+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## fremont's cottonwood {#fremonts-cottonwood .Title-Header}          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Populus fremontii* S. Wats.                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Plant Symbol = POFR2                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Contributed by: USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center & New Mexico Plant
Materials Center

### ![](media/image2.png){width="1.9895833333333333in" height="3.8652777777777776in"}

###### Alternate Names

Poplar, Alamo cottonwood

###### Uses

*Ethnobotanic*: The sweet and starchy sap can be consumed raw or cooked.
The bark is bitter, but edible. It can be scraped off and eaten, cooked
in strips like soup noodles, or dried and powdered as a flour
substitute. The inner bark of cottonwoods and aspens were used for man
and horse in hard times. Some Indians preferred it because of its
sweetness.

The active biochemical constituents are salicin and populin, the
precursors of aspirin that are useful wherever a fever needs reducing or
an anti-inflammatory is appropriate (Moore 1979). The bark is the most
effective part for tea but is rather bitter; for this reason the leaves
are often preferred. Leaf buds make an excellent ointment for burns and
skin irritations. A wash of the bark is applied externally for cuts,
bruises, abrasions, burns and fetid perspiration, as well as healing
chafing sores on horses. A poultice can be used for sprains, muscle
pain, and swollen joints. A salve can be made that cleanses and
conditions the skin when used regularly. Taken internally, it is an
anti-inflammatory agent, reduces fever, indigestion, aids coughs from
colds, expels worms and intestinal parasites, is effective against
scurvy, heart troubles, back pain, excessive menses, urinary tract
infections, is a diuretic, and is used to prevent premature birth.

The Hopi Indians of Arizona consider the cottonwood tree sacred and
carve Kachina dolls from the roots of the tree. They believe the rustle
of the wind through the quaking leaves to be the gods speaking to people
(Strike 1994).

Several California tribes used *Populus* roots to make loosely twined
baskets. The Hupa, from Northern California, use cottonwood roots to
begin making twined baskets. The Maidu and Yokuts Indians use cottonwood
twigs in their basketry (Strike 1994).

Chumash skirts were made of fibers of *Populus* inner bark. Cordage,
made from the inner bark of cottonwood or milkweed, held the rest of the
fibers hanging freely. Sometimes small teardrop-shaped pieces of
asphaltum, shell beads or Pinus seeds were used as weights to make the
fibers hang properly. Wintun also used *Populus* fibers for skirts and
for padding baby cradles.

*Other Uses*: Ecological diversity, bank and sediment stabilization,
maintenance of channel morphology, water quality improvement,
ground-water recharge, flood abatement, fish and wildlife habitat.

*Riparian Ecosystem Services and Functions*: The riparian zone
essentially encompasses those alluvial sediment deposits where river and
alluvial ground water supplement that available from local
precipitation. High-to-low elevations, north-south and east-west
gradients, and steep-to-shallow terrain all influence the relationship
between geomorphic and fluvial processes and vegetation community
structure. Riparian ecosystem functions include the following:

• Ecological diversity.

• Riparian vegetation stabilizes sediment, thus preventing excessive
soil erosion.

• Water quality is improved through filtration and trapping of sediment,
nutrients and pollutants.

• Riparian vegetation tends to prevent the river from down-cutting or
cutting a straight path (channeling), thus promoting a sinuous course,
ground-water recharge, and maintenance of an elevated water table.

• Structurally complex riparian vegetation communities provide many
different habitats and support a diverse array of animal species.
Different groups of animals occupy or use the different layers of
vegetation, and this multi-story arrangement is often present nowhere
else in the arid landscapes.

• Canopies of plants growing on streambanks provide shade, cooling
stream water, while roots stabilize and create overhanging banks,
providing habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms

Riparian habitat provides living conditions for a greater variety of
wildlife than any other habitat type found in California. Use of
riparian areas by wildlife species is affected by diversity and volume
of foliage, presence of water, availability of \"edge\" habitat, and
high levels of insect populations. Valley-foothill riparian habitats
provide food, water migration and dispersal corridors, and escape,
nesting and thermal cover for an abundance of wildlife. About 25 percent
of the 502 California native land mammal species and subspecies are
largely dependent on riparian ecosystems. Additionally, 55 species of
mammals are known to use California\'s Central Valley riparian
communities (Trapp et al. 1985). At least 21 mammal species or
subspecies have been identified as being particularly vulnerable to loss
of riparian habitat (Williams and Kilburn 1984). At least 50 amphibians
and reptiles occur in lowland riparian systems (Brode and Bury 1985).

