Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
Introductory
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Walsh, Roberta A. 1995. Muhlenbergia montana. 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/graminoid/muhmon/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
MUHMON
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
MUMO
COMMON NAMES :
mountain muhly
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of mountain muhly is Muhlenbergia
montana (Nutt.) A. S. Hitchc. [16,34,40,42,82]. It is in the family
Poaceae. There are no currently accepted infrataxa.
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Mountain muhly occurs from Montana and Wyoming to western Texas and
south through Mexico to Guatemala. It extends west through Utah and
Arizona. It is also found in northern and Sierra Nevadan California
[16,25,34,40,42,46].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA CO MT NM TX UT WY MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
4 Sierra Mountains
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K054 Grama - tobosa prairie
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
SAF COVER TYPES :
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon-juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
247 Jeffrey pine
256 California mixed subalpine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
209 Montane shrubland
210 Bitterbrush
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass
401 Basin big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
409 Tall forb
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
413 Gambel oak
415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
416 True mountain-mahogany
420 Snowbrush
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Mountain muhly is an indicator or dominant species in the following
published classifications:
Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type
and community type [2]
Classification of the forest vegetation on the National Forests of
Arizona and New Mexico [3]
Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of Arizona south
of the Mogollon Rim and southwestern New Mexico [7]
A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado [22]
Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico [28]
Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in
central Colorado: a habitat type classification [39].
Forest vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre National
Forests: a preliminary habitat type classification [48]
Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of northern New
Mexico and northern Arizona [51]
A forest habitat type classification of southern Arizona and its
relationship to forests of the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico [59]
Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah [84]
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
In Arizona mountain muhly is an important range species with high
forage value for cattle [14,46,52]; it is most valuable for grazing
during the summer rainy period, when it is growing [6].
On ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ranges in northern Arizona, mountain muhly
was the third most utilized grass in a study of relative cattle
preference for various forage species. Mountain muhly was grazed 31
percent; only Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratense) and Arizona fescue
(Festuca arizonica) were more heavily grazed [14].
In Colorado mountain muhly is an important forage species in ponderosa
pine forests [38]. In the eastern Intermountain West, mountain muhly
provides considerable forage for cattle [16].
In central Colorado cattle preference for forage species was measured
on ponderosa pine/bunchgrass range during the spring-summer-fall grazing
season. Mountain muhly percent of dried rumen samples was [17]:
May June July Aug. Sept. Nov.
Percent 3.5 2.7 0.0 0.8 3.9 10.5
In Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, mountain muhly was a
principal winter elk food in xeric grasslands, in ponderosa pine-shrub
habitats, and in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) areas [43].
PALATABILITY :
In Arizona mountain muhly is a valuable forage plant because of its
abundance rather than because of high palatability. It is grazed most
readily when the plants are actively growing [44].
In Colorado mountain muhly is one of the more palatable bunchgrasses
for cattle. However, it becomes less palatable as it matures [38]
unless fully grazed throughout the growing season [82].
In Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, mountain muhly forage
palatability has been rated good for cattle and horses and fair to good
for sheep [23].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Mountain muhly energy value is rated good. Its protein value is rated
poor [23].
In Colorado and Utah, mountain muhly food values were listed as good for
elk, fair for mule deer, small mammals, and small nongame birds, and
poor for pronghorn and waterfowl [23].
Mountain muhly nutrition and digestibility have been described for
Arizona ponderosa pine/bunchgrass range. Mountain muhly nutritional
components and digestibility when growing in the open and under a timber
overstory were as follows [14]:
Open Timbered
Nutritional Components (%)
Crude Protein 6.8 6.1
Phosphorus 0.20 0.18
Ash 8.4 8.0
Digestibility (%) 50.9 47.6
Mountain muhly percent digestible dry matter at the beginning of each
month was as follows [64]:
Digestible Dry Matter (%)
June 47
July 49
August 55
September (beginning) 52
September (middle) 55
COVER VALUE :
In Utah the cover value of mountain muhly for wildlife has been rated
as good for small mammals, fair for upland game birds and small nongame
birds, and poor for waterfowl [23].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Mountain muhly has potential for use in land reclamation [82].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Response to disturbance - Mountain muhly is a decreaser in response to
trampling and heavy grazing [6,45,55,56]. In Rocky Mountain National
Park mountain muhly had significantly less cover at the edge
of hiking trails than in the forest interior, where it was not heavily
disturbed [8]. Mountain muhly is considered a key indicator of range
condition in Cochise County, Arizona. Allowable stubble heights and
volume removal to maintain satisfactory range condition are given [20].
On Arizona [14] and Colorado [45] ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ranges,
overgrazing causes mountain muhly to decline and be replaced by
sod-forming grasses. In Zion National Park, Utah, mountain muhly was
quite rare on a grazed plateau and was restricted to the southern third
of the plateau where grazing pressure had been lightest due to earlier
fencing. It was a common component of the surface vegetation on nearby
isolated, ungrazed mesas [53].
