Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

Table of Contents

• INTRODUCTORY
• DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
• BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
• APPENDIX: Common and scientific names of plant species and links to FEIS Species Reviews
• REFERENCES

INTRODUCTORY

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY SYNONYMS LIFE FORM
	Photo of shining willow by Sheri Hagwood, hosted by the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database.

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Fryer, Janet. 2015. Salix lucida, shining willow. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/salluc/all.html [].

Updates: On 27 February 2018, the common and scientific names of this species were changed in FEIS from: Salix lasiandra, Pacific willow
to: Salix lucida, shining willow. Maps were also added.

For Salix lucida var. caudata:
greenleaf willow
tail-leaf willow
whiplash willow

For Salix lucida var. lasiandra:
Pacific willow
black willow
lance-leaf willow
longleaf willow
red willow
yellow willow
western black willow
western shining willow

For Salix lucida subsp. lucida:
shining willow

Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. caudata, greenleaf willow
Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. lasiandra (Benth.) A.E. Murray, Pacific willow
Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. lucida (Benth.) A.E. Murray [30,97], shining willow

In this review, "shining willow" refers to the species as a whole. Subspecies are referred to by their scientific names.

Shining willow hybridizes with Sierra willow [30].

For Salix lucida:
Salix lasiandra Benth. [41,45,49,63]

For Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. caudata:
     Salix caudata A. Heller
     Salix fendleriana Andersson [51]
     Salix lasiandra Benth. subsp. caudata
     Salix lasiandra Benth. var. caudata (Nutt.) A.E. Murray [9,30,41,49,85]
     Salix lasiandra Benth. var. fendleriana (documented in [93])
     Salix lasiandra Benth. var. recomponens Raup [85]

For Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. lasiandra (Benth.) A.E. Murray:
     Salix lasiandra var. abramsii Ball [85]
     Salix lasiandra Benth. var. lancifolia (Andersson) Bebb [9,45,85]
     Salix lasiandra Benth var. lasiandra [41,49,85]
     Salix lasiandra Benth. var. macrophylla (Andersson) Little [9,61]
     Salix lucida Muhl. subsp. lasiandra (Benth.) Argus (documented in [22])

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

Distributions of shining willow in the conterminous United States (right) and far north (left). Maps courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [97] [2018, February 27].

Shining willow is distributed from Alaska east to Labrador and south to California, Kansas, and North Carolina [49,63,97]. It is mostly absent from dry interior regions of the Intermountain West [63]. Distributions of the subspecies are shown below.

Distributions of Salix lucida subsp. caudata, Salix lucida subsp. lasiandra, and Salix lucida subsp. lucida, respectively. Maps courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [97] [2018, February 27].

States and provinces [49,97]:
United States: AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY
Canada: AB, BC, NT, SK, YT

SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Site characteristics: Shining willow grows in wet to moist sites: along streams, rivers, and lakeshores and in seeps, wet meadows, freshwater swamps, and moist alluvial bottomlands [9,22,28,30]. In central Oregon, it is an indicator species for riparian areas and moist to wet meadows at low to moderate elevations [28].

Elevation: Shining willow occurs from sea level to 10,000 feet (0-3,100 m) across its range [30]. It is most common at midmontane elevations. It is found at low to middle elevations in Montana [20] and Canada [85] and from sea level to midmontane elevations in the shining Northwest [41]. In a 1900 survey on the Stanislaus and Tahoe National Forests, California, Sudworth [91] found shining willow was most common below coniferous forests, within riparian areas surrounded by oak woodlands or chaparral. Elevational ranges are shown below by area.

Soils: Shining willow grows in wet to moist soils [28]. Textures are usually silt, sand, or gravel; shining willow commonly grows on sandbars [28,45], gravelbars [15,28], and alluvial soils. In Idaho, it grows in sandy or gravelly soils close to stream edges or high water lines [11]. Best growth is attained in alluvial river silts [75]. In Wyoming, shining willow communities occur on volcanic alluvium in the Bighorn Basin [104] and on the Shoshone National Forest [28].

See the Appendix for a list of scientific names and links to FEIS Species Reviews.

Plant communities: Shining willow is common or dominant in many riparian plant communities across its range. In riparian woodlands, it commonly codominates with black cottonwood [74] or balsam poplar [104], and it codominates or dominates some riparian thickets [30]. For example, it codominates in tall shrub communities with alders [67,104] or other willows [67,74,104] and often occurs in riparian mixed shrublands[46,74].

