scrub oak (Quercus ajoensis), Bonpland's willow (S. bonplandiana) [109], alligator juniper, catclaw acacia, velvet mesquite [27], western honey mesquite, screwbean mesquite, Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), saltcedar, and arroweed [74,75,88]. Understory species include annual rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Cleveland's tobacco (N. clevelandii), pricklyburr (Datura inoxia), giant Spanish needle (Palafoxia arida var. gigantea), cattle saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), big saltbrush (A. lentiformis), fourwing saltbush (A. canescens), small coastal germander (Teucrium cubense var. densum), coyote gourd (Cucurbita palmata), Thurber's sandpaper plant (Petalonyx thurberi), spiny chloracantha (Chloracantha spinosa) [75], mule's fat [75,88] and western soapberry [27].
In Utah, Fremont cottonwood, saltcedar, sandbar willow, peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), Russian-olive, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and whorl-leaf watermilfoil (Myriophyllum verticillatum) make up the lowland woody community around Utah Lake. The understory consists of grasses and annuals or aquatic herbs [29]. Fremont cottonwood also occurs in Utah with Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) [83], water birch (Betula occidentalis), thinleaf alder (Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Gambel oak, (Q. gambelii), box elder, bigtooth maple (A. grandidentatum), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), and lanceleaf cottonwood (P. × acuminata). Understory species include chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum), golden currant (R. aureum), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), fernleaf biscuitroot (Lomatium dissectum), Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), sweetcicely (Osmorhiza berteroi), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis), starry Solomon-seal (Maianthemum stellatum), feathery false lily-of-the-valley (M. racemosum ssp. racemosum), and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) [51].
Fremont cottonwood is moderately light in weight and color, uniform in texture, and has a fairly straight grain. The wood is relatively soft and weak, but its strength-to-weight ratio is high [13,45]. The untreated wood of all cottonwoods (Populus spp.) has low resistance to decay when in contact with the ground [45].
Primary wood products include lumber, veneer, and pulpwood [13,92,103]. Finished products include crates and boxes for food storage and pallets [13,88]. The wood is used locally in the southwestern United States for fenceposts and firewood [13,18,88,92,103] and is preferred for kilning bricks in Arizona [10].
The wood shavings from Fremont cottonwood are used in livestock bedding, mulches, packing material, and insulation [13,88].
Riparian habitats occupied by Fremont cottonwood add diversity to the arid and semiarid environments of the American Southwest [91,127]. Fremont cottonwood and Fremont cottonwood-willow stands provide valuable habitat for many species of birds and other wildlife in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Species such as golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, red-tailed hawk, and Bell's vireo build their nests in the crown [17,72,131,137], while various cavity-nesting birds nest in the dead trunks and limbs of Fremont cottonwood [60,65,79]. In Nevada, Fremont cottonwood sites are breeding areas for great blue heron [66]. Birds known to have a high affinity for Fremont cottonwood stands include hawks (gray, black, zone-tailed, red-tailed) [61,89,131], bald eagle [74], and woodpeckers (downy and ladder-backed) [52]. Fremont cottonwood communities also provide cover, nesting, and foraging habitats for other birds [11,52,53,60,89,90,102,109,130], ringtail [19], squirrels, beavers [103], and other rodents [3,109].
In California, Fremont cottonwood-willow and willow communities provide the greatest overstory canopy coverage of any desert riparian vegetation type. Consequently, they provide a wider range of perches, nest sites, and foraging substrates; they are known to support roughly 2 to 5 times more breeding bird species than vegetation types with less overstory [54]. More than 50% of the bird species breeding in the homogeneous Fremont cottonwood stands along the Verde River in Arizona depended exclusively on this vegetation type [37].
Fremont cottonwood communities provide shade for
domestic livestock, provide a food source for beavers, elk, deer, and squirrels, and help
maintain mesic habitats for upland amphibian and reptile species in the Sonoran
Desert [28,94,103].
The palatability of Fremont cottonwood to domestic livestock and wildlife has been rated as follows [47,135]:
| CA | UT | |
| Cattle | poor | fair |
| Domestic sheep | poor to fair | fair |
| Horses | useless | poor |
| Mule deer | poor to fair | ---- |
| White-tailed deer | poor to fair | ---- |
This species has been called "sweet cottonwood" because horses eat the inner bark [104].
Fremont cottonwood is rated as fair for both energy and protein content. The nutritional value of Fremont cottonwood for wildlife has been rated as follows [47]:
| UT | |
| Pronghorn | fair |
| Elk | fair |
| Mule deer | fair |
| Small mammal | fair |
| Small non-game bird | fair |
| Upland game bird | poor |
| Waterfowl | fair |
The value of Fremont cottonwood as cover for domestic animals and wildlife has been rated as follows [47]:
| UT | |
| Pronghorn | poor |
| Elk | fair |
| Mule deer | fair |
| White-tailed deer | fair |
| Small mammals | good |
| Small non-game birds | good |
| Upland game birds | fair |
| Waterfowl | fair |
Fremont cottonwood's rapid early growth makes it well suited for revegetating riparian sites [47,126]. It has been successfully planted in many riparian rehabilitation projects [36,82,92,126,164] and is recommended for revegetating areas in the Southwest where invasive saltcedar has been removed [88,99]. Fremont cottonwood, along with willows and other native plants, has also been used to restore, enhance, or create bird habitat in riparian areas [46,63].
