Rumex acetosella

From Bugwoodwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Author of this Abstract: Mark Frey, The Presidio Trust

5386031
Taxonomy
Kingdom: Plantae
Phylum: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Polygonales
Family: Polygonaceae
Genus: Rumex
Species: R. acetosella
Scientific Name
Rumex acetosella
L.
Common Names

red sorrel, field sorrel, sheep sorrel


Overview

Appearance
Rumex acetosella is a perennial herb that can reach 1.6 ft. (0.5 m) in height.
Foliage
Leaves are alternate, petiolate, glabrous, entire, 3-lobed, up to 1.2 in. (3 cm) long and occur in a basal rosette.
Flowers
Flowering occurs from March to November, when yellowish-green flowers (male) or reddish (female) flowers develop in clusters of a branched inflorescence at the apex of the stem. Flowers are typically drooping and have 3 petals and 3 sepals, each less than 0.04-0.06 in. (1-1.5 mm) long.
Fruit
Fruits are red achenes.
Ecological Threat
Rumex acetosella is native to Europe and occurs along roadsides and other disturbed areas.

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Rumex acetosella L.

  • ITIS (2007) lists three infraspecific taxa but notes that they are not accepted[1].
  • Rumex acetosella ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb.
  • Rumex acetosella var. pyrenaeus (Pourret) Timbal-Lagrave
  • Rumex acetosella var. tenuifolius Wallr.

SYNONYMS

The following synonyms are listed in IPANE (2007)[2]:

  • Acetosella acetosella (L.) Small
  • Acetosella tenuifolia (Wallr.) A. Löve
  • Acetosella vulgaris (Koch) Fourr.
  • Rumex acetosella ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb.
  • Rumex acetosella var. pyrenaeus (Pourret) Timbal-Lagrave
  • Rumex acetosella var. tenuifolius Wallr.
  • Rumex angiocarpus Murb.
  • Rumex tenuifolius (Wallr.) A. Löve

COMMON NAMES

Rumex acetosella’s common names include sheep sorrel, field sorrel, and red sorrel.

DESCRIPTION AND DIAGNOSTIC CHARACTERISTICS

Rumex acetosella is a dioecious, herbaceous perennial with creeping rhizomes. It is 10-40 cm (4-16 in.) tall[3]. Roots can reach depths of 1.5 m (5 ft.)[2]. Stems are narrow and reddish.

Leaves are 2-10 cm (0.8 to 4 in.) long and 1-2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) wide[4]. Most leaves occur in a basal rosette but there are often cauline leaves. Basal leaves are alternate and lobed, with the terminal lobe narrowly lanceolate (2-12 mm (0.08-0.5 in.) in length ) and the lateral lobes much smaller and triangular (sagittate or hastate leaf bases). Basal leaves are approximately 2.5-7.6 cm (1-3 in.) long, petiolate, and glabrous. Cauline leaves are alternate, usually without lobes, and with no or small petioles[5]. All leaves have a thin membranous sheath (ocrea) surrounding the stem at the point of leaf petiole attachment. The sagittate leaves and distinct reddish tinge color are useful distinguishing characteristics.

Roots are yellowish and range from very fine (<0.5mm) to large (>3mm) in diameter (pers. obs.).

Flowering stalks can be up to half as long as the total plant length. Flowers are morphologically distinct between male and female plants. Male flowers are yellow and female flowers are reddish [6]). Flowers are nodding on short, jointed pedicels. Male flowers have obovate inner tepals measuring 1.5-2 mm (0.06-0.08 in.) in size. Female flowers have tepals that are broadly ovate in shape[2].

The shiny, golden brown fruits are achenes, and are 3-angled and measure approximately 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) in size. In New England fruits are present on the plant from June-October[2].

Cotyledons are hairless, oblong, and up to 10 mm (0.4 in.) in length. Cotyledons and young leaves do not have smooth surfaces. Young leaves are oblong; basal sagittate leaves develop later [5].

