Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

• Introductory
• Distribution and occurrence
• Botanical and ecological characteristics
• Fire ecology
• Fire effects
• Management considerations
• References

INTRODUCTORY

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION SYNONYMS NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY LIFE FORM FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OTHER STATUS
Photo by Dave Powell, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

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

Pin cherry is found in the boreal forest region with white spruce (P. glauca), black spruce (P. mariana), balsam fir (A. balsamea), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), American green alder (A. crispa ssp. crispa), oblongfruit serviceberry (Amelanchier bartramiana), roundleaf serviceberry (A. sanguinea), California hazel (Corylus cornuta var. californica), Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana), northern mountain-ash (Sorbus decora), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), skunk currant (Ribes glandulosum), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), whorled wood aster (Oclemena acuminata), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), red-osier dogwood (C. sericea), highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule), starflower (Trientalis borealis), and goldthread (Coptis groenlandica) [20,33,49,139].

In the northern hardwoods region, frequent associates of pin cherry include quaking and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata); paper and yellow birch (B. alleghaniensis); striped, red, and sugar maple (Acer pensylvanicum, A. rubrum, and A. saccharum); American beech (Fagus grandifolia), basswood (Tilia americana), eastern hemlock, northern red oak (Quercus rubra), balsam fir, and red spruce (Picea rubens) [24,36,55,143]. Prior to crown closure, raspberries (Rubus spp.) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens) are also abundant. Following stand closure, these species are replaced by shade-tolerant shrubs such as hobblebush (V. lantanoides) and Canada yew (Taxus canadensis). Other common understory plants include dwarf raspberry (R. arcticus ssp. acaulis), wild sarsaparilla, whorled wood aster, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), spinulose woodfern (Dryopteris carthusiana), and shining clubmoss (Huperzia lucidula) [55,143]. In the Central and Lake States, chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina) are particularly common associates [36,55,143].

In the southern and mid-Appalachian mountains, common pin cherry associates are eastern hemlock; red spruce; Fraser fir (Abies fraseri); yellow and sweet birch (B. lenta); American beech; pignut hickory (Carya glabra); sugar, red, mountain, and striped maple; black cherry; American mountain-ash (Sorbus americana); and northern red oak. Understory associates include downy serviceberry (A. arborea), Allegheny serviceberry (A. laevis), Canadian serviceberry (A. canadensis), flowering and alternate-leaf dogwood (Cornus florida and C. alternifolia), red elderberry, southern bush honeysuckle (Diervilla sessilifolia), mountain holly (Ilex montana), mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia), hobblebush, huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), thornless blackberry (R. canadensis), red raspberry, and Appalachian gooseberry (Ribes rotundifolium) [24,30,31,34,55,81,105,143].

Pin cherry is also common in heath balds adjacent to southern spruce-fir forests, occurring in thickets with American mountain-ash, hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), mountain maple, treefern (Dicksonia spp.), currants (Ribes spp.), raspberries (Rubus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), Catawba rosebay (Rhododendron catawbiense), rosebay (R. maximum), minniebush (Menziesia pilosa), and mountain-laurel [24,31,34,73].

Classifications identifying pin cherry as a plant community dominant are listed below:

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

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

Pin cherry is a shrub or small tree [19,63,96,109,127]. It generally has a straight trunk and a narrow, round-topped crown [5,53,59,66,109,127], though it may form thickets [109]. Branches, at first ascending, become more or less horizontal and spreading with age. Pin cherry generally grows 15 to 50 feet (5-15 m) tall and 4 to 20 inches (10-51 cm) in diameter [5,53,59,66,109,127]. However, trees up to 100 feet tall (30 m) have been found in the southern Appalachians [19,53], with the largest size attained on western slopes of the Great Smoky Mountains [53]. In western North America, pin cherry (P. p. var. saximontana) may be generally smaller with an arching shrub form, growing 5 to 15 feet (1.5-4.5 m) tall and spreading 5 to10 feet (1.5-3 m) [23].

Pin cherry has thin foliage [63], with leaves 1.5 to 4.3 inches (4-11 cm) long [59,66,109,127] and 0.5 to 1.75 inches (1-4.5 cm) wide [59,66,127]. Flowers grow in small clusters of 5 to 7 with individual flowers 0.4 inch (1 cm) across. Fruit are drupes 0.15 to 0.3 inch (4-8 mm) across with 1 large seed [19,53,59,66,109,127,143]. Seeds are 0.15 to 0.24 inch (4-6 mm) in diameter with a thick seed coat. There are 13,600 to 22,700 seeds per pound (30,000-50,000 seeds/kg) [19,143].

Pin cherry has a shallow root system [53,143]. In New England, root systems in 4- to 14-year-old stands were less than 14 inches (36 cm) deep and had many lateral branches. In West Virginia, root systems of wind-thrown trees 25 years old were confined to the upper 24 inches (61 cm) of soil. Once a seedling reaches a height of about 3 feet (1 m), lateral roots begin rapid growth. [143]. Though Prunus spp. have been reported to be ectomycorrhizal, studies by Malloch and Malloch [85,86] in Ontario found no evidence of ectomycorrhizae in pin cherry roots. Endomycorrhizae were generally scarce in pin cherry roots, and most often absent altogether [85,86].

Pin cherry is short lived [63,109,127], maturing rapidly and dying off at 20 to 40 years [5,53,55,75,87]. Stands may begin to have a pulse of dead pin cherry wood deposition 15 years after disturbance. Pin cherry allocates relatively less carbon to structural stem issues and to fine roots than do other hardwoods, contributing to the common occurrence of stem snap at the root crown. Possible low production of defense compounds may encourage damage by insects and pathogens [68].

