Where in Montana Is a Lodge Pole Pine Forest in Relation to Hebgen Lake

• Home - Other Field of study Guides
  • Ecological Systems

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Woodland

Provisional Tell Rank: S3

External Golf links

General Description

This forested system is widespread in upper montane to highland zones of the Montana Jolty Mountains, and east into island ranges of northern M and the Bighorn and Beartooth ranges of south-central Montana. These are montane to subalpine forests where the dominance of lodgepole yearn (Pinus contorta) is consanguine to fire history and topoedaphic conditions. In Montana, elevation ranges from 975 to 2,743 meters (3,200-9000 feet). These forests hap on flats to slopes of all degrees and scene, Eastern Samoa swell as valley bottoms. Fire is frequent, and stand-replacement fires are common. Following stand-replacing fires, lodgepole pine will rapidly colonise and develop into impenetrable, flush-aged stands. Most forests in this ecologic system occur as early- to mid-successional forests persisting for 50-200 long time on warmer, lower meridian forests, and 150-400 years in highland forests. They mostly hap on dry to intermediate sites with a panoramic seasonal range of temperatures and long downfall-free periods in summer. Snowfall is heavy and supplies the major source of soil irrigate in use for growth in early summer. Vigorous stands occur where the haste exceeds 533 millimeters (21 inches). These lodgepole forests are typically associated with rock types weathering to acidic substrates, such as granite and rhyolite. In westerly-fundamental Montana ranges such the Big Belts and the Unsmooth Mountain Straw man, these forests are establish on limestone substrates. These systems are particularly recovered developed along the broad ridges and high valleys near and east of the Continental Part. Succession issue at different rates, moving relatively promptly on low-elevation, mesic sites and especially slow in high-elevation forests much as those along the Continental Carve up in Montana.

Diagnostic Characteristics

Timber and forest, acidulent, shallow ustic soils, organic A horizon greater than 10 cm, Pinus contorta

Similar Systems

Range

This system occurs throughout the Montana Rocky Mountains and the island ranges from valley bottoms westbound of the Continental Part to upper subalpine forests.

Environment System Distribution

Approximately 10,223 square kilometers are classified advertisement as Mountain range Lodgepole Pine Forest in the 2017 Montana Put down Cover layers. Grid on represent is supported USGS 7.5 small quadrangle map boundaries.

Montana Counties of Occurrence

Beaverhead, Big Trumpet, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon paper, Cascade, Chouteau, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Golden Vale, Granite, Jefferson, Book of Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Phillips, Pondera, Cecil Frank Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Gunter Wilhelm Grass, Teton, Wheatland

Spatial Pattern

Matrix

Environment

This system generally occurs on air-dried to intermediate sites with a wide of the mark seasonal rate of temperatures and long hastiness-escaped periods in summer. Snowfall is heavy and supplies the major source of soil water used for growth in early summer. Robust stands hap where the hurry exceeds 533 millimeters (21 inches). These lodgepole forests are typically associated with rock types weathering to acidic substrates, so much A granite and rhyolite. In west-central Montana ranges such the Big Belts and the Rocky Mountain Front, these forests are found connected limestone substrates. These forests are especially well developed along the broad ridges and high valleys near and east of the Landmass Divide. Succession proceeds at diametrical rates, moving relatively speedily on low-elevation, mesic sites and particularly slowly in high-elevation forests such as those along the Continental Split up in Montana.

Vegetation

These forests are submissive by lodgepole true pine with shrub, grass, or barren understories. At elevation elevations east of the Continental Divide, lodgepole stands succeed to Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests. In western Montana, there are a number of commonly occurring tree species in later seral stages, including Douglas-fir, western larch (Larix occidentalis), western white pine (Pinus monticola), western Libocedrus decurrens (Thuja plicata), wonderful fir (Genus Abies grandis) and occidental poison hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). In the subalpine zone, Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), alpestrine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and Tsuga mertensiana (Tsuga mertensiana) ordinarily succeed spruce pine following tie-up mortality rate (Pfister et al..,1977). In the arable habitats of western Montana, Pinus contort true pine stands often decline in a brandish of mortality, usually ahead they are 120 years old.

The shrub layer may equal conspicuous to absent. Common species include bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), creeping Oregon grape (Mahonia repens), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), birch leaf spiraea (Genus Spiraea betulifolia),Canadian buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), grouse-berry (Vaccinium scoparium), stacks huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos species) and currant (Ribes species).

