Lodgepole Pine Forest
Global Name:
Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest & Woodland
Global Rank:
G4G5
State Rank:
S4S5
(see reason below)
External Links
State Rank Reason
Widespread vegetation type. Threats are few and trends relatively stable. Habitat is still in good condition.
General Description
This National Vegetation Classification Group is composed of Lodgepole Pine Forests. It is widespread in the upper montane and subalpine zones across the mountainous areas of the state, including the island ranges of north-central Montana and the Bighorn and Beartooth ranges of south-central Montana. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) is the dominant tree in these communities, though other coniferous species such as Subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, Engelmann Spruce and Whitebark pine are often present in many of the forests depending on location, site characteristics and successional status. These stands may be relatively open or occur as dense canopies, especially in young, even-aged, “doghair” stands. The understory is usually open and may be composed of short shrubs, graminoids or forbs. In Montana, elevations range from 3,200-9000 feet though they primarily occur between 5,000 and 7,500ft in elevation (Pfister etal 1977). These forests occur on flats to slopes on all aspects. They generally occur on dry to intermediate sites. Conifer succession proceeds at different rates, moving relatively quickly on low-elevation, mesic sites and particularly slowly in high-elevation forests such as those along the Continental Divide in Montana. Fire is frequent, and stand-replacing fires are common in these habitats. Following stand-replacing fires, lodgepole pine will rapidly colonize and develop into dense, even-aged stands. Most forests in this ecological system occur as early- to mid-successional forests persisting for 50-200 years on warmer, lower elevation forests, and 150-400 years in subalpine forests.
This group encompasses the Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest and the Rocky Mountain Poor Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Ecological Systems.
Diagnostic Characteristics
Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) Conifer Forest and Woodland; Rocky Mountains; Montane and Subalpine Zones; Stand Replacing Fire Regimes.
Similar Systems
Range
Widespread in the upper montane and subalpine zones across the mountainous areas of the state on both sides of the Continental Divide. It extends east to all of the island ranges including the Sweetgrass Hills, Little Rockies, the Snowy Mtns, and the Pryor and Bighorn Mtns.
In MT, G220 occurs within these Level III Ecoregions: 15 (Northern Rockies), 16 (Idaho Batholith), 17 (Middle Rockies) and 41 (Canadian Rockies).
In Montana, G220 occurs within these Major Land Resource Areas: 43A-Northern Rocky Mountains, 43B - Central Rocky Mountains, 44A - Northern Rocky Mountain Valleys, and 46 - Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Foothills.
Density and Distribution
Based on 2025 land cover layer. Grid on map is based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map boundaries.
Mapped Distribution by County
Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Chouteau, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Phillips, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Wheatland
Based on 2025 land cover layer.
Spatial Pattern
Matrix
Environment
This group generally occurs on dry to intermediate sites at moderate to high elevations. In Montana, elevation ranges from 3,200-9000 feet. East of the Continental Divide, stands primarily occur between 5,000 and 7,500ft in elevation (Pfister etal 1977). Snowfall is heavy and supplies the major source of soil water used for growth in early summer. Lodgepole forests are typically associated with rock types weathering to acidic substrates, such as granite and rhyolite though in west-central Montana ranges such as the Big Belts and the Rocky Mountain Front, these forests are found on limestone substrates. These forests are especially well developed on the broad ridges and high valleys near and east of the Continental Divide. Succession proceeds at different rates, moving relatively quickly on low-elevation, mesic sites and particularly slowly in high-elevation forests such as those along the Continental Divide in Montana.
Vegetation
These forests are dominated by Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) with shrub, grass, or barren understories. They may be relatively open to dense-canopied. Other conifers may be present, especially in later successional stands, especially Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Numerous other conifers may be present depending on location, site characteristics and successional status. In western Montana, other commonly occurring tree species in later seral stages, include western larch (Larix occidentalis), western white pine (Pinus monticola), grand fir (Abies grandis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). In the subalpine zone, mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) may be present. In the productive habitats of western Montana, lodgepole pine stands often decline in a wave of mortality, usually before they are 120 years old. At montane elevations east of the Continental Divide, lodgepole pine stands succeed to Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests. At subalpine elevations, these sites usually transition to Spruce-fir forests.
The shrub stratum in Lodgepole Pine stands may be conspicuous to absent. Common shrub and subshrub species include Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), Oregon grape (Mahonia repens), birch leaf spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia), Canadian buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), mountain huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), and currants or gooseberries (Ribes species).
