Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
Introductory
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Carey, Jennifer H. 1994. Populus grandidentata. 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/popgra/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
POPGRA
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
POGR4
COMMON NAMES :
bigtooth aspen
largetooth aspen
aspen
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for bigtooth aspen is Populus
grandidentata Michx. (Salicaceae) [29,30]. Bigtooth aspen, along with five
other aspen species, has been assigned to the subsection Trepidae of
the section Leuce in the genus Populus. Because of their similarities,
these six species are sometimes considered a single super species [44].
Bigtooth aspen and quaking aspen (P. tremuloides) are the only two North
American aspen species.
In literature concerning areas where both North American aspen species
occur, many authors do not distinguish between bigtooth aspen and
quaking aspen. The information is reported about "aspen" in general.
In this review, "aspen" is used when citing studies in which both
species are discussed collectively.
Bigtooth aspen naturally hybridizes with the following species [29,30]:
x P. tremuloides: P. xsmithii Boivin
x P. alba (white poplar): P. xrouleauiana Boivin
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Bigtooth aspen primarily occurs in the northeastern United States,
southeastern Canada, and the Great Lakes Region. Its range extends from
Virginia north to Maine and Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia; west to
southeastern Manitoba and Minnesota; south through Iowa to extreme
northeastern Missouri; and east through Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
West Virginia. Disjunct populations are found in Kentucky, Tennessee,
North Carolina, and South Carolina [29,30].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
STATES :
CT DE IL IN IA KY ME MD MA MI
MN MO NH NJ NY NC OH PA RI SC
TN VT VA WV WI MB NB NS ON PE
PQ
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
14 Northern pin oak
15 Red pine
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
19 Gray birch - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
37 Northern white-cedar
43 Bear oak
46 Eastern redcedar
55 Northern red oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
108 Red maple
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Bigtooth aspen usually grows in even-aged mixed stands, most commonly
with quaking aspen [29,43]. It is a codominant tree in both hardwood
and conifer forests [13]. Bigtooth aspen does not occur as a subdominant
species because of its extreme shade intolerance [38].
Quaking aspen is the predominant species in aspen stands in the
Northeast and Great Lakes Region, but bigtooth aspen dominates
on the drier upland sites [13,17]. Aspen stands dominated by bigtooth
aspen are generally more open than those dominated by quaking aspen
[17].
Overstory associates not previously mentioned in DISTRIBUTION AND
OCCURRENCE include balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), bur oak (Quercus
macrocarpa), white oak (Q. alba), basswood (Tilia americana), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) [29].
A tall shrub layer is an important component of aspen forests [35].
Shrub associates include chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), downy
serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), dogwood (Cornus spp.), willow (Salix
spp.), beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa),
American hazel (Corylus americana), and sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina)
[13,29].
Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and dwarf bush-honeysuckle (Diervilla
lonicera) are frequent subdominant understory species in bigtooth aspen
stands [17,29,56].
Bigtooth aspen is listed as a dominant or codominant species in the
following publications:
1. Wilderness Ecology: virgin plant communities of the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area [35]
2. Aspen association in northern lower Michigan [17]
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Bigtooth aspen wood is light colored, straight grained, finely textured,
and soft. It is primarily used for pulp, but is also used to make
particle board and structural panels. Minor uses include log homes,
pallets, boxes, match splints, chopsticks, hockey stick components, and
ladders [33,43].
Bigtooth aspen bark is pelletized for fuel and supplemental cattle feed
[29].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Bigtooth aspen provides food and cover for wildlife. Moose and
white-tailed deer browse bigtooth aspen [3,60]. Beaver eat bark,
leaves, twigs, and branches [29].
Aspen provides the basic habitat for ruffed grouse over much of its
range. Ruffed grouse feed on the leaves in the summer, staminate flower
buds in the winter, and catkins prior to the breeding season. In
feeding, ruffed grouse prefer quaking aspen to bigtooth aspen [20].
Approximately 116 nongame bird species breed in aspen-birch (Betula
spp.) forests [5].
Cavity nesters use bigtooth aspen [21,65]. In a mixed hardwood forest
in central New York, bigtooth aspen accounted for 25 percent of the
trees with cavities although it made up only 12 percent of the potential
cavity trees sampled [65].
PALATABILITY :
Bigtooth aspen leaves are highly palatable to ruffed grouse [20].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Dry-weight bigtooth aspen browse averages 5.0 percent protein, 3.4
percent ether extract, 14.8 percent crude fiber, and 26.6 percent
nitrogen-free extract [61]. The simulation of animal use by clipping did
not alter the nutritional quality of bigtooth aspen browse [11].