Nonwoody layers are by and large sparse, but can be moderately dense, and are typically dominated by perennial graminoids such American Samoa Columbia needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), Geyer's sedge (Carex geyeri), Betsy Ross' sedge (Carex rossii), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). Common forbs include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), arnica (Arnica spp.), American pathfinder (Adenocaulon bicolor), queen's cup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora), silky lupine (Lupinus sericeus) and beargrass (Squaw grass). Saprophytic species such as Cardamine bulbifera orchid (Corallorhiza spp.), Indian pipage (Genus Moneses uniflora), pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys), and pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea) are often associated with lodgepole yen forests.

Adapted from United States of America National Vegetation Classification

A3366 Pinus contorta Range of mountains Woods Alliance

CEGL000135 Genus Pinus contorta - Arnica cordifolia Forest

CEGL000141 Lodgepole pine - Carex geyeri Wood

CEGL000145 Pinus contorta - Ceanothus velutinus Forest

CEGL000153 Genus Pinus contorta - Linnaea borealis Forest

CEGL000163 Spruce pine - Shepherdia canadensis Woods

CEGL000164 Pinus contorta - Spiraea betulifolia Afforest

CEGL000168 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium caespitosum Timberland

CEGL000169 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium membranaceum Bouldery Mountain Forest

CEGL000172 Shore pine - Vaccinium scoparium Forest

CEGL000174 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium scoparium - Calamagrostis rubescens Woodland

CEGL000175 Pinus contorta - Xerophyllum tenax Forest

CEGL005913 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium membranaceum - Xerophyllum tenax Forest

CEGL005916 Genus Pinus contorta - Bride's bonnet Forest

CEGL005922 Pinus contorta - Menziesia ferruginea - Bride's bonnet Forest

CEGL005923 Genus Pinus contorta - Vaccinium caespitosum - Clintonia uniflora Forest

CEGL005924 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium scoparium - Squaw grass Forest

CEGL005928 Genus Pinus contorta - False azalea Forest

A3948 Valeriana sitchensis - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii - Xerophyllum tenax Subalpine Mesic Hayfield Alliance

CEGL005856 Chamerion angustifolium Chain Meadow

A4079 Pinus contorta Rocky Mountain Timberland Bond

CEGL005915 Pinus contorta - Heracleum maximum Forest

CEGL005921 Lodgepole - Clintonia uniflora / Xerophyllum tenax Timbe

1 C01 Forest and Woodland

1.B S15 Temperate and Current of air Forest and Woodland

1.B.2 F008 Cool Temperate Forest and Woodland

1.B.2.Nb D194 Chain of mountains Forest & Woodland

1.B.2.Nb.5 M020 Rocky Mountain Alpestrine-High Elevation Conifer Forest

1.B.2.Nb.5.a G220 Mountain chain Spruce pine Pine Forest & Timbe

A3366 Spruce pine Rocky Oodles Forest Alliance Jolty Mountain-East Cascadian Lodgepole Pine Forest

CEGL000135 Pinus contorta - Arnica cordifolia Forest

CEGL000141 Pinus contorta - Carex geyeri Forest

CEGL000145 Pinus contorta - Ceanothus velutinus Forest

CEGL000153 Pinus contorta - Linnaea borealis Forest

CEGL000163 Pinus contorta - Shepherdia canadensis Forest

CEGL000164 Pinus contorta - Spirea betulifolia Forest

CEGL000168 Pinus contorta - Dwarf blueberry Timberland

CEGL000169 Lodgepole - Vaccinium membranaceum Rocky Mountain Forest

CEGL000172 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium scoparium Forest

CEGL000174 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium scoparium - Calamagrostis rubescens Forest

CEGL000175 Pinus contorta - Xerophyllum tenax Timber

CEGL005913 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium membranaceum - Xerophyllum tenax Forest

CEGL005916 Pinus contorta - Clinton's lily uniflora Forest

CEGL005922 Pinus contorta - Menziesia ferruginea - Clinton's lily uniflora Wood

CEGL005923 Pinus contorta - Vaccinium caespitosum - Clintonia uniflora Forest

CEGL005924 Genus Pinus contorta - Vaccinium scoparium - Bear grass Woodland

CEGL005928 Pinus contorta - Menziesia ferruginea Forest

A4079 Pinus contorta Rocky Mountain Woodland Alliance Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

CEGL005915 Pinus contorta - Heracleum maximum Woodland

CEGL005921 Pinus contorta - Clintonia uniflora / Xerophyllum tenax Woodland

2 C02 Scrub and Herb Vegetation

2.B S18 Temperate and Boreal Grassland and Shrubland

2.B.2 F012 Clement Grassland and Shrubland

2.B.2.Na D022 Western North American Grassland and Shrubland

2.B.2.Na.3 M168 Mountain range-Vancouverian Subalpine-High Montane Mesophytic Hayfield

