Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

Provisional State Rank: S4

External Links





 

General Description

These forests are similar to Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (4242), but occur in locations with cold-air drainage or ponding, or where snowpacks linger late into the summer, such as north-facing slopes and high-elevation ravines. They are distinguished by their occurrence on mesic to wet microsites within the matrix of the drier (and warmer) subalpine spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests. The microsites include north-facing slopes, swales or ravines, toeslopes, cold pockets, and other locations where available soil moisture is higher or lasts longer into the growing season. This system can extend down in elevation below the subalpine zone in places where cold-air ponding occurs, especially on north and east aspects. Elevations range from 884 to 1,981 meters (2,900-6,500 feet) west of the Continental Divide, and 1,585 to 2,682 meters (5,200-8,800 feet) east of the Continental Divide. Spruce is usually associated with subalpine fir and occurs either as a climax co-dominant or as a persistent, long-lived seral species in most upper elevation subalpine fir stands. Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) occurs as small patches within the matrix of this mesic spruce-fir system, but only in the most maritime of environments of northwestern Montana, in the coldest and wettest sites. The shrub understory contains many ericaceous species such as rusty leaf menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), mountain huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), pink mountain heath (Phyllodoce empetriformis), black twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), gooseberry (Ribesspecies) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). The herbaceous understory contains mesic forbs, graminoids, and ferns and fern allies on the wettest sites. Moss cover is often high. Stand-replacing fires are less common in mesic spruce-fir forests than in dry-mesic forests.


Diagnostic Characteristics

Forest and woodlands, acidic and udic soils, very long disturbance intervals, long persistence (>500years), Picea engelmannii, Abies lasiocarpa


Similar Systems

Range

This system occurs is distinguished by its occurrence on mesic to wet microsites within the matrix of the drier (and warmer) subalpine spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests. The microsites include north-facing slopes, swales or ravines, toeslopes, cold pockets, and other locations where available soil moisture is higher or lasts longer into the growing season. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir mesic forests comprise a substantial part of the subalpine forests of the northwestern Montana Rocky Mountains. In Montana, these mesic to wet forests are very common west of the Continental Divide in the Flathead and Kootenai river drainages. The wetter habitat types such as subalpine fir/ devil’s club (Abies lasiocarpa/Oplopanax horridum) and Engelmann spruce/ horsetail (Picea engelmannii/Equisetum arvense) associations are found locally in the Flathead Valley and along Sheep Creek north of White Sulphur Springs.


Ecological System Distribution
Approximately 6,593 square kilometers are classified as Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland in the 2016 Montana Land Cover layers.  Grid on map is based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map boundaries.



Montana Counties of Occurrence
Beaverhead, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Wheatland

Spatial Pattern
Large patch

Environment
This system forms a belt at relatively low to high elevations west of the Continental Divide and mid to high elevations east of the Divide throughout the Montana Rocky Mountains and rarely, in the island ranges of north-central and west-central Montana. Elevations range from 884 to 1,981 meters (2,900-6,500 feet) west of the Continental Divide, and 1,585 to 2,682 meters (5,200-8,800 feet) east of the Continental Divide. Soils are derived from a variety of parent materials. They are usually rocky or gravelly with good aeration and drainage, but are usually acidic. Occurrences are typically found in locations with cold-air drainage or ponding, or where snowpacks linger late into the summer, such as north-facing slopes and high-elevation ravines. They can extend down in elevation below the subalpine zone in places where cold-air ponding occurs, especially on north and east aspects.

Vegetation

Tree canopy characteristics are relatively uniform, with Picea and Abies dominating either mixed or alone. Engelmann spruce is more tolerant of extreme environmental conditions than subalpine firs, and is usually more dominant in the drier and wettest occurences within this system. Mountain hemlockoccurs as small to large patches within the matrix of this mesic spruce-fir system but only in the most maritime of environments of northwestern Montana, in the coldest and wettest sites.