*Wildlife*: California\'s riparian forests support a high diversity of
breeding birds (Miller 1951). In one study conducted on the Sacramento
River, 147 bird species were recorded as nesters or winter visitants
(Laymon 1985). The percentage of breeding individuals, which are
migratory, is very high in the cottonwood-willow habitat. Humid
conditions in the cottonwood-willow forest may promote more lush plant
growth, higher invertebrate populations and; therefore, more available
food for flycatchers, warblers and other migratory, insectivorous birds.
Riparian areas support up to 10.6 times the density of migrant birds per
hectare as adjacent non-riparian areas (Stevens et al. 1977). Most of
these migratory birds belong to the foliage insect (47%) or air insect
(34%) foraging guilds.

Grouse, quail, and other birds eat cottonwood buds and catkins (Martin
et al. 1951). Bark, twigs, and leaves are eaten by ungulates and
rabbits, while beavers and porcupines relish the bark and wood.

Since European settlement, the nesting riparian forest avifauna has
changed significantly. Double-crested cormorants, great blue heron,
great egret, Cooper\'s hawk, bald eagle, yellow-billed cuckoo, willow
flycatcher, bell\'s vireo, warbling vireo, yellow warbler, and common
yellow throat have been severely negatively impacted. Parasitism by
brown-headed cowbirds has significantly negatively impacted willow
flycatcher, Bell\'s vireo, warbling vireo, yellow warbler and common
yellow throat. They burden other species with the task of incubating
their eggs and raising their young.

Fremont\'s cottonwood is one of several species which constitutes the
majority of the diet of beavers (*Castor canadensis*) (Stromberg 1993).
Beavers, once a dominant aquatic mammal in riparian systems, have been
significantly reduced in many riparian areas through trapping, shooting,
in-stream flow reductions, and other factors.

*Recreation*: Recreational use of the riparian zone is many times that
of other habitats. People are drawn to the cool, shady environment along
flowing streams for camping, picnicking, hiking, birding, photography,
hunting, and fishing. These areas contain water, interesting plants and
animals, shade, and numerous other enjoyable features in the otherwise
arid and semiarid environments.

The impact of recreational use on wildlife varies with the season and
with the type, intensity and duration of use. Construction of trails,
picnic tables, and docks encourages recreational use and increases
conflict with wildlife. Recreational use may also reduce water quality
because of proliferation of human wastes.

*Livestock*: Riparian ecosystems offer water, shade, and food for
domestic livestock. Cattle and sheep congregate in riparian areas,
particularly during hot or dry periods. Overgrazing of domestic
livestock in riparian areas destroys riparian ground cover, disrupts the
reproductive cycle of cottonwood trees, destabilizes streambanks, and
thus increases sediment loads to streams. At periods in the year when
the soil is not too wet, the leafage, twigs and shoots of Fremont
cottonwood are browsed by all domestic grazing animals and deer. The
twigs are cropped especially close by sheep, goats, and deer. The browse
rating for cottonwood is good to fair for goats; fair to poor for sheep
and deer; poor for cattle; and useless for horses (Sampson et al. 1981).

*Restoration Concerns*: Many land uses in arid watersheds significantly
decrease or destroy cottonwood riparian forests. Timber harvest often
adversely affects flood flows, which often become larger and flashier
and carry increased sediment. Buffer strips can help reduce
sedimentation rates and flood velocities.

Stream diversion for irrigation may reduce surface flows to a level
insufficient to maintain cottonwood vegetation. Ground water pumping
lowers local and regional water tables and reduces stream flow, which
can eliminate or weaken riparian vegetation.

Runoff from hardened urban watersheds is immediate and intense, and
sometimes actually lowers nearby riparian water tables as it causes
rapid erosion and down-cutting in stream channels.