In a northern Arizona study of exclosures established in 1912 and
monitored until 1942, mountain muhly showed greatest increase on
unshaded, ungrazed quadrats. On excessively grazed ranges, openings
between trees completely lacked mountain muhly. Where scattered trees
provided some protection against grazing, mountain muhly occurred as
isolated "islands" [6]. In central Colorado ponderosa pine/bunchgrass
ranges, mountain muhly formed an increasingly larger percentage of grass
cover as the intensity of grazing use was reduced. It varied from an
average of 20 percent of composition on heavily grazed areas to 45
percent on those not grazed. Ungrazed plants produced 10 to 12 times
more seedstalks than plants that were heavily grazed [45].
On central Colorado ponderosa pine/bunchgrass range, grazing impacts
were monitored from 1940 until 1957. Of the perennial grasses on the
experimental sites, mountain muhly was the most important forage
producer. It remained widely distributed regardless of rates of
grazing, but cover was affected by grazing level. In grassland cover
types, mountain muhly cover increased more than 50 percent between 1940
and 1957 on lightly utilized areas; it decreased about 35 percent under
moderate use; and 63 percent under heavy use. Its density was greatest
inside grassland exclosures protected since 1940 [76].
In a Colorado study morphological differences between long-term grazed
and ungrazed mountain muhly largely disappeared within the first growing
season following cessation of grazing [13,68]. However, on central
Colorado ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ranges, mountain muhly which had been
grazed at 70 percent for at least 7 years took 3 years for leaf lengths
and number and height of flowerstalks to recover after protection from
grazing [76].
In central Colorado mountain muhly makes its main growth later than
Arizona fescue, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and sun sedge
(Carex heliophila), and is grazed later. On Arizona ponderosa
pine/bunchgrass ranges, mountain muhly receives heavier use than Arizona
fescue later in the growing season [76].
Mountain muhly on depleted ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ranges in central
Colorado increased significantly (p<.01) when fertilized with 50
pounds (22.7 kg) each of elemental nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
per acre during May 1968. Dry weight yields increased under all grazing
levels [19].
Effects on tree regeneration - In central Arizona mountain muhly
competed with ponderosa pine seedlings for water. Mountain muhly roots
grew faster than seedling ponderosa pine roots; mountain muhly was more
drought tolerant than ponderosa pine seedlings. During rain following
spring drought, mountain muhly roots took up water faster and more
completely and depleted soil moisture to lower levels than did ponderosa
pine roots. Established ponderosa pines were able to tolerate
competition for moisture by mountain muhly [50].
In the Southwest herbicides have been used to reduce grass competition
with ponderosa pine seedlings. Ponderosa pine survival 1 year after
planting on a site occupied by mountain muhly and Arizona fescue was
greater than 94 percent when the grasses were killed with dalapon. The
success was probably enhanced by the dead grasses serving as mulch [37].
Extracts of mountain muhly green foliage and dead residues reduced
germination and growth of ponderosa pine [71] and yellow sweetclover
(Melilotus officinalis) [72].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Mountain muhly is a native, perennial, warm-season bunchgrass [6,23].
Culms are branched at the base [82] and densely tufted [40,60]; they are
usually erect and 4 to 32 inches (10-80 cm) tall [16,34,40,82]. Leaves
are mostly basal and densely clustered; there are also some culm leaves
[16,82]. Leaf blades are 2 to 10 inches (5-25 cm) long [16,34,82].
Leaf sheaths become papery and loose from the culm [38] and are
persistent, often becoming flattened with age [82]. The inflorescence
is a narrow, oblong, erect or nodding panicle 2 to 6 inches (5-15 cm)
long [16,34,40]; the branches are 0.4 to 3.5 inches (1-9 cm) long, and
erect to moderately spreading [82]. Spikelets are one flowered [16].
Lemma awns are 0.24 to 0.79 inch (6-20 mm) long [16,34,40]. The fruit
is a caryopsis [34].
Mountain muhly has fibrous roots [10]. In a variety of soils, 15
percent of mountain muhly roots were in the first 3 feet (.91 m) of
soil, and 58 percent were in the first 6 feet (1.83 m). The deepest
roots were 9 feet deep (2.74 m) [29].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Hemicryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Mountain muhly reproduces by seed [16]. It can also reproduce
vegetatively by tillering, and sometimes spreads slowly by this method
[80].
On western Colorado ponderosa pine ranges, mountain muhly seedstalk
production is abundant in normal growing seasons [15].
In central Arizona mountain muhly sometimes retains its seeds into the
winter months [80].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Mountain muhly is found in dry to moist sites [23,82], but it requires
excellent drainage [40]. It is found in grassy parklands, on slopes and
foothills [16,20,82], on rocky, dry hillsides [24,25,34], and in
canyons and on mesas [34,38,46]. In Arizona it is the principal grass
on dry forested ranges between meadows [44].