Herbaceous layers are generally sparse, but can be moderately dense, and are typically dominated by perennial graminoids such as pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), Geyer’s sedge (Carex geyeri) and Ross’ sedge (Carex rossii). Common forbs include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Mountain arnica (Arnica latifolia), Lupine (Lupinus argenteus) and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Mycoheterotrophic species such as coralroot orchid (Corallorhiza spp.), Indian pipe (Moneses uniflora), pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys), and pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea) are often associated with lodgepole pine forests. Non-native species are often absent or incidental in these forests though in western Montana, hawkeeds (Orange or Meadow) may invade some sites.
In Montana, this group encompasses 27 Associations grouped into 4 Alliances within the National Vegetation Classification. Associations within this group are generally well-documented and it is unlikely that additional types are warranted for Montana.
National Vegetation Classification
Download the complete NVC hierarchy for Montana
TT2 B02 Temperate-Boreal Forest and Woodland
TT2.b S92 Cool Temperate Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3 F112 Temperate Continental Conifer Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd D336 Western Cordilleran Subalpine-High Montane Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd.2 M020 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Forest and Woodland
TT2.b3.Nd.2.c G220 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland
A0424 Pinus contorta - Populus tremuloides Rocky Mountain Forest Alliance
CEGL000537 Populus tremuloides - Pinus contorta / Juniperus communis Forest
A2298 Pinus contorta Rocky Mountain Dry Forest Alliance
CEGL000135 Pinus contorta / Arnica cordifolia Forest
CEGL000139 Pinus contorta / Calamagrostis rubescens Forest
CEGL000141 Pinus contorta / Carex geyeri Forest
CEGL000144 Pinus contorta / Carex rossii Forest
CEGL000145 Pinus contorta / Ceanothus velutinus Forest
CEGL000169 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium membranaceum Rocky Mountain Forest
CEGL005924 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium scoparium / Xerophyllum tenax Forest
A2299 Pinus contorta Rocky Mountain Mesic Forest Alliance
CEGL000153 Pinus contorta / Linnaea borealis Forest
CEGL000163 Pinus contorta / Shepherdia canadensis Forest
CEGL000164 Pinus contorta / Spiraea betulifolia Forest
CEGL000168 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium cespitosum Forest
CEGL000174 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium scoparium / Calamagrostis rubescens Forest
CEGL005913 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium membranaceum / Xerophyllum tenax Forest
CEGL005915 Pinus contorta / Heracleum maximum Woodland
CEGL005916 Pinus contorta / Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005921 Pinus contorta / Clintonia uniflora - Xerophyllum tenax Woodland
CEGL005922 Pinus contorta / Menziesia ferruginea / Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005923 Pinus contorta / Vaccinium cespitosum / Clintonia uniflora Forest
CEGL005928 Pinus contorta / Menziesia ferruginea Forest
A4079 Pinus contorta Rocky Mountain Dry Woodland Alliance
CEGL000764 Pinus contorta / Juniperus communis Woodland
CEGL000765 Pinus contorta / Purshia tridentata Woodland
CEGL000766 Pinus contorta Scree Woodland
CEGL008957 Pinus ponderosa / Carex geyeri Central Rockies Woodland
*Disclaimer: Some Alliances and Associations are considered provisional. Some require further documentation to verify their occurrence in the state
and some may be modified or deleted in future revisions after collection of additional data and information.
Dynamic Processes
Lodgepole pine is a colonizing species and shade-intolerant conifer that occurs in the upper montane to lower subalpine forests throughout the major mountain ranges of Montana. Establishment is episodic and linked to stand-replacing disturbances, primarily fire. Historically, fire frequency varied between 50 and 300 years, depending on local climate and elevation, with fire frequency declining with increasing elevation (Schoenagel et al. 2003). In the Northern Rockies, severe fires have created large expanses of even-aged stands of lodgepole pine, although more frequent low- to mixed-severity burns may also occur in the intervals between stand-replacing fires, generating a matrix of mixed-age stands (Hardy et al. 2000; Arno et al. 1993). Occasionally, fire severity may be such that cones are destroyed and regeneration will rely on wind-dispersed seeds from nearby stands, resulting in slower regrowth (Anderson 2003). Repeated fires allow lodgepole pine to persist as the climax species in this group by eliminating the potential for succession by more shade-tolerant species (Pfister et al. 1977).