The understory of Picea -Abies forests in northwestern Montana often supports diverse stands of ericaceous plants, such as rusty leaf menziesia, dwarf huckleberry mountain huckleberry, bilberry and mountain heath. Grouse whortleberry and Labrador tea (Ledum glandulosum) are common on mesic sites.Cascade azalea (Rhododendron albiflorum) occurs in association with mountain hemlock and subalpine fir in some occurrences in northwestern Montana.Other common shrubs include Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), black twinberry honeysuckle, currant (Ribes species), thimbleberry, shortfruit willow (Salix brachycarpa) and greyleaf willow (Salix glauca). In the wettest subalpine fir forests in northwestern Montana, devil’s club is a major shrub associate. These sites are usually restricted to ravine bottoms near streams and seeps where the water table remains near the surface all year. The herbaceous layer is typically diverse. Smooth woodrush (Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens) are the most commonly associated graminoids. On moist sites with seeps or adjacent to running water, a lush herbaceous understory is present. Forb species includebaneberry (Actaea rubra), marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala), queen’s cup beadlily (Clintonia uniflora), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis),starry Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum stellatum), sidebellswintergreeen (Orthothilla secunda), arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis), clasp-leaf twisted stalk (Streptopus amplexifolius), foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), western meadow rue (Thalictrum occidentale), Sitka valerian (Valeriana sitchensis), green false hellebore (Veratrum viride), and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Ferns and fern allies such ashorsetail (Equisetum species), oakfern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris) and ladyfern (Athyrium species) form dense cover, inespecially wet spruce habitats on flat sites with poor drainage. Moss cover is often high within these forests.


National Vegetation Classification Switch to Full NVC View

Adapted from US National Vegetation Classification

A0311 Populus balsamifera ssp. Trichocarpa Northern Rocky Mountain Riparian Forest Alliance
CEGL005906 Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa / Populus tremuloides / Conifer - Clintonia uniflora Riparian Forest
A3362 Abies grandis - Pseudotsuga menziesii Central Rocky Mountain Forest & Woodland Alliance
CEGL005904 Betula papyrifera /Conifer - Clintonia uniflora Woodland
A3614 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii Rocky Mountain Moist Forest Alliance
CEGL000295 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Actaea rubra Forest
CEGL000317 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii Woodland
CEGL000330 Abies lasiocarpa - Rhododendron albiflorum Woodland
CEGL000341 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Vaccinium membranaceum Rocky Mountain Forest
CEGL000415 Picea engelmannii - Maianthemum stellatum,/i> Forest
CEGL005892 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Clintonia uniflora / Xerophyllum tenax Forest
CEGL005893 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Menziesia ferruginea - Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005894 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Menziesia ferruginea / Vaccinium scoparium Forest
CEGL005895 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Menziesia ferruginea - Xerophyllum tenax Forest
CEGL005896 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Menziesia ferruginea - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii Woodland
CEGL005897 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Menziesia ferruginea - Streptopus amplexifolius Woodland
CEGL005898 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Xerophyllum tenax / Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii Woodland
CEGL005912 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005914 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Vaccinium scoparium - Xerophyllum tenax Forest
CEGL005917 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Vaccinium membranaceum - Xerophyllum tenax Forest
CEGL005918 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Vaccinium caespitosum - Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005919 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Vaccinium scoparium - Thalictrum occidentale Forest
CEGL005920 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Streptopus amplexifolius / Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii Woodland
A3615 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii Southern Rocky Mountain Moist Forest Alliance
CEGL000294 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Acer glabrum Forest
CEGL000331 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Ribes (montigenum, lacustre, inerme) Forest
A3616 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii Rocky Mountain Talus & Scree Woodland Alliance
CEGL005823 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Valeriana sitchensis Woodland
A3617 Tsuga mertensiana Rocky Mountain Forest Alliance
CEGL000504 Tsuga mertensiana - Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL000506 Tsuga mertensiana - Menziesia ferruginea Forest
CEGL000516 Tsuga mertensiana - Xerophyllum tenax Forest
A3640 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii - Pinus flexilis Dry-Mesic Rocky Mountain Krummholz Alliance
A3643 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Forest Alliance
CEGL000306 Abies lasiocarpa - Clematis columbiana var. columbiana Forest
CEGL002676 Picea engelmannii - Physocarpus malvaceus Forest
A3726 Abies amabilis - Tsuga mertensiana - Abies lasiocarpa Cascadian Forest & Woodland Alliance
CEGL000505 Tsuga mertensiana - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii Forest
A3729 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii / Rubus lasiococcus Cascadian Forest Alliance
CEGL000920 Abies lasiocarpa - Phyllodoce empetriformis Woodland
A3757 Abies lasiocarpa - Picea engelmannii Swamp Forest Alliance
CEGL000300 Abies lasiocarpa / Picea engelmannii - Calamagrostis canadensis Swamp Forest
CEGL000314 Abies lasiocarpa - Ledum glandulosum Swamp Forest
CEGL000414 Picea (engelmannii x glauca, engelmannii) - Packera streptanthifolia Swamp Forest
A3948 Valeriana sitchensis - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii - Xerophyllum tenax Subalpine Mesic Meadow Alliance
CEGL005856 Chamerion angustifolium Rocky Mountain Meadow
*Disclaimer: Alliances and Associations have not yet been finalized in the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) standard.  A complete version of the NVC for Montana can be found here.