Other normal foliar nutrient levels have been reported [9].
COVER VALUE :
Bigtooth aspen provides cover for ruffed grouse. The best cover is
provided by 5- to 25-year-old sapling stands with 3,000 to 8,000 stems
per acre (7,000-20,000 stems/ha) [20].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Bigtooth aspen is of limited importance for revegetating coal mine
spoils. Bigtooth aspen has been planted on mine spoils in Ohio and West
Virginia [63].
Bigtooth aspen naturally regenerated on acidic sites in Pennsylvania,
especially on sites where the soil had been ameliorated [26].
Bigtooth aspen regenerated naturally on barren, acidic,
metal-contaminated soil near Sudbury, Ontario. The soil, contaminated
by smelter fallout, had been treated with a surface application of
limestone. Bigtooth aspen apparently colonized the site from off-site
seed [67].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
In the literature, the management of bigtooth aspen is rarely
distinguished from that of quaking aspen.
In order to regenerate a well-stocked vigorous aspen stand, the
overstory must be removed [29,41]. Removing apical dominance stimulates
aspen suckering [41,64]. If the parent stand is not harvested, it can
be removed by shearing, chainsaw felling, girdling, treating with
herbicide, or prescribed burning [41,42]. Discing and roller chipping
are not recommended because these techniques damage the roots [41].
For optimum sucker density the parent aspen stand must have had at
least 20 square feet basal area per acre (4.6 sq m/ha). At age two, an
adequately stocked sucker stand exceeds 4,000 to 5,000 stems per acre
(10,000-12,000 stems/ha) [41].
Although aspen groves thin naturally, additional thinning improves
growth [29]. When thinning, bigtooth aspen should be favored over
quaking aspen because of its superior growth and resistance to disease
and insects, especially on dry sites [2,41]. Clones with superior
growth and stem form should also be favored. Yields differ as much as
200 percent between clones on the same site [41]. Barnes [7] has
developed a list of characteristics to use when distinguishing between
clones in any given season.
Only one thinning is recommended for aspen forests managed for pulp.
The stand should be thinned at age 30, leaving 240 trees per acre (590
trees/ha). Two thinnings are recommended if sawtimber is desired, one
at age 10 leaving 550 trees per acre (1,360 trees/ha) and one at age 30
leaving 200 trees per acre (490 trees/ha). The final cut should be
delayed for as long as the stand is healthy [41].
Repeated harvest of aspen on a site, especially by the whole-tree
method, may reduce long-term productivity [2]. Short-term rotation
management also reduces a stand's long-term health. Repeated
short-rotation aspen harvest increases the colonization rate of
Armillaria root rot (Armillaria mellea) [57].
Regeneration failure of aspen occurs if roots have been damaged by
harvesting equipment. Aspen harvested on flat or gently rolling sites
early in the summer may also have regeneration problems because of
saturated soils [8].
Genetic improvement research on aspen has been conducted in the past two
decades because of the increasing importance of aspen as a source of raw
material for the pulp and paper industries. However, most recent work
has concentrated on quaking aspen [4].
Bigtooth aspen responded to fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus, and lime
in various combinations) with increased height, diameter, and volume
growth during the 10-year period following the treatments. However,
mortality of quaking aspen fertilized with nitrogen suggests further
study is necessary before utilizing widespread fertilizer application in
bigtooth aspen stands [49].
Herbicides control bigtooth aspen [34,66].
Bigtooth aspen is more disease resistant than quaking aspen. The most
serious disease of bigtooth aspen is Hypoxylon canker (Hypoxylon
mammatum) [29,68]. Other rots, fungi, and root decay affect this
species [29]. Bigtooth aspen is a preferred host of gypsy moth. Death
occurs when nearly complete defoliation by gypsy moth is followed by a
fungal infection by Armillaria spp. [22].
By cutting trees and damming waterways, beaver destroy large aspen
stands [29].
Biomass estimates have been reported for bigtooth aspen [36,39].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Bigtooth aspen is a native, short-lived, dioecious, medium-sized
deciduous tree with a straight trunk and gently ascending branches. It
is distinguished from quaking aspen by slightly larger leaves and large
irregular teeth on the leaf edges. The fruit is a two-valved capsule
[12,43].