2.B.2.Na.3.b G271 Difficult Mountain-North Pacific Highland-Montane Mesophytic Grassland & Meadow

A3948 Valeriana sitchensis - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii - Xerophyllum tenax Alpestrine Mesic Meadow Alliance Subalpine Sitka Valerian - Smooth Woodrush - Beargrass Mesic Meadow

CEGL005856 Chamerion angustifolium Chain of mountains Meadow

*Disavowal: Alliances and Associations have not as yet been finalized in the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) standard.  A complete version of the NVC for Montana can be found Hera.

Projectile Processes

Lodgepole pine is an aggressive colonizer and shade-intolerant coniferous tree that occurs in the upper montane to lower alpestrine forests passim the major mountain ranges of Montana. Establishment is episodic and linked to stand-replacement disturbances, primarily fire. Historically, fire frequency wide-ranging 'tween 50 and 300 years, depending on local anaesthetic mood and elevation, with give the sack frequency declining with increasing natural elevation (Schoenagel et al., 2003). In the Northern Rockies, severe fires have created Brobdingnagian expanses of even-senior stands of lodgepole pine, although more than frequent low- to mixed-harshness burns may too occur in the intervals between stand for-replacing fires, generating a matrix of mixed-get on stands (Hardy et alibi., 2000; Arno et al., 1993). Occasionally, fire severity Crataegus oxycantha be such that cones are destroyed and regeneration will swear on wind-dispersed seeds from nearby stands, ensuant in slower regrowth (Anderson, 2003). Recurrent fires allow lodgepole pine to persist as the climax species in this system by eliminating the potential for succession by more shade off-tolerant species (Pfister et al., 1977).

Trees with restricted, serotinous cones where seed publish is a response to an environmental trigger, require screaky temperatures to release seeds and appear to be strongly golden by fire, allowing rapid colonization of fire-cleared substrates (Burns and Honkala, 1990). The incidence of serotinous cones varies inside and between varieties of lodgepole pine, but within Rocky Mountain populations, serotiny varies both across regions and with stand age (Schoenagel et al., 2003). Stands that occur at lower elevations where fire return intervals are shorter exhibit greater serotiny, whereas high aggrandisement stands with greater fire return intervals favor non-serotinous cones which are more advantageous for successful regeneration (Schoenagel et al., 2003). Shore pine stands exhibiting a multi-aged population social organisation also exhibit a higher proportion of trees bearing non-serotinous cones. True-aged stands that establish after stand-replacing fires exhibit greater serotiny than those that establish later on wind or insect disturbances (Anderson, 2003).

In fire-generated stands of interchangeable age, trees become increasingly susceptible to some mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and spruce pine dwarf Old World mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) infestations as they mature, much resulting in large-scale mortality. In the main, pine beetles preferentially attack large individuals with greater nutritional resources (Colewort and Amman, 1969). In that system, large musical scale, stand-replacing fires have occurred frequently throughout Montana during the past 20 years, increasing stand homogeneity favorable to beetle onset. Elevated railway temperatures and increasing drought severity additionally combine to favor beetle universe growth and weaken shore pine pine defense mechanism mechanisms, thereby growing susceptibility to mountain pine overhang attack (Raffa et al., 2008). Interactions 'tween organic phenomenon and abiotic disturbance agents in lodgepole pine systems are complex, and the widespread mortality associated with these disturbances alters ecosystem processes. Ecosystem-level personal effects of Swiss mountain pine beetling outbreaks include changes to carbon paper cycling (Kurz et al., 2008), hydrology (Bearup et alia., 2014; Mikkelson et al., 2013), and fuel bodily structure and inflammability (Hicke et al., 2012; Jolly et al., 2012). All the same, at broad spatial scales it does not come along that pine beetle caused mortality increases stand susceptibility to fire (Stag et al., 2015; Simard et alii., 2011). Alternatively, dwarf mistletoe increases legion susceptibleness to fire by altering fuel dynamics, and intensifies Host vulnerability to insect attack (Hawksworth et al.., 2002).