Dynamic Processes

Major disturbances include occasional blowdown, insect outbreaks (30-50 years), and fire. Fire return intervals are longer in this system than in the drier Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland system and range between 170 to more than 300 years (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012). The majority of fires in this system are stand replacing, although mixed severity fires also occur (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012). The cool and moist environment of this system favors greater fuel loading and infrequent fires, however when dry conditions persist over long periods, these characteristics promote intense, stand-replacing fires (Reinhardt and Holsinger, 2010). Both subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce are highly susceptible to fire, in part due to their shallow roots, thin bark, and dense stand growth habits (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990; Uchytil, 1991). Mountain hemlock is also highly susceptible to fire due to its low-hanging branches, although its bark is relatively thick and may provide some protection to low-intensity burning (Tesky, 1992). Following fire, spruce is more successful at establishing on mineral soils while subalpine fir is comparatively better at establishing in the shade and on organic substrates. Both mountain hemlock and spruce are generally slow to establish after fire (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990; Tesky, 1992). In Montana, subalpine fir will often form pure stands with lesser dominance by Engelmann spruce, although Engelmann spruce often outlives subalpine fir in this system (Uchytil, 1991). Over time, in the absence of fire or in the presence of spruce budworm attacks, subalpine fir will largely replace spruce within most habitats of this system, with the exception of the wettest sites.

Insects and disease influence species composition and successional direction of this system. Throughout Montana, subalpine fir and spruce are affected by western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) attacks. Spruce and subalpine fir in this system may be comparatively less vulnerable to spruce budworm outbreak than those in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland system due to higher energy reserves associated with trees on more mesic sites that increase defense potential against spruce budworm attack (Dupont et al., 1991). The spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) also causes extensive damage to spruce in this system. Severe wind events that cause extensive blowdown are often followed by spruce beetle outbreaks as downed trees provide an abundant food supply and are favored by the beetles (Lindemann and Barker, 2001). Other disturbances that cause an abundance of downed material, including landslides and avalanches, also contribute to increases in local beetle populations (Jenkins et al., 2014). When outbreak conditions occur, or when downed material is unavailable, spruce beetles will also attack live trees, favoring large size classes and overmature individuals (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990). Beetle outbreaks have implications for watershed function, wildlife habitat, recreation, and stand species composition (Jenkins et al., 2014). Large stands of these subalpine forests can be killed following several years of drought or unusually mild winters.

Spruce broom rust (Chrysomyxa arctostaphyli) also occurs in this system causing deformation and increased vulnerability to windbreak (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990). Subalpine fir is additionally affected by western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confuses), balsam wooly adelgid (Adelges piceae), and the fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis). Root and wood rots also affect the dominant species in this system by weakening their defenses to insect attack and increasing vulnerability to windfall (Jenkins et al., 2014). Root decay is especially problematic for mature subalpine fir in the Northern Rockies (Uchytil, 1991).


Management

In the absence of natural fire, periodic prescribed burns can be used to maintain this system, however, fire return intervals are generally quite long where site conditions are more mesic. Maintaining historic fire return intervals in this system may decrease stand susceptibility to spruce beetle outbreak (Bebi et al, 2003; Kulakowski and Veblen, 2006). Old stands have a greater abundance of downed material and mature individuals that are vulnerable to attack. Moderate to severe fires change the age structure of a stand thereby decreasing susceptibility to future attack (Kulakowski and Veblen, 2006).

All species in this system are vulnerable to windthrow. Mechanical thinning for silvicultural or fire risk reduction purposes should therefore consider stand blowdown as a potential result of thinning treatment. Risk of windfall increases in stands with shallow soils and poor drainage, high degree of root and wood rot, and old, dense stand structure (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990). Alternatively, thinning may be useful to promote natural regeneration and reduce abundance of overmature individuals in a stand, altering stand age structure, and thereby decreasing susceptibility to future spruce beetle outbreaks. However, logging residue may contribute to beetle population increases, and downed woody material may therefore need to be removed from the site to prevent beetle population growth. In general, increasing forest heterogeneity limits beetle spread and extent of outbreak (Jenkins et al., 2014).