Fremont cottonwood can be successfully planted in chaparral-mountain shrub, big sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and desert shrub communities where there is sufficient moisture [126,127]. It can grow on disturbed sites removed from groundwater as long as good moisture is available in the spring, but on such sites it will exhibit a shrubby growth form [26]. Plants readily establish from nursery-grown containerized stock and rooted cuttings [36]. Growth of seedlings is rapid on favorable sites, and the roots of established seedlings are effective stabilizers of alluvial soil [47,82,126].
Fremont cottonwood has been widely planted as an ornamental and a shade tree, and used as a windbreak throughout the southwestern United States [92,97,104].
Native Americans ate the inner bark of Fremont cottonwood for antiscorbutic [18,100]. The bark and leaves were used to make poultices to relieve swelling, treat cuts, cure headaches, and wash broken limbs, and to treat saddle sores and swollen legs of horses [18,166]. The twigs were used by the Pima for basket materials [100], and Cahuilla tribes used the wood for mortars and tools [18]. In northern Mexico, small industries utilize the wood to make bowls and small statues [88]. Fremont cottonwoods were used by the Pueblo tribes for drums and were the preferred wood species for Quechan cremations [114]
Fremont cottonwood communities are declining as a result of human activities. A 1914 survey along the Gila River of Arizona showed 1,584 acres (641 ha) - 33% of the survey area - was occupied by Fremont and other cottonwoods. Fremont cottonwood was the most widespread riparian community of the Southwest. A 1944 survey of the same area showed on 160 acres (65 ha) so occupied; by 1964, Fremont cottonwood was no longer a cover type: only a few scattered trees remained [154].
Cattle grazing prevents successful regeneration of Fremont cottonwood seedlings [8], and exclusion of grazing in Fremont cottonwood riparian zones has been recommended [68,134,137,159]. However, Asplund and Gooch [8] maintain that the impacts of grazing are unclear and that recruitment is affected more by flooding and the creation of suitable habitat than by grazing pressure.
Fremont cottonwoods and other components of riparian streamside stands are important in erosion control and fisheries production; they stabilize banks and provide for thermal cover and debris recruitment [77,126]. If possible, buffer strips of these woodlands should be maintained upland from streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds [78].
Regulating stream flows to mimic the natural flood regime (duration, peak flow, and timing) could be used to establish Fremont cottonwood and decrease saltcedar [144]. Decreased flooding, stabilized flows, introduction of exotics (saltcedar, Russian-olive, and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)), water diversion due to damming and agricultural use, and stream channelization have led to drought stress and the subsequent decrease in Fremont cottonwood and associated riparian species [26,36]. The loss of Fremont cottonwoods could mean the loss of the riparian woodland ecosystem [26]. See black cottonwood for further information on the effects of watercourse damming and stream diversion on Fremont and other cottonwoods.
Fremont cottonwood is a native, deciduous hardwood tree [1,11,13,24,35,49,50,75] that ranges from 19.7 to 112 feet (6-34 m) [22,48,49,72,89,90,97,128,148,162] in height and has a broad, rounded or cylindrical crown [120,123]. The trunk diameter at breast height ranges from 19.7 inches to 12.8 feet (0.5-3.9 m) [22,48,49,61,72,90,97,128,148,162].
The bark is smooth on the trunk, twigs, and branches of young trees, but trunk bark becomes deeply furrowed at maturity [48,49,97,123,162]. Fremont cottonwood is dioecious [26,49,50], with small (approximately 0.04 inch (1 mm) in length), fragile seeds [58]. The catkins range from 1.25 to 3.25 inches (3.75-8.26 cm) for the staminate and 4 to 5 inches (10.16-12.70 cm) for the pistillate [156]. Fremont cottonwood is inundation and siltation tolerant [26]. This tree has a lifespan of more than 130 years [26].
Fremont cottonwood is a fast-growing [88,92] obligate seeder [28], and reproduction primarily comes from establishment of wind-borne seeds [31,68,69,88]. Asexual regeneration occurs following crown and branch damage, uprooting, or flood-related disturbance [26]. Regeneration is tied to the annual runoff regime of the area [28]. Mortality of both saplings and mature trees can be great following major flooding events, but recruitment takes place on the newly created microsites [26].
Sexual reproduction: Fremont cottonwood reaches reproductive maturity between 5 and 10 years of age [26]. Flowers are produced early in the spring and are entirely wind pollinated [50,58]. Large crops of seed are produced in the spring; the seeds have a cottony tuft of trichomes that enables them to float long distances in the wind [58] and on water. Seeds may not be fully viable when dispersed [26]. Seeds typically germinate within 24 to 48 hours on suitable seedbeds, but seeds may remain viable for 1 to 5 weeks after dispersal [26,57,58]. Viability is lost if a suitable microsite is not found within 2 or 3 days of seed becoming wet [26].
Suitable recruitment sites are created by the floodwaters of spring run-off. Seeds germinate almost exclusively on the freshly deposited, exposed alluvium left by receding floodwaters. The availability of this type of moist, exposed habitat during and 6 to 8 weeks after seed dispersal is crucial because of the limited period of seed viability [88]. Abandoned secondary and tertiary stream channels are valuable recruitment sites because subsurface water is available and some protection from scouring is provided [8].