Breeding system: The flowers of nearly all Prunus species are bisexual [57].

Pollination: Prunus species are insect-pollinated [57].

Seed production: Pin cherry produces abundant seed at early ages [63]. Sexual maturity may be reached as early as 2 years [87,133,143], though large quantities of fruit are generally not produced for several years later [143]. Fruit is produced annually with large crops occurring every 2 to 3 years [87]. By the time pin cherry dies off (20 to 40 years), sufficient numbers of seeds have been produced and disseminated in a dormant condition for the reestablishment of pin cherry following disturbance [87,133]. Despite its short life span, fruit production of pin cherry is high. In New Hampshire, annual fruit production of 15-year-old, open-grown trees in pure stands was estimated at 1,118,000 fruits/acre (2,762,500/ha). For 25-year-old pin cherry stands in the same area, annual seed production was 940,700 seeds/acre (2,324,500/ha) [143]. Seed production peaks between 10 and 25 years, declining thereafter [22,133].

Seed dispersal: Pin cherry seeds are dispersed by birds, small mammals [53,55,87,143], and gravity [53,143].

Seed banking: As part of its reproductive strategy, pin cherry maintains a bank of seeds in the soil that remain viable for many years [32,133]. Seeds accumulate over prolonged periods (e.g. 50 years) [12,87,89], and most pin cherry seeds available for establishment following disturbance in mature stands (~100 years) are the result of seed banking rather than recently dispersed seed [55,89]. In a clearcut Maine hardwood forest, pin cherry seedlings were numerous although occurrence in surrounding stands and presumably in the preharvest stand was low [144]. Estimates of pin cherry seed contained in the duff of middle-aged northeastern deciduous forests range from 100,000 to >1.8 million per acre (250,000-4.5 million/ha) [11]. In 2 areas in New Hampshire, the average number of viable pin cherry seeds in the forest floor ranged from 139,676/acre (345,000/ha) to 200,000/acre (494,000/ha). In other New Hampshire stands, depending on stand age, the number of viable seeds in the forest floor ranged from 4,050 to 450,000/acre (10,000-1,110,500/ha) [143]. The distribution of pin cherry seeds in the forest floor is influenced by prior colonization of the site by pin cherry; dissemination of fruits by birds; and small mammal caches that tend to shift the distribution of seeds toward more or less discrete aggregations [32,87]. Longevity of buried pin cherry seeds has been estimated at 50 to 100 years [55,87]; pin cherry establishment after the removal of older stands relies primarily on seed dispersal into disturbed areas [55].  Seeds lose viability over time, so the pin cherry seed bank is eventually depleted in the absence of large-scale disturbance. The seed bank may persist at least 30 years after production ceases with little depletion, but is depleted gradually thereafter [22,133]. Seed bank losses are the result of seed rot and consumption by small mammals [32].

Germination: Pin cherry germination requires 1) the aging of the endocarp, either to break down an inhibitor or to increase permeability; and 2) an altered microclimate conducive to germination [87]. Dormancy of pin cherry seeds is caused by an initial physiological inhibition for several years followed by a secondary dormancy that remains until germination is stimulated by disturbance [133]. Because pin cherry seeds require open conditions for germination, there is often a prolonged delay between seed dispersal and germination [32]. Pin cherry seed banks may germinate in response to changes in soil temperature, light, or other triggering factors associated with the formation of a large gap due to disturbance [12,32,87,110]. However, the specific aspect of the changed environment that triggers germination is not known [32]. A study of stand development in Nova Scotia found higher incidence of pin cherry regeneration on soil disturbed by logging machinery than on undisturbed soil [139]. Laboratory experiments indicate that germination in open areas may be related to more extreme temperature fluctuations [76,143]. Germination may also be promoted by increased soluble nitrogen concentrations in the soil, based on increases in pin cherry germination following nitrogen (especially nitrate) fertilization [11].

The presence of occasional pin cherry seedlings beneath the canopy of undisturbed forest suggests that at least some germination occurs on a regular or annual basis [32,87,143]; however, seedlings have been reported to survive only in large openings where light and moisture were more available [143].

Seedling establishment/growth: Pin cherry establishment is directly related to open stand conditions. In a study of spruce-balsam fir forest canopy disturbance (spruce budworm outbreak), pin cherry established in greater abundance with 100% canopy removal than with partial canopy removal [99]. When established in high density, pin cherry grows quickly with early attainment of canopy closure [87]. When pin cherry occurs in high density (more than one 5-foot stem/43 ft² (1.5-m/4 m)), it may live longer than when occurring at lower density (less than one 5-foot stem/43 ft²), because high pin cherry density early in stand development delays the time when shade-tolerant species reach a stable proportion of the total basal area. Pin cherry develops an early height advantage over other species, and as pin cherry density increases, growth and survival of other hardwood (black cherry, red maple, sugar maple) seedlings decreases. A study of an Allegheny hardwood stand found that survival of black cherry, red maple, and sugar maple at age 15 decreased as the density of pin cherry >5 feet (1.5 m) tall at age 3 increased. The height of black cherry and white ash (Fraxinus americana) also decreased [110]. In dense stands, the pin cherry canopy closes in about 3 years, shading out many of the other early intolerant species. After 25-30 years, sugar maple, beech and balsam fir are the seral species. At intermediate densities, pin cherry may codominate with yellow birch, paper birch, and quaking aspen. At low densities, dominance is shared by many species including blackberries, striped maple, paper and yellow birch, quaking aspen, and stump sprouts of cut trees [143].

