text:
|FEIS Home Page
SPECIES: Ilex glabra
Pennsylvania: The state rank of inkberry is SX and the state status is PX. These designations indicate inkberry is believed to be extinct within Pennsylvania [149].
Inkberry is associated with pitch pine (Pinus rigida) on the Atlantic coastal plain [6,14,51,120,124,182]. Other associated tree species in these communities include white oak (Quercus alba) [6,14], bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia) [14,26,34,124], blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) [124,182], dwarf chinkapin oak (Quercus prinoides) [26,34], post oak (Quercus stellata) [124,182], black oak (Quercus velutina) [6,14,182], shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) [14,34,182], and sassafras (Sassafrass albinum) [124]. Associated shrub species include downy serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) [26], coastal sweetpepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) [34,182], black huckleberry [6,14,26,34,124,182], dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) [34], blue huckleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa) [26,34,51,124,182], wintergreen [14,26,182], sheep-laurel [26,51,124,182], mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia) [26,34,124], swamp doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa) [182], maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina) [14], piedmont staggerbush (Lyonia mariana) [182], bayberry (Morella spp.) [6,182], black chokecherry (Photinia melanocarpa) [26], black cherry (Prunus serotina) [13], flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallinum) [26], cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca) [26,182], roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) [182], Virginia tephrosia (Tephrosia virginiana) [14], lowbush blueberry [26], and Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum) [14,26,124,182]. Additional understory associates include Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica) [14,26], leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata) [51], sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina) [14,26,34,124,182], western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum) [14,26], and anisescented goldenrod (Solidago odora) [14].
In Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) forests, inkberry occurs with red maple, pitch pine [138], and redbay (Persea borbonia) [127]. Understory species occurring in these communities include sweetpepperbush (Clethra spp.) [135,138], blue huckleberry [135], large gallberry (Ilex coriacea) [127,135], American holly (Ilex opaca) [127], common winterberry (Ilex verticellata) [138], maleberry [135], fetterbush lyonia (Lyonia lucida) [127,135], partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) [127], southern bayberry (Morella caroliniensis) [135], cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) [138], Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) [127], swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum) [138], poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) [127], highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) [138], black highbush blueberry (Vaccinium fuscatum) [135], possumhaw, Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), and mosses (Sphagnum spp.) [138].
Inkberry may dominate pocosin or shrub swamp vegetation [8,148,157], commonly occurring with southern bayberry [201], swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) [11,49,148,156,157,176,201], cane (Arundinaria gigantea) [92,148,201], red chokecherry (Photinia pyrifolia) [157], cinnamon fern [201], coastal sweetpepperbush [92], greenbrier (Smilax spp.) [148,156,157,176,201], swamp doghobble [49], fetterbush lyonia [11,49,92,157], honeycup (Zenobia pulverulenta) [11,148,156,176], dwarf huckleberry [43], highbush blueberry [49,157], wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) [92,157,176,201,206], northern bayberry [43], and moss (Sphagnum spp.) [43,157,201]. Also occurring in pocosin vegetation is scattered red maple [156,201], Atlantic white-cedar [156], loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) [11,156,157,176], sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) [201], sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) [11,49,148,156,157,176,201], redbay [11,156,157,176], pond pine (Pinus serotina) [11,92,157,176,206], and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) [156].
In pond pine forests, inkberry occurs with bluestem (Andropogon spp.) [94], cane [18,94], sweetpepperbush [18,74,94], swamp cyrilla [18,74], huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.) [74,94], large gallberry [18], St. Johnswort (Hypericum spp.) [94], maleberry [74], fetterbush lyonia [46,74,94], wax myrtle [18,46,59], cinnamon fern, sumac (Rhus spp.) [94], saw-palmetto (Serenoa repens) [18,46,74], laureleaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) [18,74], honeycup [18], and blueberry [46,94]. Other tree species include red maple [18,74], Atlantic white-cedar [74], loblolly bay], sweetgum [18], sweetbay [74,94], redbay [46], and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) [74].
Inkberry is found in bay forests with loblolly bay [5,20,126,176], sweetbay [5,126,152,176], and redbay [5,20,126,176]. Understory species in these communities include coastal sweetpepperbush, cane [126], buckwheat tree (Cliftonia monophylla) [20,126], swamp titi [126,176], huckleberry [176], dahoon (Ilex cassine) [5,20,126,176], large gallberry [126,176], deciduous holly (Ilex decidua) [126], smooth winterberry (Ilex laevigata) [176], American holly [126], yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) [20], Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica), sheep-laurel, swamp doghobble [126], maleberry [5,126], fetterbush lyonia [5,20,126,176], bayberry [5,20,126,176], swamp azalea [176], greenbrier [126,176], poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix) [20], highbush blueberry, black highbush blueberry [5,176], Virginia chainfern [176], and honeycup [126,176].
Inkberry occurs in bald cypress forests with red maple, sweetbay, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), redbay [170,171], and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) [56]. Understory species include chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes), baccharis (Baccharis spp.), toothed midsorus fern (Blechnum serrulatum), smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), spadeleaf (Centella asiatica), Jamaica swamp sawgrass (Cladium mariscus) [56], coastal sweetpepperbush [170,171], flatsedge (Cyperus spp.) [56], swamp titi [170,171], southern umbrella-sedge (Fuirena scirpoidea), peelbark St. Johnswort (Hypericum fasciculatum), clustered bushmint (Hyptis alata) [56], dahoon [56,170,171], large gallberry, Virginia sweetspire, swamp doghobble [170,171], primrose-willow (Ludwigia spp.), rusty staggerbush (Lyonia ferruginea) [56], fetterbush lyonia [170,171], wax myrtle, wild pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida), camphorweed (Pluchea spp.), cabbage palmetto (Sabal palmetto), licorice weed (Scoparia dulcis) [56], laurel greenbrier, coral greenbrier (Smilax walteri), and blueberry [170,171].
Inkberry is associated with pond cypress (Taxodium distichum var. nutans) [134,202], occurring as an understory species with swamp cyrilla, eastern swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), yaupon [202], wax myrtle [134,202], and viburnum (Viburnum spp.) [202]. Tree species in these communities include red maple, blackgum, and slash pine [134].
Inkberry is commonly found in southeastern pine flatwoods communities, dominated by sand pine (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) [67,116], slash pine [4,5,34,40,45,81,96,97,125,128,129,130,133,144,146,162,184], longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) [4,16,17,32,33,41,45,61,79,80,81,125,128,129,133,146,162,167,176,184], pond pine [4,133,184], and loblolly pine [33,61,62,118,131,159,167]. Several oak species occur in flatwoods communities, including Chapman oak (Quercus chapmanii) [41], southern red oak (Quercus falcata) [41,118,121,159], sand live oak (Quercus geminata) [184], bluejack oak (Quercus incana) [41], turkey oak (Quercus laevis) [41], laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) [13,41,81], runner oak (Quercus margarettiae) [125], blackjack oak [118,121], dwarf live oak (Quercus minima) [4,41,58,79,184], myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia) [58], water oak (Quercus nigra) [4,13,62,81,159], willow oak (Quercus phellos) [118,121,159], running oak (Quercus pumila) [133,162,184], post oak [62,118,121], and live oak [4,13,32,45]. Other tree species occurring in these communities include red maple [4,41,62,81], persimmon (Diospyros spp.) [17], ash (Fraxinus spp.) [4], sweetgum [4,13,61,62,118,121,131,159], loblolly bay [41], sweetbay [41,74,81], blackgum [61,62,74,118,121,131,159], redbay [13,63,74], swamp bay (Persea palustris) [81], shortleaf pine [61,62,131], spruce pine (Pinus glauca) [108], and pond cypress [45].
Inkberry occurs as an understory dominant in the flatwoods/inkberry plant association in Florida [5] and in the holly-bayberry-titi plant association in North Carolina [201]. It is also an understory dominant in the longleaf pine/blue huckleberry-inkberry community type in North Carolina [105]. Understory associates of inkberry in southeastern pine flatwoods include cane [57,61], pawpaw (Asimina spp.) [40], buckwheat tree [74], tarflower [1,2,4,41], sedges (Carex spp.) [57], sweetpepperbush [74,118,121,131], flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) [17,100], black titi [190], swamp titi [74,104,167], huckleberry [4,5,16,17,40], St. Johnswort [58,74], large gallberry [32,104,146,176,190], yaupon [16,99,100,146], mountain-laurel [104], hairy-laurel (Kalmia hirsuta) [86,184], sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium) [104], fetterbush lyonia [4,5,41,45,63,104,125,130,144,184,190], rusty staggerbush [116], coastalplain staggerbush (Lyonia fruticosa) [22,116], piedmont staggerbush [104,176], wax myrtle [4,16,32,40,41,45,61,81,144,150,159,176,184], southern bayberry [121], red chokecherry [58], azalea (Rhododendron spp.) [58], beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.) [57], sumac [16,45], blackberry (Rubus spp.) [16,17,41,112,146], cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) [45,196], saw-palmetto [4,5,16,40,41,45,79,80,81,125,128,129,144,150], greenbrier [74,190], blueberry [5,16,17,61,74,81,100,125,162,176,184], and viburnum [41]. Grasses occurring in these communities include threeawn (Aristida spp.) [4,41,79,86,98,125,130,133,146,162,167], common carpet grass (Axonopus fissifolius) [22,70], toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum) [22,115], panic grass (Panicum spp.) [3,37,38,57,74,115,118,146], muhly (Muhlenbergia spp.) [57], bluestem (Schizachyrium and Andropogon spp.) [37,41,57,61,70,99,100,115,118,125,146,146], Indian grass (Sorghastrum spp.) [22,57], Curtis' dropseed (Sporobolus curtissii) [22,38,70,118], and Florida dropseed (Sporobolus floridanus) [115].
In hammock vegetation of Florida, inkberry occurs with various hickories (Carya spp.) and other hardwoods, southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), wax myrtle, lancewood (Nectandria coriacea), West Indian cherry (Prunus myrtifolia), evergreen oaks (Quercus spp.), and coontie (Zamia pumila) [59].
