Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Blackgum. Creative Commons image by Richard Webb, Bugwood.org. |
Swamp tupelo. Creative Commons image by John Ruter, University of Georgia, Bugwood.org. |
Introductory
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Coladonato, Milo 1992. Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora. 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.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/nysspp/all.html [].
Updates: On 29 January 2018, the common name of Nyssa sylvatica was changed in FEIS from: black tupelo
to: blackgum, and the scientific name of swamp tupelo was changed from: Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
to: Nyssa biflora. Images were also added.
ABBREVIATION:
NYSSPP
NYSSYL
NYSBIF
BIF
SYNONYMS:
for swamp tupelo:
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (Walter) Sarg.
NRCS PLANT CODE:
NYSY
NYBI
COMMON NAMES:
blackgum
black tupelo
swamp blackgum
swamp tupelo
sourgum
pepperidge
tupelo
tupelo-gum
yellow gum
TAXONOMY:
This review provides information on two closely related species in the family Cornaceae:
Nyssa sylvatica Marsh [39,51,56,58], blackgum
Nyssa biflora Walter [51,57], swamp tupelo
Blackgum occurs on light-textured soils of uplands and stream bottoms,
and swamp tupelo occurs on heavy organic or clay soils of wet bottomlands
[44].
LIFE FORM:
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
NO ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Blackgum grows from southern Ontario and southwestern Maine
south to central Florida. It is local in central and southern
Mexico [19,26,44].
Swamp tupelo is most common on the Coastal Plain swamps and estuaries from
Maryland and southeastern Virginia south to southern Florida. It grows
on the east side of the Mississippi River to East Texas [19,26,44].
 |
 |
| Blackgum (left) and swamp tupelo (right) distributions. Maps courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [51] [2018, January 2018]. |
ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
STATES:
AL AR CT DE FL GA IL IN KY LA
ME MD MA MI MS MO NH NJ NY NC
OH OK PA RI SC TN TX VT VA WV
ON MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K089 Black Belt
K090 Live oak - sea oats
K091 Cypress savanna
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K101 Elm - ash forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
K114 Pocosin
K115 Sand pine scrub
SAF COVER TYPES:
39 Black ash - American elm - red maple
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
46 Eastern redcedar
51 White pine - chestnut oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
57 Yellow-poplar
58 Yellow-poplar - eastern hemlock
59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - northern red oak
65 Pin oak - sweetgum
70 Longleaf pine
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine - oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
79 Virginia pine
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
85 Slash pine - hardwood
87 Sweetgum - yellow poplar
91 Swamp chestnut oak - cherrybark oak
93 Sugarberry - American elm - green ash
97 Atlantic white-cedar
100 Pond cypress
104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - redbay
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Kologiski has included blackgum as an indicator or dominant in the
following community type classification [33]:
Location Classification Authority
se NC general veg. cts Kologiski 1977
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE:
Blackgum and swamp tupelo wood is used mainly for lumber, veneer, paper pulp, and to
some extent for railroad ties [10,50]. The veneer is used mainly for
boxes, crates, baskets, furniture, and interior woodwork. Because of
its toughness, blackgum is also used for flooring, rollers in glass
factories, blocks, gunstocks, and pistol grips [15,52].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Blackgum sprouts are commonly browsed by white-tailed deer but lose
palatability with age [8,16,30]. The fruit is high in nutrients and is
eaten by a variety of birds and mammals [4,27,37].
PALATABILITY:
Stumps sprouts of blackgum are reported to be a moderate to high
palatability browse to white-tailed deer [16,30].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Percent mean nutrient values of blackgum on unburned plots in
southern pine forests were as follows [36]:
N-free
season protein fat fiber extract ash phosphorus calcium
summer 7.64 2.33 32.84 44.01 2.63 0.06 1.10
COVER VALUE:
Blackgum and swamp tupelo provide cavity and nesting sites for a variety of birds
and mammals [3,7,29].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Because of its straight bole, shapely crown, and attractive autumn
foliage, blackgum and swamp tupelo are often planted as ornamentals. Bees utilize
the nectar from the flowers of black and swamp tupelo to produce honey
[44,51].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Silviculture: Seedling establishment of blackgum is best
accomplished by the shelterwood method. Regeneration can also be
accomplished by clearcutting if it follows a good seed fall or if
advanced regeneration is already established [9,18,]. Silvicultural
practices for regenerating blackgum have been described [25].
Animal damage: Due to the high palatability of seedling and sprouts,
blackgum can be eliminated or greatly reduced when deer populations
are high [16].