Pin cherry exhibits a strong self-thinning tendency. On a jack pine (Pinus banksiana) plantation in Ontario, pin cherry density (sprouting) was 1,440 stems/acre (3,600 stems/ha) 4 years after harvest and fell to 488 stems/acre (1,220 stems/ha) 6 years after harvest [82]. In a study of Allegheny hardwoods, pin cherry seedlings ranged from 1,400 to 78,000 stems/acre (3,500-195,000 stems/ha) 1 year after overstory removal. First-year seedlings were less than 5 feet (1.5 m) tall. By year 3, stands averaged 6,800 stems/acre (17,000 stems/ha), and trees were more than 5 feet tall. After year 5, the number of pin cherry stems declined rapidly and only 1,600 stems/acre (4,000 stems/ha) remained at year 15. The 15-year-old stems exceeded 39 feet (12 m) in height [110].

Pin cherry seedlings grow rapidly, especially when young [53,109]. It is not uncommon for pin cherry growing on good sites in the central Appalachians to reach 8 to 10 inches (20-25 cm) in diameter in 25 years. Rapid growth is directly related to the amount of light received [143]. In preliminary results, Roberts [112] found height growth of pin cherry seedlings was significantly greater (p<0.05) under partial-canopy (4.4 feet (1.3 m) tall) and open-canopy (9.8 feet (3 m) tall) conditions than under closed-canopy conditions (1.2 feet (0.4 m) tall).

Asexual regeneration: Once established, pin cherry seedlings may reproduce by sprouting and may form thickets [53]. Pin cherry has a high potential for stem sprouting and root suckering after cutting [71,71,143]. In a Quebec study most of the suckers forming a clone emerged 1 to 2 years after the parent stem was cut, with the number of suckers per clone ranging from 11 to 32. The largest clone studied covered 153 square feet (14.25 m²) [71].

Throughout pin cherry's range, the number of days of snow cover ranges from 1 to 10 days in the South to 120+ days in the North [53]. Mean annual total snowfall ranges from 24 inches (610 mm) in the southern Appalachians to 100 inches (2,540 mm) in the northern part of the range. Average annual precipitation ranges from 16 inches (410 mm) in the West to 30 inches (760 mm) in Canada and 80 inches (2,030 mm) in the Great Smoky Mountains; average growing seasons vary from 100-210 days [23,53,118,143]. In the southern Appalachians, the average number of days with minimum temperatures below freezing is 90; in the northern and western part of pin cherry's range the number of days is more than 180 [143]. In Colorado, pin cherry is cold hardy to -50 ^oF (-45 ^oC) [23]. As demonstrated below, normal daily temperatures vary widely throughout the range of pin cherry (data are in ^oF/^oC) [118,143]:

Pin cherry grows on a wide range of soils and drainage classes [19,55,143]. Generally found on moderately coarse to coarse soils [61,109,127,137], pin cherry grows on sites varying from rocky ledges and sandy plains to moist loamy soils [19,23,55,143,143]. Pin cherry sites can be characterized as water-shedding (rocky ridges, cliffs, dry woods, clearings) or water-receiving (sandy and gravelly banks, shores of rivers and lakes) [109,127,137]. Pin cherry grows well on somewhat dry sites and shallow organic layers relatively low in nutrients [23,53,61,113,143]. Soils very low in moisture may result in a shrub form of pin cherry [66]. Though commonly found on mesic sites with nutrient-rich soil [25,53], pin cherry is generally absent from wet sites [109,143]. Optimum pH for pin cherry is 5.0 to 6.0 [53], though is also grows on more acidic soils [67].

Pin cherry is shade intolerant [18,25,27,53,75,91,109]. A study of shelterwood harvest in the northern hardwood forest of Vermont found that pin cherry increased in abundance with <60% canopy cover [60]. Pin cherry establishes in canopy gaps and proliferates with removal of overstory, increasing in density and cover [33,41,91]. It is frequent in burned areas, clearings, disturbed areas, roadsides, fencerows, and along forest margins [53,66,109,127,137]. A New Hampshire study found that pin cherry was relatively more abundant in recently created (24 years) gaps, large gaps (1,052-2,428 m²), and gap centers. Pin cherry abundance increased with gap size [91]. In a New England hardwoods forest, pin cherry growth exceeded that of other pioneer species near the center of clearcut openings, while other species sometimes grew faster near the side-shade zone at the edges of openings [126].

Pin cherry is a particularly common successional species in northern hardwood and spruce-fir forest ecosystems, dying out relatively quickly as seral stands develop [24,49,87,139]. For example, pin cherry that established following a landslide in the northeastern spruce-fir zone was no longer present in the stand after 40 years [50]. In northern hardwood forests, pin cherry grows quickly after stands are cut and is often the tallest species from the 2nd to the 6th year of stand regrowth [27]. Pin cherry can be an effective competitor on disturbed sites [63,109] because it employs a vertical competition strategy, competing with other species for light by overtopping them due to rapid height growth [82].  Pin cherry often dominates regenerating northern hardwood or spruce stands (up to 70% of stems) for 15-20 years after disturbance [48,53,80,133,145], though it may die out sooner [48]. Pin cherry may also codominate with aspen, black cherry, red maple, and white or gray birch [53].