SIMILAR SPECIES

There are 200 species in the genus[7]. Rumex acetosa L. (garden sorrel) is similar but of larger stature than R. acetosella,[2] (Delmas 1993). In the U.S. R. acetosa is reported from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming[8].

STEWARDSHIP SUMMARY

Biomass removal, especially removing the roots is key to success. Seedlings, root fragments left underground, and any plant parts left above ground can be a source of new plants. Its roots can grow to depths of 1.5 m (5 ft.) deep, making it difficult to control and manage using manual and/or mechanical techniques. This species appears susceptible to glyphosate and herbicides containing dicamba.

HABITAT & RANGE

Rumex acetosella is native to most of Europe, Russia, the Middle East and northern Africa[2]. R. acetosella is naturalized in New Zealand, Greenland, western South America, the southern tip of Africa, Iceland (GBIF 2007) and the US[8]. In the U.S. it occurs in all 50 states[8]. APWG (2007) lists it as invasive in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and, West Virginia. Rumex acetosella has been named a noxious weed in Iowa[2] and is banned from import and sale in Connecticut (USDA PLANTS). This species is found in a wide range of habitats but especially fields and disturbed places. It is common in floodplains [9], oak woodlands, and yellow pine forests[6].

Open areas

Rumex acetosella occurs often in grassland or other open habitat. In western Washington it is found in areas dominated by Salix scouleriana; it also grows with Fragaria virginiana, Holcus lanatus, Trifolium repens, Rumex crispus, and Juncus effusus[9] (Fonda 1974). In Oregon R. acetosella is commonly associated with Bromus tectorum[9]. In Connecticut it occurs in a postagricultural Schizachyrium scoparium grassland with Agrostis alba and Carex pensylvanica[9] (Niering and Dreyer 1989). In New Jersey it grows with Solidago canadensis[9] (Carson and Picket 1990). It grows in southern Appalachian grassy bald communities dominated by Danthonia compressa and growing with Rubus canadensis, Vaccinium pallidum, and Viola spp.[9] (Lindsay et al. 1979, Mark 1958). In Indiana, R. acetosella occurs with Schizachyrium scoparium, Celtis occidentalis, and Equisetum laevigatum[9] (Strait and Jackson 1986). In Montana and Wyoming, it grows in alpine tundra[9] (Weaver et al. 1990). In South Carolina R. acetosella grows in a disturbed Andropogon virginicus[9] (Golley 1965). In California it has been noted growing in a freshwater marsh with Festuca arundinacea, Carex spp., Typha angustifolia[9] (Fiedler and Leidy 1987). In California R. acetosella is common in annual grassland, montane meadow, and perennial bunchgrass communities. Associates include Bromus rigidus, B. hordeaceus, Aira caryophyllea, Poa pratense, P. nevadensis, Carduus pycnocephalus, Avena fatua, and Lolium multiflorum[9] (Boyd et al. 1993, Davis and Sherman 1992, Fiedler and Leidy 1987, McBride et al 1991). At Point Reyes National Seashore, California, R. acetosella occurs in a coastal grassland community with coast rock cress Arabis blepharophylla, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Berberis pinnata, and Chorizanthe valida[9] (Clark and Fellers 1986, Davis and Sherman 1992).

Forested areas

Rumex acetosella can also be found in forested areas, including the following. In Pennsylvania R. acetosella occurs in Pinus strobus-Danthonia spicata communities with Solidago canadensis, Epilobium angustifolium, Lysimachia quadrifolia, Claytonia virginica, Erythronium americanum, Oxalis montana, and Viola spp.[9] (Auchmoody and Walters 1988, Kolb et al. 1990, Walters and Auchmoody 1989). In Alberta, R. acetosella is a member of an 80-year-old Picea glauca-Pinus banksiana-Pleurozium spp. community[9] (Fyles 1989). In Idaho R. acetosella occurs with Abies grandis, Asarum caudatum, Pachistima myrsinites, and Physocarpus malvaceus[9] (Green and Jensen 1991, Leege and Godbolt 1985, Leege et al. 1981, Zimmerman and Neunschwander 1984). In California R. acetosella occurs in Sequoia sempervirens, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus garryana habitats[9] (Gardner 1958, Krueger and Donart 1974, Sugihara et al. 1987). In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges, California, R. acetosella grows under Quercus douglasii[9] (Holland 1980).