In Alaska, shining willow is common in warm taiga areas, such as warm slopes dominated by quaking aspen [101]. It often forms thickets or occurs in shrub communities on riverbanks and alluvial areas [2], typically in association with alders and/or other willows [99]. It grows along the Tanana River with balsam poplar, thinleaf alder, Alaska willow, sandbar willow, smallfruit willow, and firmleaf willow [1,13].

In the Pacific Northwest, shining willow grows in the understories of balsam poplar communities. It and other willows may form "nearly impenetrable" thickets [27]. It is common west of the Cascade crest from British Columbia to northern California, forming woodlands on major floodplains or codominating in tall shrublands with other willows [47]. Along Meadow Creek in Oregon, shining willow grew in sandbar willow-black cottonwood communities with thinleaf alder and MacKenzie's willow [15].

In California, shining willow grows in valley, coastal, and montane riparian communities. In the Central Valley, shining willow occurs in riparian forests with box elder, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, and valley oak [43,80]. Lianas including California wild grape and Pacific poison-oak are conspicuous. These communities are usually above the active floodplain on upper terraces [43]. It codominates with buttonbush in backwater sloughs, oxbows, and other quiet waters. These communities, once common, are now rare due to agricultural development [42]. In the North Coast Ranges, it grows in redwood forests with bigleaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood [80]. Near Eel River, shining willow grows in black cottonwood-Oregon ash communities [105]. In coastal central and southern California, shining willow codominates with white alder in arroyo riparian forests, especially on dunelands within the coastal fog zone [42]. Inland, it may codominate with white alder and other willows along some rivers and permanent streams [16]. In the South Coast Ranges, shining willow occurs in riparian forests with white alder, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, and red willow [80]. In the San Bernardino Mountains, shining willow grows in quaking aspen woodlands with Jeffrey pine, white fir, incense-cedar, and black cottonwood. The understory is composed of Wood's rose and wax currant, and the ground layer is a "rich herbaceous flora" of perennials [94]. A black cottonwood-quaking aspen-shining willow/thinleaf alder-thimbleberry/swollen beaked sedge-Pacific onion community is described for the Lake Tahoe region. These communities occur along streams within Jeffrey pine landscapes [87].

In Nevada, shining willow grows on stabilized channels above the scour zone. It dominates some tall willow communities in the Toiyabe and Independence ranges. Forbs usually dominate the ground layer; Columbian monkshood and stinging nettle are common dominants. These tall willow communities are surrounded by mountain big sagebrush communities [66]. Shining willow/forb communities of similar composition and structure occur on the Humboldt National Forest [67]. In the Ruby Mountains, Shining willow/shining willow communities occur downslope from singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper communities [66].

In Utah, shining willow codominates in tall shrub communities with other willows and sometimes codominates in thinleaf alder communities. Herbaceous dominants may include field horsetail, creeping bentgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and swollen beaked sedge. Codominant willows may include Geyer's willow, narrowleaf willow, and Drummond's willow. In southwestern Utah, a shining willow-narrowleaf willow/Nebraska sedge-Baltic rush community occurs on alluvial soils with seasonally high water tables [77].

In Idaho, shining willow occurs within riparian zones of Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir communities [11]. It is codominant in black cottonwood stands, in mixed willow stands with peachleaf willow and narrowleaf willow, and in mixed stands with various other shrubs including Wood's rose and red-osier dogwood [46,74]. These mixed-shrub communities often have ground layers of herbs such as blue wildrye, Kentucky bluegrass, and scouringrush horsetail [74].

In Wyoming, shining willow codominates some riparian woodlands with Fremont cottonwood, quaking aspen, and peachleaf willow at low (4,500 feet (1,400 m) to high (up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) elevation. Shrub dominants include Wood's rose, bristly black currant, and red-osier dogwood. Shining willow also grows in wet Baltic rush meadows at 6,500-8,000 feet (2,000-2,400 m) elevation. Other dominant graminoids may include Nebraska sedge, swollen beaked sedge, and smoothstem sedge, with occasional silverberry and water birch [76]. It is important in subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce riparian communities [107].

In Montana, shining willow dominates some communities adjacent to large streams and rivers at low to midelevations, often in association with Booth's willow, yellow willow, and red-osier dogwood. It grows as a tree at low elevations but becomes multistemmed and shrubby at midelevations [37,39]. Shining willow is a minor community type in western and south-central Montana, generally associated with the black cottonwood community type [39].