Two introduced weedy riparian species that continue to be recommended
and distributed by commercial plant nurseries are Russian olive
(*Eleagnus angustifolia*) and tamarisk or salt cedar (*Tamarix
chinensis*). Intensive or poorly timed livestock grazing and dam-induced
changes in flood timing and magnitude often favor the survival of these
introduced species and allow them to displace native species. These
species are very difficult to remove from human-impacted landscapes and
are more competitive than cottonwood.

###### Status

Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural
Resources for this plant's current status, such as, state noxious status
and wetland indicator values.

###### Description

Willow Family (Salicaceae). Fremont's cottonwood is a native tree
growing in riparian areas near streams, rivers and wetlands in the
American Southwest. Fremont\'s cottonwood trees range from 12 to 35
meters in height, and trunk diameter ranges from 0.30 to 1.5 meters. The
bark is smooth in younger trees, becoming deeply furrowed with whitish
cracked bark with age. The leaves are cordate (heart-shaped) with white
veins and coarse crenate-serrate teeth on the margins. The leaves have
petioles 1/2 to equal the blade length, laterally compressed near the
blade which causes the leaves to flutter in the wind. These trees are
dioecious, with flowers in drooping catkins, which are 4 to 14 cm long.
Cottonwoods bloom from March-April. The fruit is an achene, which is
attached to a silky hair, en masse looking like patches of cotton
hanging from the limbs, thus the name cottonwood. The seeds are wind
dispersed.

###### Distribution

For current distribution, please consult the Plant Profile page for this
species on the PLANTS Web site. *Populus fremontii is* distributed
throughout the Southwest, extending from California eastward to Nevada,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and southward into Mexico. This
species occurs throughout California and is most abundant in the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. According to Hickman (1993), cottonwood
occurs in alluvial bottomlands and streamsides at elevations less than
2000 m.

###### Establishment

*Adaptation*: Cottonwoods dominate the riparian forests of lower terrace
deposits and stabilized gravel bars. Cottonwoods are found near water.
They require a bare gravel or sand substrate with adequate moisture for
germination and development. Cottonwoods grow very rapidly when their
roots are in contact with the permanent water table; they can grow as
much as 12 to 18 feet in 3 years.

In California, common associates are valley oak (*Quercus lobata*),
interior live oak (*Quercus wislizenii*), California walnut (*Juglans
hindsii*), and California sycamore (*Platanus racemosa*). Box elder
(*Acer negundo*), Oregon ash (*Fraxinus latifolia*), alder (*Alnus
rhombifolia*), and willow (*Salix gooddingii, S. exigua, S. lasiandra,
and S. laevigata*) are particularly prevalent in the subcanopy.
Understory species are mostly shrubs, including elderberry (*Sambucus
mexicana)*, buttonbush (*Cephalanthus occidentalis)*, blackberry
(*Rubus* spp), and California rose (*Rosa californica*). Lianas such as
poison oak (*Rhus diversiloba* ) and California grape (*Vitis
californica* are) are a dominant feature. Herbaceous vegetation is 1%
cover except in openings where tall forbs may occur.

Typically, in California, cottonwoods and willows predominate on the
immediate stream banks, whereas valley oaks are spread irregularly over
the natural levees farther away from the river. In other parts of the
American west, temporal gradients occur within a location in the
riparian zone. Early pioneer communities such as cottonwood/willow give
way to late successional communities such as mesquite or sagebrush,
often a consequence of sediment accumulation (Patten 1998). Many
similarities among western riparian ecosystems exist because several
dominant genera (e.g. *Populus* and *Salix* spp.) are common throughout
the West, and many geomorphic and hydrologic processes that influence
riparian establishment are similar.

Western riparian ecosystems have been greatly altered by human activity.
Riparian forests have been reduced to fragmented, discontinuous patches
because of human intervention. For example, estimates are that 70 - 90
percent of the natural riparian ecosystems in the U.S. have been lost to
human activities (Warner 1979). Regional losses in these ecosystems have
been estimated to exceed 98% in the Sacramento Valley in California
(Smith 1977) and 95% in Arizona (Warner 1979). Many factors have
contributed to these resource losses, including the following: natural
resource use; urbanization; alteration of stream flows through dam
construction and ground-water withdrawal; modification of biotic
conditions through grazing, agriculture, and introduction of non-native
species; and alteration within watersheds (Patten 1998).