IMPACTS AND THREATS POSED BY Rumex acetosella

It can form colonies at least 10 to 30 feet in diameter to the exclusion of other plants[6].

BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

Light and Temperature

R. acetosella grows under a variety of conditions but it appears to prefer open areas (Parker 1995). It easily tolerates freezing temperatures during the winters of northern states.

Soil conditions (pH, moisture, texture, nutrients)

Rumex acetosella prefers areas with very poor, acid soil with low nitrogen. It does not grow well in calcareous soils[2]. In one study, peak density was observed under low nitrogen (Tilman 1988). In West Virginia R. acetosella grows well in all but limestone regions[9] (Strausbaugh and Core 1977).

Flooding and/or Drought Tolerance

Unknown

Reproduction

Plants reproduce both by seed and vegetatively. Individuals often form massive populations with one or few genets.

Flowering dates:

State Months Reference
Georgia Mar-Jun (Wofford 1989, cited in Esser 1995)
Tennessee Mar-Jun (Wofford 1989, cited in Esser 1995)
Virginia Mar-Jun (Wofford 1989, cited in Esser 1995)
North Carolina Mar-July (Radford et al. 1968 and Wofford 1989, both in Esser 1995)
South Carolina Mar-July (Radford et al. 1968 and Wofford 1989, both in Esser 1995)
California Mar-Aug (Munz 1973)
Kansas Apr-July (Bare 1979, cited in Esser 1995)
Great Plains Apr-Aug (Great Plains Flora Association 1986, cited in Esser 1995)
North Dakota May-Jun (Dittberner et al. 1983, cited in Esser 1995)
Montana May-Aug (Dittberner et al. 1983, cited in Esser 1995)
Idaho May-Sept (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993)
Oregon May-Sept (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993)
Washington May-Sept (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993)
West Virginia May-Sept (Strausbaugh and Core 1977, cited in Esser 1995)

R. acetosella spreads rapidly by producing new plants from adventitious stem buds on the roots. Those buds are usually found in the top 20 cm (8 in.) of the soil[9] (Kiltz 1930).

Sheep sorrel invades disturbed sites and may move onto undisturbed sites. It colonizes rapidly by seed and may persist for 15 to 20 years (Escarre et al. 1994). Competition from other species on good soils may reduce its abundance (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993).

In 2006 in the Presidio of San Francisco a greenhouse study was conducted to evaluate the survival of 5 in. (12.7 cm) R. acetosella root fragments of varying thickness when buried at various depths. As time passed more deeply buried roots produced leaves. After one month all roots left on the surface except for the thickest roots had produced leaves. After two months all roots buried at two inches also produced leaves. After three months the thickest roots buried at four inches also produced leaves. No plants emerged after three months. No roots buried at 6 inches or deeper produced leaves (Frey et al. 2008).

Pollination

Wind pollinated.

Seed Production

Unknown

Seed Dispersal, Seed Banking

The seeds are dispersed by both wind and insects[2]. The shiny, 3-angled achenes are mahogany red and 1.6 mm (.063 in.) or less long[6]. Sheep sorrel has a persistent seedbank and may be present as seeds even when there are no growing plants. These seeds germinate following disturbance[9] (Del Tredici 1977, Fyles 1989, Granstom and Schimmel 1993, Livingston and Allessio 1968). Buried seed remains viable in the soil for extended periods (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993).