Inkberry is also an important component of saw palmetto-dominated scrub vegetation, occurring with pineland threeawn (Aristida stricta), tarflower, rusty staggerbush, coastalplain staggerbush, fetterbush lyonia, wax myrtle, redbay, western brackenfern, Chapman oak, myrtle oak, sand live oak, greenbrier, shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites), deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), and tallow wood (Ximenia americana) [173].
In sand scrub vegetation, inkberry occurs with pawpaw (Asimina spp.), tarflower [40], sand heath (Ceratiola ericoides), garberia (Garberia heterophylla) [139], huckleberry [40], St. Andrew's cross (Hypericum hypericoides), Carolina holly (Ilex ambigua) [139], dahoon [40], staggerbush (Lyonia spp.), wax myrtle [40,139], Chapman oak [139], sand live oak [40,139], laurel oak [40], myrtle oak, redbay, silk bay, devilwood (Osmanthus americanus), oak mistletoe (Phoradendron leucarpum) [139], sand pine (Pinus clausa) [40,139], scrub plum (Prunus geniculata) [139], hog plum (Prunus umbellata) [40], tallow wood, western brackenfern, flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallinum), scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia) [139], saw palmetto [40,139], greenbrier, shiny blueberry, and deerberry [139].
Coastal sand dune associates of inkberry include live oak, hog plum, prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), staggerbush, periwinkle (Catharanthus spp.), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), avocado (Persea spp.), banana (Musa spp.), and scrub oak [40].
In dry prairie vegetation, inkberry occurs with pawpaw (Asimina spp.) [40,45], tarflower [136,158], sedge (Cyperus spp.) [30,40], coastalplain St. Johnswort (Hypericum brachyphyllum) [136], whitehead bogbutton (Lachnocaulon anceps) [91], rusty staggerbush [158], coastalplain staggerbush [55,91,136], fetterbush lyonia [45,55,136], wax myrtle [55], eastern prickly-pear (Opuntia humifusa) [30], sand live oak [91], dwarf live oak [55,102,136], running oak [45,55], plumed beaksedge (Rhynchospora plumosa) [91], saw-palmetto [4,40,55,91,102,136,158], shiny blueberry [55,136], Darrow's blueberry (Vaccinium darrowii) [91], common carpetgrass [102], Curtis' dropseed [82], threeawn [4,82,91,136,158], sawgrass (Cladium spp.) [40], cutthroat grass (Panicum abscissum) [209], little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), lopsided Indian grass (Sorghastrum secundum), narrowleaf silkgrass (Pityopsis graminifolia), and vanillaleaf (Carphephorus odoritissimus) [91].
Classifications identifying inkberry as a plant community dominant are as follows:Florida [5]
Inkberry is a stoloniferous or rhizomatous shrub forming extensive, dense colonies [47,50,65,71,110,116,153]. Inkberry may comprise 67 to 75% of shrub cover on coastal plain sites [116]. Several aerial stems arise singly or in groups from a rhizome that ranges in diameter from 0.2 to 0.5 inch (0.5-1.3 cm). A few small fibrous or woody roots occur along the entire rhizome, and longer roots (up to 48 inches or 120 cm) occur at infrequent intervals. These longer roots may extend to the water table if it is near the surface; the rhizome itself grows in the upper 2 inches (5 cm) of soil [114]. In coastal plain loblolly forests, inkberry was estimated to have 660 to 1,459 rootstocks per acre (1,650-3,648 rootstocks/ha) [132].
Male plants have flowers occurring in clumps of 3 on long peduncles, while female plants have flowers occurring singly [47,71] or in clumps of up to 3 flowers [47]. Inkberry fruits grow individually or in small clusters, with 3 to 9 seeds [71].RAUNKIAER [154] LIFE FORM:
Breeding system: Inkberry is dioecious [47,64,65,71,153].
Pollination: Inkberry is pollinated by insects [123].
Seed production: In general, inkberry produces good seed crops annually, though individual plants or clumps may bear heavily one year and be barren the next [71]. Immediately following fire, inkberry fruit production drops off, but within 4 years high fruit yields occur [187]. The pruning of older inkberry growth may cause inkberry to flower with renewed vigor, though 2 seasons are required [116]. Inkberry does not flower or produce fruit until the 2nd year after injury, at which point it often bears profusely [71,82,116]. In Georgia slash pine plantations, inkberry fruited heavily in all successional stages except recently burned stands, and produced maximum yields in 4-year-old plantations. Fruit yields were generally higher in young stands than in older stands [98]. After the 3rd or 4th season, the yield of inkberry fruits gradually declines, though fruit production occurs for many years [116].
Seed dispersal: Inkberry seeds are likely dispersed by birds [21].
Seed banking: No information
Germination: In general, members of the genus Ilex have immature embryos at time of ripeness, necessitating a period of after-ripening before germination will occur [47].
Seedling establishment/growth: Natural inkberry seedlings are rare; virtually all new growth originates from sprouting [71]. A study of a slash pine savannah in Mississippi found a greater frequency of established inkberry adults and a greater density of inkberry seedlings near the base of trees (<6.5 ft or 2 m). This trend is attributed to a higher seed rain underneath trees, presumably due to the dispersion of seeds by birds [21].
Asexual regeneration: Inkberry regenerates from readily sprouting rhizomes [64,65,116,119]. Mechanical damage to inkberry plants or simply exposure of a rhizome by removing soil may stimulate a new shoot to grow [116].SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Elevation and topography: Inkberry commonly occurs on the lower elevations of the coastal plain [203]. It occurs at elevations from 14 to 249 feet (4.3-76 m) [9,112,121,131,152]. Inkberry grows on sites with flat to slightly undulating topography [1,50,67,98,118,131,144,194,202].
Site types: Inkberry is found in wetlands [101,104,157,174], bogs [35,47,64,65,104,157,208], seeps [47,64,65], pocosins [8,153,156,157,176,206], swamps [74,134,135,148,170,171,174], lake and pond borders [4,74,164], and creek bottoms [47,57,64,65]. It also occurs in upland areas [57,104] including pine flatwoods [35,47,50,64,65,74,153,207,208], pine barrens [153], prairies [64,65,196], terraces [184], and savannahs [40,47,50,64,65,74,153]. Inkberry is also found on coastal sand dunes [40,196] and swales [35,208].
In Nova Scotia, inkberry is commonly found on rocky barrens and dry hillsides, in addition to swampy or mesic areas [165,185].
Soils: Soils supporting inkberry include coarse till [185,186], fine sand [4,23,40,56,67,70,71,72,74,79,80,121,125,131,150,196], loam [13,70,72,131], clay [56,72,125], marl [40,56,196], and peat [43,71,74,126,148,176]. These soils may have an underlying, impervious clay hardpan [4,114]. Soils often have low organic matter [4,56,74] and nutrient content [4,40,121,126,131,184,185], and are often acidic [1,4,47,64,65,71,121,126,131,134,152,176,184,186]. Soils may be calcareous [45,196], though Halls [71] reports that inkberry grows poorly on soils with high lime content.
Though it occurs on soils with low levels of extractable phosphorus (<2.0 ppm) [72], inkberry growth may be enhanced by pine needle fall due to increased phosphorus concentrations [23].
Inkberry is common on both well-drained [1,40,185,188] and poorly drained sites [1,22,40,58,59,67,70,74,79,98,176] with moist or wet soils [4,13,19,34,58,79,103,133,144,151] and a shallow or fluctuating water table [19,59,74,148,176,206]. The soils are often seasonally wet [4,74,152] or periodically flooded [1,134,184,196], saturated in winter and droughty during the growing season [56,74,148]. In New Jersey, inkberry may be restricted to areas where the roots can extend to the water table, and inkberry seldom occurs in abundance on upland sites [114].SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Fuels: Though green year-round, inkberry is highly flammable [7,106,168] due to the volatile and easily ignited substances in the plant tissues [11,28,107,163]. However, flammability is also affected by fuel moisture content, fuel load, and live moisture content. Higher leaf moisture content corresponds to a decrease in the amount of volatiles and a decreased flammability of leaves [28]. The heat value of inkberry leaves is greater than 5000 calories per gram [88]. The volatile oils in inkberry foliage ignite quickly under certain weather conditions, and when the temperature is high enough may suddenly flame to create an "intense" fire [7].
Once ignition has occurred, the intensity of a fire is strongly influenced by the structure of the fuels in allowing heat transfer and by the energy content of the fuel [166]. Over the temperature range of 200 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit (100-500 oC), the majority of inkberry combustion gases are derived from ether and benzene-ethanol extractives [166,175], both of which play an important role in the initiation of combustion at low temperatures (below 572 oF or 300 oC). The benzene-ethanol extractives also increase the intensity of the fire at higher temperatures (above 572 oF or 300 oC) [175]. The total extractive content, or combustible gases, of inkberry is 44.6% of foliage dry weight. A summary of inkberry foliage extractive content by dry weight is presented below [166]:
|Ether extractives
|Benzene-ethanol extractives
|% of total
|% of total
|% of total
Though foliage comprises 30 to 45% of inkberry's total dry weight, inkberry stems present a greater contribution to fuels composition, comprising 55 to 69% of dry weight [129].
In the pine flatwoods of the southeastern United States, the presence of inkberry, especially inkberry thickets, increases the frequency, hazard, and severity of forest fires [71,84,147,192]. Average fuel weights of inkberry (tons/acre) in inkberry-dominated roughs of the longleaf-slash pine forest type in the Osceola National Forest, are presented below [24]. Average fuel weights were based on air-dry weight of 2 samples of all material less than 1 inch in diameter that usually burn in headfires under dry conditions.
|Open stands*, age of rough
|Dense stands**, age of rough
|1 year
|2 years
|3-5 years
|10-15 years
|1 year
|2 years
|3-5 years
|10-15 years
Fire regimes: Inkberry is an important understory component in longleaf-slash pine and loblolly-shortleaf pine ecosystems. Longleaf-slash pine communities experience frequent surface fire, historically occurring at 1- to 8-year intervals. Surface fire in loblolly-shortleaf pine communities also occurs frequently, at 2- to 15-year intervals [195].
Fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems in which inkberry occurs are summarized below. Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".
|Community or Ecosystem
|Dominant Species
|Fire Return Interval Range (years)
|Avicennia nitida-Rhizophora mangle
|35-200 [141]
|sugarberry-America elm-green ash
|Celtis laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus pennsylvanica
|< 35 to 200
|Atlantic white-cedar
|Chamaecyparis thyoides
|35 to > 200 [195]
|northern cordgrass prairie
|Distichlis spicata-Spartina spp.
|1-3 [145]
|black ash
|Fraxinus nigra
|< 35 to 200
|Liriodendron tulipifera
|< 35 [195]
|Mariscus jamaicensis
|< 10
|Melaleuca quinquenervia
|< 35 to 200 [141]
|wheatgrass plains grasslands
|Pascopyrum smithii
|< 35 [145]
|shortleaf pine
|Pinus echinata
|shortleaf pine-oak
|Pinus echinata-Quercus spp.
|< 10
|slash pine
|Pinus elliottii
|slash pine-hardwood
|Pinus elliottii-variable
|< 35
|sand pine
|Pinus elliottii var. elliottii
|25-45 [195]
|South Florida slash pine
|Pinus elliottii var. densa
|longleaf-slash pine
|Pinus palustris-P. elliottii
|1-4 [141,195]
|longleaf pine-scrub oak
|Pinus palustris-Quercus spp.
|6-10 [195]
|pitch pine
|Pinus rigida
|6-25 [25,77]
|Pinus serotina
|pond pine
|Pinus serotina
|eastern white pine
|Pinus strobus
|eastern white pine-eastern hemlock
|Pinus strobus-Tsuga canadensis
|eastern white pine-northern red oak-red maple
|Pinus strobus-Quercus rubra-Acer rubrum
|loblolly pine
|Pinus taeda
|loblolly-shortleaf pine
|Pinus taeda-P. echinata
|10 to < 35
|Virginia pine
|Pinus virginiana
|10 to < 35
|Virginia pine-oak
|Pinus virginiana-Quercus spp.
|10 to < 35
|sycamore-sweetgum-American elm
|Platanus occidentalis-Liquidambar styraciflua-Ulmus americana
|< 35 to 200 [195]
|Populus tremuloides-Betula papyrifera
|35-200 [48,195]
|black cherry-sugar maple
|Prunus serotina-Acer saccharum
|> 1000
|Quercus-Carya spp.
|< 35
|northeastern oak-pine
|Quercus-Pinus spp.
|10 to < 35 [195]
|Quercus-Nyssa-spp.-Taxodium distichum
|35 to > 200 [141]
|southeastern oak-pine
|Quercus-Pinus spp.
|< 10
|white oak-black oak-northern red oak
|Quercus alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra
|< 35
|bear oak
|Quercus ilicifolia
|< 35 >
|chestnut oak
|Q. prinus
|northern red oak
|Quercus rubra
|10 to < 35
|post oak-blackjack oak
|Quercus stellata-Q. marilandica
|< 10
|black oak
|Quercus velutina
|< 35
|live oak
|Quercus virginiana
|10 to< 100 [195]
|cabbage palmetto-slash pine
|Sabal palmetto-Pinus elliottii
|< 10 [141,195]
|blackland prairie
|Schizachyrium scoparium-Nassella leucotricha
|< 10
|Fayette prairie
|Schizachyrium scoparium-Buchloe dactyloides
|< 10
|tule marshes
|Scirpus and/or Typha spp.
|< 35
|southern cordgrass prairie
|Spartina alterniflora
|1-3 [145]
|Taxodium distichum var. distichum
|100 to > 300
|Taxodium distichum var. nutans
|< 35 [141]
|eastern hemlock-yellow birch
|Tsuga canadensis-Betula alleghaniensis
|> 200 [195]
|Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp.
|< 35 to 200 [48,195]
Inkberry response to prescribed fire: Inkberry sprouts quickly and prolifically following fire. Following a February prescribed burn in a Georgia longleaf pine/slash pine community, inkberry responded with a rapid increase in biomass from the end of April to early June. From June to early August, the growth slowed. From August to the end of October, the growth curve flattened, with little biomass increase recorded. Growth ceased in November [84].
On the southeastern coastal plain, inkberry may act as a major inhibitor of herbaceous plants in longleaf pine/wiregrass understories. A temporary reduction in the percent cover of inkberry by fire may provide an opportunity for expansion and colonization by herbaceous species, increasing understory plant species richness and diversity as well as the biomass productivity of grasses and shrubs. In a Georgia longleaf pine/wiregrass forest, percent cover of inkberry was significantly reduced (p<0.05) by annual, biennial, and triennial prescribed fire treatments, from 50% cover on unburned plots to 35% on burned plots [22]. Prescribed burns at 3- to 4- year intervals restrict the presence and cover of inkberry, though it resprouts quickly [68,192]. Lewis and Hart [119] observed that where inkberry stems were burned to the ground, resprouts were half as tall as unburned stems within 9 months. On 1 site in Georgia, the number of inkberry stems was significantly greater (p<0.05), though percent cover was significantly less (p<0.05), on burned versus unburned plots 9 months postfire; on a 2nd plot, no significant differences were reported [119]. During the 2nd postfire year on sites in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, Hilman [83] recorded number of inkberry stems per acre:
|shrub height
|Charlotte, FL
|Baker, FL
|Berrien, GA
|Beaufort, SC
|<1 foot tall
|1-3 feet tall
|3+ feet tall
In Florida longleaf pine/slash pine stands, prescribed fire treatments significantly reduced (p<0.01) inkberry canopy coverage below 4.9 feet (1.5 m), from 14.7% to 11.1% approximately 1 postfire year [137]. In saw-palmetto-dominated shrub vegetation of Florida, inkberry cover values reached or exceeded preburn values within 3 years. Information on mean inkberry percent cover is summarized in the following table [172]:
|6 postfire months
|12 postfire months
|18 postfire months
|24 postfire months
|36 postfire months
|height <1.6 feet
|height >1.6 feet
Another study conducted on the lower coastal plain of Georgia found that slash pine-harvested sites were dominated by inkberry 6-years postharvest and remained dominated by inkberry following prescribed fire. No difference was found in the frequency of inkberry pre- and postfire. Inkberry on these sites strongly competed with slash pine seedlings, and 6-year-old slash pine seedlings competing with inkberry were significantly smaller in diameter (p<0.025) than those not subject to the same competition [197].
Even without burning, inkberry persists and often increases [71,199,209], reducing forage production [199]. In Georgia flatwoods, inkberry foliage cover increased 3-fold during 20 years of continuous fire exclusion. In 1 series of plots unburned for 30 years, inkberry occurred as a dominant shrub [71]. On plots in Georgia last burned in 1941, inkberry percent cover increased from 7% in 1942 to 14% in 1951 and 39% in 1963 [82].
Seasonal patterns of carbohydrate levels in roots and stems of inkberry are unaffected by season of burning. Recovery of carbohydrates occurs within 1 year, regardless of the time of year inkberry is burned [71,82].DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Contribution to fuels: Without frequent fire, the herbaceous understory of southeastern pine flatwoods is replaced by highly flammable species, including inkberry [36,169,198], which is dangerous to treat with fire due to its volatility. This may result in continued accumulation of wildland fuel loads and increasingly difficult and dangerous conditions for fire suppression [198]. A general increase in the size, number, and severity of fires accompanies increasing age of vegetation in the gallberry-saw-palmetto/wiregrass fuel type. This increase is attributed to fuel accumulation as the vegetation ages, and frequent burning may help manage these hazardous fuel levels [169]. Experimental burns in longleaf pine forests with an understory dominated by inkberry produced "very hot fires" [78]. On areas protected from fire in longleaf pine forests, inkberry attains much greater size than on frequently burned areas [81]. On sites in Georgia, prescribed fire reduced vegetative inkberry fuel 0 to 70% [85].
Following an initial burn on a longleaf pine site in Florida and longleaf pine and loblolly pine sites in South Carolina, fuel weights of inkberry were recorded. Total (total litter fuel plus total understory fuel) mean weight of inkberry is presented below in pounds per acre. On the Florida site, inkberry fuels increased for about 6 years before leveling off, while in South Carolina, fuel weights continued to increase. On these sites, inkberry represented 1.8 to 6.6% of the total fuels measured [168].
|Time since fire (years)
|12 (control)
|Florida inkberry
|South Carolina inkberry
In uniform 4-year-old saw-palmetto-inkberry roughs, headfire spread rates can exceed 0.5 mph (0.8 km/hr) with flame lengths in excess of 20 feet (6 m) and fireline intensities of 2,000 Btu/ft/s under "good" burning conditions [195].
Inkberry forms specific fuel types with wax myrtle [210] and saw-palmetto [200]. A model for predicting particulate matter emissions from fires in the saw-palmetto-inkberry fuel type has been developed [200].
Inkberry control using fire: Campbell [31] states that annual winter burning in longleaf pine forests may alleviate inkberry competition with longleaf pine seedlings, and over a 20-year period, annual winter burning resulted in a significant decrease (p<0.05) in inkberry crown spread [117]. Following a winter burn in South Carolina, inkberry relative percent cover was recorded at 4.0%, contrasted with 12.1% on the control site [61]. However, Clewell [36] found that summer prescribed burning provides better control of inkberry than winter burning. Spring and summer prescribed burning reduces the frequency and size of inkberry plants, thinning out dense clumps that can shade out grasses and forbs [54]. Inkberry thrives with frequent winter burning [71,95]; though fire top-kills the plants, within a few months as many or more new sprouts grow [95]. Hilman and Hughes [82] found that resprouts of inkberry burned in January appear in late February, growing most rapidly from mid-April to mid-May and averaging 2 feet (0.6 m) in height by November.