Management

Personal effects of fire, fire inhibition, fuel accumulation, stand by growth, insects, and disease in these forests interact to control the establishment and maintenance of stands. Because they are often initiated by rack-replacing fire, Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine stands are frequently plane-aged. However, stands of similar age oft differ in density, ranging from open stands of large trees to very dense, scrubby "doghair" stands. In the petit mal epilepsy of natural give the axe, periodic prescribed burns and exclusive thinning give the axe be put-upon to maintain this system. Thinning whitethorn, however, increase long-term stand out susceptibility to mugho pine mallet attack (Fettig et al., 2006), and dense, fifty-fifty-mature stands may constitute unprotected to windthrow as a outcome of cutting (Anderson 2003). Low intensity prescribed burning may gain long-run ohmic resistanc to mountain pine beetle assault (Hood and Sala, 2013), although stands English hawthorn be more vulnerable to attack in the short term (Kulakowski and Jarvis, 2013). Settled fueled may also encourage dwarf mistletoe success if infected individuals are not eliminated, as dwarf mistletoe germination rates are enhanced aside smoke exposure (Kipfmueller and Baker, 1997).

Restoration Considerations

Low-frequency stand-replacing fires are characteristic of this system (Stephens et al., 2013), with higher frequency small- to miscellaneous-severity burns occurring in the intervals betwixt high-severity fires (Hardy et al.., 2000). Restoration strategies will depend largely on management goals. Low intensity prescribed passionate and selective thinning Crataegus laevigata be utilised every bit Restoration strategies to restore historic firing regimes and increase long term resistance to mugo pine beetle attack (Hood and Sala, 2013; Fettig et alii., 2006). Under favorable moisture conditions, seeds discharged from serotinous cones during firing germinate on exposed mineral soil and disturbed duff the following spring. Terminat creates a golden seedbed by removing loose integrated matter and exposing petrified stain or decomposed organic matter, which encourages germination. Therefore, in near scenarios, additional post-fire restoration practices are non required. However, regeneration achiever may live marginal when stand-replacing fires are followed by years of plain drought (Stephens et al., 2013) and may require auxiliary restoration efforts. When subsidiary planting is necessary, sprouting rates for seeds from serotinous cones may be enhanced by short photograph to flare (Anderson, 2003). Crude successional stages following discharge in lodgepole ache forests are dominated by an understory of forbs and to a lesser extent, graminoids such as fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium), aster (Aster species), nettleleaf giant hyssop (Agastache urticifolia), and pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens).

Species Associated with this Ecological System

• Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations

  How Associations Were Successful
  We related the use and home ground quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, OR migrate direct the state by:

  1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or unsettled habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Brigham Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
  2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
  3. Examining the observance records for to each one species in the state-open point observation database associated with each ecological system;
  4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availableness of home ground".

  Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Treasure State were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate direct Treasure State were only evaluated for migratory habitat use up.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological scheme if composition characteristics of used habitat documented in the lit were present in the ecological system or large-mouthed numbers of item observations were related to with the ecological organisation.  However, species were not listed as related with an biological science organisation if there was none support in the literature for role of cognition characteristics in an ecological system,

  even if

  point observations were related with that arrangement.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned supported the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological organisation paired the best-loved structural home ground characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with from each one ecological organisation relative to the percent of Montana covered by each biology system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you receive any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, delight contact the Montana Natural Inheritance Curriculum's Senior Animal scientist.

  Suggested Uses and Limitations
  Species associations with ecological systems should be old to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should non be used in place of certificated occurrences of species (this information terminate be requested at: mtnhp.org/requests) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a localized site flat by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover information used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to comprise used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the olden X.  Thus, particular caution should be victimized when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public earth survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be related with a particular ecological system inside its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.

  Literature Cited

  • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain Westerly; normal history, ecology, and conservation.  Bowlder, CO: University Press of Centennial State.  289 p.
  • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Timber Service, Northern Region. Issue No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
  • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Treasure State.  Bit edition.  Mountain Press Publication, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp.
  • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana book of maps of object vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, Metric ton.  1302 p.
  • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Part, USDA Wood Table service, Rough Mountain Inquiry Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
  • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural account, and the condition and preservation of various species.  News report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biota Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
  • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Original Conception Authors

Montana Version Authors

L.K. Vance, T. Luna, S.V. Cooper

Version Date

1/1/2017

References

• Classification and Map Identifiers

  Cowardin Wetland Classification: Non applicable

  NatureServe Identifiers:

  Element Global Gem State	28656
  System Code	CES306.820, Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