Vegetative regeneration: Cottonwood species (Populus spp.) reproduce vegetatively by sprouting from stumps and root crowns, by forming suckers (adventitious shoots on roots) [2,26,49,50,79], and from stem cuttings [92]. Root suckering has been observed to be the predominant method of regeneration of Fremont cottonwood in some areas in Utah [91]. Root or bole sprouting often occurs after some injury (uprooting, broken branches) [34]. Sprouting from lateral buds on stems occurs when there is contact with moist alluvial soil [143].
Growth: Root growth of young Fremont cottonwood seedlings is very rapid on favorable sites. Average growth rate is 0.16 to 0.47 inch (4-12 mm) [26,143], and a growth rate of 0.5 inch (13.5 mm) per day has been observed over a 4-day period [57]. Because the upper layers of the moist alluvium dry rapidly with the onset of warmer summer temperatures, rapid root growth is essential in order to reach depths where a supply of water is available. Fremont cottonwood is vulnerable to droughts before the roots reach seasonal alluvial water tables [26]. Rooting depths in mature stands are 9.8 to 16.4 feet (3-5 m) [26,166].
Fremont cottonwood occurs in riparian communities throughout the Southwest and much of California [26,41]. It grows primarily on alluvial soil and on other sites where subsurface water is available during the growing season, such as near water tanks, along irrigation ditches, dry washes, floodplains of major rivers, large perennial streams, springs, and in desert oases [48,49,66,68,69,71,76,112,143,153]. Large, mature trees are generally found close to the main channel, while the seedlings and saplings are located on the widest parts of the floodplain [8,143].
Fremont cottonwood is found in areas where the annual range of temperatures is 9 to 67 degrees Fahrenheit (-5 to 37 oC) [25,35,40,83,86] and the majority of the annual precipitation occurs during the winter. Mean annual precipitation ranges for Fremont cottonwood are as follows [8,21,25,61,152]:
| AZ | 12 to 18 inches (305-457 mm) |
| CA | 1 to 4.5 inches (25.4-114.3 mm) |
| NV | 9.2 inches (234 mm) |
| UT | 8 to 11 inches (203-279 mm) |
Soils: Fremont cottonwood is found in alluvial valleys, on terraces of floodplains, stabilized gravel bars, and adjacent to disturbed sites (agricultural lands and forest clearings) [8,26,88]. Soil types and structures include well-drained, alluvial, sandy to sandy clay loams with varying degrees of organic matter [29,57], clay or other fine soil and rock deposits [31], coarse, rocky and sterile soils [7], and fine-grained alluvial substrates [143]. It has also been described as fairly salt tolerant (< 1,500 mg/L) [26].
Elevational ranges for Fremont cottonwood are as follows:
| P. f. ssp. fremontii | References | |
| AZ | 2 to 9,428 feet (0.6-2,857 m) | [8,13,27,49,59,65,88,90,94,98,143,148,149] |
| CA | 0 to 6,500 feet (0-1,981 m) | [7,31] |
| NM | 789 to 9,428 feet (239-2,857 m) | [148,149] |
| NV | 2,162 to 5,460 feet (659-1,664 m) | [9,21] |
| UT | 2,494 to 6,103 feet (760-1,860 m) | [47,51,52,83,92,123,162] |
| P. f. ssp. mesetae | ||
| TX | 2,600 to 4,800 feet (792-1,463 m) | [128] |
Fremont cottonwood is a shade-intolerant pioneer that typically establishes on freshly exposed alluvium, sand or gravel bars, streambanks, or other floodplain sites following winter/spring floods [26,79,80,111,112,143,144]. Communities dominated or codominated by Fremont cottonwood and other cottonwoods (Populus spp.) are naturally maintained by periodic winter and spring floods [31,58,115]. Dams and reservoir systems that change the natural timing and volume of water flow reduce the recruitment and vigor of Fremont cottonwood stands [58]. In the absence of periodic flooding, succession proceeds, and the cottonwoods are eventually replaced by more shade-tolerant species (for example, western honey mesquite) [115]. Flooding and time between floods are the driving successional forces in these communities [93].
Lowe [109] has called Fremont cottonwood associations a "distinctive climax biotic community." According to Johnson [93] Fremont cottonwood is both a "climax" and "pioneer" in Clementsian successional terminology. In Arizona, Asplund and Gooch [8] found that germination and establishment of Fremont cottonwood could take place in the absence of other species. Replacement of species does not occur; therefore, biological succession is not a good descriptor of the interspecific dynamics of these riparian communities [8]. Fremont cottonwood is "considered an important member of the climax riparian vegetation in the Sacramento Valley" of California. In Utah, Fremont cottonwood occurs in mid-seral successional stages, not climax [79].
In general, Fremont cottonwood 1st flowers early in the spring, before leaf emergence, and finishes by the end of May. Seed drop roughly coincides with the receding of spring floodwaters. Cottonwoods are dormant during the fall. Leaf senescence occurs in late September and abscission in mid-October. General dates for some phenological stages of Fremont cottonwood are as follows [8,26,27,31,58]:
| Location | Begins flowering | Full flower | Ends flowering | Seeds ripen & disperse |
| AZ | ---- | ---- | ---- | April-June |
| central AZ | ---- | Feb 15-March 15 | ---- | March-April |
| west-central AZ | ---- | ---- | ---- | Feb-March |
| CA | April-May | |||
| UT | May | May | May | ---- |
Fire adaptations: Fremont cottonwood sprouts after fire or other injury. Coppice sprouting is the predominant mechanism of vegetative reproduction in most areas. However, root suckering is the predominant method in some areas of Utah [34,70,79,91,145].