Though fire will not eliminate inkberry, annual summer burning may be effective in retarding growth [82,95]. In 1 study, inkberry stands were burned for 3 consecutive years in each of the following months: January, April, June, August, and October. Regardless of the month of burning, the number of stems increased following the initial burn and remained fairly stable for the next 2 years, with sprouts growing approximately 2 feet (0.6 m) the 1st year after the initial burn. The effects of these consecutive burns are presented in the following table according to month treated [95].
|Month burned
|Effect of 3 annual, consecutive prescribed burns
|Height Growth
|Foliage Cover
|Little or no effect on annual height growth of sprouts
|Little or no effect on annual height growth of sprouts
|Little or no effect on annual height growth of sprouts
|Decreased substantially following 3rd annual burn, though 1 or 2 annual burns had little effect
|Reduced annual height growth of sprouts
|Decreased substantially following 3rd annual burn, though 1 or 2 annual burns had little effect
|Reduced annual height growth of sprouts
|Decreased substantially following 3rd annual burn, though 1 or 2 annual burns had little effect
However, in a study of longleaf pine communities in Alabama, inkberry contributed 60 to 78% of shrub biomass on winter, spring, and summer burn treatments, as well as on control plots. There was no difference between the effects of dormant season and growing season burns [110]. Repeated burning, even at the most vulnerable time, is not likely to eradicate inkberry [95,161].Burning in ungrazed and lightly grazed longleaf pine forests may offer effective control of inkberry; however, burning is ineffective on heavily grazed sites [69]. A 1965 study found that prescribed fire following chemical control of inkberry may enhance the recovery of other native forage species in areas formerly occupied by inkberry, though with fire exclusion, forage production may decline sharply [82].
The fruit, leaves, and twigs of inkberry are an important component of white-tailed deer [71,98,160,177,205] and Sambar deer [177] diets; inkberry is moderately preferred browse for white-tailed deer [39]. It is browsed by white-tailed deer primarily in the fall and winter [71,177,205], and by Sambar deer in both the fall and spring [177].
Inkberry fruit may be important in the diets of small mammals [71,111], and it is an important component of the raccoon winter diet in Alabama [98]. The fruit and leaves provide food for black bears in the fall [44,71,73,75].
Inkberry fruit and leaves are a minor component of wild turkey [52,71,98,160], bobwhite quail [71,98,140,160], and songbird diets [10,71,98].PALATABILITY:
|% moisture
|Chemical composition (% of dry weight)
|Air dried
|Oven dried
|N (total)
|Ether extract
|N-free extract
|Early leaf stage
|Full leaf stage
Little difference was observed in the nitrogen and phosphorus content of inkberry on burned and unburned areas. Lignin content was higher on unburned areas during the early leaf stage, but higher on burned areas during anthesis. Ether content of inkberry was much lower on burned areas, while calcium content was higher on burned areas [116].
Nutrient composition of inkberry was also evaluated in slash pine stands with a saw-palmetto/inkberry understory in Florida and Georgia. Composition of live and dead inkberry stems by diameter is presented below. Data include average values and standard errors [90]:
|% of dry weight
|Total ash
|Live foliage
|2.1 + 0.16
|1.0 + 0.03
|0.05 + 0.005
|0.29 + 0.02
|0.61 + 0.03
|0.18 + 0.008
|0.07 + 0.003
|Live stems <0.6 cm
|3.0 + 0.30
|0.6 + 0.02
|0.06 + 0.007
|0.20 + 0.02
|0.51 + 0.03
|0.13 + 0.012
|0.05 + 0.004
|Live stems 0.6-2.5 cm
|1.4 + 0.20
|0.3 + 0.02
|0.04 + 0.006
|0.17 + 0.03
|0.26 + 0.04
|0.05 + 0.005
|0.03 + 0.003
|Live stems 2.5-7.6 cm
|1.4 + 0.20
|0.3 + 0.01
|0.04 + 0.005
|0.17 + 0.02
|0.25 + 0.04
|0.05 + 0.004
|0.03 + 0.003
|Dead stems <0.6 cm
|1.8 + 0.24
|0.4 + 0.02
|0.04 + 0.007
|0.14 + 0.02
|0.40 + 0.04
|0.07 + 0.006
|0.05 + 0.003
|Dead stems 0.6-2.5 cm
|0.4 + 0.08
|0.01 + n.d.
|0.15 + 0.04
|0.12 + 0.01
|0.06 + 0.012
|0.04 + 0.012
A study conducted in slash pine plantations compared the nutrient content of inkberry current-year growth in spring and summer, and evaluated the nutrient content in response to the residual effect of fertilization. A summary of that information is presented in the table below [205].
|Year plantation fertilized
|% of dry matter
| Summer 1980 (August)
| Spring 1981(April)
IVOMD levels were not nutritionally adequate for white-tailed deer, and phosphorus concentrations were well below proposed maintenance levels (0.28-0.3% at time of study). For the most part, maintenance levels of calcium (0.25%) and nitrogen (1.2%) for white-tailed deer were met or exceeded by inkberry [205].COVER VALUE:
Artificial regeneration: Propagation of inkberry may be achieved by transplanting the suckering shoots that develop around the base of plants. Inkberry cuttings root year-round when provided with 1,000 parts per million indolebutyric acid quick dip (5 seconds) or a commercial rooting powder, though untreated cuttings will also root [47].
Inkberry seed germination may be achieved by sowing the seed in a warm greenhouse, and then waiting for germination to occur. In greenhouse tests, 57% of the freshly collected, cleaned seeds germinated within 8 months [47]. Good germination is achieved by planting cleaned, collected seeds in moist, fungus-free medium at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 oC) until seeds sprout [71,93]. Seeds held at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 oC) germinated more quickly and in greater numbers than seeds held at 40, 50, 70, 80, or 90 degrees Fahrenheit (4, 10, 21, 27, or 32 oC). Germinations of 24, 56, and 70% occurred in 49, 69, and 102 days, respectively, at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 oC). Inkberry will germinate at this temperature in complete darkness, under constant illumination, or completely submerged in water [93]. Germination capacities of 70 to 95% were achieved in laboratory tests with seeds planted immediately following collection; however, germination may not occur until the 2nd or 3rd spring, suggesting potential inkberry seed banking. Some benefit may be obtained by stratifying seeds at alternating temperatures of 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 oC) at night and 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 oC) during the day for 60 days, followed by 60 days at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 oC) [15].OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Inkberry thrives under browsing pressure [66]. In Georgia longleaf-slash pine forests, inkberry increased greatly with grazing, possibly due to reduced grass competition. The greatest increases occurred on more heavily grazed sites [69]. Extensive inkberry cover contributes to reduced herbage yields of pineland threeawn, Curtiss dropseed, bluestem grasses, and a variety of forbs [119]. Inkberry thickets often reduce or exclude more desirable forage species [70,71], reducing the grazing capacity of these areas for domestic livestock [71].
On sites in Florida, Neary [142] found that the height and diameter of loblolly pine seedlings decreased with increasing inkberry densities. Mechanical treatments may be useful in controlling or reducing competition by inkberry with tree seedlings [27]; however, inkberry shrubs that are mechanically cut develop new shoots from rhizomes and from adventitious buds that develop low on the cut stem, approximately 2 to 3 inches (5-7.5 cm) from the ground [116]. Though inkberry cover, frequency, and biomass are reduced by harvesting activities, inkberry might dominate sites in Florida where the slash pine overstory has been harvested [38]. In longleaf pine communities of Alabama, inkberry contributed 64 to 73% of shrub biomass 23 years following no treatment as well as chemical and mechanical understory treatments [110]. On sites in Mississippi, inkberry crown cover was significantly reduced (p<0.05) by a combination of cultivation and fertilizer treatments. Plowing and disking operations reduced crown cover from 58.3% to 21.5% 12 years after treatment. This mechanical treatment combined with low, medium, and high fertilizer rates (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) reduced crown cover to 10.7%, 4.1%, and 5.4%, respectively [204].Studies in 1961 and 1972 demonstrated that control of inkberry might be achieved with a combination of burning and herbicide treatments [29,119]. Up to 80% control of inkberry may be achieved with a variety of herbicide combinations, including imazapyr, picloram, and picloram+triclopyr applications [180]. Good control is achieved with isopropyl ester applications, and fair control is achieved with sodium trichloracetate applications [192]. Information on fire control can be found under "Fire Management Considerations" in the "Fire Effects" section of this summary.