Trees with closed, serotinous cones where seed release is a response to an environmental trigger, require high temperatures to release seeds and appear to be strongly favored by fire, allowing rapid colonization of fire-cleared substrates (Burns and Honkala 1990). The incidence of serotinous cones varies within 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 higher elevation stands with greater fire return intervals favor non-serotinous cones which are more advantageous for successful regeneration (Schoenagel et al. 2003). Lodgepole pine stands exhibiting a multi-aged population structure also exhibit a higher proportion of trees bearing non-serotinous cones. Even-aged stands that establish after stand-replacing fires exhibit greater serotiny than those that establish after wind or insect disturbances (Anderson 2003).
In fire-generated stands of similar age, trees become increasingly susceptible to both mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) infestations as they mature, often resulting in large-scale mortality from the former. In general, pine beetles preferentially attack large individuals with greater nutritional resources (Cole and Amman 1969). In these communities, large scale, stand-replacing fires have occurred frequently throughout Montana during the past 20 years, increasing stand homogeneity favorable to beetle attack. Elevated temperatures and increasing drought severity additionally combine to favor beetle population growth and weaken lodgepole pine defense mechanisms, thereby increasing susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack (Raffa et al. 2008). Interactions between biotic and abiotic disturbance agents in lodgepole pine systems are complex, and the widespread mortality associated with these disturbances alters ecosystem processes. Ecosystem-level effects of mountain pine beetle outbreaks include changes to carbon cycling (Kurz et al. 2008), hydrology (Bearup et al. 2014; Mikkelson et al. 2013), and fuel structure and flammability (Hicke et al. 2012; Jolly et al. 2012). However, at broad spatial scales it does not appear that pine beetle caused mortality increases stand susceptibility to fire (Hart et al. 2015; Simard et al. 2011). Alternatively, dwarf mistletoe increases host susceptibility to fire by altering fuel dynamics, and intensifies host vulnerability to insect attack (Hawksworth et al. 2002).
Management
Effects of fire, fire suppression, fuel accumulation, stand development, insects, and disease in these forests interact to control the establishment and maintenance of stands. Because they are often initiated by stand-replacing fire, Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine stands are frequently even-aged. However, stands of similar age frequently differ in density, ranging from open stands of large trees to very dense, stunted "doghair" stands. In the absence of natural fire, periodic prescribed burns and selective thinning can be used to maintain these communities. Thinning may, however, increase long-term stand susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack (Fettig et al. 2006), and dense, even-aged stands may be vulnerable to windthrow as a result of thinning (Anderson 2003). Low intensity prescribed burning may increase long-term resistance to mountain pine beetle attack (Hood and Sala 2013), although stands may be more vulnerable to attack in the short term (Kulakowski and Jarvis 2013). Prescribed burning may also encourage dwarf mistletoe success if infected individuals are not eliminated, as dwarf mistletoe germination rates are enhanced by smoke exposure (Kipfmueller and Baker 1997).
Non-native species are often absent or incidental in these forests though in western Montana, hawkeeds (Orange or Meadow) may invade some sites.