The pin cherry forest type develops rapidly, forming a closed canopy in 3 to 7 years and reaching maturity in 20 to 30 years [55]. Dominance shifts to mature forest species after approximately 30 years, and pin cherry rarely persists in stands after 40 years due to a combination of nutrient limitation, shade intolerance, and the relatively short life span of pin cherry [5,11,55,133]. A study in New England hardwoods found pin cherry was initially prominent following clearcutting, especially near the center of openings, but had died or become moribund after 20 years [126]. The initial density of pin cherry stands, determined by available buried seed, is an important determinant of succession. Where pin cherry is very dense, canopy closure limits the establishment and growth of other early successional species. Succession occurs in 2 distinct phases: the 1st is characterized by an almost pure pin cherry overstory and sparse understory; the 2nd phase involves the relatively abrupt dominance by shade tolerant species like sugar maple, beech, and balsam fir. At intermediate densities, pin cherry may codominate with other fast-growing species (e.g. yellow birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, bigtooth aspen), with shade-tolerant species gaining dominance gradually because shade-intolerant species die and are replaced at different times [55,63,87]. Successional patterns in low-density stands of pin cherry are quite variable, primarily because the rate of canopy closure is slower [87]. Repeated disturbance may result in persistent dominance of pin cherry or codominance of pin cherry and aspens [80].

At lower elevations in New England, pin cherry succeeds to aspens, white pine, or white pine-northern red oak-red maple. In the southern Appalachians, succession is to red spruce, red spruce-Fraser fir, or northern hardwoods [55]. Twenty-five years after a fire in the Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest, pin cherry density was 182 trees per acre (455 trees/ha), comprising 12.2% of total basal area, while Fraser fir had reached 531 stems per acre (1,327 stems/ha) and comprised 63.8% of total basal area [117,118]. This seral community was still several decades from a mature, closed-canopy spruce-fir forest. Pin cherry may persist longer on sites where severe fire, steep slopes, and shallow soil combine to slow development of mature stands [117].

Pin cherry sequesters nutrients that might otherwise be lost from the ecosystem during early stages of succession [88,109,133]. Rapid establishment and growth of pin cherry minimizes nutrient loss by 1) channeling water from runoff to evapotranspiration, reducing erosion and nutrient loss; 2) reduction in rates of decomposition through moderation of the microclimate during the growing season so that the supply of soluble ions available for loss in drainage water is reduced; and 3) incorporation into the rapidly developing biomass of nutrients that do become available and that may otherwise might be lost from the system [88].

FIRE ECOLOGY

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

Fire regimes: Pin cherry occurs in plant communities and ecosystems that historically experienced a range of fire regimes. In oak-hickory communities, for example, fires were typically frequent (<35-year mean), low-severity surface fires. Conversely, northern maple-beech-birch communities experienced long intervals between fire, and fire was usually stand-replacing [138]. White-red-jack pine communities experienced a mixed-severity regime with low to moderate severity at frequent intervals (20-40 years) and stand-replacing fires over longer intervals (100-300 years) [45]. Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which pin cherry occurs 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".

FIRE EFFECTS

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

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

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

Pin cherries are important to wildlife; they are eaten in summer and fall by at least 25 nongame birds (e.g. American robins, bluebirds), several upland game birds (e.g. ruffed grouse), large and small mammals (e.g. black bears, raccoons), and game animals [17,53,109,114,119,136,143].When birds eat the cherries, they disgorge the stones after the pulp is ingested [17]. Upland game birds, especially sharp-tailed and ruffed grouse, eat pin cherry buds [53,143].

Palatability/nutritional value: Pin cherry is characterized as preferred moose browse in Newfoundland [43,69]. Pin cherry palatability for white-tailed deer is low in fall and winter months, but improves from April to September [65,69].

Average mid-summer nutrient concentrations of pin cherry leaves, stems, and roots, based on 4 years of sampling in New Hampshire hardwoods, follow [97]:

Nutrient composition (in %) of pin cherry fruits from northern Ontario is presented below [135]:

Though deer browse pin cherry, its calcium:phosphorus ratio may be too high for deer nutrition [53]. Pin cherry has nutritional value similar to that of chokecherry [96]. The foliage of pin cherry contains hydrocyanic acid, and livestock browsing the leaves may be poisoned [93,109,143]; however, the toxicity of pin cherry leaves is lower than that of most other cherry species [143].

Cover value: Pin cherry generally provides fair to good cover for mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn, but provides poor cover for elk [42]. It offers good hiding cover for small mammals and fair to good nesting cover for nongame birds [42,53,109,143]

Pin cherry suckers readily and is assumed by some authors to grow well from root cuttings [143]. However, propagation of pin cherry from cuttings has proved difficult with little success reported [23]. Pin cherry is used as grafting stock for sour cherry (Prunus cerasus) [53,143].

Restoration: Pin cherry grows naturally on unreclaimed coal mine spoils [53,67]

Wood Products: Pin cherry wood is light, moderately soft, porous, and low in strength [66,143] giving it little commercial value. In general, pin cherry is not used for lumber and is considered a noncommercial species. It occurs in abundance, however, over a wide range of sites and produces large quantities of biomass in a relatively short time. The species has been described as well adapted to intensive management and chip harvesting on short rotations for fiber and fuel [143]

Pin cherry responds well to clipping and/or browsing [3,29,40,53]; a study in the Lake States region found annual growth increased by 88 to 121% following 4 years of  "heavy" clipping [3]. A study in western Ontario found cutting of pin cherry stems initially decreased density by 25% after 1 year. However, stem density in the 2nd and 3rd years exceeded precut levels by 5 and 8%, respectively. Stem thinning by natural mortality in the untreated control plots was 41% to 69% over 4 years [84]. A New England study found that moose and white-tailed deer preferred browsing taller pin cherry plants. Browsed plants had higher relative height growth following browsing (compensatory growth) than unbrowsed plants at "low" and "intermediate" densities. Compensatory growth decreased with increased density. Despite browser preference for taller plants, there was a clear net growth advantage for pin cherry of initial large size, when the effects of competition, browsing and compensatory growth were combined [121]. Though it generally does well under moderate to heavy browsing [53], heavy browsing of pin cherry can nearly eliminate it from a site [126]. A Pennsylvania study found that white-tailed deer browsing significantly reduced (p<0.05) pin cherry density [90]. Heavy barking of stems by snowshoe hares can cause pin cherry mortality [39].