1. Abrahamson, Warren G. 1984. Post-fire recovery of Florida Lake Wales Ridge vegetation. American Journal of Botany. 71(1): 9-21. [9509]
2. Abrahamson, Warren G. 1984. Species response to fire on the Florida Lake Wales Ridge. American Journal of Botany. 71(1): 35-43. [9608]
3. Abrahamson, Warren G.; Abrahamson, Christy R. 1996. Effects of fire on long-unburned Florida uplands. Journal of Vegetation Science. 7: 565-574. [28455]
4. Abrahamson, Warren G.; Hartnett, David C. 1990. Pine flatwoods and dry prairies. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel, John J., eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press: 103-149. [17388]
5. Abrahamson, Warren G.; Johnson, Ann F.; Layne, James N.; Peroni, Paricia A. 1984. Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: an example of the Southern Lake Wales Ridge. Florida Scientist. 47(4): 209-250. [20272]
6. Adler, Gregory H. 1988. The role of habitat structure in organizing small mammal populations and communities. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 289-299. [7118]
7. Agee, James K. 1973. Prescribed fire effects on physical and hydrologic properties of mixed-conifer forest floor and soil. Contribution Report No. 143. Davis, CA: University of California, Water Resources Center. 57 p. [12337]
8. Ash, A. N.; McDonald, C. B.; Kane, E. S.; Pories, C. A. 1983. Natural and modified pocosins: literature synthesis and management options. FWS/OBS-83/04. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Sciences. 156 p. [16178]
9. Austin, Daniel F.; Posin, Freda R.; Burch, James N. 1987. Scrub species patterns on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research. 3(4): 491-498. [9340]
10. Beal, F. E. L. 1915. Food of the robins and bluebirds of the United States. Bulletin No. 171. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [24990]
11. Beran, Robert A.; Masters, Robert A.; Gaussoin, Roch E. 1998. Revegetation of leafy spurge-infested grasslands with native grass and legume mixtures. In: Christianson, Kathy, ed. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science; 1998 March 10-12; Waikoloa, HI. [Place of publication unknown]: Western Society of Weed Science; Volume 51: 131. Abstract. [26950]
12. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
13. Best, G. Ronnie; Segal, Debra S.; Wolfe, Charlotte. 1990. Soil-vegetation correlations in selected wetlands and uplands of north-central Florida. Biol. Rep. 90(9). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 51 p. [18161]
14. Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1981. Forest structure dynamics following wildfire and prescribed burning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. The American Midland Naturalist. 105(2): 321-333. [8649]
15. Bonner, F. T. 1974. Ilex L. holly. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 450-453. [7683]
16. Boyer, W. D. 1990. Pinus palustris Mill. longleaf pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 405-412. [13398]
17. Boyer, William D. 1991. Effects of a single chemical treatment on long-term hardwood development in a young pine stand. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference: Volume 2; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 599-606. [17503]
18. Bramlett, David L. 1990. Pinus serotina Michx. pond pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 470-475. [13407]
19. Breininger, David R.; Laron, Vickie L.; Duncan, Brean W.; [and others]. 1995. Landscape patterns of Florida scrub jay habitat use and demographic success. Conservation Biology. 9(6): 1442-1453. [29090]
20. Brendemuehl, R. H. 1990. Persea borbonia (L.) Spreng. redbay. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 503-506. [15361]
21. Brewer, J. Stephen. 1998. Patterns of plant species richness in a wet slash-pine (Pinus elliottii) savanna. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 125(3): 216-224. [38222]
22. Brockway, Dale G.; Lewis, Clifford E. 1997. Long-term effects of dormant-season prescribed fire on plant community diversity, structure and productivity in a longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management. 96: 167-183. [29222]
23. Brown, Randall B.; Stone, Earl L.; Carlisle, Victor W. 1990. Soils. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel, John J., eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press: 35-69. [17386]
24. Bruce, David. 1951. Fuel weights on the Osceola National Forest. Fire Control Notes. 12(3): 20-23. [38667]
25. Buchholz, Kenneth; Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age structure, biomass and net annual aboveground productivity of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 24-34. [8639]
26. Buell, Murray F.; Cantlon, John E. 1953. Effects of prescribed burning on ground cover in the New Jersey pine region. Ecology. 34: 520-528. [9262]
27. Bumgarner, Harry D. 1972. Mechanical site preparation. In: Proceedings of the 1972 National Convention: Sound American Forestry; 1972 October 1-5; Hot Springs, AR. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 108-112. [11969]
28. Burgan, Robert E.; Susott, Ronald A. 1991. Influence of sample proc. techniques & seasonal variation on quantities of volatile compounds of gallberry, saw-palmetto & wax myrtle. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 1(1): 57-62. [14552]
29. Burton, Glenn W.; Hughes, Ralph H. 1961. Effects of burning and 2,4,5-T on gallberry and saw-palmetto. Journal of Forestry. 59(7): 497-500. [31012]
30. Callahan, J. L.; Barnett, C.; Cates, J. W. H. 1990. Palmetto prairie creation on phosphate-mined lands in central Florida. Restoration & Management Notes. 8(2): 94-95. [13833]
31. Campbell, Robert S. 1955. Vegetational changes and management in the cutover longleaf pine-slash pine area of the Gulf Coast. Ecology. 36(1): 29-34. [31013]
32. Christensen, Norman L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 112-136. [4391]
33. Christensen, Norman L. 1987. The biogeochemical consequences of fire and their effects on the vegetation of the Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. In: Trabaud, L., ed. The role of fire in ecological systems. Hague, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing: 1-21. [17285]
34. Christensen, Norman L. 1988. Vegetation of the southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 317-363. [17414]
35. Clewell, Andre F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida Panhandle. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press. 605 p. [13124]
36. Clewell, Andre F. 1989. Natural history of wiregrass (Aristida stricta Michx., Gramineae). Natural Areas Journal. 9(4): 223-233. [10092]
37. Colbert, S. R.; Jokela, E. J.; Neary, D. G. 1990. Effects of annual fertilization & sustained weed control on dry matter partitioning, leaf area, & growth efficiency of juv loblolly-slash pine. Forest Science. 36(4): 995-1014. [14564]
38. Conde, Louis F.; Swindel, Benee F.; Smith, Joel E. 1983. Plant species cover, frequency, and biomass: Early responses to clearcutting, chopping, and bedding in Pinus elliottii flatwoods. Forest Ecology and Management. 6: 307-317. [9661]
39. Conover, M. R.; Kania, G. S. 1988. Browsing preference of white-tailed deer for different ornamental species. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16: 175-179. [8933]
40. Craighead, Frank C., Sr. 1971. The trees of south Florida. Vol. 1: The natural environments and their succession. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. 212 p. [17802]
41. Crosby, Gilbert T. 1971. Home range characteristics of the red-cockaded woodpecker in north- central Florida. In: Thompson, Richard L., ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 May 26-27; Folkston, GA. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; Tall Timbers Research Station: 60-73. [18044]
42. Cushwa, Charles T.; Martin, Robert E. 1969. The status of prescribed burning for wildlife management in the Southeast. Proceedings, 34th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. 34: 419-428. [15652]
43. Damman, Antoni W. H.; French, Thomas W. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated northeastern United States: a community profile. Biological Report 85(7.16). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National Wetlands Research Center. 100 p. [9238]
44. Daniel, Francis Leonard. 1978. The fall and winter food habits of the black bear (Ursus americanus) in the Great Dismal Swamp of Virginia. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University. 30 p. Thesis. [21918]
45. Davis, John H., Jr. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida: especially the vegetation, and the Everglades. Geological Bull. No. 25. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, Department of Conservation, Florida Geological Survey. 311 p. [17747]
46. Davison, Kathryn L.; Bratton, Susan P. 1988. Vegetation response and regrowth after fire on Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. Castanea. 53(1): 47-65. [4483]
47. Dirr, Michael A.; Alexander, John H., III. 1991. Ilex glabra--the inkberry holly. Arnoldia. 51(2): 16-22. [38147]
48. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982]
49. Duever, Michael J.; Riopelle, Lawrence A. 1984. Successional patterns and rates on Okefenokee Swamp tree islands. Okefenokee Ecosystem Investigations, Publication No. 29. In: Cohen, A. D.; Casagrande, D. J.; Andrejko, M. J.; Best, G. R., eds. The Okefenokee Swamp: its natural history, geology, and geochemistry. Los Alamos, NM: Wetland Surveys: 112-131. [24030]
50. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1987. The Smithsonian guide to seaside plants of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts from Louisiana to Massachusetts, exclusive of lower peninsular Florida. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 409 p. [12906]
51. Ehrenfeld, Joan G. 1986. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pine Barrens: the role of species composition in community function. The American Midland Naturalist. 115(2): 301-313. [8650]
52. Exum, Jay H.; McGlincy, Joe A.; Speake, Dan W.; [and others]. 1987. Ecology of the eastern wild turkey in an intensively managed pine forest in southern Alabama. Bull. 23. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 70 p. [17990]
53. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
54. Ferguson, Joseph P. 1998. Prescribed fire on the Apalachicola Range District: the shift from dormant season to growing season and effects on wildfire suppression. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1996 May 7-10; Boise, ID. No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 120-126. [35617]
55. Fitzgerald, Susan M.; Tanner, George W. 1992. Avian community response to fire and mechanical shrub control in south Florida. Journal of Range Management. 45(4): 396-400. [18808]
56. Flohrschutz, Eric W. 1978. Dwarf cypress in the Big Cypress Swamp of southwestern Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 163 p. Thesis. [24024]
57. Gaines, E. M.; Campbell, Robert S.; Brasington, J. J. 1954. Forage production on longleaf-slash pine lands of southern Alabama. Ecology. 35(1): 59-62. [34523]
58. Gano, Laura. 1917. A study in physiographic ecology in northern Florida. Botanical Gazette. 63: 337-372. [21989]
59. Garren, Kenneth H. 1943. Effects of fire on vegetation of the southeastern United States. Botanical Review. 9: 617-654. [9517]
60. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
61. Gilliam, Frank S. 1991. The significance of fire in an oligotrophic forest ecosystem. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 113-122. [16641]
62. Gilliam, Frank S.; Christensen, Norman L. 1986. Herb-layer response to burning in pine flatwoods of the lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 113(1): 42-45. [4419]
63. Givens, Kerry T.; Layne, James N.; Abrahamson, Warren G.; White-Schuler, Susan C. 1984. Structural changes and successional relationships of five Florida Lake Wales Ridge plant communities. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 111(1): 8-18. [24193]
64. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
65. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 933 p. [16907]
66. Grelen, Harold E.; Lewis, Clifford E. 1981. Value of range data on fire effects to the wildlife manager. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 155-161. [14822]
67. Gruschow, George F. 1952. Effect of winter burning on growth of slash pine in the Flatwoods. Journal of Forestry. 50(7): 515-517. [34510]
68. Halls, L. K.; Hughes, R. H.; Rummell, R. S.; Southwell, B. L. 1964. Forage and cattle management in longleaf-slash pine forests. Farmers' Bulletin No. 2199. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 25 p. [34700]
69. Halls, L. K.; Southwell, B. L.; Knox, F. E. 1952. Burning and grazing in Coastal Plain forests. Georgia Coastal Plain Bulletin No. 51. Tifton, GA: Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station. 31 p. [15017]
70. Halls, L. K.; Suman, R. F. 1954. Improved forage under southern pines. Journal of Forestry. 52(11): 848-851. [34497]
71. Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1977. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 235 p. [23521]
72. Harding, R. Bruce; Hollis, Charles A. 1993. Growth response of slash pine to intensive drainage and bedding. In: Brissette, John C., ed. Proceedings, 7th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1992 November 17-19; Mobile, AL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-93. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 243-246. [23271]