Restoration Considerations

The wetter habitat types characteristic of this system are usually not subjected to frequent stand-replacing fires. However, crown fires do occur when large, stand-replacing fires in adjacent drier forests travel into these habitats. The dominant species in this system are good seed producers and are capable of regenerating well following fire. Spruce is capable of regenerating well on bare mineral soils if adequate moisture is present during the first two years of growth. Subalpine fir and mountain hemlock colonize both sites with mineral soil and those with some organic matter. At the higher elevation occurrences of this system, seedling survival may be greater where duff seedbeds are present as they protect seedlings from harsh climatic conditions, whereas at lower elevations, mineral seedbeds may be more conducive to seedling establishment (Uchytil, 1991).

Large, prescribed, stand-replacement fires are not recommended in areas where spruce is in severe decline. Small-scale prescribed burning during late fall after several hard frosts can facilitate regeneration and increase stand heterogeneity in terms of age structure and species composition, thereby decreasing susceptibility to insect outbreaks (Jenkins et al., 2014). In some cases, nursery stock may be used to expedite regeneration of severely burned areas if seed rain from adjacent stands is not likely to occur, or if bare mineral soil following severe insect outbreak is limited (Jenkins et al., 2014). When supplemental planting is required, cold, moist stratification is necessary for germination of subalpine fir and spruce (Uchytil, 1991). Success of seedling establishment may be greater than in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland system due this system’s tendency to occur on north aspects with cool air ponding where seedling establishment is favored and droughty conditions are less likely to occur (Alexander and Shepperd, 1990).


Species Associated with this Ecological System
  • Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and 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 observation records for each species in the state-wide 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 availability of habitat".
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: http://mtnhp.org/requests/default.asp) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be 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 past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within 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 West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, 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 atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 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 history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology 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 Concept Authors
R. Crawford, C. Chappell, M.S. Reid, G. Kittel

Montana Version Authors
L.K. Vance, T. Luna, M. Hart

Version Date
1/1/2017

References
  • Classification and Map Identifiers

    Cowardin Wetland Classification: Not applicable

    NatureServe Identifiers:
    Element Global ID 28665
    System Code CES306.830, Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

    National Land Cover Dataset:
    42: Evergreen Forest

    ReGAP:
    4243: Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland


  • Literature Cited AboveLegend:   View Online Publication
    • Alexander, R.R. and W.D. Shepperd. 1990. Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. Silvics of North America 1:187-203.
    • Bebi, P., D. Kulakowski, and T.T. Veblen. 2003. Interactions between fire and spruce beetles in a subalpine Rocky Mountain forest landscape. Ecology 84(2):362-371.
    • Dupont, A., L. Bélanger, and J. Bousquet. 1991. Relationships between balsam fir vulnerability to spruce budworm and ecological site conditions of fir stands in central Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21(12):1752-1759.
    • Jenkins, M.J., E.G. Hebertson, and A.S. Munson. 2014. Spruce beetle biology, ecology and management in the Rocky Mountains: an addendum to spruce beetle in the rockies. Forests 5(1):21-71.
    • Kulakowski, D. and T.T. Veblen. 2006. The effect of fires on susceptibility of subalpine forests to a 19th century spruce beetle outbreak in western Colorado. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(11):2974-2982.
    • Lindemann, J.D. and W.L. Baker. 2001. Attributes of blowdown patches from a severe wind event in the Southern Rocky Mountains, USA. Landscape Ecology 16(4):313-325.
    • Reinhardt, E. and L. Holsinger. 2010. Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 259(8):1427-1435.
    • Tesky, J.L. 1992. Tsuga mertensiana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
    • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. 2012. Information from LANDFIRE on Fire Regimes of Rocky Mounatin Subalpine Mixed-Conifer Communities. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agr
    • Uchytil, R.J. 1991. Abies lasiocarpa. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
  • Additional ReferencesLegend:   View Online Publication
    Do you know of a citation we're missing?
    • Arno, S. F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 78(8):460-465.
    • Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 174 pp.

Login Logout
Citation for data on this website:
Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland.  Montana Field Guide.  Retrieved on , from