Bigtooth aspen is a rapidly growing tree. At maturity, it attains
heights of 60 to 80 feet (18-24 m) and diameters at breast height of 8
to 10 inches (20-25 cm). Stands begin to deteriorate after 50 to 70
years on good sites, but individuals may live as long as 100 years [29].
Bigtooth aspen is a clonal species. Clones resemble small groves
consisting of many individual stems [7].
The roots of bigtooth aspen are shallow and wide spreading; the lateral
root spread of a tree in a forest may be 33 to 66 feet (10-20 m).
Generally, four to five lateral roots originate from the tree and then
branch within 2 feet (0.6 m). Vertical, penetrating roots near the base
anchor the tree [29].
The bark of young trees is smooth, but after three or more decades, it
becomes rough and develops grooves [7].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Bigtooth aspen regenerates by seed and vegetative reproduction.
Bigtooth aspen is a prolific seed producer; a single tree may produce
more than 1.5 million seeds [29]. Bigtooth aspen generally has good or
better crops (greater than 61% of a full crop) 2 out of every 3 years
[18]. The light seeds are dispersed long distances by wind [29].
Germination rates are high [14,29]. Seeds germinate under a wide range
of temperatures as long as there is sufficient moisture. They will even
germinate when submerged in water [14]. Despite high seed production
and high germination rates, seedling establishment is uncommon. Few
seedlings reach more than a few inches in height. Bare moist soil free
of competition is necessary for seedling establishment. Short seed
viability (2-3 weeks) also limits establishment. A seedling may grow 6
to 8 inches (15-20 cm) the first year [14,29].
Most bigtooth aspen forests regenerate vegetatively. When the parent
tree is killed or the soil is heated, suckers develop from extensive,
shallow lateral roots. Bigtooth aspen roots that produce suckers are
generally less than 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter and about 3 to 7 inches
(7.5-17.8 cm) deep. A sucker grows 3 to 6 feet (0.9-1.8 m) the first
year, considerably more than a seedling. After a mature aspen stand is
destroyed by fire or logging, roots may produce 3,200 to 24,000 suckers
per acre (8,000-60,000/ha) [29]. Root suckers are initially dependent
on the parent roots for water and nutrients. Their dependence decreases
with time but is still substantial after 25 years. By age 25, the
parent roots contribute the nutrient requirements for approximately half
the yearly growth [68].
Multiple suckers result in a clone, a multistemmed vegetatively
reproduced individual. Interclonal differences can be substantial,
especially in sprouting ability [7,36]. Within a stand, clones are
distinguished by sex, phenology, leaf morphology, disease resistance,
bark and stem differences, branching habits, and other characteristics
[7].
Sakai and Sharik [51] investigated the hypothesis that female bigtooth
aspen clones would invest energy in fruit production at the expense of
vegetative growth. They found no significant differences (P>0.05) in
mean dbh or basal area density (basal area per unit clonal area) between
male and female clones.
The roots of bigtooth aspen may remain alive in a forest long after the
last tree has died. The longevity of bigtooth aspen roots has not been
documented. However, the roots of quaking aspen are known to persist in
the absence of an aspen canopy. The roots are sustained by transient
suckers that survive only a few years [54].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Bigtooth aspen most commonly occur on floodplains, gently rolling
terrain, and the lower slopes of uplands. Large stands grow on sands,
loamy sands, and light sandy loams. However, minor amounts of bigtooth
aspen are found growing on almost any type of soil [29,41]. Bigtooth
aspen has a lower soil pH limit of 4.0 [63].
Bigtooth aspen tolerates drier conditions than quaking aspen [2,17,47].
It has been classified as a subxeric species [10]. However, for good
growth on upland sites the water table must be at least 2 feet (0.6 m),
but not more than 5 feet (1.5 m), below the ground surface. The soil
must be moist but well aerated for good growth [29].
Bigtooth aspen ranges in elevation from sea level to over 3,000 feet (915
m) in North Carolina [29].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Bigtooth aspen is very shade intolerant [6,29,38]. It is a pioneer
species on disturbed sites [13]. It persists in seral communities until
senescence. Because of the tenacity and lateral extensiveness of its
roots, aspen is able to regenerate and dominate disturbed sites that
only had a minor aspen component in the original stand [13,44].
Palik and Pregitzer [38] reported no evidence of past suppression nor
release of bigtooth aspen in a mature aspen forest. They suggest that
most suppressed bigtooth aspen stems die.