Seed Germination

Unknown

ECONOMIC USES

R. acetosella provides poor forage for livestock[9] but is grown and sold for human consumption.

MANAGEMENT

Good control of Rumex acetosella is complicated because it reproduces and can be spread both by seed and vegetatively. Shoot removal appears to only slow or temporarily inhibit seeding. This strategy also slows vegetative spread (Fitzsimmons and Burrill 1993). The removal of shoots without root removal appears to stimulate shoot growth, leading to greater percent cover than before shoot removal (Frey et al. 2008).

Potential for Restoration of Invaded Sites

Impacts from mechanical control techniques can create highly disturbed areas. This disturbance may or may not be desired, depending on the nature of the invaded plant community. If the plant community depends on disturbance (such as coastal dunes) then this techniques may be suitable. If, however, major disturbance would result in a weed flush or otherwise disrupt the community then this techniques may be unsuitable

After R. acetosella removal restoration success is high. There are no apparent chemical or physical legacy effects of the invasion.

Prevention and Early Detection

As with all unwanted species early detection and prevention are the most cost effective strategies to protect native habitats from invasive species.

Manual and Mechanical Control

Removing as much of the shallow roots as possible is the most effective method to reduce plant abundance. On a small scale this can be done effectively with a pick or shovel (Frey et al. 2008). After clearing an area, reduce resprouting and seed germination by applying a thick mulch. (Sunset 1998).

Fitzsimmons and Burrill (1993) found that roots were exhausted by repeated cultivation during dry weather.

In 2007 in the Presidio of San Francisco large patches of dense R. acetosella were selected. Seven techniques were tested: 1) use a propane torch to wilt the leaves, 2) use a hula hoe to cut plants just below the soil surface and leave on site, 3) without digging up plants, pull and remove from the site, 4) with a hand-pick, remove from the site as much of the root and shoot as possible, 5) cover vegetation with a black, semipermeable landscape fabric for six months, 6) remove 3 inches of soil, sift through a screen, and return to the plot, 7) remove 6 inches of soil, sift through a screen, and return to the plot.

Time required varied dramatically by treatment. The techniques that removed root biomass (pick and digging) reduced percent cover of R. acetosella. In sand, the pull method and 6 inch dig still showed a reduction in percent cover one year after implementation. In serpentine no treatments showed an effect after one year but the 3 inch dig treatment reduced cover up until the third quarter. Results suggest that the flame treatment is the least effective method (Frey et al. 2008).

Grazing

The oxalic acid in R. acetosella causes dermatitis in some animals and there have been reports that horses and sheep have been poisoned from eating large quantities of this plant [6].

R. acetosella is grazed by sheep and cattle[9] (Humphrey 1955), and mule deer[9] (Krueger and Donart 1974, Nixon et al. 1970). Grouse eat sheep sorrel seed[9] (Hungerford 1951, Hungerford 1957, Schmidt 1936, and Swenson 1985).

There is no evidence of grazing being tried as a control method.

Prescribed Fire

No studies were found that used prescribed fire as a tool to control R. acetosella. However, some information is available about this species’ reaction to fire. Esser (1995) describes many studies that mention R. acetosella and its response to fire[9] (Boyd et al. 1993, Del Tredici 1977, Fyles 1989, Granstrom and Schimmel 1993, Hall 1955, Leege and Godbolt 1985, MacLean and Wein 1977, Maltby et al. 1990, Merrill et al. 1980, Minore et al. 1979, Niering and Dreyer 1989). In general, R. acetosella was less than 5% before the fires and after the fires. However, the rate of increase and/or establishment was generally greater than that observed in the controls.

Flooding

Unknown

Chemical

A 50% Rodeo solution painted directly on the leaves of R. acetosella in a coastal dune restoration project in the Presidio of San Francisco reduced R. acetosella from 42±2 to 7±6 percent cover after six months (unpublished data).