On floodplains of the Animas River, Colorado, shining willow is associated with thinleaf alder and herbs including mountain clover, dwarf fireweed, and tickle grass [4]. In foothills of the Front Range, it is sometimes dominant in narrowleaf cottonwood-willow streamside associations. Netleaf hackberry is common in this type; codominant willows may include blue-stem willow and narrowleaf willow. This type occurs in wide, open canyon bottomlands [98]. A 1907 publication identified a narrowleaf cottonwood-Scouler's willow formation with shining willow. The association was most common on canyon bottoms but occasionally ran up sheltered canyon walls [108].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Shining willow is a deciduous [28] small tree or tall shrub, occasionally growing up to 40 feet (12 m) tall [9,45]. It typically has several stems [28,57], becoming increasingly shrubby with increasing elevation [11].The bark is smooth and thin [28], and the bole and branches are brittle [62]. Twigs are relatively stout [62]. It has lanceolate leaves [21,57] that are 2 to 5 inches (5-13 cm) long [62]. Shining willow is dioecious, so individual trees bear either pistillate or staminate catkins [9,20]. The fruit is a hairless [62] capsule [9,20,57], but the seed coat is covered with soft, cottony hairs [62,110]. The typical variety differs from tail-leaf willow by having glaucous undersides to the leaves [21,57].

Breeding system and pollination Seed production Seed dispersal Seed banking Germination and seedling establishment Plant growth Vegetative regeneration
	Shining willow seeds, ready to disperse. Photo permission of SevenOaks Native Nursery.

Shining willow regenerates from seed and by sprouting. A continually moist substrate is required for germination and seedling establishment.

Breeding system and pollination: Shining willow is dioecious [10,88,110]. Many populations may be skewed to females. Information on pollination method(s) of shining willow was not found in the literature. Willow species vary in reliance on insects vs. wind for pollination, with insect pollination more important for most willow species [110].

Seed production: Shining willow seed production is "prolific" [51]. Although information on age at first reproduction was not available for shining willow in particular, Salix spp. seedlings usually first produce seeds at 5 to 10 years old. Sprouts may produce seeds at 1 or 2 years old [110].

Shining willow is highly desirable browse, and herbivores can greatly reduce its flower and seed production [110].

Seed dispersal: Shining willow's light-weight seeds are dispersed by wind [110] and water [68]. The cottony hairs on the seed coat lend substantial air and water buoyancy to the seeds. The seeds may carry for several miles [109], but most fall near the parent plant [110].

Seed banking: Shining willow has a transient soil and water seed bank. It disperses seeds in summer; seeds of summer-dispersing willows are viable for about 8 weeks [110].

Germination and seedling establishment: Shining willow seeds are nondormant and germinable upon dispersal [5]. A moist substrate is required for germination [110]. Mineral soil results in best germination and establishment [109,110]. Hansen [38] reported that shining willow germinates on a variety of alluvial soils.

Plant growth: Shining willow is fast-growing. In a treatise on the genus, Newsholme [75] described shining willow as "vigorous" and "strongly growing" relative to other willows. An experiment comparing growth of riparian plant species in 2 temperature-controlled greenhouses suggests that shining willow grows faster in subtropical than in temperate climates [84].

Browsing can reduce shining willow growth [58]. In Jordan Crater Research Natural Area, Oregon, shining willow in areas with American beavers had significantly less height and crown diameter than shining willow in areas that were inaccessible to American beavers due to lava caps (P>0.05) [53]. However, shining willow usually recovers unless heavy browsing is prolonged over several growing seasons [58]. Five months after shining willows in a lava cap area were clipped to the root crown, they averaged 8.2 feet (2.5 m) tall [54]. In Malheur County, Oregon, seedling growth and density of shining willow was similar with light- to moderate-intensity spring or fall cattle grazing and in cattle exclosures, but shining willow growth and density were reduced with heavy to very heavy grazing [86].

Vegetative regeneration: Shining willow sprouts from the root crown after top-kill [83,110]. Shining willow stems, and even whole plants, may be dispersed downstream and re-root [110], although seed regeneration may be more important than vegetative regeneration on floodplains [109]. Shining willow does not sprout from the roots [109].

Shining willow is more common just above than on newly deposited alluvium. On the Tanana River floodplain near Fairbanks, Alaska, it is most common on new terraces, 2 to 5 years after initial colonization by other willows (often, sandbar and Alaska willows) and horsetails [1,44,100]. Shining willow codominated the youngest terrace with Alaska willow, small-fruit willow, and firmleaf willow. Thinleaf alder and balsam poplar seedlings were establishing with these willows [1]. By the Animas River, Colorado, shining willow had 0.3% cover on 30-year-old floodplain sites, but it was not present on younger or older floodplain sites [4]. In Montana, shining willow may be successionally replaced by black cottonwood and eventually, by interior Douglas-fir [39].