The rapid height growth of bigtooth aspen suckers allows it to
outcompete other sprouting species such as northern red oak (Quercus
rubra) and red maple (Acer rubrum) on many sites. Another reason for
bigtooth aspen's propensity to dominate a site after disturbance is the
large amount of space its lateral roots occupy. Oaks (Quercus spp.) and
maples (Acer spp.) are generally limited to stump and root crown sprouts
[38].
In the absence of disturbance, bigtooth aspen is replaced by conifers
and hardwoods. On dry sites aspen is replaced by red pine (Pinus
resinosa), oak, and red maple; on intermediate sites by eastern white
pine (Pinus strobus); and on mesic sites by northern hardwoods, spruce
(Picea spp.), and fir (Abies spp.) [13,37,56].
In the Great Lakes Region at the turn of the century, many mature pine
forests were logged and burned. Bigtooth aspen and quaking aspen
frequently dominated the postdisturbance forests [17,27,37,50,56].
Without fire or other disturbance, these forests are being replaced by
later successional, shade-tolerant species [37,50].
In a study of forest succession in northern Michigan, bigtooth aspen,
which dominated the postfire forest, was replaced by red maple and
eastern white pine within 53 years [53].
On fine till soils in central New Hampshire, early successional species
including aspen dominate postdisturbance stands. These species are
replaced by sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia) [69].
In the absence of fire, aspen-birch forests in Maine are succeeded by
spruce [70].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Flowering in bigtooth aspen occurs in April or May, depending on air
temperature. The seeds mature in May or June. Seeds disperse before
the leaves are fully expanded. Bigtooth aspen flowers, foliates, and
disperses seeds about 1 to 3 weeks later than quaking aspen in the same
location [1,14,29].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Although bigtooth aspen is easily top-killed by fire, extensive
vegetative reproduction, prolific off-site seed production, and the
tenacity and lateral extent of its roots enable bigtooth aspen to
perpetuate after fire [44,56]. Removal of the overstory and heating of
the soil stimulate the sprouting of aspen roots [43,44,48]. Fire also
creates a suitable seedbed and reduces competition [56].
Aspen almost always retains or extends its range following fire [15].
The extensive aspen root system allows it to dominate the postfire
forest, even if aspen was only a minor component of the prefire stand
[13,44]. Aspen roots persist an undetermined length of time in the
absence of canopy aspen, making it possible for aspen to regenerate in a
stand in which aspen was not even represented in the prefire overstory
[44].
Aspen-dominated forests do not readily burn, especially when young and
healthy [15,27,44]. Slow burning, low-severity surface fires are
typical [15,25,27,48]. Decadent aspen stands contain more fuel and are
more likely to burn than younger stands [15,44]. An understory of
conifer species increases the flammability of aspen stands [24].
However, aspen is generally incapable of supporting a severe fire [25].
Crown fires in the surrounding forest generally drop into surface and
ground fuels when they enter aspen stands [15].
Fire every 150 years may be necessary to maintain aspen [56].
Presettlement fires in aspen stands probably occurred most often in the
fall when fuels are dry and leaf litter is deep [31]. The presettlement
fire interval of aspen-birch-fir forests in the Great Lakes Region is
estimated to have been about 80 years for very large [greater than
10,000 acre (4,000 ha)] fires [24].
Aspen-birch forests may have burned at intervals of 50 years or less
[23]. Fahey and Reiners [71] estimated that aspen-birch forests in
Maine had a 100-year fire interval during the 50-year period from 1909
to 1959. However, this estimate may be high because fires were
declining during this time period due to fire suppression.
Heinselman [24] suggested that aspen parklands had fire intervals of 10
years for large [1,001 to 10,000 acre (400-4,000 ha)] fires.
Although quaking aspen is the principal tree in aspen parklands [24],
bigtooth aspen occurs in the prairie-forest edge in Minnesota [19].
Historically, bigtooth aspen frequently occurred in vegetational
patterns that are associated with fire. For instance, bigtooth aspen
occurred with oak and quaking aspen along the west side of the Big Woods
in Minnesota. These fire-tolerant species served as a firebreak between
the frequently burned prairie and the fire-sensitive climax forest of
the Big Woods. Aspen served as a fire break because grassland fires
normally did not travel far into aspen stands due to low flammability.
However, fuel would build up in the aging aspen stands and eventually an
intense fire would destroy the aboveground biomass, rejuvenate the
aspen, and eliminate the less fire-tolerant species. At the same time,
frequent fire in the prairie prevented aspen expansion [19].
Another example of a fire-influenced vegetational pattern is in the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota. Aspen commonly occurs in areas
that frequently burn, such as large uplands areas distant from water and
upwind of natural fire breaks such as lakes [23].