Oregon State University (1998) recommends dicamba for R. acetosella. They suggest 0.5 pounds dicamba per acre . They also recommend that dicamba be applied when red sorrel has new foliage in the late fall, winter, or early spring. They report that spring application controls spring-germinating seedlings better than sprays applied earlier and that this treatment will prevent the setting of seed on surviving plants (Oregon State University 1998).

Sunset (1998) recommends using an herbicide containing dicamba or spot treating with glyphosate.

Fitzsimmons and Burrill (1993) report that several herbicides can selectively control sheep sorrel. They do not list them but refer the reader to the annually published Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. This document, now called the PNW Weed Management Handbook can be found at http://weeds.ippc.orst.edu/pnw/weeds. On 6/6/2007 only Dicamba was recommended. The recommended time to apply was “when red sorrel has new foliage, usually November 15 to March 15. Spring application controls spring-germinating seedlings better than sprays applied earlier.” They also note that the recommended treatment will kill seedlings and most mature plants and that it will prevent seed set in those plants that do survive (Oregon State University 2007).

Although control with hexazinone (a triazine herbicide) showed promising preliminary results future study revealed that sheep sorrel grew and produced a large number of seeds[9] (McCully et al. 1991).

In Pennsylvania in a Solidago spp. and Aster spp. community that was plowed, disked, and prometone-treated, sheep sorrel was dominant in 1- and 3-year-old plots[9] (Medve 1984).

Biological Control

No biocontrols known to be released for this species.

EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR Rumex acetosella

Where Rumex acetosella control is a regular part of restoration activities in the Presidio of San Francisco repeated removal multiple times per year has proven successful.

MONITORING

Monitoring the spread of this species and detecting it early are keys to success. Also, monitoring is necessary to detect any changes in condition of the desired community, and to see what the response of the weed and your community is in response to your management treatments.

RESEARCH NEEDS

  • Non-chemical control techniques.
  • How much biomass needs to be removed to prevent flowering?
  • How many times and with what frequency does shoot removal result in death?

Resources

References

  1. ITIS 2007. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. www.itis.gov, accessed 3/26/07
  2. IPANE 2007. Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/, Accessed 3/27/07 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
  3. Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden, New York. 910 pp.
  4. Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
  5. Virginia Tech 2007, Weed Identification Guide http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/rumaa.htm, Accessed 3/26/2007 5.0 5.1
  6. Parker, K. F., 1972. An Illustrated Guide to Arizona Weeds. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. A Complete Online Edition of the Printed Book. http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/weeds/rsorrel.htm, accessed 3/26/07 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
  7. Mabberley, D. J. (1997) The Plant-Book (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  8. USDA 2007. Plants Database. www.plants.usda.gov, accessed 3/26/07 8.0 8.1 8.2
  9. Esser, L. L. 1995. Rumex acetosella. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed 3/26/07. 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26