Insects and diseases: The two most important insects that attack black
and swamp tupelo are the tupelo leaf miner (Antispila nyssaefoliella) and the
forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria). Infestation of these
insects cause growth loss and occasional mortality. Fire scars often
serve as entry points for a large number of heart rot fungi [44].
Control: Blackgum and swamp tupelo may compete with loblolly
and shortleaf pine (Pinus taeda and P. echinata) stands for water and
light, reducing their growth and development [28].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Blackgum is a medium- to large-sized, native, deciduous tree,
frequently 60 to 80 feet high (18-24 m) [22,31]. In the forest it
typically has a dense foliage with a conical crown on an erect trunk
which extends continuously into the top. The simple, alternate leaves
are leathery, and densely clustered at the branchlets. The small
greenish white flowers are borne singly or in capitate clusters. The
bark is reddish brown and broken into deep irregular ridges and
diamond-shaped plates. On old trunks, the bark may be an inch (2.5 cm)
or more thick [12,15].
Swamp tupelo (var. biflora) develops a long taproot and a swollen base [44].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Seed production and dispersal: Seed production in blackgum is
highly variable while swamp tupelo is a prolific seed producer [10,23].
Viability of swamp tupelo seed, which averages 60 percent, increases as
the season progresses [44]. The principal dissemination agents are
gravity and birds [41]. Birds consume the fleshy fruits and seed are
passed through the digestive tract [44,48]. The fruits are not
persistent and fall shortly after ripening in late summer or fall.
Seeds not dispersed by animals generally fall to the ground near the
tree and remain dormant in the litter or are transported by water
[14,48].
Seedling development: Under natural conditions, seed overwinters on
cool, damp soil and germinates the following spring. Both varieties
appear to require nearly full sunlight for optimum early growth. Black
tupelo, however, will tolerate more overhead competition and can exist
on unfavorable sites. Swamp tupelo is much less adaptable [14,23,44].
Vegetative reproduction: Both blackgum and swamp tupelo will sprout
from the stump following disturbance. Smaller blackgum stumps
sprout readily while larger stumps sprout occasionally. Sprouts arise
from suppressed buds and are concentrated near the top of the stump
[32,44].
Stump sprouts can produce seeds at 2 years of age. Thus, if the seed
crop fails or unfavorable weather conditions prevent a good crop of
seedlings from becoming established, sprouts can provide a seed source
[32,44].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Blackgum is adapted to a wide variety of sites, from the creek
bottoms of the southern Coastal Plain to altitudes of 3,000 feet (915 m)
in North Carolina. Blackgum will tolerate brief spring flooding on
alluvial sites and is common on the relatively dry upper and middle
slopes in the Appalachian Mountains. On the drier uplands, blackgum
will survive but with a slower growth rate [4,26]. Swamp tupelo is
found in and on the banks of swamps, ponds, and estuaries of the Coastal
Plain, and in low coves and seepages which remain wet year-round
[1,19,44].
Common tree associates of both species are: black cherry (Prunus
serotina), dogwood (Cornus florida), hickory (Carya spp.), oak (Quercus
spp.), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),
swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemiflora), and redbay (Persea borbonia)
[13,17,42,43,45].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Blackgum is usually found with a mixture of other species. It is
classed as tolerant of shade and rarely attains overstory dominance but
is usually grows in the intermediate crown class on most sites.
Intermediate blackgum stems respond favorably to release from
overtopping vegetation. Seedlings grow slowly under a fully stocked
stand. When the canopy is removed, about 25 percent or more can be
expected to respond with relatively rapid height growth. At the time of
disturbance large numbers of new seedlings can become established.
Swamp tupelo is classed as intolerant of shade and will not develop
unless released [2,6,20,44].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Blackgum and swamp tupelo flower in the spring when the leaves are
nearly grown. Fruits develop over the spring and summer and ripen early
to late fall depending on latitude and climate. General timing of
flowering, and fruit ripening and dispersal for the two varieties is as
follows [10,19,26]:
Flowering Fruit ripening Fruit dispersal
N. sylvatica
var. sylvatica April-June Sept-Oct Sept-Nov
N. sylvatica late March-
var. biflora June Aug-Oct Sept-Dec
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Blackgum is well adapted to fire. Older trees have thick bark and
relatively high moisture content [48]. Swamp tupelo sites are usually
quite wet and fire is only a factor during periods of extended drought
[5,44]. Although aboveground portions of young blackgum are
top-killed by fire, the species typically survives by sprouting from the
root crown or caudex [32,53].