## 

*Restoration*: Use of an ecosystem model of riparian restoration has
been used to create a functioning and self-sustaining habitat. The long
term objective is to create a framework within which natural selective
forces can operate to create a self-sustaining, functioning riparian
habitat that not only provides habitat for a complete assemblage of
riparian species, but which is also capable of long-term regeneration
and recovery following natural disturbances (Baird 1989). Careful
design, monitoring, and adaptive management are key components to
successful restoration. The structure and dynamics of the plant
community as well as species composition are designed and monitored, as
well as landscape position.

## *Live Plant Collections*: Fremont\'s cottonwood is a pioneer or colonizing species and a prolific seed producer (Stromberg 1993). Fremont\'s cottonwood propagates primarily from seed rather than asexually. Cottonwood can also sprout shoots from lateral buds when the apical meristem is prostrated by floodwaters, snapped off in high winds, or pruned by beaver, deer, or other wildlife.

Flooding is the primary disturbance in Fremont\'s cottonwood forests.
Seed germination and tree establishment coincides with flood events.
Fremont\'s cottonwood seed germinates only during spring and early
summer. This seasonal restriction is due to: 1) early spring seed
dispersal; 2) short periods (1 to 5 weeks) of seed viability; and 3)
rapid seed germination (Shafroth et al. 1998). These traits help
synchronize germination with high stream flows in spring. Moist soil is
necessary for both germination and establishment of Fremont\'s
cottonwood.

During this century most of the major rivers in the West were dammed.
The presence of these dams changed riparian habits in ways unfavorable
to cottonwood regeneration. In particular, the dams altered the timing
and volume of water flowing through riparian areas. The dams reduce
floodplain inundation during spring, and spring flooding is necessary
for cottonwood regeneration.

Spring over-bank flows or capillary wetting of the soil surface in areas
with shallow water tables, moistens the soil which is necessary for
Fremont\'s cottonwood establishment. A number of studies have related
components of the reproductive cycle of *Populus* species to floodplain
site conditions produced by stream flow and associated fluvial
processes. In particular, components of the annual pattern of stream
flow, or annual hydrograph, are associated with specific stages of
*Populus* seedling emergence and growth. These include the following: 1)
flood flows that precede *Populus* seed dispersal produce suitable
germination sites; 2) flow recessions following a peak expose
germination sites and promote seedling root elongation; and 3) base
flows supply soil moisture to meet summer and winter seedling water
demand (Shafroth et al. 1998; Mahoney et al. 1998). The combination of
root growth and capillary fringe defines the successful recruitment band
for seedling establishment, which is usually from about 0.6 to 2 m in
elevation above the late summer stream stage (Mahoney et al. 1998). The
rate of stream stage decline is also critical for seedling survival and
should not exceed 2.5 cm per day .

Cottonwoods grow rapidly and can reach medium/large tree height in about
20 to 25 years. Cottonwood forests could occur as rapidly as 25 - 30
year (Grenfell 1988). Shrubby riparian willow thickets may last 15 to 20
years before being overtopped and shaded out by cottonwoods. Cottonwood
or willow tree habitats close to river channels that receive a good silt
infusion, without major disruptive flows, tend to be self- perpetuating.

Cottonwood is susceptible to mistletoe. In certain instances cottonwood
can be invasive. Its shallow root system can disrupt sidewalks or
pavement.

*Artificial Establishment*: Fremont\'s cottonwood establishment from
seed is difficult and seldom used. Fremont\'s cottonwood propagation is
possible from hardwood, root cuttings and through tissue culture (Pope
et al. 1990). Fremont\'s cottonwood establishment from transplanted
containerized saplings is costly and risky unless the saplings are
irrigated. The NRCS Los Lunas Plant Materials Center, in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, developed a pole planting
technique for establishing Fremont\'s cottonwood (USDA, NRCSa). We
reprint this procedure below.

"Trial planting on well adapted sites indicate more that 80% survival of
cottonwood and willow poles when dormant poles are cut and planted
between November and February.