Other Resources

  • APWG 2007. Alien Plant Working Group http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/r.htm, accessed 3/26/07.
  • Auchmoody, L. R., Walters, R. S. 1988. Revegetation of a brine-killed forest site. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 277-280.
  • Bare, J. E. 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: The Regents Press of Kansas. 509 p.
  • Boyd, R. S., Woodward, R. A., Walter, G.. 1993. Fire effects on a montane Sierra Nevada meadow. California Fish and Game. 70(3): 115-125.
  • Carson, W. P., Pickett, S. T. A. 1990. Role of resources and disturbance in the organization of an old-field plant community. Ecology. 71(1): 226-238.
  • Clark, R. A., Fellers, G. M. 1986. Rare plants of Point Reyes National Seashore. Tech. Rep. No. 22. Davis, CA: University of California, Institute of Ecology, San Francisco, CA: *U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Region. 117 p.
  • Davis, L. H., Sherman, R. J. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida (Polygonaceae) at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. Madrono. 39(4): 271-280.
  • Delmas M. (ed.) 1993. Fleurs de Vanoise. C.-Y. Chaudoreille, Edisud, Aix-en-Provence. 318p.
  • Del Tredici, P.. 1977. The buried seeds of Comptonia peregrina, the sweet fern. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 104(3): 270-275.
  • Dittberner, P. L., Olson, M. R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.
  • Elkhorn Slough 2000. Weed Control by Species. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. http://www.elkhornslough.org/plants/weeds.PDF, accessed 6/6/07
  • Fiedler, P. L., Leidy, R. A. 1987. Plant communities of Ring Mountain Preserve, Marin County, California. Madrono. 34(3): 173-192.
  • Fitzimmons JP and LC Burrill 1993. Red Sorrel. A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication.
  • Fonda, R. W. 1974. Forest succession in relation to river terrace development in Olympic National Park, Washington. Ecology. 55(5):927-942.
  • Frey M., J. Soong, J. Feeser, and S. Dishy. 2008. Identifying Control Techniques for Rumex acetosella in the Presidio of San Francisco (California). Ecological Restoration. 26:2 p109-111.
  • Fyles, J. W. 1989. Seed bank populations in upland coniferous forests in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 274-278.
  • Gardner, R. A. 1958. Soil-vegetation associations in the redwood - Douglas-fir zone of California. In: Proceedings, 1st North American forest soils conference, [Date of conference unknown], East Lansing, MI. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: 86-101.
  • GBIF 2007. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. http://www.secretariat.gbif.net/portal/index.jsp, accessed 3/27/07
  • Golley, F. B. 1965. Structure and function of an old-field broomsedge community. Ecological Monographs. 35(1): 113-137.
  • Granstrom, A., Schimmel, J. 1993. Heat effects on seeds and rhizomes of a selection of boreal forest plants and potential reaction to fire. Oecologia. 94: 307-313.
  • Great Plains Flora Association 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p.
  • Green, P., Jensen, M. 1991. Plant succession within managed grand fir forests of northern Idaho. In: Harvey, A. E., Neuenschwander, L. F., compilers. Proceedings--management and productivity of western-montane forest soils, 1990 April 10-12, Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 232-236.
  • Hall, I. V. 1955. Floristic changes following the cutting and burning of a woodlot for blueberry production. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science. 35: 143-152.
  • Halsted, B.D. 1889. Our Worst Weeds. Botanical Gazette 14(3): 69-71.
  • Holland, V. L. 1980. Effect of blue oak on rangeland forage production in central California. In: Plumb, T. R., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology, management, and utilization of California oaks, 1979 June 26-28, Claremont, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 314-318.
  • Humphrey, R. R. 1955. Forage production on Arizona ranges, IV. Coconino, Navajo, Apache Counties: A study in range condition. Bulletin 266. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 84 p.
  • Hungerford, K. E. 1951. Ruffed grouse populations and cover use in northern Idaho. Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 216-224.
  • Hungerford, K. E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395.
  • Kearney, T. H., Peebles, R. H., Howell, J. T., McClintock, E. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p.
  • Kiltz, B. F. 1930. Perennial weeds which spread vegetatively. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 22(3): 216-234.
  • Kolb, T. E., Bowersox, T. W., McCormick, L. H. 1990. Influences of light intensity on weed-induced stress of tree seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 20: 503-507.
  • Krueger, W. C., Donart., G. B. 1974. Relationship of soils to seasonal deer forage quality. Journal of Range Management. 27(2): 114-117.
  • Lackschewitz, K. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p.
  • Leege, T. A., Herman, D. J., Zamora, B. 1981. Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 34(4): 324-328.
  • Leege, T. A., Godbolt, G. 1985. Herebaceous response following prescribed burning and seeding of elk range in Idaho. Northwest Science. 59(2): 134-43.
  • Lindsay, M. M., Bratton, S. P. 1979. Grassy balds of the Great Smoky Mountains: their history and flora in relation to potential management. Environmental Management. 3(5): 417-430.
  • Livingston, R. B., Allessio, M. L. 1968. Buried viable seed in successional field and forest stands, Harvard Forest, Massachusetts. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 95(1): 58-69.
  • MacLean, D. A., Wein, R. W. 1977. Changes in understory vegetation with increasing stand age in New Brunswick forests: species composition, cover, biomass, and nutrients. Canadian Journal of Botany. 55: 2818-2831.
  • Maltby, E., Legg, C. J., Proctor, M. C. F. 1990. The ecology of severe moorland fire on the North York Moors: effects of the 1976 fires, and subsequent surface and vegetation development. Journal of Ecology. 78(2): 490-518.
  • Mark, A. F. 1958. The ecology of the southern Appalachian grass balds. Ecological Monographs. 28(4): 293-336.
  • McBride, J. R., Norberg, E., Cheng, S., Mossadegh, A. 1991. Seedling establishment of coast live oak in relation to seed caching by jay. In: Standiford, R. B., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management, 1990 October 31 - November 2, Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 143-148.
  • McCully, K. V., Sampson, M. G., Watson, A. K. 1991. Weed survey of Nova Scotia (Canada) lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Weed Science. 39(2): 180-185.
  • Medve, R. J. 1984. The mycorrhizae of pioneer species in disturbed ecosystems of western Pennsylvania. American Journal of Botany. 71(6): 787-794.
  • Merrill, E. H., Mayland, H. F., Peek, J. M. 1980. Effects of a fall wildfire on herbacious vegetation on xeric sites in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 33(5): 363-367.
  • Minore, D., Smart, A. W., Dubrasich, M. E. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 50 p.
  • Niering, W. A., Dreyer, G. D. 1989. Effects of prescribed burning on Andropogon scoparius in postagricultural grasslands in Connecticut. American Midland Naturalist. 122: 88-102.
  • Nixon, C. M., McClain, M. W., Russell, K. R. 1970. Deer food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(4): 870-886.
  • Oregon State University 1998. Weed Programs in Oregon