73. Harlow, Richard F. 1961. Characteristics and status of Florida black bear. Transactions, 26th North American Wildlife Conference. 26: 481-495. [15402]
74. Harms, William R. 1996. An old-growth definition for wet pine forests, woodlands, and savannas. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-2. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 7 p. [27392]
75. Hellgren, Eric C.; Vaughan, Michael R. 1988. Seasonal food habits of black bears in Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia - North Carolina. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 42: 295-305. [19221]
76. Helton, R. Carol; Kirkman, L. Katherine; Musselman, Lytton J. 2000. Host preference of the federally endangered hemiparasite Schwalbea americana L. (Scrophulariaceae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(4): 300-306. [38220]
77. Hendrickson, William H. 1972. Perspective on fire and ecosystems in the United States. In: Fire in the environment: Symposium proceedings; 1972 May 1-5; Denver, CO. FS-276. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 29-33. In cooperation with: Fire Services of Canada, Mexico, and the United States; Members of the Fire Management Study Group; North American Forestry Commission; FAO. [17276]
78. Heyward, Frank. 1938. Soil temperatures during forest fires in the longleaf pine region. Journal of Forestry. 36: 478-491. [12026]
79. Heyward, Frank. 1939. Some moisture relationships of soils from burned and unburned longleaf pine forests. Soil Science. 47: 313-324. [18490]
80. Heyward, Frank. 1939. The relation of fire to stand composition of longleaf pine forests. Ecology. 20(2): 287-304. [18492]
81. Heyward, Frank; Barnette, R. M. 1934. Effect of frequent fires on chemical composition of forest soils in the longleaf pine region. Tech. Bull. 265. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p. [10390]
82. Hilmon, J. B.; Hughes, R. H. 1965. Fire and forage in the wiregrass type. Journal of Range Management. 18: 251-254. [13858]
83. Hilmon, Junior Bristo. 1968. Autecology of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens (Bartr. Small). Durham, NC: Duke University. 190 p. Dissertation. [15278]
84. Hough, W. A. 1965. Palmetto and gallberry regrowth following a winter prescribed burn. Georgia Forest Research Paper 31. Macon, GA: Georgia Forest Research Council. 5 p. [38189]
85. Hough, W. A. 1968. Fuel consumption and fire behavior of hazard reduction burns. Res. Pap. SE-36. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [35366]
86. Hough, W. A.; Albini, F. A. 1978. Predicting fire behavior in palmetto-gallberry fuel complexes. Res. Pap. SE-174. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 44 p. [20764]
87. Hough, Walter A. 1968. Carbohydrate reserves of saw-palmetto: seasonal variation and effects of burning. Forest Science. 14(4): 399-405. [34834]
88. Hough, Walter A. 1969. Caloric value of some forest fuels of the southern United States. Res. Note SE-120. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. [10517]
89. Hough, Walter A. 1981. Impact of prescribed fire on understory and forest floor nutrients. Res. Note SE-303. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. [11945]
90. Hough, Walter A. 1982. Phytomass and nutrients in the understory and forest floor of slash/longleaf pine stands. Forest Science. 28(2): 359-372. [38165]
91. Huffman, Jean M.; Blanchard, S. W. 1991. Changes in woody vegetation in Florida dry prairie and wetlands during a period of fire exclusion, and after dry-growing-season fire. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 75-83. [16636]
92. Hughes, Ralph H. 1957. Response of cane to burning in the North Carolina coastal plain. Bulletin No. 402. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 p. [34716]
93. Hughes, Ralph H. 1964. Some observations on germination of gallberry seed. Research Note SE-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p. [38200]
94. Hughes, Ralph H.; Dillard, Emmett U.; Hilmon, J. B. 1960. Vegetation and cattle response under two systems of grazing cane range in North Carolina. Bulletin 412. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 27 p. [36651]
95. Hughes, Ralph H.; Knox, Frank E. 1964. Response of gallberry to seasonal burning. Res. Note SE-21. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p. [13839]
96. Johansen, R. W. 1975. Prescribed burning may enhance growth of young slash pine. Journal of Forestry. 73: 148-149. [12018]
97. Johansen, R. W. 1984. Prescribed burning with spot fires in the Georgia coastal plain. Georgia Forest Research Paper 49. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Forestry Commission, Research Division. 7 p. [19253]
98. Johnson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 1978. Fruit production in slash pine plantations in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3): 606-613. [9855]
99. Johnson, Mark K. 1987. Inventory of mammals and birds on Bigfoot and Airey grazing allotments of the Desoto National Forest, Mississippi. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic relationships within southern national forests: Proceedings, Southern Evaluation Project Workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Longbeach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 166-170. [14731]
100. Johnson, Randall C.; Causey, M. Keith. 1982. Use of longleaf pine stands by woodcock in southern Alabama following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, 7th woodcock symposium; 1980 October 28-30; University Park, PA. Research Report O (14). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 120-125. [16940]
101. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]
102. Killinger, G. B. 1948. Effect of burning and fertilization of wire grass on pasture establishment. American Society of Agronomy. 40(5): 381-384. [36662]
103. Kirkman, Katherine L.; Drew, Mark B.; West, L. T.; Blood, E. R. 1998. Ecotone characterization between upland longleaf pine/wiregrass stands and seasonally-ponded isolated wetlands. Wetlands. 18(3): 346-364. [30110]
104. Kirkman, W. Benson; Wentworth, Thomas R.; Ballington, James R. 1989. The ecology and phytosociology of the creeping blueberries, Vaccinium section Herpothamnus. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 116(2): 114-133. [9645]
105. Kologiski, Russell L. 1977. The phytosociology of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Tech. Bull. No. 250. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 101 p. [18348]
106. Komarek, E. V. 1974. Effects of fire on temperate forests and related ecosystems: southeastern United States. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 251-277. [10167]
107. Komarek, E. V. 1983. Fire as an anthropogenic factor in vegetation ecology. In: Holzner, W.; Werger, M. J. A.; Ikusima, I., eds. Man's impact on vegetation. Boston, MA: Dr W. Junk Publishers: 77-82. [15273]
108. Kossuth, Susan V.; Michael, J. L. 1990. Pinus glabra Walt. spruce pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 355-358. [13195]
109. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]
110. Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S.; Boyer, William D. 1999. Understory plant community response after 23 years of hardwood control treatments in natural longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29: 1047-1054. [31124]
111. Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19-27. [11562]
112. Landers, J. Larry; Speake, Dan W. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeast Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 34: 515-529. [21092]
113. Langdon, O. Gordon. 1981. Some effects of prescribed fire on understory vegetation in loblolly pine stands. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 143-153. [14821]
114. Laycock, William A. 1967. Distribution of roots and rhizomes in different soil types in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. Geological Survey Professional Paper 563-C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 29 p. [22934]
115. Lemon, Paul C. 1949. Successional responses of herbs in the longleaf-slash pine forest after fire. Ecology. 30(2): 135-145. [10133]
116. Lemon, Paul Clipfell. 1943. Effects of fire on the herbaceous and shrubby vegetation of the southeastern coastal plain. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 92 p. Dissertation. [35777]
117. Lewis, Clifford E.; Harshbarger, Thomas J. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation after 20 years of prescribed burning in the South Carolina coastal plain. Journal of Range Management. 29(1): 13-18. [7621]
118. Lewis, Clifford E.; Harshbarger, Thomas J. 1986. Burning and grazing effects on bobwhite foods in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14: 455-459. [11952]
119. Lewis, Clifford E.; Hart, Richard H. 1972. Some herbage responses to fire on pine-wiregrass range. Journal of Range Management. 25(3): 209-213. [12017]
120. Little, Silas; Garrett, Peter W. 1990. Pinus rigida Mill. pitch pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 456-462. [13405]
121. Lotti, Thomas; Klawitter, Ralph A.; LeGrande, W. P. 1960. Prescribed burning for understory control in loblolly pine stands of the coastal plain. Station Pap. No. 116. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 19 p. [15417]
122. Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Information Mapping Center. 1999. Maine Natural Areas Program: Official list of endangered and threatened plants in Maine, [Online]. Available: Http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mnap/factsheets/snameindex.htm [2001, October 11]. [38218]
123. McArthur, E. Durant. 1989. Breeding systems in shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.: 341-361. [8039]
124. McCormick, Jack; Buell, Murray F. 1968. The Plains: pigmy forests of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, a review and annotated bibliography. New Jersey Academy of Sciences Bulletin. 13: 20-34. [11611]
125. McKee, William H. 1982. Changes in soil fertility following prescribed burning on Coastal Plain pine sites. Res. Pap. SE-234. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p. [11854]
126. McKevlin, Martha R. 1996. An old-growth definition for evergreen bay forests and related seral communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-3. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 14 p. [29709]
127. McKinley, Carol E.; Day, Frank P., Jr. 1979. Herb. prod. in cut-burned, uncut-burned & contl areas of a Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) BSP (Cupressaceae) stand in the Great Dismal Swamp. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(1): 20-28. [14089]
128. McMinn, James W. 1981. Site preparation for natural regeneration of slash pine. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(1): 10-12. [10142]
129. McNab, W. Henry; Edwards, M. Boyd, Jr.; Hough, Walter A. 1978. Estimating fuel weights in slash pine-palmetto stands. Forest Science. 24(3): 345-358. [20762]
130. Menges, E. S.; Abrahamson, W. G.; Givens, K. T.; [and others]. 1993. Twenty years of vegetation change in five long-unburned Florida plant communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 4: 375-386. [22618]
131. Metz, Louis J.; Lotti, Thomas; Klawitter, Ralph A. 1961. Some effects of prescribed burning on Coastal Plain forest soil. Stn. Pap. 133. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p. [11848]
132. Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce R.; Zedaker, Shepard M.; [and others]. 1995. Early plant succession in loblolly pine plantations as affected by vegetation management. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 19(3): 109-126. [25935]
133. Monk, Carl D. 1965. Southern mixed hardwood forest of north-central Florida. Ecological Monographs. 35: 335-354. [9263]
134. Monk, Carl D.; Brown, Timothy W. 1965. Ecological consideration of cypress heads in north-central Florida. The American Midland Naturalist. 74: 126-140. [10848]
135. Moore, Julie H.; Carter, J. H., III. 1987. Habitats of white cedar in North Carolina. In: Laderman, Aimlee D., ed. Atlantic white cedar wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: Westview Press: 177-190. [15877]
136. Moore, William H.; Swindel, Benee F. 1981. Effects of site preparation on dry prairie vegetation in south Florida. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(2): 89-92. [10224]
137. Moore, William H.; Swindel, Benee F.; Terry, W. Stephen. 1982. Vegetative response to prescribed fire in a north Florida flatwoods forest. Journal of Range Management. 35(3): 386-389. [9783]
138. Motzkin, Glenn; Patterson, William A., III; Drake, Natalie E. R. 1993. Fire history and vegetation dynamics of a Chamaecyparis thyoides wetland on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Journal of Ecology. 81: 391-402. [22885]
139. Mulvania, M. 1931. Ecological survey of a Florida scrub. Ecology. 12(3): 528-540. [9992]
140. Murray, Robert W.; Frye, O. E., Jr. 1964. The bobwhite quail and its management in Florida. 2d ed. Game Publ. No. 2. [Place of publication unknown]: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 55 p. [15421]
141. Myers, Ronald L. 2000. Fire in tropical and subtropical ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161-173. [36985]