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:
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Nyssa sylvatica, N. biflora
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
The effects of fire on blackgum depends on the size of the
individual and severity of fire. Most fires typically top-kill black
tupelo. However, hot fires during dry periods can cause mortality and
deformity [5,55].
On the Atlantic Coastal Plain, prescribed summer fires caused some
top-kill in blackgum up to 4 inches d.b.h (10 cm). Top-kill
averaged 50 percent for trees 2 inches (5 cm) d.b.h. [11].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Fire wounds can serve as entry points for various heart rot fungi [47].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
When top-killed by fire, blackgum and swamp tupelo sprout prolifically, with
individuals producing several sprouts each [44]. In a study conducted in the
southern Appalachians, trees 1 to 4 inches (2.5-10 cm) d.b.h. sprouted
quickly following a once-over broadcast burn [32].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed
fire and postfire response of plant community species, including black
tupelo, that was not available when this species review was written:
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Fire can be a useful management tool for controlling blackgum and
other hardwoods. Depending on the season and type of treatment,
repeated burning over a long period of time has been reported as an
effective control of blackgum [38,54]. Riebold [47] suggests annual
winter prescribed burns for controlling blackgum and other hardwoods
up to 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) d.b.h. Blackgum will sprout, but the
sprouts can be killed by repeated winter fires before they reach 1 to 2
inch (2.5-5 cm) d.b.h.
Repeated summer fires in the early growing season when the leaves are
fully expanded is also a very effective method of weakening and
eventually killing blackgum [11].
References
1. Abernethy, Y.; Turner, R. E. 1987. US forested wetlands: 1940-1980: Field-data surveys document changes and can guide national resource management. BioScience. 37(10): 721-727. [10575]
2. Abrams, Marc D.; Downs, Julie A. 1990. Successional replacement of old-growth white oak by mixed mesophytic hardwoods in southwestern Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1864-1870. [13328]
3. Allen, Arthur W.; Corn, Janelle G. 1990. Relationships between live tree diameter and cavity abundance in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7: 179-183. [13504]
4. Allen, James A.; Kennedy, Harvey E., Jr. 1989. Bottomland hardwood reforestation in the lower Mississippi Valley. Slidell, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center; Stoneville, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experimental Station. 28 p. [15293]
5. Allen, Peter H. 1960. Scorch and mortality after a summer burn in loblolly pine. Res. Note No. 144. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 2 p. [12256]
6. Anderson, Roger C.; Schwegman, John E. 1991. Twenty years of vegetational change on a southern Illinois barren. Natural Areas Journal. 11(2): 100-107. [16256]
7. Belthoff, James R.; Ritchison, Gary. 1990. Roosting behavior of postfledging eastern screech-owls. Auk. 107(3): 567-579. [13296]
8. Blair, Robert M. 1960. Deer forage increased by thinnings in a Louisiana loblolly pine plantation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 24(4): 401-405. [16891]
9. Blair, Robert M.; Brunett, Louis E. 1976. Phytosociological changes after timber harvest in a southern pine ecosystem. Ecology. 57: 18-32. [9646]
10. Bonner, F. T. 1974. Nyssa L. Tupelo. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 554-557. [7714]
11. Boyer, William D. 1990. Growing-season burns for control of hardwoods in longleaf pine stands. Res. Pap. SO-256. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [14604]
12. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]
13. Carmean, Willard H. 1970. Site quality for eastern hardwoods. In: The silviculture of oaks and associated species. Res. Pap. NE-144. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 36-56. [4183]
14. Clark, F. Bryan. 1962. White ash, hackberry, and yellow-poplar seed remain viable when stored in the forest litter. Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings. 1962: 112-114. [237]
15. Collingwood, G. H. 1937. Knowing your trees. Washington, DC: The American Forestry Association. 213 p. [6316]
16. Della-Bianca, Lino; Johnson, Frank M. 1965. Effect of an intensive cleaning on deer-browse production in the southern Appalachians. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29(4): 729-733. [16404]
17. Douglass, James E.; Van Lear, David H. 1983. Prescribed burning and water quality of ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Forest Science. 29(1): 181-189. [10214]
18. Drayton, Edward R., III; Hook, Donal D. 1989. Water management of a baldcypress-tupelo wetland for timber and wildlife. In: Hook, Donal D.; Lea, Russ, eds. Proceedings of the symposium: The forested wetlands of the Southern United States; 1988 July 12-14; Orlando, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-50. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 54-58. [9229]
19. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
20. Dunn, William J. 1989. Wetland succession--what is the appropriate paradigm? In: Fisk, David W., ed. Wetlands: concerns and successes: Proceedings of the symposium; 1989 September 17-22; Tampa, FL. Bethesda, MD: American Water Resources Association: 473-488. [17128]
21. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
22. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p. (Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny Series; vol. 2) [14935]
23. Franklin, Jerry F.; DeBell, Dean S. 1973. Effects of various harvesting methods on forest regeneration. In: Hermann, Richard K.; Lavender, Denis P., eds. Even-age management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1972 August 1; [Location of conference unknown]. Paper 848. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 29-57. [16239]
24. 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]
25. Georgia Chapter, Society of American Foresters. 1979. Silvicultural guidelines for forest owners in Georgia. Georgia Forest Research Paper 6. [Place of publication unknown]: Georgia Forestry Commission, Research Division. 35 p. [15405]
26. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
27. Goodrum, Phil D.; Reid, Vincent H. 1958. Deer browsing in the longleaf pine belt. In: Proceedings, 58th annual meeting of the Society of American Foresters; 1958 September 28-October 2; Salt Lake City, UT. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 139-143. [17023]
28. Grano, Charles X. 1970. Small hardwoods reduce growth of pine overstory. Res. Pap. SO-55. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. [15418]
29. Hardin, Kimberly I.; Evans, Keith E. 1977. Cavity nesting bird habitat in the oak-hickory forests--a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-30. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 23 p. [13859]
30. Harlow, Richard F.; Shrauder, Paul A.; Seehorn, Monte E. 1975. Deer browse resources of the Oconee National Forest. Res. Pap. SE-137. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 16 p. [14602]
31. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375]
32. Keetch, John J. 1944. Sprout development on once-burned and repeatedly-burned areas in the southern Appalachians. Technical Note No. 59. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Appalachian Forest Experiment Station. 3 p. [10995]
33. Kologiski, Russell L. 1977. The phytosociology of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Tech. Bull. No. 250. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 101 p. [18348]
34. Kossuth, S. V.; Young, J. F.; Voeller, J. E.; Holt, H. A. 1980. Year-round hardwood control using the hypo-hatchet injector. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 73-76. [9490]
35. 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]
36. Lay, Daniel W. 1957. Browse quality and the effects of prescribed burning in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry. 55: 342-347. [7633]
37. Lay, Daniel W. 1967. Browse palatability and the effects of prescribed burning in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry. 65(11): 826-828. [145]
38. Lewis, Clifford E.; Harshbarger, Thomas J. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation after 20 years of prescribed burning in the South Carolina coastal plain. Journal of Range Management. 29(1): 13-18. [7621]
39. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
40. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
41. McDonnell, Mark J. 1986. Old field vegetation height and the dispersal pattern of bird- disseminated woody plants. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 113(1): 6-11. [4563]
42. Metzger, F. T. 1990. Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch eastern hophornbeam. 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: 490-496. [13970]
43. Nelson, John B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department. 54 p. [15578]
44. Outcalt, Kenneth W. 1990. Magnolia grandiflora L. southern magnolia. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 445-448. [16257]
45. Penfound, William T. 1952. Southern swamps and marshes. The Botanical Review. 18: 413-446. [11477]
46. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
47. Riebold, R. J. 1955. Summer burns for hardwoods control in loblolly pine. Fire Control Notes. 16(1): 34-35. [11602]
48. Curtis, Alan B. 1986. Camas Swale Research Natural Area. Supplement No. 21. In: Franklin, Jerry F.; Hall, Frederick C.; Dyrness, C. T.; Maser, Chris. Federal research natural areas in Oregon and Washington: A guidebook for scientists and educators. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p. [226]
49. Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the eastern deciduous forest. The American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688. [6508]
50. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1956. Wood...colors and kinds. Agric. Handb. 101. Washington, DC. 36 p. [16294]
51. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
52. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
53. Waldrop, Thomas A.; Lloyd, F. Thomas. 1991. Forty years of prescribed burning on the Santee fire plots: effects on overstory and midstory vegetation. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 45-50. [16632]
54. Waldrop, Thomas A.; Van Lear, David H.; Lloyd, F. Thomas; Harms, William R. 1987. Long-term studies of prescribed burning in loblolly pine forests of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-45. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p. [11596]
55. Garrison, George A. 1953. Annual fluctuation in production of some eastern Oregon and Washington shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 6(2): 117-121. [1099]
56. 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]
57. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
58. Wunderlin, Richard P.; Hansen, Bruce F. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. 2nd ed. Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida Press. 787 p. [69433]
FEIS Home Page