Restoration Considerations
Low-frequency stand-replacing fires are characteristic of this group (Stephens et al. 2013), with higher frequency low- to mixed-severity burns occurring in the intervals between high-severity fires (Hardy et al. 2000). Restoration strategies will depend largely on management goals. Low intensity prescribed burning and selective thinning may be utilized as restoration strategies to restore historic fire regimes and increase long term resistance to mountain pine beetle attack (Hood and Sala 2013; Fettig et al. 2006). Under favorable moisture conditions, seeds released from serotinous cones during fire germinate on exposed mineral soil and disturbed duff the following spring. Fire creates a favorable seedbed by removing loose organic matter and exposing mineral soil or decomposed organic matter, which encourages germination. Therefore, in most scenarios, additional post-fire restoration practices are not required. However, regeneration success may be marginal when stand-replacing fires are followed by years of severe drought (Stephens et al. 2013) and may require supplemental restoration efforts. When supplemental planting is necessary, germination rates for seeds from serotinous cones may be enhanced by short exposure to flame (Anderson 2003). Early successional stages following fire in lodgepole pine 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 Community
- How Lists Were Created and Suggested Uses and Limitations
Animal Species Associations
Please note that while all vertebrate species have been systematically associated with vegetation communities, only a handful of invertebrate species have been associated with vegetation communities and invertebrates lists for each vegetation community should be regarded as incomplete. Animal species associations with natural vegetation communities that they regularly breed or overwinter in or migrate through were made by:
- 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, Werner et al. 2004, Adams 2003, and Foresman 2012);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each vegetation community relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each vegetation community;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each vegetation community relative to the percent of Montana covered by each vegetation community 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. Species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species are listed as associated with a vegetation community if it contains structural characteristics known to be used by the species. However, species are not listed as associated with a vegetation community if we found no support in the literature for the species’ use of structural characteristics of the community even if point observations were associated with it. If you have any questions or comments on animal species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Plant Species Associations
Please note that while diagnostic, dominant, or codominant vascular plant species for a vegetation community have been systematically assigned to those communities and vascular plant Species of Concern were systematically evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities, the majority of Montana’s vascular plant species have not been evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities and no attempt has been made to associate non-vascular plants, fungi, or lichens with vegetation communities. Plant species associations with natural vegetation communities were made in a manner similar to that described above for animals, but with review of Lesica et al. (2022) and specimen collection data from the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. If you have any questions or comments on plant species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Program Botanist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with vegetation communities 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 or predicted habitat suitability models (this information can be requested at: https://mtnhp.mt.gov/requests/), or systematic surveys for species and onsite evaluations of habitat by trained biologists. Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on satellite imagery from 2016 and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the vegetation communities 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 vegetation community within its known geographic range, portions of that vegetation community 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.
- Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. https://www.pnwherbaria.org/ Last accessed May 30, 2025.
- 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.
- Lesica P., M. Lavin, and P.F. Stickney. 2022. Manual of vascular plants, 2nd Edition. Brit Press. 779 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.
- Species of Concern Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Invertebrates
- Diagnostic, Dominant, or Codominant Plant Species for this Community
Vascular Plants
- Other Native Species Commonly Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Original Concept Authors
M.E. Hall 2013
Montana Version Authors
S. Mincemoyer, L. Vance, T. Luna, S.V. Cooper
Version Date
12/4/2024
References
- Literature Cited AboveLegend:
View Online Publication
Anderson, M.D. 2003. Pinus contorta var. latifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online}. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).- Arno S. F., , Forest Structure and Landscape Patterns in the Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Type: a Procedure for Unintifying Past and Present 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 Climate Change 4(6):481-486.
- Burns, R. M., and B. H. Honkala, technical coordinators. 1990a. Silvics of North America: Volume 1. Conifers. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC. 675 pp.
- Cole, W.E. and G.D. Amman. 1969. Mountain pine beetle infestations in relation to lodgepole pine diameters. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note INT-95.8 p.
- Fettig, C.J., McMillin, J.D., Anhold, J.A., Hamud, S.M., Borys, R.R., Dabney, C.P., Seybold, S.J., 2006. The effects of mechanical fuel reduction treatments on the activity of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infesting ponderosa pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 230, 55–68.
- Hardy, C.C., R.E. Keane, and C.A. Stewart. 1999. Ecosystem-based management in the lodgepole pine zone. Pp. 18-20 In: The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project: what we have learned: symposium proceedings. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-17.
- Hart, S.J., T. Schoennagel, T.T. Veblen, and T.B. Chapman. 2015. Area burned in the western United States is unaffected by recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Proceedings 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 North American conifers 29-56.
- Hicke, J.A., M.C. Johnson, J.L. Hayes, and H.K. Preisler. 2012. Effects of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management 271:81-90.
- Hood, S.M. and A. Sala. 2013. Frequent, Low-Intensity Fire Increases Tree Defense To Bark Beetles. Abstract. Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. 7 p.
- Jolly, W.M., R.A. Parsons, A.M. Hadlow, G.M. Cohn, S.S. McAllister, J.B. Popp, and J.F. Negron. 2012. Relationships between moisture, chemistry, and ignition of Pinus contorta needles during the early 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 lodgepole pine ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management 108(1):77-84.
- Kulakowski, D. and D. Jarvis. 2013. Low-severity fires increase susceptibility of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle outbreaks in Colorado. Forest 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. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate 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. Bark beetle infestation impacts on nutrient cycling, water quality 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 Service. General Technical Report INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 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 natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58(6): 501-517.
- Schoennagel, T., M. G. Turner, and W. H. Romme. 2003. The influence of fire interval and serotiny on 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 change 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.
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest & Woodland"