Mountain muhly usually occurs on coarse to loamy soils, although it
sometimes occurs on clays. In Arizona mountain muhly grows on stony
clayey loam [4], sandy loam developed from basaltic parent material
[27], gravelly loam with a broken surface of volcanic rock, gravelly
sandy loams of both limestone and sandstone origin, and red clay [6].
In California mountain muhly grows on granitic rock outcrops [40]. In
Colorado mountain muhly grows on gravelly sandy loam, stony loam
developed from limestone, fine loose sand from disintegrating sandstone,
[10], and infertile, coarse-textured soil with little profile
development [33]. In Utah mountain muhly grows on basaltic stony loams
[63]. Mountain muhly grows poorly on acidic and saline soils [23].
In central Arizona mountain muhly grows where precipitation occurs
mainly during winter and late summer [4]. Annual maximum precipitation
occurs from July through September; a secondary period occurs from
December through March. Fall and late spring months are usually arid
[20]. Annual precipitation ranges from 17 to 25 inches (430-640 mm).
In Colorado about two-thirds of the annual precipitation, which averages
15.9 inches (404 mm), falls during the April through September growing
season [33].
Mountain muhly is reported at the following elevations:
Feet Meters
Arizona 4,000-9,203 1,219-2,805 [5,12,20,27,46]
California 4,500-11,220 1,372-3,420 [40,60]
Colorado 5,500-10,400 1,676-3,170 [10,23,34]
Montana 2,650-6,000 808-1,829 [36,74]
New Mexico 5,387-11,100 1,642-3,383 [1,29,56]
Texas 7,500 2,286 [41]
Utah 6,004-10,810 1,830-3,295 [82,84]
Wyoming 7,300 2,225 [23]
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Mountain muhly occurs in seral and climax communities. On ponderosa
pine/bunchgrass ranges of the central Rocky Mountains, the Arizona
fescue-mountain muhly stage is seral to ponderosa pine-fir forest [18].
In ponderosa pine/bunchgrass forests of Arizona and New Mexico, mountain
muhly declines in the successional sequence that follows complete fire
suppression [58].
Mountain muhly grows best in full sun [40]. In northern Arizona
mountain muhly declines as shade from ponderosa pine increases [6]. In
central Colorado mountain muhly declines with litter accumulation and
increased shading by young trees [33].
In parklike stands and openings in ponderosa pine forests of Arizona,
mountain muhly and other bunchgrasses develop into dense, exclusive
communities that resist penetration by other species, including
ponderosa pine [71].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Mountain muhly grows during the spring and summer months [38]. Mountain
muhly becomes semidormant if there is midsummer drought [64]. In
northern Arizona the start of mountain muhly growth is related to the
time of spring thaw, which begins when maximum air temperatures attain
50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 deg C). This temperature is usually achieved
about the beginning of March [65].
On northern Arizona ponderosa pine/bunchgrass range, mountain muhly was
measured during the snow-free months from 1963 through 1965. Overwinter
green height of mountain muhly was less than 1.3 inches (3.3 cm).
Mountain muhly peak growth was during July and August; extent of growth
appeared to be closely related to precipitation during those months.
Mountain muhly ceased growing during September. Phenological
development of mountain muhly was as follows [65]:
1963 1964 1965
Heads showing Sept. 5 Sept. 4 Aug. 15
Flowers in bloom Sept. 25 Sept. 24 Sept. 7
Seeds mature Oct. 10 Oct. 6 Sept. 27
Mountain muhly flowering times are:
Arizona August-September [46]
California June-August [60]
Colorado July-September [23,68]
Wyoming July-September [23]
Intermountain West July-September [16]
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Mountain muhly may sprout after aerial portions are burned. It is
densely tufted [40,60] and old sheath bases are persistent [82]; they
may protect basal buds from fire damage. On the other hand, in hot dry
conditions the dead litter of a mountain muhly plant can produce a hot
fire which may damage or kill the plant [81].
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 :
Tussock graminoid
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Mountain muhly culms and leaves are probably killed by fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Mountain muhly density generally decreases from prefire values during
the first few years after fire [31,62], but it may increase over
original values thereafter [4]. Mountain muhly usually takes at least 3
years to fully recover from fire [31]. However, after prescribed fire
in central Arizona, mountain muhly had recovered prefire biomass within
10 months [35].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
In central Arizona mountain muhly was sampled in September 1981, on
sites that previously had been prescribed burned in ponderosa pine pole
timber and mature stands. Thinning treatments and grazing management
varied from site to site. All burned sites were matched with similar,
unburned controls. The following mountain muhly production (kg/ha)
means were reported [4]; standard errors are in parentheses:
Ponderosa Pine Pole Stands
2 yr burn 5 yr Burn 7 yr burn
Burn 0.21 (0.06)* 0.60 (0.22) 4.56 (1.06)*
Control 1.60 (0.82)* 0.28 (0.12) 1.22 (0.38)*
Mature Ponderosa Pine Stands
Burn 0.88 (0.30) 0.16 (0.15) 0.84 (0.27)
Control 8.24 (4.20) 0.10 (0.05) 0.67 (0.20)
* Indicates significant difference (p<.05) between burn and control.