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 with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Bigtooth aspen trees are very susceptible to fire, although bigtooth
aspen roots are very fire resistant. Bigtooth aspen bark is thin and
does not protect the cambium from heat damage [29]. If there is
sufficient fuel in a young sapling stand for a fire to burn, the fire
will kill the saplings [44]. An average scorch height of 0.6 feet (0.2
m) will kill most aspen stems smaller than 6 inches (15 cm) in dbh [55].
Since most fires in aspen are of low severity, mature trees do not
always succumb to fire. However, basal wounds caused by low-severity
fire serve as entry points for disease organisms [29,44].
Prolonged drought and large amounts of slash are required to raise the
soil temperature high enough to kill the roots of aspen [25]. Bigtooth
aspen roots are deeper in the soil than quaking aspen roots, making root
damage from fire highly unlikely in bigtooth aspen [40].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
A fire-killed aspen stand regenerates from surviving roots [25,29,44],
which are stimulated to produce suckers when apical dominance is removed
[44,64].
Roots must have a high cytokinin to auxin ratio to initiate sucker
growth. If a low-intensity fire girdles aspen such that the downward
movement of auxin in the phloem is interrupted but the upward movement
of cytokinin continues in the xylem, the tree may survive for several
years. Since the cytokinin continues to move out of the roots, it does
not accumulate, and suckers do not develop [64].
Roots are stimulated to sprout if the soil is heated [25,29]. The soil
is heated not only by the fire, but also by blackening of the soil
surface and removal of overstory and duff [48].
The density and growth of suckers is dependent in part on fire severity.
A low-severity fire that does not kill all of the overstory does not
result in suckers as dense or vigorous as those produced after a
moderate-severity fire [25].
Fire also prepares a favorable seedbed for bigtooth aspen. Seeds from
off-site sources may blow onto burned sites and establish if there is
sufficient moisture and if the competition is not severe [14,56].
Most shrub species in the understory of aspen forests are able to sprout
after fire [13], as are many hardwood associates [38].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed fire is used as a management tool to regenerate aspen stands
[41]. Moderate-severity fire which kills all remaining canopy stems and
removes duff is recommended following harvest to maximize the number of
suckers [25]. A low-severity fire does not always induce sufficiently
dense and vigorous suckers to regenerate an aspen stand [25].
Soil nutrient concentrations increased after wildfire on both clearcut
and wholetree harvested sites that had formerly supported adjacent
northern red oak-bigtooth aspen forests [73].
A mature aspen stand that is clearcut will generally have enough slash
for fire to kill any residual standing trees. Fuel loadings of at least
10 tons per acre (22 t/ha) of slash less than 3 inches (8 cm)
in diameter are recommended [41]. Refer to Beyerhelm and Sando [72] for
fuel loading estimation techniques for aspen-northern hardwood stands.
The recommended weather conditions needed to burn a harvested aspen site
are reported for those stands with less than 25 percent conifers,
greater than 25 percent conifers, and with little slash [41].
In northern lower Michigan, Scheiner and others [52] studied the
vegetational response to clearcutting followed 1 year later by burning.
Prior to cutting, bigtooth aspen dominated the site with 153 stems per
acre (378 stems/ha). One year postcut, but prefire, the vegetation was
dominated by red maple, northern red oak, and paper birch (Betula
papyrifera) sprouts. However, in postfire year 1, bigtooth aspen was
again the most abundant species with 9,911 sucker stems per acre (24,481
stems/ha). Although declining in number, bigtooth aspen continued to
dominate the site for the duration of the study (5 years).
Weber [64] studied the response of a quaking aspen and bigtooth aspen
stand to four different treatments: surface burning before and after
spring leaf flush and clearcutting before and after leaf flush. Three
years after treatment, the preflush cut had the greatest stem density,
average height, and basal diameter. Both cut treatments had greater
stem densities than the burn treatments. The preflush cut treatment
probably had more stems than the postflush cut treatment because
carbohydrate root reserves were not depleted.
One reason for low rates of suckering after prescribed burning was that
the fires did not completely kill the overstory. The existing trees
survived one to two postfire growing seasons and continued to show
apical dominance, thereby preventing sucker development. The postflush
fire resulted in more suckers than the preflush fire, probably because
it was a hotter fire and killed more overstory trees [64].
Simard and others [55] developed equations for using postfire
observations to predict fire-caused injury to and mortality in aspen.
