Importance to Livestock and Wildlife
Redosier dogwood provides important food and cover for many mammals and birds . Moose, elk, deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, beavers, and rabbits commonly browse redosier dogwood stems [23,26,27,235,313]. Bears, small mammals, and birds consume redosier dogwood fruits and seeds [138,313]. Livestock also utilize redosier dogwood [100,137]. In Montana, redosier dogwood is referred to as an "ice cream" plant for wildlife and livestock . New shoot growth is an important food source, especially for moose and deer . Twigs have also been referred to as preferred, extremely important, and highly valuable winter browse [197,235,312]. Fruits are consumed in the summer and fall [164,247]. A gardening guide reports that redosier dogwood fruits are eaten by 47 different bird species . Redosier dogwood shrubs are also important nesting habitat and summer cover [164,247].
Use of red-osier dogwood for food, cover, and/or nesting by a variety of wildlife and livestock species is discussed in the reviewed literature (as of 2012). The discussion that follows does not likely capture the true variety and extent of redosier dogwood use by wildlife and livestock.
Ungulates: Nearly throughout its range, redosier dogwood is browsed by a variety of ungulates. Redosier dogwood was considered highly important browse for mountain goats, elk, and moose in British Columbia (review by ). In the Glacier Park area of northwestern Montana, redosier dogwood received high levels of use by moose and elk in the winter and by white-tailed deer in winter and summer [130,274]. On a 2-year-old burned site in the boreal forest region northwest of Ely, Minnesota, moose browsed redosier dogwood in October and white-tailed deer browsed it in May and April .
Moose: Redosier dogwood has been reported as an important food for moose throughout much of the temperate North American region. Winter use was most commonly reported but fall, spring, and summer use also occurred [74,222,297].
In the western United States, moose utilization of redosier dogwood can be extensive. In an area of southwestern Montana receiving concentrated moose use in the winter, "virtually all" of the current year's growth of redosier dogwood was removed in each of 4 years of observations . On the north slope of the Gallatin Range, redosier dogwood was heavily browsed by moose in winter and remained important browse into the spring . In logged areas of the Yaak River drainage, moose frequently browsed redosier dogwood . In Fremont County, Idaho, moose fed on redosier dogwood. Moose diets did not contain a great abundance of redosier dogwood but only because of its sparse distribution in the study area . In Jackson Hole, Wyoming, use of redosier dogwood by moose was so extensive that the researcher suggested it may be eliminated from the winter range. Redosier dogwood stems were "virtually cleaned out long before the winter got underway" . In another study of the Jackson Hole area, moose use of redosier dogwood was sometimes as much as 15% of the total feeding observations. On winter range, 40% to 58% of redosier dogwood shrubs were severely browsed between 1964 and 1966 . In the Snowy Range of Wyoming, however, redosier dogwood was seldom recovered from moose feces although it occurred within the quaking aspen stands interspersed in the study area's predominantly coniferous forests .
Redosier dogwood was important moose browse in Canada and the Great Lakes region. Contents of moose rumen samples collected from southeastern Manitoba in early winter indicated heavy use of redosier dogwood, which occurred in 82.6% of all rumens. Among the 25 taxa identified in the rumen samples, redosier dogwood was considered most important, and field observations revealed that redosier dogwood shrubs were heavily browsed . In northern Ontario, an average of 53% of redosier dogwood stems was browsed by moose in studies between 1955 and 1970 . In clearcut boreal forest sites in the northwestern part of the province, redosier dogwood was 1 of the 4 most heavily browsed species and 1 of just 2 preferred species in the winter . In the northeastern part of Ontario, redosier dogwood was important browse for cow-calf moose on sites logged 1 to 40 years earlier. Of the available redosier dogwood stems, more than half (56.6%) were removed in early winter and a little less than half (46.5%) were removed in late winter . On Isle Royale, Michigan, redosier dogwood has been described as a "favorite" summer and a "relished" winter moose food. Redosier dogwood plants that are not heavily browsed were rare, and stunted growth forms were common because of heavy browsing . In other studies of moose on Isle Royale, redosier dogwood made up a high of 25.6% and a low of 5.3% of moose diets ; use typically exceeded availability .
Elk: Use of redosier dogwood by elk was reported in Idaho, Montana, Manitoba, and Ontario [80,108,239,256]. On the Selway Game Preserve in Idaho County, redosier dogwood was considered highly palatable to elk, but because of its rarity in the study area, relative importance in elk diets was low . Along the Flathead River in western Montana, elk utilized redosier dogwood heavily in the winter. It was one of the shrub species that was still accessible in deep snow on the 418,000-acre (169,000 ha) winter range, which supported about 2,600 elk . Elk browsed redosier dogwood significantly more than other available browse (P<0.05) when all transects were combined for the study area in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba . In mixed-forest habitats in east-central Ontario, a reintroduced elk population selected dogwood (redosier dogwood and roundleaf dogwood) more than expected based on availability .
Deer: Mule deer and white-tailed deer use of redosier dogwood can be extensive in the summer and winter. A review indicates moderate use of redosier dogwood by mule deer in the fall and winter and heavy use in the summer . In Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta, redosier dogwood was preferred winter deer browse . In captive feeding trials, redosier dogwood was important browse for mule deer browse through the summer and was consumed more in August and September than in June and July. Overall, redosier dogwood was the 2nd most preferred browse species in about 30 total browse species. Browse for the feeding trials was collected near Logan, Utah .