Disturbances such as fire may favor seedling regeneration. Fire thins the overstory and surrounding vegetation, allowing light to penetrate, and exposes mineral soil [143].
Fire regimes: Fremont cottonwoods are not fire dependent [145]. Historical fire regimes for Fremont cottonwood-dominated riparian zones bordering drier ecosystems are poorly described [154]. Fire scars are rare on Fremont cottonwood and when found, usually have such extensive heartrot that the tree's fire history cannot be reconstructed [146,147].Wildland fires appear to have been infrequent in riparian communities dominated by Fremont cottonwood, Goodding willow, and mesquite species prior to invasion by saltcedar [34]. Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems bordering Fremont cottonwood communities are summarized below. Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".
| Community or Ecosystem | Dominant Species | Fire Return Interval Range (years) |
| California chaparral | Adenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp. | < 35 to < 100 |
| sagebrush steppe | Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata | 20-70 [33] |
| basin big sagebrush | A. t. var. tridentata | 12-43 [136] |
| saltbush-greasewood | Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus | <35 to <100 |
| mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub | Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii | <35 to <100 |
| blackbrush | Coleogyne ramosissima | <35 to <100 |
| creosotebush | Larrea tridentata | < 35 to 100 |
| mesquite | Prosopis glandulosa | < 35 to < 100 |
| California oakwoods | Quercus spp. | < 35 |
| coast live oak | Quercus agrifolia | <35 to 200 |
| Arizona cypress | Cupressus arizonica | < 35 to 200 |
| pinyon-juniper | Pinus-Juniperus spp. | < 35 |
| tamarack | Larix laricina | 35-200 |
| California steppe | Festuca-Danthonia spp. | < 35 |
| desert grasslands | Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica | 5-100 |
| galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe | Pleuraphis jamesii-Aristida purpurea | < 35 to 100 [33] |
Tree with adventitious bud/root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Mature Fremont cottonwood trees are top-killed by moderate fire [2,5,14,15]. The cambium layer is damaged by even low-severity surface fire [143,154]. In California, a severe wildland fire completely consumed the understory vegetation of a Fremont cottonwood community. Fremont cottonwoods that were top-killed by the fire were sprouting vigorously from the root crowns [15].
 |
| Fremont cottonwood sprouting, 13 months after the 2002 Wolf Creek Wildfire top-killed it. Photo by Jacob Bendix, Syracuse University. |
Most cottonwoods (Populus spp.) readily coppice following an injury such as fire; Fremont cottonwood sprouts primarily from the bole [34,70,145]. This ability presumably depends on fire severity. Fremont cottonwood also sprouts from roots [91]. Sprouting ability of cottonwood species is reported to decline after 25 years of age [62]. See black cottonwood for further information on sprouting response of Fremont and other cottonwoods.
In 2003-2004 and again in 2012-2013, Bock and Bock (2014) measured the condition of riparian trees at the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Arizona, in three canyons above the San Pedro River that had experienced wildfire in 2002, 2009, or both. Fire killed some Fremont cottonwoods, but most were completely or partially top-killed and sprouted. For Fremont cottonwoods that burned once, 38% of survived as mature trees, 45% were killed, and 17% were partially to completely top-killed and sprouted. For Fremont cottonwoods that burned twice, 34% survived as mature trees, 45% were killed, and 27% were partially to completely top-killed and sprouted [167] . See the Research Project Summary of this study for more information on the response of Fremont cottonwood and associated trees (Arizona sycamore, Arizona walnut, desert-willow, and velvet ash) to these fires.
Fremont cottonwood regenerates from off-site seeds if suitable site conditions exist during seed dispersal (see Botanical Characteristics, Regeneration Process).
In the southwestern United States, many riparian areas have been invaded by saltcedar [53]. Saltcedar-dominated communities accumulate fuels more rapidly than Fremont cottonwood-dominated communities and consequently burn about every 10 to 20 years [122,154]. Native vegetation, including Fremont cottonwood, is often absent from these burned areas despite prefire presence. The native vegetation is usually replaced by the fire-adapted saltcedar [33,99,122]. For the remaining Fremont cottonwood woodlands to survive, saltcedar needs to be removed and replaced with natural vegetation. Once this is done, a more natural fire regime can be reestablished [99].