It is essential to monitor the water tables at proposed planting sites
for at least one year before planting. Poles planted where the water
table fluctuates widely will have lower survival rates than those
planted where water table is relatively stable. If groundwater
monitoring shows the water level will drop more than 3 feet during the
growing season (May-October), another site should be selected.
Monitoring of observation wells for at least one calendar year before
planting will allow better planting depth to ensure establishment.

Salt cedar (*Tamarix chinensis*) and *Arundo donax* will need to be
controlled before poles are planted. However, young cottonwoods and
willows can grow successfully in quite small openings in stands of salt
cedar. Study of natural stands suggest they will eventually shade out
the salt cedar.\"

In six riparian restoration projects carried out in California,
competition from exotic weed species was a key factor in mortality and
site failure (Baird 1989). With the addition of water, weeds grew so
vigorously that plants smaller than a 5-gallon pot was out-competed. One
way to avoid this was to remove the surface soil, although this has the
disadvantage of removing nutrients, mycorrhizal fungi, bacteria, and
insect and invertebrate populations critical to a healthy habitat. They
also used a cover crop of native wildflowers, hand-broadcast over the
site to aid in weed control. On wetter, heavier soils this does not seem
to provide effective weed control.

There is considerable evidence that fertilizing a restoration site in
southern California favors exotic weeds over native plants (Grime and
Hunt 1975; Grime 1978; t. John 1987 and 1988). Inoculation with
mycorrhizal fungi enabled seedlings of some species to better utilize
limited supplies of both water and nutrients. Baird (1989) achieved
inoculation through large (1.2 m deep by 2.8 m wide) root balls of
mature trees brought in from riparian sites. Smaller, more economical
soil plugs scattered throughout the site serve the same purpose. The
number of soil plugs needed to ensure the establishment of soil flora is
directly related to the distance of the restoration site from a similar,
mature community.

###### Management

Howe and Knopf (1991) conclude that to ensure the survival of cottonwood
riparian communities along the Rio Grande, resource managers need to
implement strategies to enhance cottonwood regeneration and survival,
and control the spread of exotic species.

Decadent age structures in cottonwood forest consist of stands composed
of large old trees but few saplings or small trees. Several studies have
implicated unregulated livestock grazing as an important cause of
decadent age structures in cottonwood forests (Brotherson et al. 1983;
Fenner et al. 1984; Rucks 1984; Shanfield 1984). Glinski (1977) showed a
negative correlation between grazing levels and Fremont\'s cottonwood
recruitment. Several studies showed fewer cottonwood seedlings in grazed
than in non-grazed areas (Crouch 1979; Reichenbacher 1984).

Livestock grazing has widely been identified as a leading factor causing
or contributing to degradation of riparian habitats in the western
United States (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988; Chaney et al. 1990,
Fleischner 1994, Ohmart 1996). Livestock grazing can alter vegetative
structure and composition of riparian habitat. Overgrazing, especially
by livestock and big game, frequently changes plant species composition
and growth form, density of stands, vigor, seed production of plants,
and insect production. Bull and Slovlin (1982) attributed to livestock
grazing the paucity of deciduous woody vegetation that was required by
some bird species along Oregon streams.

Schulz and Leininger (1991) found that bird species are differentially
affected by cattle grazing in riparian areas. Livestock grazing causes
the replacement of bird and mammal species requiring the vertical
vegetation structure of riparian habitat to species, which are
ubiquitous in their habitat preferences. Previous heavy cattle grazing
changed the bird and small mammal community composition through
reduction of shrub and herbaceous cover.

Riparian zones can be managed for non-game species richness by
maintaining high structural diversity of vegetation. Species that are
sensitive to grazing pressure should be monitored as indicators of
habitat change. Johnson (1985) pointed out the need to coordinate range
and wildlife habitat management to ensure the existence of sensitive
wildlife species that are negatively impacted by livestock grazing.
Woody plant species increase rapidly when riparian areas are protected
from livestock grazing. The woody structural component of the vegetation
is essential for wildlife species that are obligate inhabitants of
riparian habitat, and in providing hiding cover and stabilizing
streambanks for fish habitat.