142. Neary, D. G. 1988. Effect of gallberry on early slash and loblolly pine growth. In: Environmental legislation and its effects on weed science; 1988 January 18-20; Tulsa, OK. In: Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society 41st annual meeting. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society; 41: 251-255. [38191]
143. Neary, D. G.; Rockwood, D. L.; Comerford, N. B.; [and others]. 1990. Importance of weed control, fertilization, irrigation, and genetics in slash and loblolly pine early growth of poorly drained spodosols. Forest Ecology and Management. 30: 271-281. [11876]
144. Noss, Reed F. 1988. The longleaf pine landscape of the Southeast: almost gone and almost forgotten. Endangered Species UPDATE. 5(5): 1-5. [17077]
145. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
146. Pearson, Henry A.; Lohoefener, Renne R.; Wolfe, James L. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles on longleaf-slash pine forests in southern Mississippi. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic relationships within southern national forests: Proceedings, Southern Evaluation Project Workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Longbeach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 157-165. [14733]
147. Pehl, Charles E.; Red, Jane T.; Shelnutt, Henry E. 1986. Controlled burning and land treatment influences on chemical properties of a forest soil. Forest Ecology and Management. 17: 119-128. [11946]
148. Penfound, William T. 1952. Southern swamps and marshes. The Botanical Review. 18: 413-446. [11477]
149. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. 2001. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory: plants, [Online]. Available: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/pndi/fullplants.asp [2003, January24]. [38219]
150. Permar, T. A.; Fisher, R. F. 1983. Nitrogen fixation and accretion by wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Forest Ecology and Management. 5: 39-46. [15006]
151. Plocher, Allen E. 1999. Plant population dynamics in response to fire in longleaf pine - turkey oak barrens and adjacent wetter communities in southeast Virginia. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126(3): 213-225. [30894]
152. Priester, David S. 1990. Magnolia virginiana L. sweetbay. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 449-454. [16258]
153. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
154. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
155. Redmond, Ann M. 1984. Population ecology of Taxus floridana (Nutt.), a dioecious, understory tree. Tallahassee, FL: The Florida State University. 47 p. Thesis. [22427]
156. Richardson, Curtis J. 1983. Pocosins: vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands? Bioscience. 33(10): 626-633. [13818]
157. Richardson, Curtis J.; Gibbons, J. Whitfield. 1993. Pocosins, Carolina bays, and mountain bogs. In: Martin, William H.; Boyce, Stephen G.; Echternacht, Arthur C., eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Lowland terrestrial communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 257-311. [22013]
158. Richardson, Donald Robert. 1977. Vegetation of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge of Palm Beach County, Florida. Florida Scientist. 40(4): 281-330. [9644]
159. Riebold, R. J. 1955. Summer burns for hardwoods control in loblolly pine. Fire Control Notes. 16(1): 34-35. [11602]
160. Ripley, Thomas H.; Wilhite, Lawrence P.; Downing, Robert L.; Harlow, Richard F. 1965. Game food plants in slash-longleaf flatwoods. In: 16th Annual Conference of Game and Fish Commissioners. 1962: 35-44. [24050]
161. Robbins, Louise E.; Myers, Ronald L. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning in Florida: a review. Misc. Publ. No. 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc. 96 p. [21094]
162. Robinson, Andrew F., Jr. 1978. Possible impacts of silvicultural activities on proposed endangered and threatened plant species of pine flatwoods. In: Balmer, William E., ed. Proceedings, soil moisture...site productivity symposium; 1977 November 1-3; Myrtle Beach, SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry: 336-342. [4270]
163. Rogers, Janice M.; Susott, Ronald A.; Kelsey, Rick G. 1986. Chemical composition of forest fuels affecting their thermal behavior. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16(4): 721-726. [13260]
164. Roland, A. E. 1991. Coastal-plain plants in inland Nova Scotia. Rhodora. 93(875): 291-298. [16490]
165. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]
166. Rundel, Philip W. 1981. Structural and chemical components of flammability. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 183-207. [4393]
167. Sackett, Stephen S. 1968. A field trial for regulating prescribed fire intensities. Fire Control Notes. 29(3): 5-6. [12024]
168. Sackett, Stephen S. 1975. Scheduling prescribed burns for hazard reduction in the southeast. Journal of Forestry. 73(3): 143-147. [11856]
169. Sackett, Stephen S.; Cooper, Robert W. 1971. The role of fire in a managed forest. In: Planning for fire management: Proceedings, Southwester Interagency Fire Council; [Date unknown]; [Location unknown]. [Publisher unknown]: 74-82. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [21474]
170. Schlesinger, William H. 1978. Community structure, dynamics and nutrient cycling in the Okefenokee cypress swamp-forest. Ecological Monographs. 48(1): 43-65. [24203]
171. Schlesinger, William H. 1978. On the relative dominance of shrubs in Okefenokee Swamp. The American Naturalist. 112(987): 949-954. [15360]
172. Schmalzer, Paul A.; Hinkle, C. Ross. 1992. Recovery of oak-saw palmetto scrub after fire. Castanea. 57(3): 158-173. [19718]
173. Schmalzer, Paul A.; Hinkle, C. Ross. 1992. Species composition and structure of oak-saw palmetto scrub vegetation. Castanea. 57(4): 220-251. [21018]
174. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
175. Shafizadeh, Fred; Chin, Peter P. S.; DeGroot, William F. 1977. Effective heat content of green forest fuels. Forest Science. 23(1): 81-89. [7353]
176. Sharitz, Rebecca R.; Gibbons, J. Whitfield. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. FWS/OBS-82/04. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services. 93 p. [17015]
177. Shea, Stephen M.; Flynn, Les B.; Marchinton, R. Larry; Lewis, James C. 1990. Part 2. Social behavior, movement ecology, and food habits. In: Ecology of Sambar deer on St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Bull. No. 25. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 13-62. [17995]
178. Shepherd, W. O.; Dillard, E. U.; Lucas, H. L. 1951. Grazing and fire influences in pond pine forests. Tech. Bull. No. 97. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. [14546]
179. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
180. Shiver, Barry D.; Knowe, Steven A.; Edwards, M. Boyd; Kline, William N. 1991. Comparison of herbicide treatments for controlling common coastal plain flatwoods species. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(4): 187-193. [17530]
181. Snyder, James R.; Herndon, Alan; Robertson, William B., Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel, John J., eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press: 230-274. [17391]
182. Stephenson, S. N. 1965. Vegetation change in the pine barrens of New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 92(2): 102-114. [22903]
183. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]
184. Stout, I. Jack; Marion, Wayne R. 1993. Pine flatwoods and xeric pine forests of the southern (lower) Coastal Plain. In: Martin, William H.; Boyce, Stephen G.; Echternacht, Arthur C., eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Lowland terrestrial communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 373-446. [22015]
185. Strang, R. M. 1971. The ecology of the rocky heathlands of western Nova Scotia. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1970 August 20-21; Fredericton, NB. No. 10. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 287-292. [5466]
186. Strang, R. M. 1972. Ecology and land use of the barrens of western Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2: 276-290. [21381]
187. Stransky, John J.; Harlow, Richard F. 1981. Effects of fire on deer habitat in the Southeast. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 135-142. [14820]
188. Tanner, George W. 1987. Soils and vegetation of the longleaf/slash pine forest type, Apalachicola National Forest, Florida. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic relationships within southern National Forests; 1987 May 26-27; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 186-200. [10173]
189. Terry, Steve W.; White, Larry D. 1979. Southern wax-myrtle response following winter prescribed burning in south Florida. Journal of Range Management. 32(4): 326-327. [10043]
190. Tucker, James W., Jr.; Hill, Geoffrey E.; Holler, Nicholas R. 1998. Managing mid-rotation pine plantations to enhance Bachman's sparrow habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(2): 342-348. [31145]
191. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. PLANTS database (2005), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]
192. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior; Range Seeding Equipment Committee. 1959. Handbook: Chemical control of range weeds. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 93 p. [12129]
193. Varner, J. Morgan, III; Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S. 2000. Ecological restoration of an old-growth longleaf pine stand utilizing prescribed fire. In: Moser, W. Keith; Moser, Cynthia F., eds. Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management: Proceedings of the 21st Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: an international symposium; 1998 April 14-16; Tallahassee, FL. No. 21. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc: 216-219. [37671]
194. Vince, Susan W.; Humphrey, Stephen R.; Simons, Robert W. 1989. The ecology of hydric hammocks: A community profile. Biological Rep. 85(7.26). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development. 82 p. [17976]
195. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. [36983]
196. Wade, Dale D.; Langdon, O. Gordon. 1990. Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd. ex J. A. & J. H. Schult. cabbage palmetto. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 762-767. [13806]
197. Wade, Dale P.; Wilhite, Lawrence P. 1981. Low intensity burn prior to bedding and planting slash pine is of little value. In: Barnett, James P., ed. Proceedings, 1st biennial southern silviculture research conference; 1980 November 6-7; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 70-74. [7332]
198. Wade, Dale; Custer, George; Thorsen, Jim; [and others]. 1998. Reintroduction of fire into fire-dependent ecosystems: some southern examples. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1996 May 7-10; Boise, ID. No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 94-101. [35609]
199. Wahlenberg, W. G.; Greene, S. W.; Reed, H. R. 1939. Effects of fire and cattle grazing on longleaf pine lands, as studied at McNeill, Mississippi. Tech. Bull. No. 683. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 52 p. [13795]
200. Ward, Darold E. 1983. Particulate matter emissions for fires in the palmetto-gallberry fuel type. Forest Science. 29(4): 761-770. [12273]
201. Wells, B. W. 1928. Plant communities of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and their successional relations. Ecology. 9(2): 230-242. [9307]
202. Wilhite, L. P.; Toliver, J. R. 1990. Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. baldcypress. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 563-572. [13416]
203. Wolfe, James L.; Lohoefener, Ren. 1983. The small mammal fauna of a longleaf-slash pine forest in southern Mississippi. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences. 28(5): 37-47. [12275]
204. Wolters, Gale L.; Schmidtling, Ronald C. 1975. Browse and herbage in intensively managed pine plantations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 557-562. [38167]
205. Wood, John M.; Tanner, George W. 1985. Browse quality response to forest fertilization and soils in Florida. Journal of Range Management. 38(5): 432-435. [12636]
206. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Temperature and heat effects. In: Fire Ecology. United States and Southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons: chapter 2. [18417]
207. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central Florida. Tampa, FL: University Presses of Florida, University of South Florida. 472 p. [13125]
208. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 806 p. [28655]
209. Yahr, Rebecca; Menges, Eric S.; Berry, Dawn. 2000. Effects of drainage, fire exclusion, and time-since-last fire on endemic cutthroat grass communities in central Florida. Natural Areas Journal. 20(1): 3-11. [36481]
210. Zotek, Frank. 1966. Prescribed burning on the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. In: Proceedings, 5th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1966 March 24-25; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 195-201. [18926]


text:
5 insights from Jobvite's 2018 Recruiter Nation Study
The new year brings new plans, new goals, and new habits for many of us, on both a personal and professional level. Talent acquisition leaders in the new year have a unique opportunity to learn from the past, and make conscious changes to improve recruiting strategies and outcomes.