In 2-year-old burns, mountain muhly production was less than on control
sites. In 5- and 7-year-old burns, mountain muhly production was
greater than on control sites [4].
In central Arizona mountain muhly occurred on an area that was
prescribed burned October 18 and 19, 1977. Mountain muhly density was
sampled before the fire, in 1974, and again after the fire, in 1980.
Backfires and short strip headfires were used; estimates of fuel
consumption ranged from 50 to 75 percent. Most ponderosa pine
regeneration was not killed. Mountain muhly density was 1.01 stems per
square meter in 1974. In 1980, after the fire, stem density was zero
[62].
In central Arizona mountain muhly biomass and nutrient concentrations
were measured during the first growing season after burning on plots in
a ponderosa pine/Arizona fescue habitat type. The stand had been
unburned since a fire in 1876. The overstory consisted of uneven-aged
ponderosa pine distributed in even-aged groups of mature trees, poles,
or saplings. Mountain muhly was dominant in the herbaceous vegetation
within openings. Controlled burning occurred in November 1976. The
fire consumed surface needles on 94 percent of the area, and exposed
mineral soil on 16 percent of the area. Fuels less than 1 inch (2.54
cm) in diameter were reduced 63 percent. Fuel reduction was greatest
under mature trees, where fuel loads were heaviest; it was intermediate
in pole stands, and least in sapling stands. Mountain muhly standing
crop was sampled on 11 burned and 7 unburned plots during June and
September of postfire year 1. Mountain muhly standing crop and measured
nutrient concentrations (% oven-dry weight) were as follows 7 months
after fire [35]:
June 1977
Mature Timber Pole Sapling
Unburned Burned Unburned Burned Unburned Burned
Standing
Crop
(kg/ha) 3.97 3.26 2.18* 0.47 0.26 2.09
N (%) 0.99 1.19 1.02* 1.31 1.07 1.15
P (%) 0.25* 0.35 0.28* 0.34 0.27 0.32
K (%) 0.69* 0.82 0.68* 0.82 0.62* 0.82
Ca (%) 0.13* 0.18 0.14* 0.19 0.14* 0.18
Mg (%) 0.10* 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.12
* Indicates significant difference (p<.05) between burned and unburned
sites within a stratum.
By 10 months after fire, no significant differences in standing crop
were found between unburned and burned plots, and few significant
differences in nutrient concentrations persisted [35].
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Mountain muhly is a principal grass in some ponderosa pine/grass types
where recurring fires have maintained savanna. In north-central
Arizona mountain muhly will usually carry surface fires in November,
and perhaps during the winter and spring [11].
In the Santa Catalina Mountains of Arizona, decades of fire protection
have resulted in many ponderosa pine stands with a dense undergrowth of
ponderosa pine saplings. In the 1960's, an inventory of ponderosa pine
stands burned within the past few decades revealed that those burned by
lightning-caused fires, which occur at a relatively high frequency in
the range, were primarily open and parklike, with an herb layer
dominated by mountain muhly. However, intensity of a major incendiary
fire was so severe that it killed all ponderosa pines in the stand and
enhanced development of oak (Quercus spp.) scrub, which shaded out
mountain muhly [61].
In ponderosa pine/bunchgrass forests in Arizona and New Mexico, fires
applied every decade to reduce fuel and thin tree seedlings will
maintain ponderosa pine/bunchgrass savanna [58].
FIRE CASE STUDIES
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION :
Walsh, Roberta A., compiler. 1995. Effects of prescribed fires on mountain muhly on
the Fort Valley Experimental Forest, Arizona. In: Muhlenbergia montana. 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/ [].
REFERENCES :
Vose, James M.; White, Alan S. 1991. Biomass response mechanisms of
understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona
ponderosa-pine community. Forest Ecology and Management. 40: 175-187. [81].
White, Alan S.; Cook, James E.; Vose, James M. 1991. Effects of fire and
stand structure on grass phenology in a ponderosa pine forest. American
Midland Naturalist. 126(2): 269-278. [83].
SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION :
fall/moderate in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) sawtimber stands
fall/severe in ponderosa pine pole stands
STUDY LOCATION :
Prescribed fires were conducted at the Fort Valley Experimental Forest
near Flagstaff, Arizona.
PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY :
The ponderosa pine overstory occurred in three kinds of spatially
distinct patches. Sawtimber patches had average dbh of 25 inches (63
cm) and density of 49 trees per acre (120 trees/ha). There was a thick
accumulation of litter 12 to 20 inches (30-50 cm) beneath the canopies
of sawtimber trees; between canopies, openings received full sunlight
and had minimal litter accumulation. Pole patches had average dbh of 6
inches (15 cm) and density of 700 trees per acre (1,730 trees/ha).