Heavy browsing pressure can favor later-successional species over shining willow and other willows. Along the Tanana River, aboveground biomass of shining willow was less in areas with high-density moose populations (7.5 kg/ha shining willow browse removed at ~1 moose/km²) compared to areas with less dense populations (1.0 kg/ha removed at ~0.2 moose/km²). Areas with high moose density also had higher proportions of dead:live sprouts of shining willow and other willows (P<0.001). Thinleaf alder and balsam poplar had less browsing pressure and were replacing the willows [13].

Disturbance may enhance colonization by shining willow. In the 1980s, shining willow dominated "semixeric", high swales on the Merced River of California (26%-75% cover). These swales were the result of gold dredging that occurred from 1907 to 1951. Narrowleaf willow codominated (26%-50% cover) [106].

FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT

Shining willow showed good recovery after wildfires in North Cascades National Park, Washington. In July 1970, lightning ignited several fires. The 3 largest of these burns—named Thunder Creek No.1 (55 acres (22 ha)), Thunder Creek No. 2 (410 acres (170 ha)), and Silver Creek (290 acres (120 ha))—were monitored in 1971, 1972, and 1974. Coast Douglas-fir dominated most prefire stands; western hemlock and western redcedar were overstory associates. Shining willow had best recovery on Silver Creek, where it more than doubled its cover and quadrupled its height from postfire year 2 to postfire year 4. Of the 3 sites, fire was most severe on Silver Creek, and sprouting species in general showed best recovery on that site. However, the authors did not note whether shining willow had regenerated from sprouts or seeds on any of the 3 burns [69].

FUELS AND FIRE REGIMES:
Fuels: As of 2015, little information was available on how shining willow affects fire intensity and spread. Willows in general have moderately low dry-weight density [32] and are not highly flammable [40].

Fire regimes: Fire regimes of riparian communities with shining willow are highly variable across time and space. Fires are often of lower frequency and severity in riparian than in upland areas [64], but there are cases in the western United States where fire severity is similar [24] or more severe [64] in riparian than in upland areas. Montane riparian communities of the western United States and Alaska have surface, mixed-severity, and crown fires; this may vary across years within a plant community and among plant communities within a landscape [8]. For example, balsam poplar communities of interior Alaska have highly variable fire regimes, with surface, mixed-severity, and crown fires [18,65]. However, alder-willow shrublands rarely burn [59] even when they are adjacent to balsam poplar communities [102]. Fire regimes of black cottonwood communities are not well known, but limited evidence suggests that fires are spotty and of low severity [24,78,81]. Riparian chaparral communities of California and Oregon typically have only replacement-severity fires [50], while riparian coniferous forests have surface, mixed, and crown fires [6,56]. These FEIS Fire Regime Syntheses provide further information on fire regimes of plant communities in which shining willow occurs:

• Fire regimes of Alaskan black cottonwood communities
• Fire regimes of Alaskan quaking aspen and balsam poplar communities
• Fire regimes of Alaskan alder and willow shrubland communities
• Fire regimes woody riparian communities of the Central Valley, California
• Fire regimes of montane riparian communities in California and southwestern Oregon

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

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

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
None

OTHER STATUS:
Information on state- and province-level protection status of plants in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe.

IMPORTANCE TO WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK:
Shining willow provides important browse and cover for wildlife and livestock. White-footed voles [103], snowshoe hares [13], American beavers [53,58], mule deer [15,17,58], elk [58], and moose [1,13] browse shining willow.

Riparian communities with shining willow are important livestock rangelands. Low-elevation sites may be used year-round [38].

Shining willow provides cover for numerous wildlife species [2,3,7]. American beavers use shining willow for dam material [58]. Dusky-footed woodrats in western Oregon use shining willow as nesting trees. They apparently select nest trees based on availability rather than preference for particular tree species [25]. On the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado, yellow-rumped warblers used shining willow for nesting more than expected based on shining willow frequency (P<0.05) [55]. In California, the federally Endangered least Bell's vireo nests in shining willow branches [33].

Shining willow provides shade for trout and other cold-water fish [38,58]. Shining willow trees that fall into watercourses are a source of large woody debris that creates deep pools for fish [38].

Palatability and nutritional value: Big game, American beavers, and livestock find shining willow moderately to highly palatable [28]. Its palatability is rated poor for cattle and horses and fair to good for mule deer, domestic sheep, and domestic goats [83]. No information was found on the nutritional value of shining willow.