Slovlin (1984) recommended a 5-year rest from cattle grazing to
re-establish healthy stands of riparian vegetation such as cottonwood
and willows. Siekert et al. (1985) reported that spring grazing showed
no significant changes in channel morphology, whereas summer and fall
grazing did. However, even with limited seasonal grazing, all tree
seedling would be eliminated. Marlow and Pogacnik (1985) recommended
fencing riparian habitat, rest-rotation, light grazing (\<20% forage
removal), and grazing after streambanks have dried to 10% moisture.

###### Cultivars, Improved and Selected Materials (and area of origin)

Containerized Fremont\'s cottonwood samplings are available from most
nurseries in the areas where adapted. We recommend using plants from the
same region, elevation, climate, soil type, moisture or hydrologic
regime as you are replanting.

Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil
Conservation Service) office for more information. Look in the phone
book under "United States Government." The Natural Resources
Conservation Service will be listed under the subheading "Department of
Agriculture."

###### References

Auble, G.T. & M.L. Scott 1998. *Fluvial disturbance patches and
cottonwood recruitment along the upper Missouri River, Montana*. Wetland
18(4):546-556.

Baird, Kathryn 1989. *High quality restoration of riparian ecosystems*.
Restoration and Management Notes 7(2):60-64.

Beier, P., & R.H. Barret 1987. *Beaver habitat use and impact in the
Truckee River Basin, California USA*. J. Wildlife Management 51:794-799.

Brode, J. & R.B. Bury 1984. *The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles*. Pages 30 -- 35, IN R.E. Warner and K. Hendrix,
eds. California riparian systems; ecology, conservation, and productive
management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Brotherson, J.D., S.R. Rushford, W.E. Evenson, & C. Morden 1983.
*Population dynamics and age relationships of eight trees in Navajo
National Monument, Arizona*. J. Range Management 36: 250-256.

Bull, E.L. & J.N. Slovlen 1982. *Relationships between avifauna and
streamside vegetation*. Trans. North. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 47:
496-506.

Cemments, C. 1991. *Beavers and riparian systems*. Rangelands
13:277-279.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, & W.S. Platts 1990. *Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver,
Colorado.

Conard, S.G., R.L. MacDonald & R.F. Holland. 1977. *Riparian begetation
and flora of the Sacramento Valley*. pp. 47-56 IN: Anne Sand (ed.).
Riparian Forests in California. Their Ecology and Conservation.

Crouch, G.L. 1979. *Long-term changes in cottonwoods on a grazed and
ungrazed plains bottomland in Northeastern Colorado*. USDA, Forest
Service Research Note RM 370: 1-4.

Ellis, L.M. 1994. *Bird use of salt cedar and cottonwoods on a grazed
and ungrazed plains bottomland in northeastern Colorado*. USDA, Forest
Service Research Note RM-370:1-4.

Farley, G.H., L.M. Ellis, J.N. Stuart, & N.J. Scott, Jr. 1994. *Avian
species richness in different-aged stands of riparian forest along the
middle Rio Grande, New Mexico*. Conservation Biology 8:1098-1108.

Fenner, P.W., W.W. Brady, & D.R. Patton 1984. *Observations on seed and
seedlings of Fremont\'s cottonwood*. Desert Plants 6:55-58.

Fleishner, T.L. 1994. *Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western
North America*. Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

Gaines, D. 1977*. The valley riparian forests of California: Their
importance to bird populations*. pp. 57-86 IN: Anne Sand (ed.). Riparian
Forests in California. Their Ecology and Conservation.

Glinski, R.L. 1977. *Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and
cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona*. USDA,
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43:116-123.

Grenfell, W.E., Jr. 1988. *Valley foothill riparian*. IN: Kenneth A.
Mayer and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., *A guide To wildlife habitats of
California*. USDA, Pacific SW Forest and Range Experiment Station,
California Dept. of Fish and Game, PG and E, and USDA Forest Service
Region 5. Page 86 - 87.

Grime, J.P. 1978. *Interpretation of small-scale patterns in the
distribution of plant species in space and time*. IN: A.J.H. Freysen and
J.W. Woldendorp (eds.) Structure and Functioning of Plant Populations.
Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York. pp. 101-104.

Grime, J.P. and R. Hunt 1975. *Relative growth rate: its range and
adaptive significance in a local flora*. J. Ecology 63: 393-422.

Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. *The Jepson manual. Higher plants of
California*. University of California Press. 1400 pp.

