2002
DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.55682
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plant species of concern and plant associations of Powder River county, Montana /

Abstract: County Distribution: It has only been found in two places on the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest (Heidel and Marriott 1996), and these represent the known Powder River and Rosebud records. In the course of this survey there was very little suitable habitat in the areas that were visited, so it was not found and no additional data was collected on this species and its distribution. Ecology and management considerations: This plant seems restricted to mesic microhabitats within pine woodlands, whi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(140 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Only two Montana works have approached the challenge of classifying seral and disturbed vegetation types to produce an existing vegetation type classification, which is the goal of the NVCS (Hansen et al 1995 for all of Montana's wetland and riparian vegetation and a NatureServe work in progress for Glacier-Waterton Lakes International Peace Parks). Many relatively recent reports (authored after most of the above-cited references were published) describe new plant communities/associations (see Cooper 2003, Heidel et al 2001.…”
Section: Development Of the Montana Nvcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Only two Montana works have approached the challenge of classifying seral and disturbed vegetation types to produce an existing vegetation type classification, which is the goal of the NVCS (Hansen et al 1995 for all of Montana's wetland and riparian vegetation and a NatureServe work in progress for Glacier-Waterton Lakes International Peace Parks). Many relatively recent reports (authored after most of the above-cited references were published) describe new plant communities/associations (see Cooper 2003, Heidel et al 2001.…”
Section: Development Of the Montana Nvcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also compiled a database of plots of sites in good ecological condition. Plots collected by previous studies in LRU 58A and adjacent areas include those by Hansen and Hoffman (1987), Heidel et al (2001), andVanderhorst et al (1998). Data entered included quantitative cover estimates and abiotic site variables necessary to determine ecosite.…”
Section: Development Of the Montana Nvcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Botanical surveys in Carter County (Vanderhorst et al 1998), surveys for globally significant plants in parts of Big Horn and Rosebud Counties (Barton and Crispin 2003), surveys in Hanging Women Basin in Big Horn County (Carlson and Cooper 2003), surveys for Astragalus barrii and Physaria didymocarpa var. lanata in parts of Big Horn and Rosebud Counties (Taylor and Caners 2002), plant Species of Concern in Powder River County (Heidel et al 2002), botanical survey of the Tongue River area (Heidel 1997), surveys for Quercus macrocarpa (Heidel 1993) and vascular plant surveys in the Pryor Mountain Desert (Lesica and Achuff 1992a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%