  National Earth Overcompensate Dataset:
  42: Half-evergreen Forest

  ReGAP:
  4237: Unsmooth Mountain Lodgepole Pine Timberland

• Literature Cited AboveFable: View Online Publication
  • Phil Anderson, M.D. 2003. Pinus contorta volt-ampere. latifolia. In: Fire Personal effects Information System, [Online}. U. S. Section of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bouldery Mountain Research Send, Fire Sciences Testing ground (Manufacturer).
  • Arno S. F., , Woodland Structure and Landscape Patterns in the Upland Lodgepole Type: a Subprogram for Unintifying Gone and Nowadays Conditions
  • Bearup, L.A., R.M. Maxwell, D.W. Clow, and J.E. McCray. 2014. Hydrological effects of forest transpiration loss in bark beetle-impacted watersheds. Nature Global climate change 4(6):481-486.
  • Cole, W.E. and G.D. Amman. 1969. Dozens languish beetle infestations in relation to spruce pine pine diameters. Ogden, UT: Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Woods and Range Experimentation Station. Explore Greenbac INT-95.8 p.
  • Robust, C.C., R.E. Keane, and C.A. Dugald Stewart. 1999. Ecosystem-based direction in the lodgepole zone. Pp. 18-20 In: The Bitterroot Ecosystem Direction Scientific research: what we have learned: symposium minutes. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Mountain range Search Station. RMRS-P-17.
  • Hart, S.J., T. Schoennagel, T.T. Thorstein Veblen, and T.B. Chapman. 2015. Area burned in the western United States is unaffected by recent Pinus mug overhang outbreaks. Legal proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 112:4375-4380.
  • Hawksworth, F.G., D. Wiens, and B.W. Geils. 2002. Arceuthobium in North America. Mistletoes of Northeastward American conifers 29-56.
  • Hicke, J.A., M.C. President Andrew Johnson, J.L. Hayes, and H.K. Preisler. 2012. Effects of barque beetle-caused tree mortality on wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management 271:81-90.
  • Hood, S.M. and A. Sala. 2013. Shop, Low-Intensity Ardour Increases Tree Defense To Bark Beetles. Abstract. Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. 7 p.
  • Jovial, W.M., R.A. Parsons, A.M. Hadlow, G.M. Cohn, S.S. McAllister, J.B. Popp, and J.F. Negron. 2012. Relationships between wet, chemistry, and ignition of Lodgepole needles during the embryonic stages of mountain pine beetle attack. Forest Ecology and Management 269:52-59.
  • Kipfmueller, K.F. and W.L. Baker. 1998. Fires and dwarf mistletoe in a Rocky Mountain Pinus contort ecosystem. Woods Ecology and Management 108(1):77-84.
  • Kulakowski, D. and D. Jarvis. 2013. Low-severity fires growth susceptibility of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle outbreaks in Colorado. Wood Ecology and Management 289:544-550.
  • Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, and L. Safranyik. 2008. Piles pine beetle and forest C feedback to clime change. Nature 452(7190):987-990.
  • Mikkelson, K.M., L.A. Bearup, R.M. Maxwell, J D. Stednick, J.E. McCray, and J.O. Sharp. 2013. Skin beetle infestation impacts on nutrient cycling, water calibre and interdependent hydrological effects. Biogeochemistry 115(1-3):1-21.
  • Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Serving. General Subject field Report INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Post, Ogden, UT. 174 pp.
  • Raffa, K.F., B.H. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A.L. Carroll, J.A. Hicke, M.G. Turner, and W.H. Romme. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of cancel disturbances prone to anthropogenic elaboration: the dynamics of bark overhang eruptions. Bioscience 58(6): 501-517.
  • Schoennagel, T., M. G. Joseph Mallord William Turner, and W. H. Romme. 2003. The influence of fire interval and serotiny happening postfire lodgepole pine density in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 84:2967-2978.
  • Simard, M., W.H. Romme, J.M. Griffin, and M.G. Turner. 2011. Do mountain pine beetle outbreaks transfer the probability of active crown fire in lodgepole pine forests? Ecological Monographs 81(1):3-24.
  • Stephens, S.L., J.K. Agee, P.Z. Fulé, M.P. North, W.H. Romme, T.W. Swetnam, and M.G. Turner. 2013. Managing forests and fire in changing climates. Science 342(6154):41-42.
• Additional ReferencesCaption: View Online Publication
  Arrange you know of a citation we're missing?
  • Burns, R. M., and B. H. Honkala, subject coordinators. 1990a. Silvics of Frederick North America: Volume 1. Conifers. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC. 675 pp.

Login Logout

Name: Password: Air Cancel

Where in Montana Is a Lodge Pole Pine Forest in Relation to Hebgen Lake

Source: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=4237

Share this post