REFERENCES:

1. Angell, Amy C.; Kielland, Knut. 2009. Establishment and growth of white spruce on a boreal forest floodplain: interactions between microclimate and mammalian herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(11): 2475-2480. [77484]

2. Argus, George W. 1973. The genus Salix in Alaska and the Yukon. Publications in Botany, No. 2. Ottawa, ON: National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences. 279 p. [6167]

3. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]

4. Baker, William L.; Walford, Gillian M. 1995. Multiple stable states and models of riparian vegetation succession on the Animas River, Colorado. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 85(2): 320-338. [74816]

5. Baskin, Carol C.; Baskin, Jerry M. 2001. Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 666 p. [60775]

6. Bendix, Jacob; Cowell, C. Mark. 2010. Impacts of wildfire on the composition and structure of riparian forests in southern California. Ecosystems. 13(1): 99-107. [81845]

7. 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]

8. Bisson, Peter A.; Rieman, Bruce E.; Luce, Charlie; Hessburg, Paul F.; Lee, Danny C.; Kershner, Jeffrey L.; Reeves, Gordon H.; Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key questions. In: Young, Michael K.; Gresswell, Robert E.; Luce, Charles H., eds. Selected papers from an international symposium on effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems in the western USA; 2002 April 22-24; Boise, ID. In: Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1-2): 213-229. [44933]

9. Brayshaw, T. Christopher. 1976. Catkin bearing plants of British Columbia. Occas. Pap. No. 18. Victoria, BC: The British Columbia Provincial Museum. 176 p. [6170]

10. Bressman, E. N. 1934. Inheritance of sex in certain seed plants. American Journal of Botany. 21(6): 328-349. [56022]

11. Brunsfeld, Steven J.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1985. Field guide to the willows of east-central Idaho. Bulletin Number 39. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [6175]

12. Burn, C. R.; Friele, P. A. 1989. Geomorphology, vegetation succession, soil characteristics and permafrost in retrogressive thaw slumps near Mayo, Yukon Territory. Arctic. 42(1): 31-40. [69761]

13. Butler, Lem G.; Kielland, Knut. 2008. Acceleration of vegetation turnover and element cycling by mammalian herbivory in riparian ecosystems. Journal of Ecology. 96(1): 136-144. [78493]

14. Carlson, Jack R. 1992. Selection, production, and use of riparian plant materials for the western United States. In: Landis, Thomas D., technical coordinator. Proceedings, Intermountain Forest Nursery Association; 1991 August 12-16; Park City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-211. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 55-67. [20926]

15. Case, Richard L.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 1997. Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black cottonwood, and thin-leaf alder following cessation of cattle grazing in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 71(2): 115-126. [27671]

16. Cheng, Sheauchi, ed. 2004. Forest Service Research Natural Areas in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-188. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 338 p. [88290]

17. Cowan, Ian McTaggart. 1945. The ecological relationships of the food of the Columbian black-tailed deer, Odocoileus hemionus columbianus (Richardson), in the coast forest region of southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 15(2): 110-139. [16006]

18. Cronan, James; McKenzie, Donald; Olson, Diana. [n.d.]. Fire regimes of the Alaskan boreal forest. Draft manuscript. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 67 p. (+ figures, tables, and appendices). In cooperation with: Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Forest Resources; New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies; Moscow, ID: University of Idaho; Fairbanks, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Fire Service. Available online: http://www.frames.gov/documents/alaska/fire_history/fire_regimes_alaskan_boreal_forest_draft_gtr.zip [2015, May 8]. [85879]

19. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097]

20. Dorn, Robert D. 1970. The willows of Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Department of Botany and Microbiology. 18 p. [6176]

21. Dorn, Robert D. 1977. Willows of the Rocky Mountain States. Rhodora. 79(819): 390-429. [6000]

22. Dorn, Robert D.; Dorn, Jane L. 1997. Rocky Mountain Region willow identification field guide. R2-RR-97-01. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Renewable Resources. 107 p. [29146]

23. Dreesen, David; Harrington, John; Subirge, Tom; Stewart, Pete; Fenchel, Greg. 2002. Riparian restoration in the Southwest: species selection, propagation, planting methods, and case studies. In: Dumroese, R. Kasten; Riley, Lee E.; Landis, Thomas D., tech. coords. National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations 1999, 2000, and 2001; [Multiple dates]; [Multiple locations]. Proceedings RMRS-P24. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 253-272. [47622]

24. Dwire, Kathleen A.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. In: Young, Michael K.; Gresswell, Robert E.; Luce, Charles H., eds. Selected papers from an international symposium on effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems in the western USA; 2002 April 22-24; Boise, ID. In: Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1-2): 61-74. [44923]