http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/weeds/Red_sorrel/control.html. Last Updated April 07, 1998, accessed 3/26/07

  • Oregon State University 2007 PNW Weed Management Handbook. http://weeds.ippc.orst.edu/pnw/weeds. accessed 6/6/2007.
  • Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p.
  • Rand, E. L. 1890. Some Further Notes on the Flora of the Rangeley Lakes. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 17(2): 32-34.
  • Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203.
  • Sugihara, N. G., Reed, L. J., Lenihan, J. M. 1987. Vegetation of the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California. Madrono. 34(3): 193-208.
  • Sunset Books and Magazine Editors. 1998. Sunset Western Garden Problem Solver. Sunset Books, Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
  • Strait, R. A., Jackson, M. T. 1986. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Little Bluestem Prairie Nature Preserve: pre-burning versus post-burning. Proceedings, Indiana Academy of Science. 95: 447-452.
  • Strausbaugh, P. D., Core, E. L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p.
  • Swenson, J. E. 1985. Seasonal habitat use by sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus, on mixed-grass prairie in Montana. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(1): 40-46.
  • Tilman, D. 1988. Dynamics and structure of plant communities. Monographs in Population Biology 26. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 360 p.
  • Walters, R. S., Auchmoody, L. R. 1989. Vegetation re-establishment on a hardwood forest site denuded by brine. Landscape and Urban Planning. 17: 127-133.
  • Weaver, T., Lichthart, J., Gustafson, D. 1990. Exotic invasion of timberline vegetation, Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. In: Schmidt, W. C., McDonald, K. J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource, 1989 March 29-31, Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: . Wofford, B. E. 1989. *Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 208-213.
  • Wofford, B. E. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p.
  • Zimmerman, G. T., Neuenschwander, L. F. 1984. Livestock grazing influences on community structure, fire intensity, and fire frequency within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. *Journal of Range Management. 37(2): 104-110.



Images from Bugwood.org

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Projects
Participation
Other Bugwood Resources
Export Current Page
Toolbox