1. Alberts, Allison C.; Richman, Adam D.; Tran, Dung; [and others]. 1993. Effects of habitat fragmentation on native and exotic plants in southern California coastal scrub. In: Keeley, Jon E., ed. Interface between ecology and land development in California: Proceedings of the symposium; 1992 May 1-2; Los Angeles, CA. Los Angeles, CA: The Southern California Academy of Sciences: 103-110. [21699]
2. Anderson, Bertin W.; Disano, John; Brooks, Donald L.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1984. Mortality and growth of cottonwood on dredge-spoil. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 438-444. [5851]
3. Anderson, Bertin W.; Drake, Jeff; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Population fluctuations in nocturnal rodents in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 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: 183-193. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5346]
4. Anderson, Bertin W.; Engel-Wilson, Ronald W.; Wells, Douglas; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Ecological study of Southwestern riparian habitats: techniques and data applicability. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 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: 146-155. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5343]
5. Anderson, Bertin W.; Higgins, Alton; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Avian use of saltcedar communities in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 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: 128-145. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5342]
6. Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1980. Designing and developing a predictive model and testing a revegetated riparian community for southwestern birds. In: DeGraaf, Richard M., technical coordinator. Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds: Workshop proceedings; 1980 February 11-14; Salt Lake City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 434-450. [17917]
7. Armstrong, Wayne P. 1966. Ecological and taxonomic relationships of Cupressus in southern California. Los Angles, CA: California State University. 129 p. Thesis. [21331]
8. Asplund, Kenneth K.; Gooch, Michael T. 1988. Geomorphology and the distributional ecology of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) in a desert riparian canyon. Desert Plants. 9(1): 17-27. [563]
9. Austin, George T. 1970. Breeding birds of desert riparian habitat in southern Nevada. The Condor. 72: 431-436. [10874]
10. Bahre, Conrad J. 1995. Human disturbance and vegetation in Arizona's Chiricahua Mountains in 1902. Desert Plants. [Volume unknown]: 41-45. [26028]
11. Baird, Kathryn. 1989. High quality restoration of riparian ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes. 7(2): 60-64. [11779]
12. Barbour, Michael G. 1987. Community ecology and distribution of California hardwood forests and woodlands. In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-25. [5356]
13. Barger, Roland L.; Ffolliott, Peter L. 1971. Prospects for cottonwood utilization in Arizona. Progressive Agriculture in Arizona. 23(3): 14-16. [8921]
14. Barro, Sue. 1989. Riparian vegetation after fire - a case study. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Fire Laboratory, Riverside, CA: 1 p. [6815]
15. Barro, Susan C.; Wohlgemuth, Peter M.; Campbell, Allan G. 1989. Post-fire interactions between riparian vegetation and channel morphology & the implications for stream channel rehabilitation choices. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 51-53. [21778]
16. Bassett, R.; Larson, M.; Moir, W. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim and southwestern New Mexico. 2nd edition. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. [Pages unknown]. [20308]
17. Bates, J. William; Moretti, Miles O. 1994. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) population ecology in eastern Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 54(3): 248-255. [25514]
18. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Chauilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225. [35898]
19. Belluomini, Linda; Trapp, Gene R. 1984. Ringtail distribution and abundance in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 906-914. [5880]
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. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon Watershed. R-45. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 155 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [460]
22. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1988. The hardwoods of California's timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-148. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 148 p. [5291]
23. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94. [495]
24. Bowler, Peter A. 1990. Riparian woodland: an endangered habitat in southern California. In: Schoenherr, Allan A., ed. Endangered plant communities of southern California: Proceedings, 15th annual symposium; 1989 October 28; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 3. Claremont, CA: Southern California Botanists: 80-97. [21321]
25. Boyce, Douglas A., Jr. 1988. Factors affecting prairie falcon fledgling productivity in the Mojave Desert, California. In: Glinsk, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; [and others], eds. Proceedings of the Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 237-248. [22974]
26. Braatne, Jeffrey H.; Rood, Stewart B.; Heilman, Paul E. 1996. Life history, ecology, and conservation of riparian cottonwoods in North America. In: Steller, R. F., ed. Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, NRC Research Press: 57-85. [29693]
27. Brock, John H. 1994. Phenology and stand composition of woody riparian plants in the southwestern United States. Desert Plants. 11(1): 23-31. [24155]
28. Brothers, Timothy S. 1984. Historical vegetation change in the Owens River riparian woodland. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 75-84. [5827]
29. Brotherson, Jack D. 1981. Aquatic and semiaquatic vegetation of Utah Lake and its bays. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 5: 68-84. [11212]
30. Brown, David E. 1979. Southwestern wetlands - their classification and characteristics. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands & other riparian ecosystems: Proc. of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 269-282. [4366]
31. Brown, David E.; Lowe, Charles H.; Hausler, Janet F. 1977. Southwestern riparian communities: their biotic importance and management in Arizona. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium: Proceedings; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 201-211. [5348]
32. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [33874]
33. Busch, David E. 1995. Effects of fire on Southwestern riparian plant community structure. The Southwestern Naturalist. 40(3): 259-267. [26498]
34. Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. 1993. Effects of fire on water salinity relations of riparian woody taxa. Oecologia. 94: 186-194. [22770]
35. Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs. 65(3): 347-370. [26124]