The National Fire-Danger Rating System uses the total ash and
silica-free ash content of fuels as one of its variables. Ash is a
noncombustible constituent of organic material and reduces the
combustion rate of fuel. In a study in Michigan, the total ash content
of dead bigtooth aspen litter fuels was 3.7 percent in the fall, 5.4
percent in the spring, and 6.2 percent in early summer. The silica-free
ash content was 2.0, 2.8, and 3.5 percent for fall, spring, and early
summer, respectively [31].
Ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus saxesceni) attacks fire-damaged bigtooth
aspen [58].
Because of its low flammability, bigtooth aspen has been recommended for
use in fire breaks, especially on droughty, sandy sites [27].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Populus grandidentata
REFERENCES :
1. Ahlgren, C. E. 1957. Phenological observations of nineteen native tree
species in northeastern Minnesota. Ecology. 38(4): 622-628. [74]
2. Alban, David H.; Perala, Donald A.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; [and others].
1991. Aspen ecosystem properties in the Upper Great Lakes. Res. Pap.
NC-300. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station. 47 p. [18412]
3. Allen, Arthur W.; Jordan, Peter A.; Terrell, James W. 1987. Habitat
suitability index models: moose, Lake Superior region. Biol. Rep. 82
(10.155). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 47 p. [11710]
4. Anderson, Neil A.; French, David W.; Furnier, Glenn R.; [and others].
1990. A summary of aspen genetic improvement research at the University
of Minnesota. In: Adams, Roy D., ed. Aspen symposium '89: Proceedings of
symposium; 1989 July 25-27; Duluth, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-140. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station: 231-235. [12834]
5. Back, Gary N. 1979. Avian communities and management guidelines of the
aspen-birch forest. In: DeGraaf, Richard M.; Evans, Keith E., compilers.
Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame birds:
Proceedings of the workshop; 1979 January 23-25; Minneapolis, MN. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NC-51. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 67-79. [18079]
6. Baker, Frederick S. 1949. A revised tolerance table. Journal of
Forestry. 47: 179-181. [20405]
7. Barnes, Burton V. 1969. Natural variation and delineation of clones of
Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata in northern lower Michigan.
Silvae Genetica. 18: 130-142. [2887]
8. Bates, Peter C.; Blinn, Charles R.; Alm, Alvin A. 1990. A survey of the
harvesting histories of some poorly regenerated aspen stands in northern
Minnesota. In: Adams, Roy D., ed. Aspen symposium '89: Proceedings of
symposium; 1989 July 25-27; Duluth, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-140. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station: 221-230. [12828]
9. Blinn, Charles R.; Buckner, Edward R. 1989. Normal foliar nutrient
levels in North American forest trees: A summary. Station Bulletin
590-1989. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural
Experiment Station. 27 p. [15282]
10. Cahayla-Wynne, Richard; Glenn-Lewin, David C. 1978. The forest
vegetation of the Driftless Area, northeast Iowa. American Midland
Naturalist. 100(2): 307-319. [10385]
11. Campa, Henry, III; Haufler, Jonathan B.; Beyer, Dean E., Jr. 1992.
Effects of simulated ungulate browsing on aspen characteristics and
nutritional qualities. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(1): 158-164.
[19705]
12. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the
Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
13. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
14. Faust, Mildred E. 1936. Germination of Populus grandidentata and P.
tremuloides, with particular reference to oxygen consumption. Botanical
Gazette. 97: 808-821. [10337]
15. Fechner, Gilbert H.; Barrows, Jack S. 1976. Aspen stands as wildfire
fuel breaks. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 26 p. In cooperation with: Eisenhower
Consortium for Western Environmental Forestry Research. [7611]
16. 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]
17. Gates, Frank C. 1930. Aspen association in northern lower Michigan.
Botanical Gazette. 40(3): 233-259. [16933]
18. Godman, Richard M.; Mattson, Gilbert A. 1976. Seed crops and
regeneration problems of 19 species in northeastern Wisconsin. Res. Pap.