Pin cherry is easily controlled by 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and triclopyr [29,98], and moderately controlled by hexazinone [29,146] and glyphosate [29,83,98,103,130]. Yarborough and Bhowmik [146] found hexazinone significantly reduced (p<0.05) cover and frequency of pin cherry. Raymond and others [107] report a single application of glyphosate resulted in an 82% reduction in pin cherry browse by posttreatment year 2. Mallik and others [84] found that both single and multiple applications of glyphosate significantly reduced (p=0.035) pin cherry stem density, achieving 90% mortality by the 3rd year following treatment.

Prunus pensylvanica: References

1. Ahlgren, C. E. 1974. Effects of fires on temperate forests: north central United States. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 195-223. [13110]

2. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1966. Small mammals and reforestation following prescribed burning. Journal of Forestry. 64: 614-618. [206]

3. Aldous, Shaler E. 1952. Deer browse clipping study in the Lake States Region. Journal of Wildlife Management. 16(4): 401-409. [6826]

4. Aldous, Shaler E.; Krefting, Laurits W. 1946. The present status of moose on Isle Royale. Transactions, 11th North American Wildlife Conference. 11: 296-308. [17042]

5. Allison, Taber D.; Art, Henry W.; Cunningham, Frank E.; Teed, Rebecca. 2003. Forty-two years of succession following strip clearcutting in a northern hardwoods forest in northwestern Massachusetts. Forest Ecology and Management. 182(1-3): 285-301. [45986]

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

7. Arno, Stephen F.; Fischer, William C. 1995. Larix occidentalis--fire ecology and fire management. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Ecology and management of Larix forests: a look ahead: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1992 October 5-9; Whitefish, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-319. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 130-135. [25293]

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

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

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

11. Auchmoody, L. R. 1979. Nitrogen fertilization stimulates germination of dormant pin cherry seed. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 9(4): 514-515. [45991]

12. Auclair, Allan N.; Cottam, Grant. 1971. Dynamics of black cherry (Prunus serotina Erhr.) in southern Wisconsin oak forests. Ecological Monographs. 41(2): 153-177. [8102]

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

14. Barbour, M.; Kelley, E.; Maloney, P.; Rizzo, D.; Royce, E.; Fites-Kaufmann, J. 2002. Present and past old-growth forests of the Lake Tahoe basin, Sierra Nevada, US. Journal of Vegetation Science. 13(4): 461-472. [45869]

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

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

17. Beal, F. E. L. 1915. Food of the robins and bluebirds of the United States. Bulletin No. 171. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [24990]

18. Beck, Donald E. 1988. Clearcutting and other regeneration options for upland hardwoods. In: Proceedings, 16th annual hardwood symposium of the Hardwood Research Council; 1988 May 15-18; Chashiers, NC. Vol. 16. [Place of publication unknown]: Hardwood Research Council: 44-54. [10903]

19. Belcher, Earl. 1985. Handbook on seeds of browse--shrubs and forbs. Technical Publication R8-TP8. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 246 p. In cooperation with: Association of Official Seed Analysts. [43463]

20. Berg, William E.; Watt, Philip G. 1986. Prescribed burning for wildlife in northwestern Minnesota. 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: 158-162. [16282]

21. 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]

22. Bewley, J. Derek; Powell, Andrew D. 1986. Seed conservation problems: natural and unnatural. In: Shearer, Raymond C., compiler. Proceedings--conifer tree seed in the Inland Mountain West symposium; 1985 August 5-6; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-203. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 1-12. [12781]

23. Borland, Jim. 1994. Prunus pensylvanica. American Nurseryman. 180(5): 106. [45983]

24. Bormann, F. H.; Siccama, T. G.; Likens, G. E.; Whittaker, R. H. 1970. The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: composition and dynamics of the tree stratum. Ecological Monographs. 40(4): 373-388. [21173]

25. Brand, Gary J. 1985. Environmental indices for common Michigan trees and shrubs. Res. Pap. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. [14465]

26. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]

27. Bricknell, Susan H. 1982. Development of canopy stratification during early succession in northern hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management. 4(1): 41-51. [46005]

28. Buchholz, Kenneth; Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age structure, biomass and net annual aboveground productivity of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 24-34. [8639]

29. Buse, L. J.; Bell, F. W. 1992. Critical silvics of selected crop and competitor species in northwestern Ontario. Thunder Bay, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwestern Ontario Forest Technology Development Unit. 138 p. [30340]

30. Busing, Richard T.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Eagar, Christopher C.; Pauley, Eric F. 1988. Two decades of change in a Great Smoky Mountains spruce-fir forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 115(1): 25-31. [4491]

31. Cain, Stanley A. 1930. An ecological study of the heath balds of the Great Smoky Mountains. Butler University Botanical Studies: Paper No. 13. Indianapolis, IN: Butler University. 1: 77-208. [22935]