36. Carlson, Jack R. 1992. Selection, production, and use of riparian plant materials for the western United States. In: Landis, Thomas D., technical coordinator. Proceedings, Intermountain Forest Nursery Association; 1991 August 12-16; Park City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-211. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 55-67. [20926]
37. Carothers, Steven W.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1975. Water management practices and their effects on nongame birds in range habitats. In: Smith, Dixie R, technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on management of forest and range habitats for nongame birds; 1975 May 6-9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 210-222. [17772]
38. Clark, Harold W. 1937. Association types in the North Coast Ranges of California. Ecology. 18: 214-230. [11187]
39. Conard, Susan G.; MacDonald, Rod L.; Holland, Robert F. 1980. Riparian vegetation and flora of the Sacramento Valley. In: Sands, Anne, editor. Riparian forests in California: Their ecology and conservation: Symposium proceedings; 1977 May 14; Davis, CA. Davis, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences: 47-55. [5285]
40. Cully, Anne C.; Cully, Jack F., Jr. 1989. Spatial and temporal variability in perennial and annual vegetation at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(1): 113-122. [6742]
41. Dahms, Cathy W.; Geils, Brian W., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 97 p. [28047]
42. Diamond, David D.; Riskind, David H.; Orzell, Steve L. 1987. A framework for plant community classification and conservation in Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 39(3): 203-221. [24968]
43. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097]
44. Dick-Peddie, William A.; Hubbard, John P. 1977. Classification of riparian vegetation. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. 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]
45. Dickmann, Donald I.; Stuart, Katherine W. 1983. The culture of poplars in eastern North America. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Forestry. 168 p. [6317]
46. Disano, John; Anderson, Bertin W.; Meents, Julie K.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1984. Compatibility of biofuel production with wildlife habitat enhancement. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 739-743. [5872]
47. 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]
48. Eckenwalder, James E. 1977. North American cottonwoods (Populus, Salicaceae) of sections Abaso and Aigeiros. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 58(3): 193-208. [6300]
49. Eckenwalder, James E. 1992. Salicaceae: Willow family. Part one: Populus. In: A new flora for Arizona in preparation. In: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 26(1): 29-33. [21485]
50. Eckenwalder, James E. 1996. Systematics and evolution of Populus. In: Stettler, R. F.; Bradshaw, H. D., Jr.; Heilman, P. E.; Hinckley, T. M., eds. Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, NRC Research Press: 7-32. [28505]
51. Ehleringer, James R.; Arnow, Lois A.; Arnow, Ted; [and others]. 1992. Red Butte Canyon Research Natural Area: history, flora, geology, climate, and ecology. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(2): 95-121. [19687]
52. Ellis, Lisa M. 1995. Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments. 30(3): 339-349. [29819]
53. Engel-Wilson, Ronald W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1979. Floral and attendant faunal changes on the lower Rio Grande between Fort Quitman, and Presidio, Texas. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for protection & mgmt. of floodplain wetlands & other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 139-147. [4358]
54. England, A. Sidney; Foreman, Larry D.; Laudenslayer, William F., Jr. 1984. Composition and abundance of bird populations in riparian systems of the California deserts. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 694-705. [5870]
55. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
56. Farley, Greg H.; Ellis, Lisa M.; Stuart, James N.; Scott, Norman J., Jr. 1994. Avian species richness in different-aged stands of riparian forest along the middle Rio Grande, New Mexico. Conservation Biology. 8(4): 1098-1108. [29775]
57. Fenner, Pattie; Brady, Ward W.; Patton, David R. 1984. Observations on seeds and seedlings of Fremont cottonwood. Desert Plants. 6(1): 55-58. [5484]
58. Fenner, Pattie; Brady, Ward W.; Patton, David R. 1985. Effects of regulated water flows on regeneration of Fremont cottonwood. Journal of Range Management. 38(2): 135-138. [5489]
59. Ffolliott, Peter F.; Thorud, David B. 1974. Vegetation for increased water yield in Arizona. Tech. Bull. 215. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 38 p. [4448]
60. Fleshman, Carolyn; Kaufman, Darrell S. 1984. The South Fork (Kern River) Wildlife Area: will the commitment be forgotten. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 482-494. [5854]
61. Floyd, Don; Ogden, Phil; Roundy, Bruce; Ruyle, George; Stewart, Dave. 1988. Improving riparian habitats. Rangelands. 10(3): 132-134. [4272]
62. Fowells, H. A., compiler. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p. [12442]
63. Fulton, Raina. 1988. Los Coches mitigation area: A case study in native plant revegetation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles district. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 169-175. [4112]
64. 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]
65. Gavin, Thomas A.; Sowls, Lyle K. 1975. Avian fauna of a San Pedro Valley mesquite forest. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. 10: 33-41. [10861]
66. Giles, LeRoy W.; Marshall, David B. 1954. A large heron and egret colony on the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, Nevada. Auk. 71: 322-325. [24971]
67. Gilroy, Anne M. 1980. Habitat analysis of Sciurus niger and Sciurus carolinensis in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University. 33 p. Thesis. [20688]
68. Glinski, Richard L. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, 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: 116-123. [5340]
69. Goldner, Bernard H. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts associated with structurally modified flood control channels. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 445-451. [5852]
70. Gom, Lori A.; Rood, Stewart B. 1999. Fire induces clonal sprouting of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(11): 1604-1616. [35953]
71. Graf, William L. 1982. Tamarisk and river-channel management. Environmental Management. 6(4): 283-296. [18478]
72. Gray, M. Violet; Greaves, James M. 1984. Riparian forest as habitat for the least Bell's vireo. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 605-611. [5862]
73. Griffin, James R.; Critchfield, William B. 1972. The distribution of forest trees in California. Res. Pap. PSW-82. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 118 p. [1041]
74. Grubb, Teryl G.; King, Rudy M. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(3): 500-511. [18359]
75. Haase, Edward F. 1972. Survey of floodplain vegetation along the lower Gila River in southwestern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. 7: 75-81. [10860]