25. English, Pennoyer F. 1923. The dusky-footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes). Journal of Mammalogy. 4(1): 1-9. [65455]

26. Erdman, Kimball S. 1970. Distribution of the native trees of Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11(3): 1-34. [35781]

27. Ferguson, Robert B.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1981. Shrub establishment on reconstructed soils in semiarid areas. In: Shrub establishment on disturbed arid and semi-arid lands: Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 December 2-3; Laramie, WY. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department: 57-63. [916]

28. Fertig, Walter; Markow, Stuart. 2001. Guide to the willows of Shoshone National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-83. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Cody, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cody Conservation District. 79 p. [40598]

29. Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Bradley, Anne F.; Merrill, Amy G. 2006. Fire and plant interactions. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 94-117. [65534]

30. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2018. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]

31. Foote, Joan. 1985. Natural revegetation following the 1950 Porcupine River fire in northeast Alaska: 1951-81. In: Lotan, James E.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Fischer, William C.; Mutch, Robert W., tech. coords. Proceedings--symposium and workshop on wilderness fire; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 332. [45359]

32. Francescato, Valter; Antonini, Eliseo; Bergomi, Luca Zuccoli; Metschina, Christian; Schnedl, Christian; Krajnc, Nike; Koscik, Kajetan; Gradziuk, Piort; Nocentini, Gianfranco; Stranieri, Stefano. 2008. Wood fuels handbook. Legnaro, Italy: Italian Agriforestry Energy Association (Producer). 79 p. Available online: www.aebiom.org/IMG/pdf/WOOD_FUELS_HANDBOOK_BTC_EN.pdf [2015, May 8]. [88887]

33. Gray, M. Violet; Greaves, James M. 1984. Riparian forest as habitat for the least Bell's vireo. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 605-611. [5862]

34. Griggs, F. Thomas. 1988. Plan major forest, wetland restoration (California). Restoration & Management Notes. 6(1): 40. [5421]

35. Hall, Sharon J.; Lombardozzi, Danica. 2008. Short-term effects of wildfire on montane stream ecosystems in the southern Rocky Mountains: one and two years post-burn. Western North American Naturalist. 68(4): 453-462. [74212]

36. Halofsky, Jessica E.; Hibbs, David E. 2009. Controls on early post-fire woody plant colonization in riparian areas. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7): 1350-1358. [77249]

37. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [05660]

38. Hansen, Paul L.; Hall, James B. 2002. Classification and management of USDI Bureau of Land Management's riparian and wetland sites in eastern and southern Idaho. Corvallis, MT: Bitterroot Restoration. 304 p. [82582]

39. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; Cook, Bradley J.; Joy, John; Hinckley, Dan K. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Misc. Publ. No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]

40. Higuera, Philip E.; Brubaker, Linda B.; Anderson, Patricia M.; Brown, Thomas A.; Kennedy, Alison T.; Hu, Feng Sheng. 2008. Frequent fires in ancient shrub tundra: implications of paleorecords for Arctic environmental change. PLOS ONE. 3(3): DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0001744. [85436]

41. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]

42. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

43. Holland, Robert F.; Roye, Cynthia L. 1989. Great Valley riparian habitats and the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 69-73. [13511]

44. Hollingsworth, Teresa N.; Lloyd, Andrea H.; Nossov, Dana R.; Ruess, Roger W.; Charlton, Brian A.; Kielland, Knut. 2010. Twenty-five years of vegetation change along a putative successional chronosequence on the Tanana River, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40(7): 1273-1287. [83520]

45. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]

46. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference areas in Idaho: A catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 141 p. [29900]

47. Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 736 p. [65053]

48. Kaczynski, Kristen M.; Cooper, David J. 2015. Post-fire response of riparian vegetation in a heavily browsed environment. Forest Ecology and Management. 338: 14-19. [89026]

49. Kartesz, J. T. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2015. Taxonomic Data Center, [Online]. Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America Program (Producer). Available: http://bonap.net/tdc [Maps generated from Kartesz, J. T. 2010. Floristic synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). [in press]. [84789]

50. Keeley, Jon E. 2006. South Coast bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 350-390. [65557]

51. Kelly, George W. 1970. A guide to the woody plants of Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing. 180 p. [6379]

52. Kim, Kee Dae; Ewing, Kern; Giblin, David E. 2006. Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) with live willow stakes: a density-dependent response. Ecological Engineering. 27(3): 219-227. [78253]

53. Kindschy, R. R. 1985. Response of red willow to beaver use in southeastern Oregon, USA. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(1): 26-28. [5884]