32. Canham, Charles D.; Marks, P. L. 1985. The response of woody plants to disturbance: patterns of establishment and growth. In: Pickett, S. T. A.; White, P. S., eds. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc: 197-216. [45368]

33. Carleton, Terence J.; MacLellan, Patricia. 1994. Woody vegetation responses to fire versus clear-cutting logging: a comparative survey in the central Canadian boreal forest. Ecoscience. 1(2): 141-152. [26054]

34. Core, Earl L. 1929. Plant ecology of Spruce Mountain, West Virginia. Ecology. 10(1): 1-13. [9218]

35. Coveney, Mary Camilla. 1965. Effect of fire and wind-throw on a forest area. Boston, MA: Boston University. 142 p. Dissertation. [35683]

36. Crow, T. R.; Erdmann, G. G. 1983. Weight and volume equations and tables for red maple in the Lake States. NC-242. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 14 p. [12546]

37. Dansereau, Pierre. 1959. Phytogeographia Laurentiana. II. The principal plant associations of the Saint Lawrence Valley. Contributions of the Botanical Institute No. 75. Montreal, PQ: University of Montreal, Botanical Institute. 147 p. [8925]

38. Davis, Kathleen M. 1980. Fire history of a western larch/Douglas-fir forest type in northwestern Montana. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 69-74. [12813]

39. de Vos, Antoon. 1964. Food utilization of snowshoe hares on Mantioulin Island, Ontario. Journal of Forestry. 62: 238-244. [25071]

40. Demchik, M. C.; Sharpe, W. E. 2001. Forest floor plant response to lime and fertilizer before and after partial cutting of a northern red oak stand on an extremely acidic soil in Pennsylvania, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 144(1-3): 239-244. [46000]

41. DeSelm, H. R.; Boner, R. R. 1984. Understory changes in spruce-fir during the first 16-20 years following the death of fir. In: White, Peter S., ed. Southern Appalachian spruce-fir ecosystem: its biology and threats. Research/Resources Management Report SER-71. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region: 51-69. [21927]

42. 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]

43. Dodds, Donald G. 1960. Food competition and range relationships of moose and snowshoe hare in Newfoundland. Journal of Wildlife Management. 24(1): 52-60. [25107]

44. Dorn, Robert D. 1984. Vascular plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 276 p. [819]

45. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982]

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

47. Fay, Stephen C.; Alvis, Richard. 1993. White Mountain landscapes. Laconia, NH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 9, White Mountain National Forest. 76 p. Working draft on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [21663]

48. Fennell, Norman H.; Hutnik, Russell J. 1970. Ecological effects of forest fires: A literature review with special emphasis on the hardwood forests of eastern North America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, School of Forest Resources. 84 p. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [45918]

49. Foster, D. R.; King, G. A. 1986. Vegetation pattern and diversity in s.e. Labrador, Canada: Betula papyrifera (birch) forest development in relation to fire history and physiography. Journal of Ecology. 74: 465-483. [14651]

50. Francescato, Valter; Scotton, Michele; Zarin, Daniel J.; [and others]. 2001. Fifty years of natural revegetation on a landslide in Franconia Notch, New Hampshire, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Botany. 79: 1477-1485. [40698]

51. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr. 1968. A fire chronology for Itasca State Park, Minnesota. Minnesota Forestry Research Notes No. 196. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. 2 p. [34527]

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

53. Gill, John D.; Healy, William M. 1974. Shrubs and vines for Northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-9. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 180 p. [6207]

54. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

55. Graber, Raymond E. 1980. Pin cherry. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 17-18. [45759]

56. Graber, Raymond E.; Thompson, Donald F. 1978. Seeds in the organic layers and soil of four beech-birch-maple stands. Res. Pap. NE-401. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. [5983]

57. Grisez, Ted J.; Barbour, Jill R.; Karrfalt, Robert P. 2003. Prunus L. Cherry, peach, and plum, [Online]. In: Bonner, Franklin T., tech. coord. Woody plant seed manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Producer). Available: http://wpsm.net/Genera.htm [2004, Februray 22]. [46788]

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

59. Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1977. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Southern Forest Experiment Station; Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 235 p. [23522]

60. Hannah, Peter R. 1991. Regeneration of northern hardwoods in the Northeast with the shelterwood method. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(3): 99-104. [5351]

61. Harvey, B. D.; Bergeron, Y. 1989. Site patterns of natural regeneration following clear-cutting in northwestern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1458-1469. [9844]

62. Heinselman, Miron L. 1970. The natural role of fire in northern conifer forest. In: The role of fire in the Intermountain West: Proceedings of a symposium; 1970 October 27-29; Missoula, MT. Missoula, MT: Intermountain Fire Research Council: 30-41. In cooperation with: University of Montana, School of Forestry. [15735]

63. Heitzman, Eric; Nyland, Ralph D. 1994. Influences of pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L. f.) on growth and development of young even-aged northern hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management. 67: 39-48. [24507]

64. Hendrickson, William H. 1972. Perspective on fire and ecosystems in the United States. In: Fire in the environment: Symposium proceedings; 1972 May 1-5; Denver, CO. FS-276. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 29-33. In cooperation with: Fire Services of Canada, Mexico, and the United States; Members of the Fire Management Study Group; North American Forestry Commission; FAO. [17276]

65. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270]

66. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]

67. 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]