76. Hallberg, Donald L.; Trapp, Gene R. 1984. Gray fox temporal and spatial activity in a riparian/agricultural zone in California's Central Valley. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 920-928. [5881]
77. Hansen, Paul; Chadde, Steve; Pfister, Robert; [and others]. 1988. Riparian site types, habitat types, and community types of southwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Riparian Association. 140 p. [5883]
78. Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John; [and others]. 1989. Classification and management of riparian sites in southwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Riparian Association. 292 p. Draft Version 2. [8900]
79. 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., compilers. 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]
80. Harris, Richard R. 1987. Occurrence of vegetation on geomorphic surfaces in the active floodplain of a California alluvial stream. The American Midland Naturalist. 118(2): 393-405. [6679]
81. Henrickson, James; Johnston, Marshall C. 1986. Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert. In: Barlow, J. C.; [and others], eds. Chihuahuan Desert--U.S. and Mexico, II. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University: 20-39. [12979]
82. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
83. Hinchman, Virginia H.; Birkeland, Karl W. 1995. Age prediction based on stem size for riparian cottonwood stands. The Southwestern Naturalist. 40(4): 406-409. [27151]
84. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
85. Holland, Robert F.; Roye, Cynthia L. 1989. Great Valley riparian habitats and the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 69-73. [13511]
86. Holstein, Glen. 1984. California riparian forests: deciduous islands in an evergreen sea. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 2-22. [5830]
87. Horton, Jerome S. 1960. Vegetation types of the San Bernardino Mountains. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [10687]
88. Horton, Jerome S.; Campbell, C. J. 1974. Management of phreatophyte and riparian vegetation for maximum multiple use values. Res. Pap. RM-117. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p. [6318]
89. Hubbard, John P. 1971. The summer birds of the Gila Valley, New Mexico. Nemouria: Occasional Papers of the Delaware Museum of Natural History. 2: 1-35. [7178]
90. Ingles, Lloyd G. 1950. Nesting birds of the willow-cottonwood community in California. Auk. 67(3): 325-331. [6315]
91. Irvine, James R; West, Neil E. 1979. Riparian tree species distribution and succession along the lower Escalante River, Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist. 24(2): 331-346. [5418]
92. 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]
93. Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter S.; Haight, Lois T. 1989. Southwestern woody riparian vegetation and succession: an evolutionary approach. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 135-139. [13515]
94. Jones, K. Bruce. 1988. Comparison of herpetofaunas of a natural and altered riparian ecosystem. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 222-227. [7114]
95. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]
96. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]
97. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
98. Keim, Paul; Paige, Ken N.; Whitham, Thomas G.; Lark, Karl G. 1989. Genetic analysis of an interspecific hybrid swarm of Populus: occurrence of unidirectional introgression. Genetics. 123(3): 557-565. [34933]
99. Kerpez, Theodore A.; Smith, Norman S. 1987. Saltcedar control for wildlife habitat improvement in the southwestern United States. Resource Publication 169. Washington, DC: United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 p. [3039]
100. Krochmal, A.; Paur, S.; Duisberg, P. 1954. Useful native plants in the American Southwestern deserts. Economic Botany. 8: 3-20. [2766]
101. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]
102. Kus, Barbara E. 1998. Use of restored riparian habitat by the endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Restoration Ecology. 6(1): 75-82. [28522]
103. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to wildlife. Bull. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 80 p. [9818]
104. Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p. [1401]
105. Laurenzi, Andrew W.; Ohmart, Robert D.; Hink, Valerie C. 1983. Classification of mixed broadleaf riparian forest in Tonto National Forest. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the workshop on southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 72-81. [21639]
106. Laymon, Stephen A. 1984. Photodocumentation of vegetation and landform change on a riparian site, 1880-1980: Dog Island, Red Bluff, California. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 150-159. [5833]
107. Layser, Earle F.; Schubert, Gilbert H. 1979. Preliminary classification for the coniferous forest and woodland series of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-208. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. [1428]
108. 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]
109. Lowe, Charles H., Jr. 1961. Biotic communities in the sub-Mogollon region of the inland Southwest. Arizona Academy of Science Journal. 2: 40-49. [20379]
110. McBride, Joe R.; Mossadegh, Ahmad. 1990. Will climatic change affect our oak woodlands? Fremontia. 18(3): 55-57. [13643]
111. McBride, Joe R.; Strahan, Jan. 1984. Establishment and survival of woody riparian species on gravel bars of an intermittent stream. The American Midland Naturalist. 112(2): 235-245. [9675]
112. McBride, Joe R.; Strahan, Jan. 1984. Fluvial processes and woodland succession along Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 110-119. [5832]
113. McClaran, Mitchel P.; Brady, Ward W. 1994. Arizona's diverse vegetation and contributions to plant ecology. Rangelands. 16(5): 208-217. [29721]
114. Miller, Ronald K. 1997. Southwest woodlands: Cultural uses of the ``forgotten forest'' Journal of Forestry. 95(11): 24-28. [28614]
115. Minckley, W. L.; Brown, David E. 1982. Wetlands. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 223-287. [8898]
116. Minckley, W. L.; Clark, Thomas O. 1981. Vegetation of the Gila River Resource Area, eastern Arizona. Desert Plants. 3(3): 124-140. [10863]
117. Minnich, Richard A. 1987. The distribution of forest trees in northern Baja California, Mexico. Madrono. 34(2): 98-127. [6985]
118. Minnich, Richard A. 1999. Vegetation, fire regimes, and forest dynamics. In: Miller, P. R.; McBride, J. R., eds. Oxidant air pollution impacts in the montane forests of southern California: a case study of the San Bernadino Mountains. Ecological Studies: Analysis and Synthesis. Vol. 134. New York: Springer-Verlag: 44-80. [30370]
119. Moir, W. H. 1983. A series vegetation classification for Region 3. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 91-95. [1672]
120. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
121. O'Malley, Penelope Grenoble. 1991. Large-scale restoration on Santa Catalina Island, California. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 7-15. [15763]