54. Kindschy, Robert R. 1989. Regrowth of willow following simulated beaver cutting. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17(3): 290-294. [88882]

55. Knopf, Fritz L.; Sedgwick, James A. 1992. An experimental study of nest-site selection by yellow warblers. The Condor. 94(3): 734-742. [55974]

56. Kobziar, Leda N.; McBride, Joe R. 2006. Wildfire burn patterns and riparian vegetation response along two northern Sierra Nevada streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 222(1-3): 254-265. [79123]

57. Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Hopkins, William E.; Brunsfeld, Steven J. 1988. Major indicator shrubs and herbs in riparian zones on national forests of central Oregon. R6-ECOL-TP-005-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 159 p. [8995]

58. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to wildlife. Bulletin No. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 80 p. [9818]

59. LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings. 2009. Biophysical setting 6916380: Alaska arctic mesic alder shrubland. In: LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model: Map zone 69, [Online]. In: Vegetation Dynamics Models. In: LANDFIRE. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov/national_veg_models_op2.php [2015, May 6]. [88905]

60. Lee, Philip. 2004. The impact of burn intensity from wildfires on seed and vegetative banks, and emergent understory in aspen-dominated boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Botany. 82(10): 1468-1480. [51462]

61. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1945. Miscellaneous notes on nomenclature of United States trees. The American Midland Naturalist. 33(2): 495-513. [64812]

62. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: a guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. No. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]

63. 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]

64. Luce, Charles; Morgan, Penny; Dwire, Kathleen; Isaak, Daniel; Holden, Zachary; Rieman, Bruce. 2012. Part II: Biological systems. In: Luce, Charles; Morgan, Penny; Dwire, Kathleen; Isaak, Daniel; Holden, Zachary; Rieman, Bruce, eds. Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 39-86. [86215]

65. Lutz, H. J. 1953. The effects of forest fires on the vegetation of interior Alaska. Station Paper No. 1. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Forest Research Center. 36 p. [7076]

66. Manning, Mary E.; Padgett, Wayne G. 1989. Preliminary riparian community type classification for Nevada. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Preliminary draft. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 135 p. [11531]

67. Manning, Mary E.; Padgett, Wayne G. 1995. Riparian community type classification for Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada and eastern California. R4-Ecol-95-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 306 p. [42196]

68. Merritt, David M.; Wohl, Ellen E. 2006. Plant dispersal along rivers fragmented by dams. River Research and Applications. 22(1): 1-26. [61821]

69. Miller, Margaret M.; Miller, Joseph W. 1976. Succession after wildfire in the North Cascades National Park complex. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: Pacific Northwest; 1974 October 16-17; Portland, OR. No. 15. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 71-83. [6574]

70. Miller, Melanie. 2000. Fire autecology. 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: 9-34. [36981]

71. Moerman, Dan. 2003. Native American ethnobotany: A database of foods, drugs, dyes, and fibers of Native American peoples, derived from plants, [Online]. Dearborn, MI: University of Michigan (Producer). Available: http://naeb.brit.org/ [2017, March 29]. [37492]

72. Moore, Lincoln M. 2003. Plant guide: Salix lucida Muhl. ssp. lasiandra (Benth.) E. Murr., [Online]. Baton Rouge, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Center (Producer). Available: http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_salul.pdf [2015, April 14]. [88725]

73. Moore, Nancy. 1987. Salix lasiandra `Roland'. American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta. 2(1): 16. [5890]

74. Moseley, Robert K. 1998. Riparian and wetland community inventory of 14 reference areas in southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin No. 98-5. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise State Office. 52 p. [75569]

75. Newsholme, Christopher. 1992. Willows: The genus Salix. Portland, OR: Timber Press, Inc. 224 p. [20106]

76. Olson, R. A.; Gerhart, W. A. 1982. A physical and biological characterization of riparian habitat and its importance to wildlife in Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 188 p. [6755]

77. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. [11360]

78. Pettit, Neil E.; Naiman, Robert J. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. Ecosystems. 10(5): 673-687. [68289]

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

80. Roberts, Warren G.; Howe, J. Greg; Major, Jack. 1980. A survey of riparian forest flora and fauna in California. In: Sands, Anne, ed. Riparian forests in California: Their ecology and conservation: Symposium proceedings; 1977 May 14; Davis, CA. Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15. Davis, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences: 3-19. [5271]

81. Rood, Stewart B.; Goater, Lori A.; Mahoney, John M.; Pearce, Cheryl M.; Smith, Derald G. 2007. Floods, fire, and ice: disturbance ecology of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany. 85(11): 1019-1032. [74051]