Howe, W.H. & R.L. Knopf 1991. *On the imminent decline of Rio Grande*

*cottonwoods in central New Mexico*. The Southwestern Naturalist
36:28-224.

Johnson, R.R. & C.W. Lowe 1985. *On the development of riparian
ecology*. Pp 112-116 IN: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patten, P.F.
Folliot, and R.H. Hamre, technical coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and
their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report
RM-120. U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Knopf, F.I. and F.B. Samson 1994. *Scale perspectives on avian diversity
in western riparian ecosystems*. Conservation Biology 8(3):669-676.

Laymon, S.A. 1984. *Riparian bird community structure and dynamics: Dog
Island, Red Bluff, California*. Pages 587-597 IN: R.E. Warner and K.
Hendrix, eds. *California riparian systems; ecology, conservation, and
productive management*. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Mahoney, J.M. & S.B. Rood 1998. *Streamflow requirements for cottonwood
seedling recruitment - an integrative model*. Wetlands 18(4): 634-645.

Marlow, C.B. & T.M. Pogacnik 1985. *Time of grazing and cattle-induced
damage to streambanks*. Pages 279-284. IN: Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell,
D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Tech. Coords.) *Riparian
ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses*. Proc.
First North Am. Riparian Conf. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-120. 523 pp..

Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, & A.L. Nelson 1951. *American wildlife and
plants: A guide to wildlife food habits*. Dover Publications, Inc. New
York. 500 pp.

McGinley, M.A. & T.G. Whitham 1985. *Central place foraging by beavers
(Castor canadensis): A test of foraging predictions and the impact of
selective feeding on the growth form of cottonwoods (Populus
fremontii)*. Oecologia 66: 558-562.

Michny, F.J., D. Boos & F. Wernette 1974. *Riparian habitats and avian
densities along the Sacramento River, California*. State of California
Dept. of Fish and Game. 23 pp.

Moore, M. 1979. *Medicinal plants of the Mountain West*. Museum of New
Mexico Press. 200 pp.

Ohmart, R.D. 1996. *Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing
on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats*. pp.
245-279. IN: P.R. Karausman (ed.) Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range
Management, Denver, Colorado.

Ohmart, R.D. & B.W. Anderson 1986*. Riparian habitat. In inventory and
monitoring of wildlife habitat*. Bureau of Land Management. pp 169-199.

Patten, D.T. 1998. *Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America:
diversity and human impacts*. Wetland 18(4): 498-512.

Pope, D.P., J.H. Brock, and R.A. Backhaus 1990*. Vegetative propagation
of key Southwestern woody riparian species*. Desert Plants 10: 91-95.

Reichenbacher, F.W. 1984*. Ecology and evolution of Southwestern
riparian plant communities*. Desert Plants 6:15-22.

Roberts, W.G, J.G. Howe & J. Major 1977*. A survey of riparian forest
flora and fauna in California*. Pages 3-20. IN: Anne Sand (ed.).
*Riparian forests in California*. Their Ecology and Conservation.

Robichaux, Robert 1977. *Geologic history of the riparian forests of
California*. Pages 21-34. IN: Anne Sand (ed.). Riparian Forests in
California. Their Ecology and Conservation..

Rucks, M.G. 1984. *Composition and trend of riparian vegetation on five
perennial streams in southeastern Arizona*. pp 97-107. IN: R.E. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). *California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, andpProductive management*. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California

St. John, T.V. 1987. *Mineral acquisition in native plants*. Pages
529-536. IN: Elias, Thomas S. (ed.) *Conservation and management of rare
and endangered plants*. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
California.

St. John, T.V. 1988. *Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrient of
native plants*. Pages 34-39. IN: Rieger J.P. and B.K. Williams (eds.)
*Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium*. San
Diego, California.

Sampson, A.W. & B.S. Jespersen 1981*. California range brushlands and
browse plants*. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of
California.

Schulz, T.T. & W.C. Leininger 1991*. Nongame wildlife communities in
grazed and ungrazed montane riparian sites*. Great Basin Naturalist
51(3):286-292.

Schulz, T.T. & W.C. Leininger 1990*. Differences in riparian vegetation
structure between grazed areas and exclosures*. Journal of Range
Management 43(4): 295-299.