Sapling patches had average dbh of 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) and density of
4,075 trees per acre (10,070 trees/ha). The groundlayer was heavily
shaded in sapling patches because of high tree density. Understory
grasses were mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), Fendler bluegrass
(Poa fendleriana), and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides).
Shrubs included Fendler's ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri) and Wood's rose
(Rosa woodsii var. ultramontana).
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
Not given.
SITE DESCRIPTION :
The study site is at 6,890 feet (2,100 m) elevation. Soil is stony clay
loam. Annual precipitation averages 19.7 inches (500 mm). There is
pronounced drought in May and June, frequent rain in July and August,
and scattered snowfall and rain in winter. Prior to prescribed burning,
the site was relatively undisturbed, with no evidence of grazing. The
study area was fenced in 1982, prior to plot establishment, to prevent
future livestock grazing.
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
Fire history of the study area suggests that fires occurred at
approximately 2-year intervals until the late 1800's, after which fires
were excluded until the time of the study. Ungrazed ponderosa pine
stands were prescribed burned on 2 consecutive days in late October
1982. Mean air temperatures were 64 and 57 degrees Fahrenheit (18 and
14 deg C). Relative humidity was 21 percent on both days. Backfires
were used on sawtimber patches; both back- and headfires were used on
pole and sapling patches. Fires were restricted to the understory and
little immediate damage to overstory trees was apparent. Using
heat-yield data and observations, fire severity in the burned patches
was ranked: below-canopy sawtimber sites > pole > sapling > open-canopy
sawtimber sites. On below-canopy sawtimber sites, fires consumed 95
percent of the fuel load and smoldered for several days. Fire behavior
was as follows:
Open-ST Below-ST Pole Sapling
Intensity (kW/m)
Backfires 5 NA 14 17
Headfires NA NA 346 294
Rate of spread (m/min)
Backing fires 0.2 NA 0.2 0.3
Head fires NA NA 4.5 7.6
Total heat yield
(kJ/sq m) 1,600 NA 42,082 15,866
Fuel load (Mg/ha) 17.1 145.9 46.2 30.5
Fuel Consumption, % 25 95 55 33
Note: Open sawtimber (Open-ST); below-canopy sawtimber (Below-ST); not
available (NA)
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
Mountain muhly was common on the experimental sites before and after the
prescribed fires. From mid-September through October 1982, prior to
burning, mountain muhly cover was estimated on burn sites and control
sites in below-canopy sawtimber, open sawtimber, pole, and sapling
stands. Postfire inventory was conducted from mid-October to
mid-November 1983, on all sites. Mountain muhly cover and biomass on
control sites were similar in 1982 and 1983. Mountain muhly average
percent cover was lower on burned sites in 1983 due to high mortality,
no increased growth of surviving plants, and almost no seedling
recruitment. Mountain muhly biomass was significantly (p<.05) lower on
burned plots than on control plots on open sawtimber sites and on pole
sites; biomass analysis in below-canopy sites and sapling patches was
not possible.
Mountain muhly seedling recruitment was monitored under burned and
unburned conditions. Seed rain was monitored for a full year after
burning. Mountain muhly total seed rain for 1 year was 81 seeds per
square meter on burned open sawtimber sites and 27 seeds per square
meter on unburned open sawtimber sites. There was no mountain muhly
seed rain in closed-canopy sawtimber, pole, or sapling stands. No
mountain muhly seeds germinated in greenhouse tests of buried seed. A
very few mountain muhly seedlings appeared on burned, open timber sites
(0.1 seedling/sq m), but none appeared at other burned sites. It
appears that buried seed is not important in contributing new seedlings
after burning.
Mountain muhly flowering response was measured in ponderosa pine
sawtimber (closed-canopy and open-canopy combined) and pole patches.
Sapling patches were not measured. Only plants that had occurred on the
sites prior to burning were monitored. Mountain muhly failed to flower
the first year after burning on both the ponderosa pine sawtimber and
pole patches. During the second year, no significant differences in
mountain muhly flowering existed between burned sawtimber and pole
patches and their controls. The percentage of mountain muhly plants
producing seeds the second year was approximately the same in burned and
unburned areas. Percent of mountain muhly plants that reached flowering
stage each year was as follows:
Plants Flowering (%)
Pole Sawtimber
Burned Unburned Burned Unburned
1983 0* 38 0* 54
1984 25 33 42 33
* Indicates significant difference (p<.05) between burned and unburned
sites.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
Mountain muhly cover and biomass decrease in response to fire, and
flowering is suppressed for 1 postfire year.
FIRE CASE STUDY
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION :
Walsh, Roberta A., compiler. 1995. Effects of prescribed fires on mountain muhly
in the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona: Fuel, timber and forage effects.
In: Muhlenbergia montana. 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/
[].
REFERENCES :
Gaines, Edward M.; Kallander, Harry R.; Wagner, Joe A. 1958. Controlled burning in
southwestern ponderosa pine: results from the Blue Mountain plots, Fort Apache Indian
Reservation. Journal of Forestry. 56: 323-327. [31].
SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION :
spring/moderate
STUDY LOCATION :
Prescribed fires were carried out on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation
7 miles (11 km) east of McNary, Arizona.
PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY :
Prefire vegetation was in uneven-aged variable density ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa) stands with open grassy glades which included mountain
muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), with cover of about 70 percent, and
bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides).
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
Not given.
SITE DESCRIPTION :
The study site is at an elevation of 7,400 feet (2,256 m). The ground
is flat, and the soil is "rather heavy." The area was selectively
logged in 1924. Grass density was low because of the relatively dense
trees. Forage was similar on all plots.
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
There were six burned plots and six unburned control plots in a
ponderosa pine habitat type. Three plots were burned September 30,
1950; another three were burned October 10, 1950.
Average fuel weights before burning (in tons per acre) were as follows:
Control September October
Size of Fuel Plots Burn Plots Burn Plots
Large (diam. > 12 in) 4.49 8.00* 3.73*
Medium (2-11 in. diam.) 3.81 3.08 1.40
Small (< 2 in. diam.) 6.94 6.21 4.83
Total 15.24 17.29** 9.96**
* Difference between September and October plots significant (p<.05).
** Difference between September and October plots significant (p<.01).
Small fuels included needles, dead grass, cones, and partly rotted wood.
Weather conditions were different on the 2 burning days, and the effects
of the fires were markedly different. The September fire was conducted
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Air temperature was 59 to 67 degrees
Fahrenheit (15-19 deg C). Relative humidity was 62 to 37 percent. Fuel
moisture was 14.0 to 11.6 percent. Wind velocity was 18 to 25 miles per
hour (29-40 km/hr). A light shower fell during burning of two of the
three plots, and 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) rain fell after 6:00 pm, cooling
the site.
The October fire was conducted from 12:00 m. to 3:30 p.m. Air
temperature was 73 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit (23-24 deg C). Relative
humidity was 19 to 17 percent. Fuel moisture was 10.0 to 8.5 percent.
Wind velocity was 3 to 12 mph (5-19 km/hr). Wind was variable and
gusty, causing spot blowups during burning.
The effect of the fires on surface fuel weight was as follows:
Percent Change
September Fire October Fire
Large -63* -74*
Medium -62* +83*
Small -48 -51
Total -57 -40
* Difference between September and October fires significant (p<.05).
Reduction of heavy fuel by the October fire was partially offset by an
increase in medium fuel. Both fires raised the lower level of tree
crowns in sapling thickets and killed almost all trees less than 3 or 4
feet (0.9-1.2 m).
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
Mountain muhly was reduced on all burned plots the first year after
burning, as were other grasses. Two years later mountain muhly
comprised about 60 percent of total grass density, 10 percent less than
prefire levels.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
Mountain muhly usually declines the first growing season after fire. It
usually does not regain its former cover until at least 3 years after
fire.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Muhlenbergia montana
REFERENCES :
1. Alexander, Billy G., Jr.; Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Ronco, Frank, Jr.; Ludwig,
John A. 1987. A classification of forest habitat types of the northern
portion of the Cibola National Forest, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-143. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
[4207]
2. Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation of
Colorado by habitat type and community type. Res. Note RM-478. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [9092]
3. Alexander, Robert R.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Classification of the
forest vegetation on the National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico.
Res. Note RM-469. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10
p. [3515]
4. Andariese, Steven W. 1982. Time-response graphs for understory
production following fall prescribed burning in Arizona ponderosa pine
on basalt soils. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 42 p.
Thesis. [20307]
5. Andariese, Steven W.; Covington, W. Wallace. 1986. Changes in understory
production for three prescribed burns of different ages in ponderosa
pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 14: 193-203. [8101]
6. Arnold, Joseph F. 1950. Changes in ponderosa pine bunchgrass ranges in
northern Arizona resulting from pine regeneration and grazing. Journal
of Forestry. February: 118-126. [352]
7. Bassett, R.; Larson, M.; Moir, W. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat
types (plant associations) of Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim and
southwestern New Mexico. 2nd Edition. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. [Pages unknown].
[20308]
8. Benninger-Truax, Mary; Vankat, John L.; Schaefer, Robert L. 1992. Trail
corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky
Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecology. 6(4): 269-278.
[22175]
9. 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]
10. Berndt, Herbert W.; Gibbons, Robert D. 1958. Root distribution of some
native trees and understory plants growing on three sites within
ponderosa pine watersheds in Colorado. Station Paper No. 37. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. [16337]
11. Biswell, Harold H. 1973. Fire ecology in ponderosa pine-grassland. In:
Komarek, Edwin V., Sr., technical coordinator. Proceedings, annual Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. Number 12.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 69-96. [8462]
12. Bojorquez Tapia, Luis A.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Guertin, D. Phillip.
1990. Herbage production-forest overstory relationships in two Arizona
ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Range Management. 43(1): 25-28.