122. Ohmart, Robert D.; Deason, Wayne O.; Burke, Constance. 1977. A riparian case history: the Colorado River. In: Johnson, Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 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: 35-47. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5334]
123. 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]
124. Pase, Charles P.; Layser, Earle F. 1977. Classification of riparian habitat in the Southwest. In: Johnson, Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 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: 5-9. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5333]
125. Patey, Katherine J.; Wishner, Carl; Gibson, Joseph G. 1991. Tapo Canyon Creek riparian habitat restoration plan. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 47-48. [15454]
126. Platts, William S.; Armour, Carl; Booth, Gordon D.; [and others]. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 177 p. [6171]
127. 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. [171]
128. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & 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]
129. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
130. Reiner, Rich; Griggs, Tom. 1989. TNC undertakes riparian restoration projects in California. Restoration and Management Notes. 7(1): 3-8. [8073]
131. Rice, Jane Anderson; Smith, Norman. 1988. Hunting area preferences of red-tailed hawks and American kestrels in range lands. In: Glinski, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; [and others], eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Science and Technology Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 265-273. [22698]
132. Roberts, R. Chad. 1984. The transitional nature of northwestern California riparian systems. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 85-91. [5828]
133. Roberts, Warren G.; Howe, J. Greg; Major, Jack. 1980. A survey of riparian forest flora and fauna in California. In: Sands, Anne, editor. Riparian forests in California: Their ecology and conservation: Symposium proceedings. Davis, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences: 3-19. [5271]
134. Rucks, Michael G. 1984. Composition and trend of riparian vegetation on five perennial streams in southeastern Arizona. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 97-107. [5831]
135. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]
136. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579]
137. Schlorff, Ronald W.; Bloom, Peter H. 1984. Importance of riparian systems to nesting Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 612-618. [5863]
138. Schmutz, E. M.; Smith, E. L.; Ogden, P. R.; [and others]. 1992. Desert grassland. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V: 337-362. [23832]
139. Schreiner, Ernst J. 1974. Populus L. Poplar. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 645-655. [7731]
140. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
141. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]
142. Stoms, David M.; Davis, Frank W.; Driese, Kenneth L.; [and others]. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the Intermountain semi-desert ecoregion. The Great Basin Naturalist. 58(3): 199-216. [30151]
143. Stromberg, J. C. 1993. Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forests: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences. 27(1): 97-110. [29724]
144. Stromberg, J. C. 1997. Growth and survivorship of Fremont cottonwood, Goodding willow, and salt cedar seedlings after large floods in central Arizona. The Great Basin Naturalist. 57(3): 198-208. [28956]
145. Swanson, John; Johnson, Robert C.; Merrifield, Dave; Dennestan, Alan. 1982. Lassen Fire Management Planning Area: Lassen Volcanic National Park - Caribou Wilderness Unit. Implementation Plan. Mineral, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lassen Volcanic National Park; Susanville, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National Forest. 66 p. [21407]
146. Swetnam, Thomas W. 2001. [E-mail to Janet Howard]. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. [36751]
147. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H. 1996. Fire histories of montane forests in the Madrean Borderlands. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 15-36. [28061]
148. Szaro, Robert C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants. 9(3-4): 70-138. [604]
149. 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]
150. Szaro, Robert C.; Patton, David R. 1986. Riparian habitat classification in the southwestern United States. Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 215-221. [3516]
151. Texas Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Plant communities of Texas (Series level). Unpublished report. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 26 p. [23810]
152. Thomas, Larry; Kitchell, Katherine; Graham Tim. 1989. Summary of tamarisk control efforts in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 61-66. [11351]
153. Thorne, Robert F.; Prigge, Barry A.; Henrickson, James. 1981. A flora of the higher ranges and the Kelso Dunes of the eastern Mojave Desert in California. Aliso. 10(1): 71-186. [3767]
154. Turner, Raymond M. 1974. Quantitative and historical evidence of vegetation changes along the Upper Gila River, Arizona. In: Gila River Phreatophyte Project. Geological Survey Professional Paper 655-H. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: H1-H20. [36381]
155. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
156. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
157. Vogl, Richard J. 1976. An introduction to the plant communities of the Santa Ana and San Jacinto Mountains. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 77-98. [4230]
158. Wallmo, O. C. 1955. Vegetation of the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona. The American Midland Naturalist. 54: 466-480. [20325]
159. Warner, Richard E. 1984. Structural, floristic, and condition inventory of central valley riparian systems. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 356-374. [5840]
160. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
161. Weber, William A. 2000. [Personal communication]. December 15. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Museum. [36146]
162. 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]
163. Whittaker, R. H.; Niering, W. A. 1965. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology. 46: 429-452. [9637]
164. Wolfe, Douglas. 1988. Recreating a "natural" riparian environment, or getting the creek out of the culvert. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 193-197. [4114]
165. Zigmond, Maurice L. 1981. Kawaisu ethnobotany. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 102 p. [35936]
166. Zimmermann, Robert C. 1969. Plant ecology of an arid basin: Tres Alamos-Redington Area, southeastern Arizona. Geological Survey Professional Paper 485-D. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 51 p. [4287]
167. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 2014. [89514] Effects of wildfire on riparian trees in southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 59(4): 568-574.