82. Rowe, J. S.; Scotter, G. W. 1973. Fire in the boreal forest. Quaternary Research. 3(3): 444-464. [72]

83. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences; California Agricultural Experiment Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]

84. Savage, Jessica A.; Cavender-Bares, Jeannine. 2013. Phenological cues drive an apparent trade-off between freezing tolerance and growth in the family Salicaceae. Ecology. 94(8): 1708-1717. [87348]

85. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Part 3: Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). National Museum of Natural Sciences: Publications in Botany, No. 7(3). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 1115 p. [75493]

86. Shaw, Nancy L. 1992. Recruitment and growth of Pacific willow and sandbar willow seedlings in response to season and intensity of cattle grazing. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 130-137. [19106]

87. Smiley, F. J. 1915. The alpine and subalpine vegetation of the Lake Tahoe region. Botanical Gazette. 59(4): 265-286. [62711]

88. Smith, Ernest C. 1940. Sex expression in willows. Botanical Gazette. 101(4): 851-861. [55985]

89. St. John, Harold; Warren, Fred A. 1937. The plants of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 18(6): 952-985. [62707]

90. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]

91. Sudworth, George B. 1900. Stanislaus and Lake Tahoe Forest Reserves, California, and adjacent territory. In: Walcott, Charles D. Twenty-first annual report of the United States Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior. Part V--Forest Reserves. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office: 499-561. [65699]

92. Szaro, Robert C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants. 9(3-4): 70-138. [604]

93. The International Plant Names Index (IPNI). 2018. International Plant Names Index, [Online]. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Herbaria; Canberra, Australia: Australian National Herbarium (Producers). Available: www.ipni.org/index.html. [62970]

94. Thorne, Robert F. 1982. The desert and other transmontane plant communities of southern California. Aliso. 10(2): 219-257. [3768]

95. Turner, Nancy J.; Cocksedge, Wendy. 2001. Aboriginal use of non-timber forest products in northwestern North America: applications and issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3-4): 31-57. [39451]

96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 532 p. [2387]

97. 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]

98. Vestal, Arthur G. 1917. Foothills vegetation in the Colorado Front Range. Botanical Gazette. 64(5): 353-385. [64489]

99. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p. [2431]

100. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Foote, M. J. 1993. An overview of the vegetation and soils of the floodplain ecosystems of the Tanana River, interior Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23(5): 889-898. [21887]

101. Viereck, Leslie A. 1975. Forest ecology of the Alaska taiga. In: Proceedings of the circumpolar conference on northern ecology; 1975 September 15-18; Ottawa, ON. Fairbanks, AK: U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Supplement: 22 p. [7315]

102. Viereck, Leslie A. 1989. Flood-plain succession and vegetation classification in interior Alaska. In: Ferguson, Dennis E.; Morgan, Penelope; Johnson, Frederic D., comps. Proceedings--land classifications based on vegetation: applications for resource management; 1987 November 17-19; Moscow, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-257. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 197-203. [6959]

103. Voth, Elver H.; Maser, Chris; Johnson, Murray L. 1983. Food habits of Arborimus albipes, the white-footed vole, in Oregon. Northwest Science. 57(1): 1-7. [9122]

104. Walford, Gillian; Jones, George; Fertig, Walt; Mellman-Brown, Sabine; Houston, Kent E. 2001. Riparian and wetland plant community types of the Shoshone National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-85. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Cody, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cody Conservation District. 122 p. [40599]

105. Waring, R. H.; Major, J. 1964. Some vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light, and temperature. Ecological Monographs. 34(2): 167-215. [8924]

106. Whitlow, Thomas H.; Bahre, Conrad J. 1984. Plant succession on Merced River dredge spoils. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 68-74. [5826]

107. Young, Richard P., compiler. 1980. A riparian community classification study. Final report. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Department of Range Science; Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4. 77 p. [11734]

108. Young, Robert T. 1907. The forest formations of Boulder County, Colorado. Botanical Gazette. 44(5): 321-352. [64439]

109. Zasada, J. 1986. Natural regeneration of trees and tall shrubs on forest sites in interior Alaska. In: Van Cleve, K.; Chapin, F. S., III; Flanagan, P. W.; Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T., eds. Forest ecosystems in the Alaskan taiga. A synthesis of structure and function. Vol. 57. New York: Springer-Verlag: 44-73. [86265]

110. Zasada, John C.; Douglas, D. A.; Buechler, W. 2008. Salix L.: willow. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook No. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 1000-1009. [79502]