We took a deep dive into the findings of Jobvite's 2018 Recruiter Nation Study, which collected insights from 850 hiring professionals, and pulled out some of the most interesting revelations. This is a look at where recruiting has been over the past year, and where talent acquisition leaders need to focus in order to move forward.
The competition is heating up
Today's labor market is a challenging one, without a doubt. In 2018, there were more open positions than available candidates. According to BLS, there were 6.3 million unemployed persons versus 6.9 million open jobs in July 2018. This new reality also means recruiters will face stiff competition for top talent. Jobvite's survey revealed that 74 percent of recruiters predicted recruiting will be more competitive in next 12 months.
In a candidate-driven market like this, recruiters need a more strategic approach than ever. The increased competition for qualified candidates may prompt some recruiters to be less picky about candidates in order to fill their openings, but lowering screening standards won't lead to better hires. AI-powered tools like a recruiting chatbot can help employers attract more qualified candidates.
Time to invest in employer brand
If your organization wants to compete for top talent, building and maintaining a strong employer brand should be top of mind. After all, a majority (75 percent) of job seekers consider a company's reputation before they even apply. When the openings outnumber the candidates, it's particularly important to have your employer brand working for you to attract the candidates you want to talk to.
Recruiters who responded to Jobvite's survey listed three top ways to grow an employer brand, including investments in social media (47 percent), company career website (21 percent), and marketing and advertising (12 percent). Another way to strengthen an employer brand is by using a recruiting chatbot to create a better candidate experience and set your company apart from the competition.
Soft skills are nearly as important as job experience, sort of
On one hand, recruiters are now ranking communication skills nearly as important as experience in initial in-person interviews (49 percent and 55 percent, respectively). But that emphasis doesn't seem to hold. Compared to 2017, recruiters report that the need for strong conversational skills and enthusiasm has decreased by more than 20 percent across the board. And perhaps this is why business leaders say that communication skills are the top skills gap in America.
Evaluating a candidate's soft skills and overall fit for a position is one of the best ways to improve the quality of hires and predict future employee performance. Fortunately, conversational recruiting affords recruiters an effective method for assessing candidates. Using these techniques can help recruiters determine a candidate's communication skills, problem-solving ability, and emotional intelligence level.
Recruiters of different genders have different biases
Jobvite found that a majority (60 percent) of recruiters believe implicit bias is a real problem in the workforce, and some of those biases were revealed in correlation to the gender of the recruiter. The findings suggest that male and female recruiters have different priorities and deal breakers, which could lead to different determinations on the same candidate pool. Female recruiters are more likely to be impressed by past experience (60 percent) than male recruiters (45 percent), and culture fit (41 percent vs 20 percent). Male recruiters were also more likely to give candidates a pass for being under the influence or hungover, reporting that they would disqualify those candidates around 20 percent less often as female recruiters.
Employers must take an active role in combating implicit bias, and it starts on the frontlines of your recruiting team. Following a standardized process and using structured interviews can help ferret out bias that is interfering with your recruiting goals.
Diversity recruiting still a missed opportunity
Despite all the high-profile conversations on a national scale about the importance of diversity in the workplace, Jobvite found that only 30 percent of recruiters have a recruiting strategy to improve racial diversity. And the proportion is the same for gender diversity. Without intentional goals—and the strategies to achieve those goals—employers will never conquer the challenges of diversity hiring.
Using unique sourcing techniques can help recruiters target hard-to-find candidates, and there are plenty of other ways to actively improve diversity in your hiring practices, and across your organization as well, and many of them are remarkably simple.
Looking forward to the future of recruiting
As you digest the figures from 2018 and think about how 2019 will be different, keep in mind that even small changes in your recruiting strategies can have a big impact. Talk with your team about how to address the practices that are standing between you and your ideal hires, and consider investing in tools to help you carry out your vision.
For more about how chat is helping recruiters hire top talent faster, check out our Recruiting Chatbot Revolution eBook below:
P.S. Can we send you an email with our awesome talent acquisition content every week or so?
We won't overwhelm you and we'll make it easy for you to unsubscribe if you ever choose to do so.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We all celebrate April 20th or 4/20. It comes once a year and it's our national stoner holiday. But guess what? We've got another one! With the rise in popularity of "dabs," high-THC concentrates and oils, July 10th has grown in popularity as our new, secondary stoner holiday.
Why? If you turn the number 710 (or July 10th) upside down, the word "OIL" is spelled out. A strong consensus is building within in our community that the date July 10th should …More


text:
- salmon
- draftOFA17
- diving-in
- Beach closures
- bga
- About Us
- Mission
- Management Plan
- Staff Directory
- Committees
- Partners
- Meetings
- Careers
- Grants & RFPs
- Contact Us
- Sitemap
- About the Basin
- Water & Environment
- Water Quality
- Nutrients
- Stormwater
- Flooding
- Human Health
- Ecosystem Health
- Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)
- Climate Change
- Data & Monitoring
- Water Quality
- Culture & Recreation
- Education
- Programs
- Education Materials
- Resource Room
- Kid's Page
- Helpful Links
- Stewardship Resource Library
- Media Center
- Get Involved
The Lake Champlain Basin Program's efforts are guided by the Lake Champlain Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is advised by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), an Education and Outreach Advisory Committee, a Heritage Area Program Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committees in New York, Vermont, and Québec. Committee meetings are open to the public; view the LCBP Meetings schedule and list of LCBP Committee members.
Lake Champlain Steering Committee
The Steering Committee serves as forum for information exchange and a mechanism to coordinate state and provincial policies and programs. Created by the Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation on the Management of Lake Champlain in 1988, it is the only formal, international, tri-party, government-based institution currently focused on Lake Champlain. More
Citizens Advisory Committees
The Citizens Advisory Committees (CACs) in New York, Québec, and Vermont were initially created by the Steering Committee. The CACs make recommendations on the condition and management of Lake Champlain to the Steering Committee. More
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is composed of professionals from academia, management agencies, and others. The TAC was appointed by the Steering Committee. More
Heritage Area Program Advisory Committee
The Heritage Area Program Advisory Committee (HAPAC) was established to provide implementation advice to the LCBP Steering Committee and staff on cultural heritage and recreation matters. More
Education and Outreach Committee
The Education and Outreach Committee is comprised of professionals from educational institutions, representatives of partner agencies and organizations, and members of the Citizens Advisory Committees (CACs). More


text:
What is Uber LUX?
UberX - UberBLACK - UberSELECT - UberXL - UberSUV - UberLUX
UberLUX is the most luxurious, high-end car service that Uber has to offer; it's the cream of the crop.
When it comes to arriving in style, you've got a few options. There's UberBLACK which will pick you (and up to 3 friends) up in a high end sedan, UberSUV which will pick you (and up to 5 friends) up in a luxury SUV, and UberLUX which will take you to your destination in an exotic car - driven by a top rated driver.
Vehicle Requirements
- 2012* or newer top-tier luxury vehicle (slightly varies by city)
- Carry at least 4 passengers and have 4+ doors
- Leather/vegan leather interior and otherwise in immaculate condition
- Must have at least 5 properly functioning seat belts
- Drivers must be 21+ years old (with at least 3 years of U.S. driving history)
UberLUX Car List example
When requesting a LUX, you can expect to be picked up in a car similar to the ones listed below:
- Porsche Cayenne
- Mercedes Benz GL/E/S/M Class
- Audi A6/A7/A8
- Jaguar XJ
- Lexus LS/GS/GX/RX
- Range Rover
- Tesla Model S
- 7-Series BMW
- Porsche Panamera
- Infiniti XF
- Audi Q5/Q7/S7/S8
- Maserati Ghibli
- All 4-door Bentley's
- All 4-door Rolls Royce's
Note: Not all cars are listed above! This is just to give you a rough idea.
Have you tried UberLUX? How would you rate it as a car service?
rated 3.4/5 by 2980 people
After being founded in 2010 by Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick, Uber took off like wildfire and has since been adopted in over 678 cities within 78 countries around the world. No sure how this all works? Learn more about Uber


text:
Please be aware Australia Post are currently experiencing delays in parcel delivery times
Promotions, new products and sales. Directly to your inbox without the spam, pinky promise x
Use this popup to embed a mailing list sign up form. Alternatively use it as a simple call to action with a link to a product or a page.
By clicking enter you are verifying that you are old enough to consume alcohol.