68. Hughes, Jeffrey W.; Fahey, Timothy J. 1994. Litterfall dynamics and ecosystem recovery during forest development. Forestry Ecology and Management. 63: 181-198. [22992]

69. Irwin, Larry L. 1985. Foods of moose, Alces alces, and white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, on a burn in boreal forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(2): 240-245. [4513]

70. Jobidon, R. 1998. Comparative efficacy of biological and chemical control of the vegetative reproduction in Betula papyrifera and Prunus pensylvanica. Biological Control. 11(1): 22-28. [46008]

71. Jobidon, Robert. 1997. Stump height effects on sprouting of mountain maple, paper birch and pin cherry--10 year results. The Forestry Chronicle. 73(5): 590-595. [23603]

72. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]

73. Korstian, Clarence F. 1937. Perpetuation of spruce on cut-over and burned lands in the higher Southern Appalachian Mountains. Ecological Monographs. 7(1): 125-167. [11233]

74. 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]

75. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19376]

76. Laidlaw, T. F. 1987. Drastic temperature fluctuation--the key to efficient germination of pin cherry. Tree Planter's Notes. 38(3): 30-32. [252]

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

78. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1976. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 3. Minor western hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1314. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 13 p. 290 maps. [10430]

79. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1977. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 4. Minor eastern hardwoods. Misc. Pub. No. 1342. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p. [21683]

80. Little, Silas. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests: northeastern United States. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 225-250. [9859]

81. MacMahon, James A.; Andersen, Douglas C. 1982. Subalpine forests: a world perspective with emphasis on western North America. Progress in Physical Geography. 6: 368-425. [8220]

82. Mallik, A. U.; Gong, Y.; Bell, F. W. 1995. Regeneration strategies of four major competing plants of Canadian boreal forests. Forest Research Institute Bulletin. [Rotorua, New Zealand: Forest Research Institute]. 192: 55-57. [46019]

83. Mallik, A. U.; Peterson, G. W.; Bell, F. W. 1996. Vegetative and seedling regeneration of pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica): efficacy of herbicide treatment. NODA (Northern Ontario Development Agreement) Note No. 21. Sault Ste. Marie, ON: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre. 4 p. [46075]

84. Mallik, Azim U.; Bell, F. Wayne; Gong, Yanli. 2002. Effectiveness of delayed brush cutting and herbicide treatments for vegetation control in a seven-year-old jack pine plantation in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Silva Fennica. 36(2): 505-519. [46011]

85. Malloch, D.; Malloch, B. 1981. The mycorrhizal status of boreal plants: species from northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany. 59: 2167-2172. [17717]

86. Malloch, D.; Malloch, B. 1982. The mycorrhizal status of boreal plants: additional species from northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany. 60: 1035-1040. [17718]

87. Marks, P. L. 1974. The role of pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) in the maintenance of stability in northern hardwood ecosystems. Ecological Monographs. 44: 73-88. [4144]

88. Marks, P. L.; Borman, F. H. 1972. Revegetation following forest cutting: mechanisms for return to steady-state nutrient cycling. Science. 176: 914-915. [45979]

89. Marquis, David A. 1975. Seed storage and germination under northern hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources. 5: 478-484. [6684]

90. Marquis, Davis A.; Grisez, Ted J. 1978. The effect of deer exclosures on the recovery of vegetation in failed clearcuts on the Allegheny Plateau. Research Note NE-270. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. [3507]

91. McClure, Jan W.; Lee, Thomas D. 1993. Small-scale disturbance in a northern hardwoods forest: effects on tree species abundance and distribution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23: 1347-1360. [22030]

92. McNicol, J. G.; Gilbert, F. F. 1980. Late winter use of upland cutovers by moose. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(2): 363-371. [4348]

93. Meade, John A.; Washer, Richard L.; Mohr, Donald M. 1986. Wild cherry and livestock. FS 152. New Brunswick, NJ: Cook College, Cooperative Extension Service. 4 p. [46018]

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

95. Methven, Ian R. 1973. Fire, succession and community structure in a red and white pine stand. Information Report PS-X-43. Chalk River, ON: Environment Canada, Forestry Service, Petawawa Forest Experiment Station. 18 p. [18601]

96. Morris, Melvin S.; Schmautz, Jack E.; Stickney, Peter F. 1962. Winter field key to the native shrubs of Montana. Bulletin No. 23. Missoula, MT: Montana State University, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 70 p. [17063]

97. Mou, Pu; Fahey, Timothy J.; Hughes, Jeffrey W. 1993. Effects of soil disturbance on vegetation recovery and nutrient accumulation following whole-tree harvest of a northern hardwood ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology. 30(4): 661-675. [22740]

98. 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]

99. Osawa, Akira. 1994. Seedling responses to forest canopy disturbance following a spruce budworm outbreak in Maine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 24: 850-859. [23969]

100. Park, Barry C. 1942. The yield and persistence of wildlife food plants. Journal of Wildlife Management. 6(2): 118-121. [7446]

101. Parker, G. R.; Morton, L. D. 1978. The estimation of winter forage and its use by moose on clearcuts in northcentral Newfoundland. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 300-304. [13639]

102. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

103. Pitt, D. G.; Fleming, R. A.; Thompson, D. G.; Kettela, E. G. 1992. Glyphosate efficacy on eastern Canadian forest weeds. Part II: deposit- response relationships and crop tolerance. Canadian Journal of Botany. 70: 1160-1171. [19597]

104. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]

105. Ramseur, George S. 1960. The vascular flora of high mountain communities of the southern Appalachians. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Science Society. 76: 82-112. [21401]