NC-123. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. [3715]
19. Grimm, Eric C. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling the Big Woods
vegetation of Minnesota in the mid-nineteenth century. Ecological
Monographs. 54(3): 291-311. [22170]
20. Gullion, Gordon W. 1990. Management of aspen for ruffed grouse and other
wildlife--an update. In: Adams, Roy D., ed. Aspen symposium '89:
Proceedings; 1989 July 25-27; Duluth, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-140. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station: 133-143. [12425]
21. Hardin, Kimberly I.; Evans, Keith E. 1977. Cavity nesting bird habitat
in the oak-hickory forests--a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-30. St. Paul,
MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 23 p. [13859]
22. Hart, John H. 1990. Effect of gypsy moth on aspen in Michigan. In:
Adams, Roy D., ed. Aspen symposium '89: Proceedings; 1989 July 25-27;
Duluth, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-140. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station:
173-176. [12429]
23. Heinselman, Miron L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research. 3: 329-382. [282]
24. Heinselman, Miron L. 1981. Fire intensity and frequency as factors in
the distribution and structure of northern ecosystems. In: Mooney, H.
A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical
coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the
conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 7-57.
[4390]
25. Horton, K. W.; Hopkins, E. J. 1966. Influence of fire on aspen
suckering. Department of Forestry Publication No. 1095. Ottawa, ON:
Canadian Ministry of Forestry. 19 p. [3694]
26. Hughes, H. Glenn. 1990. Ecological restoration: fact or fantasy on
strip-mined lands in western Pennsylvania?. In: Hughes, H. Glenn;
Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management
challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological
Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration:
237-243. [14699]
27. Johnson, Von J. 1975. Hardwood fuel-breaks for northeastern United
States. Journal of Forestry. 73(9): 588-589. [10921]
28. 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]
29. Laidly, Paul R. 1990. Populus grandidentata Michx. bigtooth aspen. In:
Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of North
America: Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 544-550. [22772]
30. 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]
31. Loomis, Robert M. 1982. Seasonal variations in ash content of some
Michigan forest floor fuels. Res. Note NC-279. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 3 p. [13243]
32. Maini, J. S. 1967. Variation in the vegetative propagation of Populus in
natural populations. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 48:
75-76. [3906]
33. Morley, Peter M.; Balatinecz, John J. 1993. Poplar utilization in
Canada: past, present and future. Forestry Chronicle. 69(1): 46-52.
[20573]
34. Newton, Michael; Cole, Elizabeth C.; White, Diane E.; McCormack, Maxwell
L., Jr. 1992. Young spruce-fir forests released by herbicides. I.
Response of hardwoods and shrubs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry.
9(4): 126-130. [18421]
35. Ohmann, Lewis F.; Ream, Robert R. 1971. Wilderness ecology: virgin plant
communities of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Res. Pap. NC-63. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station. 55 p. [9271]
36. Ostrom, Arnold J. 1983. Tree and shrub biomass estimates for Michigan,
1980. Res. Note NC-302. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [8162]
37. Palik, Brian J.; Pregitzer, Kurt S. 1992. A comparison of presettlement
and present-day forests on two bigtooth aspen-dominated landscapes in
northern lower Michigan. American Midland Naturalist. 127(2): 327-338.
[18188]
38. Palik, Brian J.; Pregitzer, Kurt S. 1993. The vertical development of
early successional forests in northern Michigan, USA. Journal of
Ecology. 81: 271-285. [21523]
39. Pastor, John; Bockheim, J. G. 1981. Biomass and production of an
aspen-mixed hardwood-spodosol ecosystem in northern Wisconsin. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 11: 132-138. [16937]
40. Perala, Donald A. 1974. Prescribed burning in an aspen-mixed hardwood
forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 4: 222-228. [5816]
41. Perala, Donald A. 1977. Manager's handbook for aspen in the north
central states. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-36. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 30
p. [5632]
42. Perala, Donald A. 1983. Shearing restores full productivity to sparse
aspen stands. Res. Note NC-296. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4
p. [16938]
43. Perala, Donald A.; Carpenter, Eugene M. 1985. Aspen: An American wood.
FS-217. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
8 p. [4122]
44. Peterson, E. B.; Peterson, N. M. 1992. Ecology, management, and use of
aspen and balsam poplar in the Prairie Provinces, Canada. Special Report
1. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry
Centre. 252 p. [22689]
45. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
46. Riffle, Jerry W.; Peterson, Glenn W., technical coordinators. 1986.
Diseases of trees in the Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-129. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 149 p. [16989]
47. Roberts, Mark R.; Christensen, Norman L. 1988. Vegetation variation
among mesic successional forest stands in northern lower Michigan.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 66(6): 1080-1090. [14479]
48. Rouse, Cary. 1986. Fire effects in northeastern forests: aspen. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NC-102. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. [3247]
49. Safford, L. O.; Czapowskyj, M. M. 1986. Fertilizer stimulates growth and
mortality in a young Populus--Betula stand: 10-year results. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 16(4): 807-813. [12635]
50. Sakai, Ann K.; Roberts, Mark R.; Jolls, Claudia L. 1985. Successional
changes in a mature aspen forest in northern lower Michigan: 1974-1981.