[11509]
13. Carman, J. G.; Briske, D. D. 1985. Morphologic & allozymic variation
between long-term grazed & non-grazed populations of the bunchgrass
Schizachrium scoparium var. frequens. Oecologia. 66: 332-337. [3319]
14. Clary, Warren P. 1975. Range management and its ecological basis in the
ponderosa pine type of Arizona: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap.
RM-158. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
[4688]
15. Costello, David F.; Schwan, H. E. 1946. Conditions and trends on
ponderosa pine ranges in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 33 p. [21469]
16. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others].
1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West,
U.S.A. Vol. 6. The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press.
584 p. [719]
17. Currie, P. O.; Reichert, D. W.; Malechek, J. C.; Wallmo, O. C. 1977.
Forage selection comparisons for mule deer and cattle under managed
ponderosa pine. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 352-356. [4697]
18. Currie, Pat O. 1975. Grazing management of ponderosa pine-buchgrass
ranges of the central Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. RM-159. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [12600]
19. Currie, Pat O. 1976. Recovery of ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ranges
through grazing and herbicide or fertilizer treatments. Journal of Range
Management. 29(6): 444-448. [15824]
20. Darrow, Robert A. 1944. Arizona range resources and their utilization:
1. Cochise County. Tech. Bull. 103. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona,
Agricultural Experiment Station: 311-364. [4521]
21. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A. 1983. Climax forest series of
northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel,
Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern
habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 45-53.
[779]
22. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank,
Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New
Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [781]
23. 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]
24. Dorn, Robert D. 1984. Vascular plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain
West Publishing. 276 p. [819]
25. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain
West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]
26. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
27. Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J. 1989. Production and
utilization of herbaceous plants in small clearcuts in an Arizona mixed
conifer forest. Res. Note RM-494. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 5 p. [10543]
28. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.
1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206]
29. Foxx, Teralene S.; Tierney, Gail D. 1987. Rooting patterns in the
pinyon-juniper woodland. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler.
Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 69-79. [4790]
30. Franzreb, Kathleen E. 1977. Bird population changes after timber
harvesting of a mixed conifer forest in Arizona. Res. Pap. RM-184. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [19331]
31. Gaines, Edward M.; Kallander, Harry R.; Wagner, Joe A. 1958. Controlled
burning in southwestern ponderosa pine: results from the Blue Mountain
plots, Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Journal of Forestry. 56: 323-327.
[988]
32. 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]
33. Gary, Howard L.; Currie, Pat O. 1977. The Front Range pine type: A
40-year photographic record of plant recovery on an abused watershed.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-46. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17
p. [15887]
34. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed.
Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]
35. Harris, Gary R.; Covington, W. Wallace. 1983. The effect of a prescribed
fire on nutrient concentration and standing crop of understory
vegetation in ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 13:
501-507. [4699]
36. Heady, Harold F. 1950. Studies on bluebunch wheatgrass in Montana and
height-weight relationships of certain range grasses. Ecological
Monographs. 20(1): 55-81. [1112]
37. Heidmann, L. J. 1988. Regeneration strategies for ponderosa pine. In:
Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Ponderosa pine: The
species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29 -
October 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University,
Cooperative Extension: 227-233. [9422]
38. Herzman, Carl W.; Everson, A. C.; Mickey, Myron H.; [and others]. 1959.
Handbook of Colorado native grasses. Bull. 450-A. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University, Extension Service. 31 p. [10994]
39. Hess, Karl; Alexander, Robert R. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho
and Roosevelt National Forests in central Colorado: a habitat type
classification. Res. Pap. RM-266. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 48 p. [1141]
40. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
41. Hinckley, L. C. 1944. The vegetation of the Mount Livermore area in
Texas. American Midland Naturalist. 32: 236-250. [4451]
42. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
43. Hobbs, N. Thompson; Baker, Dan L.; Ellis, James E.; Swift, David M.
1981. Composition and quality of elk winter diets in Colorado. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 45(1): 156-171. [7421]
44. Humphrey, Robert R. 1970. Arizona range grasses: Their description,
forage value and management. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona
Press. 159 p. [5567]
45. Johnson, W. M. 1956. The effect of grazing intensity on plant
composition, vigor, and growth of pine-bunchgrass ranges in central
Colorado. Ecology. 37(4): 790-798. [16921]
46. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
47. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison
and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final Report Contract No. 28-K2-234.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]
48. Komarkova, Vera; Alexander, Robert R.; Johnston, Barry C. 1988. Forest
vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre National
Forests: a preliminary habitat type classification. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-163. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 65 p.
[5798]
49. 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]
50. Larson, M. M.; Schubert, Gilbert H. 1969. Root competition between
ponderosa pine seedlings and grass. Res. Pap. RM-54. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [4713]
51. Larson, Milo; Moir, W. H. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant
associations) of northern New Mexico and northern Arizona. 2d ed.
Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southwestern Region. 90 p. [8947]
52. Lowe, Philip Orval. 1975. Potential wildlife benefits of fire in
ponderosa pine forests. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 131 p. M.S.
thesis. [5115]
53. Madany, Michael H.; West, Neil E. 1983. Livestock grazing-fire regime
interactions within montane forests of Zion National Park, Utah.
Ecology. 64(4): 661-667. [1509]
54. Merrill, Laura M.; Hawksworth, Frank G. 1987. Frequency and severity of
ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe in relation to habitat type and
topography in Colorado. Plant Disease. 71(4): 342-344. [1643]
55. Moinat, A. D. 1956. Comparative yields of herbage from oak scrub and
interspersed grassland in Colorado. Ecology. 37(4): 852-854. [1671]
56. Moir, William H. 1967. The subalpine tall grass, Festuca thurberi,
community of Sierra Blanca, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 12(3):
321-328. [1675]
57. Moir, W. H. 1993. Alpine tundra and coniferous forest. In: Dick-Peddie,
William A., ed. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press: 47-84. [21100]
58. Moir, W. H.; Dieterich, J. H. 1988. Old-growth ponderosa pine from
succession in pine-bunchgrass forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Natural
Areas Journal. 8(1): 17-24. [6781]
59. Muldavin, Esteban H.; DeVelice, Robert L. 1987. A forest habitat type
classification of southern Arizona and its relationship to forests of
the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Gonzales
Vicente, Carlos E.; Moir, William H., technical coordinators. Strategies
for classification and management of native vegetation for food
production in arid zones: Proceedings; 1987 October 12-16; Tucson, AZ.
Gen, Tech. Rep. RM-150. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 24-31. [2728]
60. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
61. Niering, William A. 1981. The role of fire management in altering
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: 489-510. [5084]
62. Oswald, Brian P.; Covington, W. Wallace. 1984. Effect of a prescribed
fire on herbage production in southwestern ponderosa pine on sedimentary
soils. Forest Science. 30(1): 22-25. [2805]
63. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension
Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p.
[9878]
64. Pearson, Henry A. 1965. Studies of forage digestibility under ponderosa
pine stands. In: Proceedings: Society of American Foresters meeting;
1964 September 27 - October 1; Denver, CO. Washington, DC: Society of
American Foresters: 71-73. [11513]
65. Pearson, Henry A. 1967. Phenology of Arizona fescue and mountain muhly
in the northern Arizona ponderosa pine type. Res. Note RM-89. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [5306]
66. Pieper, Rex D. 1993. Spatial variation of pinon-juniper woodlands in New
Mexico. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Shaw, Douglas W., technical coordinators.
Managing pinon-juniper ecosystems for sustainability and social needs:
Proceedings; 1993 April 26-30; Santa Fe, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 89-92. [22856]
67. Potter, Loren D.; Foxx, Teralene S.; Barnes, Fairley J. 1982. Natural
regeneration of ponderosa pine as related to land use and fire history
on the Pajarito Plateau. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
26 p. [4752]
68. Quinn, James A.; Miller, Roy V. 1967. A biotic selection study utilizing
Muhlenbergia montana. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 94(5):
423-432. [4045]
69. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
70. Reynolds, Richard T.; Linkhart, Brian D.; Jeanson, Judy-Jo. 1985.
Characteristics of snags and trees containing cavities in a Colorado
conifer forest. Res. Note RM-455. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 6 p. [15568]
71. Rietveld, W. J. 1975. Phytotoxic grass residues reduce germination and
initial root growth of ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-153. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 15 p. [5619]
72. Rietveld, W. J. 1977. Phytotoxic effects of bunchgrass residues on
germination and initial root growth of yellow sweetclover. Journal of
Range Management. 30(1): 39-43. [15889]
73. Rominger, James M.; Paulik, Laurie A. 1983. A floristic inventory of the
plant communities of the San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-96. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 9 p.
[2023]
74. Ross, Robert L.; Murray, Earl P.; Haigh, June G. 1973. Soil and
vegetation inventory of near-pristine sites in Montana. Bozeman, MT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 55 p. [2029]
75. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
76. Smith, Dwight R. 1967. Effects of cattle grazing on a ponderosa
pine-bunchgrass range in Colorado. Technical Bulletin No. 1371.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 60 p.
[4763]
77. 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]
78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
79. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
80. Vose, James M.; White, Alan S. 1987. Processes of understory seedling
recruitment 1 year after prescribed fire in an Arizona ponderosa pine
community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 2280-2290. [4053]
81. Vose, James M.; White, Alan S. 1991. Biomass response mechanisms of
understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona
ponderosa-pine community. Forest Ecology and Management. 40: 175-187.
[15570]
82. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
83. White, Alan S.; Cook, James E.; Vose, James M. 1991. Effects of fire and
stand structure on grass phenology in a ponderosa pine forest. American
Midland Naturalist. 126(2): 269-278. [16885]
84. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Mauk, Ronald L. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat
types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 89 p. [2684]
FEIS Home Page