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

107. Raymond, Kevin S.; Servello, Frederick A.; Griffith, Brad; Eschholz, William E. 1996. Winter foraging ecology of moose on glyphosate-treated clearcuts in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60(4): 753-763. [46001]

108. Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. Latham, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Natural Heritage Program. 96 p. [21441]

109. Ringius, Gordon S.; Sims, Richard A. 1997. Indicator plant species in Canadian forests. Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 218 p. [35563]

110. Ristau, Todd E.; Horsley, Stephen B. 1999. Pin cherry effects on Allegheny hardwood stand development. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29(1): 73-84. [45997]

111. Roberts, M. R.; Powell, G. R.; MacDonald, J. E. 1989. Regeneration after clearcutting in the northern hardwood portion of the Nashwaak Experimental Watershed, New Brunswick. In: Martin, C. Wayne; Smith, C. Tattersall; Tritton, Louise M., editors. New perspectives on silvicultural management: Proceedings of the 1988 symposium on the conflicting consequences of practicing northern hardwood silviculture; 1988 June 9-10; Durham, NH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-124 and SAF 89-04. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 85-95. [9750]

112. Roberts, Mark R. 1991. Field response of red oak, pin cherry and black cherry seedlings to a light gradient. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 592-593. [15341]

113. 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]

114. Rogers, Lynn L.; Applegate, Rodger D. 1983. Dispersal of fruit seeds by black bears. Journal of Mammalogy. 64(2): 310-311. [5941]

115. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]

116. Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. SCOPE 18. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 135-154. [2038]

117. Saunders, Paul R.; Smathers, Garrett A.; Ramseur, George S. 1983. Secondary succession of a spruce-fir burn in the Plott Balsam Mountains, North Carolina. Castanea. 48(1): 41-47. [8658]

118. Saunders, Paul Richard; Ramseur, George S.; Smathers, Garrett A. 1981. An ecological investigation of a spruce-fir burn in the Plott Balsam Mountains, North Carolina. Research/Resources Management Report No. 48. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office; Cullowhee, NC: Western Carolina University, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. 16 p. [30856]

119. Schoonover, Lyle J.; Marshall, William H. 1951. Food habits of the raccoon (Procyon lotor hirtus) in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy. 32(4): 422-428. [25342]

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

121. Shabel, Alan B.; Peart, David R. 1994. Effects of competition, herbivory and substrate disturbance on growth and size structure in pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) seedlings. Oecologia. 98: 150-158. [23912]

122. Shiell, K. J.; St-Pierre, R. G.; Zatylny, A. M. 2002. Timing, magnitude and causes of flower and immature fruit loss in pin cherry and choke cherry. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 82(1): 157-164. [45837]

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

124. Sidhu, S. S. 1973. Early effects of burning and logging in pine-mixedwoods. II. Recovery in numbers of species and ground cover of minor vegetation. Inf. Rep. PS-X-47. Chalk River, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Petawawa Forest Experiment Station. 23 p. [8227]

125. Skutch, Alexander F. 1929. Early stages of plant succession following forest fires. Ecology. 10(2): 177-190. [21349]

126. Smith, David M.; Ashton, P. Mark S. 1993. Early dominance of pioneer hardwood after cutting and removal of advanced regeneration. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 10(1): 14-19. [20924]

127. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]

128. 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. 10 p. [20090]

129. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]

130. Sutton, Roy F. 1978. Glyphosate herbicide: an assessment of forestry potential. The Forestry Chronicle. 54(1): 24-28. [46004]

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

132. Thompson, Daniel Q. 1952. Travel, range, and food habits of timber wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Mammalogy. 33(4): 429-442. [46017]

133. Tierney, Geraldine L.; Fahey, Timothy J. 1998. Soil seed bank dynamics of pin cherry in a northern hardwood forest, New Hampshire, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28(10): 1471-1480. [45996]

134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2004. PLANTS database (2004), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

135. Usui, Masayuki; Kakuda, Yukio; Kevan, Peter G. 1994. Composition and energy values of wild fruits from the boreal forest of northern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 74(3): 581-587. [24583]

136. Vezina, Bernard P. 1977. Autumn diet of the ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Quebec. Nauraliste Canadien. 104(3): 229-234. [45982]

137. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]

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

139. Wall, R. E. 1983. Early stand development after clear-cutting on the Cape Brenton highlands. Information Report M-X-143. Ottawa: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of the Environment, Maritime Forest Research Centre. 16 p. [45838]

140. Wall, R. E. 1984. The role of disease in removal of weed species from developing forest stands. In: Delfosse, Ernest S., ed. Proceedings, 6th international symposium on biological control of weeds; 1984 August 19-25; Vancouver, BC. Ottawa: Agriculture Canada: 673-676. [46452]

141. Wall, R. E. 1986. Effects of black knot disease on pin cherry. Journal of Plant Pathology. 8(1): 71-77. [45984]

142. Wall, Ron E. 1990. The fungus Chondrostereum purpureum as a silvicide to control stump sprouting in hardwoods. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(1): 17-19. [45995]

143. Wendel, G. W. 1990. Prunus pensylvanica L. f. pin cherry. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 587-593. [13971]

144. White, Alan S. 1991. The importance of different forms of regeneration to secondary succession in a Maine hardwood forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 118(3): 303-311. [16591]

145. Wright, Henry A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 204-217. [2611]

146. Yarborough, David E.; Bhowmik, Prasanta C. 1986. Effect of hexazinone on weeds and on lowbush blueberries in Maine. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 165-166. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [9902]