Shafroth, P.B., G.T. Auble, J.C. Stromberg, & D.T. Patten 1998*.
Establishment of woody riparian vegetation in relation to annual
patterns of streamflow, Bill Williams River, Arizona*. Wetlands (18)4:
577-590.

Shanefield, A.N. 1984. *Alder, cottonwood, and sycamore distribution and
regeneration along the Nacimiento River, California*. pp 196-201. IN:
R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). *California riparian systems:
Ecology, conservation, and productive management*. University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Siekert, R.E., Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Skinner, M.A. Smith, J.L. Dodd, & J.D.
Rodgers 1985. *Channel response of an ephemeral stream in Wyoming to
selected grazing treatments*. Pages 276-278. IN: Johnson, R.R., C.D.
Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre (Tech. coords.).
*Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting
uses*. Proc. First North Am. Riparian Conf. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-120. 523 pp.

Slovlin, J.M. 1984*. Impact of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat:
a review of our knowledge*. pp. 1001-1104. IN: *Developing strategies
for rangeland management*. Nat. Res. Counc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Stromberg, J.C. 1998. *Functional equivalency of saltcedar (Tamarix
chinensis) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) along a
free-flowing river*. Wetlands 18(4): 675-686.

Smith, F. 1977. *A short review of the status of riparian forests in
California*. Pp. 1-2. IN: Anne Sand (ed.). Riparian Forests in
California. Their Ecology and Conservation.

Stevens, L.E., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, & R.R. Johnson 1977*. The
importance of riparian habitat to migrating birds*. pp. 156-164. IN:
Johnson, R.R. and D.A. Jones (tech. coords.). *Importance, preservation
and management of riparian habitat: a symposium*. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Report RM-43. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 217 pp.

Strike, S.S. 1994. *Ethnobotany of the California Indians. Volume 2.
Aboriginal Uses of California\'s Indigenous Plants*. Koelz Scientific
Books, USA/Germany. 210 pp.

Stromberg, J.C. 1993. *Fremont cottonwood-goodding willow riparian
forest: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential*. J.
Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. 27:97-110.

Thompson, K. 1977. *Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley,
California*. Pp. 35-38. IN: Anne Sand (ed.). *Riparian forests in
California*. Their Ecology and Conservation.

Trapp, G.R., G.L. Linck & E.D. Whisler 1984. *The status of ecological
research on the mammal fauna of California\'s central valley riparian
communities*. Pages 942-949. IN: R.E. Warner and K. Hendrix, eds.
California riparian systems; ecology, conservation, and productive
management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

USDA, NRCS 1999. *The PLANTS database*. National Plant Data Center,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. \<http://plants.usda.gov\>. Version: 05APR1999.

U. S. General Accounting Office 1988. *Public rangelands: some riparian
areas restored but widespread improvement will be slow*. GAO/RCED-88-01,
Washington, D.C.

Warner, R.E. & K.M. Hendrix 1979. *California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management*. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.

Williams, D.F. & K.S. Kilburn 1984. *Sensitive, threatened, and
endangered mammals of riparian and other wetland communities in
California*. pp. 950-956. IN: Warner, R.E., and K.E. Hendrix (eds.),
*California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive
management*. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1035
pp.

###### Prepared By

##### *James Henson*

USDA, NRCS, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

*Michelle Stevens*

formerly USDA, NRCS, National Plant Data Center

##### *Greg Fenchel*

USDA, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Los Lunas, New Mexico

###### Species Coordinator

#### *James Henson*

USDA, NRCS, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Edited: 05dec00 jsp; 29may03 ahv; 060808 jsp

For more information about this and other plants, please contact your
local NRCS field office or Conservation District, and visit the PLANTS
Web site\<[http://plants.usda.gov](http://plants.usda.gov/)\> or the
Plant Materials Program Web site
\<[http://Plant-Materials.nrcs.usda.gov](http://Plant-Materials.nrcs.usda.gov/)\>

*The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA\'s [TARGET
Center](http://www.usda.gov/oo/target.htm) at 202-720-2600 (voice and
TDD).*

*To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or
TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.*

*Read about [Civil Rights at the Natural Resources Convervation
Service](http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/civilrights/).*