American Midland Naturalist. 113(2): 271-282. [4450]
51. Sakai, Ann K.; Sharik, Terry L. 1988. Clonal growth of male and female
bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata). Ecology. 69(6): 2031-2033.
[6168]
52. Scheiner, Samuel M.; Sharik, Terry L.; Roberts, Mark R.; Vande Kopple,
Robert. 1988. Tree density and modes of tree recruitment in a Michigan
pine-hardwood forest after clear-cutting and burning. Canadian
Field-Naturalist. 102(4): 634-638. [8718]
53. Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest
succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist.
20(1): 3-14. [5022]
54. Schier, George A.; Jones, John R.; Winokur, Robert P. 1985. Vegetative
regeneration. In: DeByle, Norbert V.; Winokur, Robert P., eds. Aspen:
ecology and management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 29-33.
[11905]
55. Simard, Albert J.; Eenigenburg, James; Blank, Richard. 1986. Predicting
injury and mortality to trees from prescribed burning. In: Koonce,
Andrea L., ed. Prescribed burning in the Midwest: state-of-the-art:
Proceedings of a symposium; 1986 March 3-6; Stevens Point, WI. Stevens
Point, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Natural Resources, Fire
Science Center: 65-72. [16270]
56. Squiers, Edwin R.; Klosterman, Jane E. 1981. Spatial patterning and
competition in an aspen-white pine successional system. American Journal
of Botany. 68(6): 790-794. [17843]
57. Stanosz, G. R.; Patton, R. F. 1987. Armillaria root rot in aspen stands
after repeated short rotations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 17:
1001-1005. [4488]
58. Stickel, Paul W. 1934. Forest fire damage studies in the Northeast. I.
Bark-beetles and fire damaged hardwoods. Journal of Forestry. 32(7):
701-703. [18755]
59. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
60. Stormer, Fred A.; Bauer, William A. 1980. Summer forage use by tame deer
in northern Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1): 98-106.
[8417]
61. Ullrey, D. E.; Youatt, W. G.; Johnson, H. E.; [and others]. 1964.
Digestibility of cedar and aspen browse for the white-tailed deer.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 28(4): 791-797. [19801]
62. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
63. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minesoils in the
eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 190 p. [15576]
64. Weber, M. G. 1990. Response of immature aspen ecosystems to cutting and
burning in relation to vernal leaf-flush. Forest Ecology and Management.
31: 15-33. [10373]
65. Welsh, Christopher, J. E.; Capen, David E. 1992. Availability of nesting
sites as a limit to woodpecker populations. Forest Ecology and
Management. 48: 31-41. [12983]
66. Wendel, G. W.; Kochenderfer, J. N. 1982. Glyphosate controls hardwoods
in West Virginia. Res. Pap. NE-497. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7
p. [9869]
67. Winterhalder, Keith. 1990. The trigger-factor approach to the initiation
of natural regeneration of plant communities on industrially-damaged
lands at Sudbury, Ontario. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M.,
eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st
annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January
16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum,
Society for Ecological Restoration: 215-226. [14697]
68. Zahner, Robert; DeByle, Norbert V. 1965. Effect of pruning the parent
root on growth of aspen suckers. Ecology. 46(3): 373-375. [16554]
69. Leak, William B. 1991. Secondary forest succession in New Hampshire,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 43: 69-86. [16683]
70. Patterson, William A., III; Saunders, Karen E.; Horton, L. J. 1983. Fire
regimes of the coastal Maine forests of Acadia National Park. OSS 83-3.
Boston, MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
North Atlantic Region, Office of Scientific Studies. 259 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State
and Private Forestry, Broomall, PA. [21108]
71. Fahey, Timothy J.; Reiners, William A. 1981. Fire in the forests of
Maine and New Hampshire. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 108:
362-373. [9707]
72. Beyerhelm, Carl D.; Sando, Rodney W. 1982. Regression estimation of
litter and one hour timelag fuel loading in aspen-northern hardwood
stands. Forest Science. 28(1): 177-180. [20775]
73. Adams, Paul W.; Boyle, James R. 1982. Soil fertility changes following
clearcut and whole-tree harvesting and burning in central Michigan. Soil
Science Society of America Journal. 46: 638-640. [6785]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/popgra/all.html