Redosier dogwood is considered important white-tailed deer browse from Montana to Michigan and Quebec. In the Missouri River breaks area of Montana, white-tailed deer ate redosier dogwood most often in summer, little in fall, and not at all in spring or winter . In the Sun River Area of west-central Montana, redosier dogwood received 18% of the instances of browse use by white-tailed deer along rivers and in seep habitats . However, in coniferous forests in the Upper Swan Valley, redosier dogwood made up a small portion of winter white-tailed deer diets (high of 0.3% in January) . When availability and use of browse species were compared in the Black Hills of South Dakota, redosier dogwood ranked as highly palatable to white-tailed deer from January to March and July to September . At 3 sites in northeastern Minnesota, use of redosier dogwood exceeded its availability in early winter and approximated its availability in late winter . In a 2-year study in Louis and Lake counties in southeastern Minnesota, redosier dogwood was utilized "intensively" in heavily populated winter range and was selected more than expected based on availability in the early summer . At the Mud Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, redosier dogwood was considered the most highly preferred winter browse species by white-tailed deer, and its use increased as winter progressed . In the Rigaud white-tailed deer yard in southwestern Quebec, winter use of redosier dogwood ranged from 61% to 78% over 3 years. At the end of March, redosier dogwood was avoided . In Wilderness State Park, Michigan, white-tailed deer browsed redosier dogwood heavily in the winter .
Bighorn sheep: In Canadian National Parks, redosier dogwood was utilized heavily in midsummer by bighorn sheep .
Other mammals: Redosier dogwood fruits and stems are an important food source for bears and several small mammals.
Bears: Black bears from California to Newfoundland and grizzly bears eat redosier dogwood fruits. A review of grizzly bear food items from the northern Rocky Mountains and southern British Columbia ranked redosier dogwood fruits as moderately used food items . In the Kimsquit River Valley, coastal British Columbia, scat analyses and observations from feeding sites indicated that redosier dogwood berries were eaten by grizzly bears but were not 1 of the 6 food items making up the bulk of diets . In northwestern Montana, thinleaf huckleberry is a preferred late summer-early fall food for grizzly bears. On the North Fork of the Flathead River, redosier dogwood was commonly consumed as an alternative food when huckleberry crops failed . From grizzly and black bear scat collected in Glacier National Park, the frequency and volume of redosier dogwood was 1.12% and 0.54%, respectively . In another study in northwestern Montana, grizzly bear use of redosier dogwood was reported as 5.7% (Husby and others 1977 cited in ). Redosier dogwood fruits were recovered from black bear scat collected in Sequoia National Park, California. From a total of 555 scat collections, the frequency and volume of redosier dogwood averaged 2% and 0.7%, respectively. Maximum frequency and volume came from scat collected between 20 July to 16 August was 11% and 3.2%, respectively. Redosier dogwood did not occur in scat collected earlier than 20 July . In north-central Minnesota, redosier dogwood was "regularly" found in black bear scat . Frequency of redosier dogwood in black bear scat collected in late summer from Gaspésie Park, eastern Quebec, was 33% . In Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland, redosier dogwood was not recovered from bear stomachs or scat collected in spring or early summer, but ranged from 0% to 15.6% of the contents in the late summer-fall season after 3 years of collections .
Small mammals: A variety of small mammals feed on redosier dogwood stems and fruits. Redosier dogwood was listed among plants most commonly taken by beavers in Nevada (Scheffer 1941 cited in ), and in North Dakota it was considered a major winter food source for beavers (Hammond 1943 cited in ). In north-central Minnesota, snowshoe hares browsed more than 20% of available redosier dogwood stems , and near Syracuse, New York, cottontail rabbits fed extensively on small branches and shoots of redosier dogwood in the winter . Redosier dogwood was among the materials found in bushy-tailed woodrat food caches in California (review by ). Redosier dogwood fruits and seeds were found in 1 of 71 least chipmunk stomachs and 1 of 30 least chipmunk cheek pouches from captures made in August and September in northern Minnesota. In both the stomach and cheek pouches, redosier dogwood made up 100% of the contents . In feeding experiments, caged meadow jumping mice fed heavily on redosier dogwood fruits .
Birds: Many bird species feed on and disperse redosier dogwood fruits and seeds. In New England, alone, redosier dogwood occurred in the diets of 95 bird species (review by ). Individual studies highlight that redosier dogwood fruits were consumed by American crows , American robins (personal observation in ), catbirds , eastern bluebirds, pheasants , and ruffed grouse . Eastern bluebirds using nest boxes in Macomb County, Michigan, fed redosier dogwood fruits to nestlings but only in the last week of the nestling period (late June). When fed to nestlings, redosier dogwood fruits made up a high of 37% of nestling diets . On the University of Idaho Experimental Forest in Latah County, utilization of redosier dogwood seeds exceeded availability as determined by scat collected in the late summer and fall .
Redosier dogwood is also utilized by birds for nesting and cover. The frequency of mountain quail sightings was 7.5% in red alder/redosier dogwood habitat types in the Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area, which was more than expected if sightings were randomly distributed among available habitat types. Red alder/redosier dogwood habitats were used more in the spring and summer than in the fall and winter . In southeastern Michigan, 2.5% of all identified catbird nests were in redosier dogwood shrubs . At High Island, Michigan, redosier dogwood was common at woodcock roosting sites . Redosier dogwood was considered important cover for ruffed grouse based on a review of revegetation and reclamation guides by Hardy ().
Amphibians: When reproduction of northern leopard frogs was evaluated in floodplain habitats along the Richelieu River in Quebec, researchers found that the reed canarygrass/redosier dogwood habitat type was utilized most for egg deposition. In the reed canarygrass/redosier dogwood habitat type there were 140 egg masses, and in the next most heavily utilized habitat type, purple loosestrife/river bulrush (Lythrum salicaria/Schoenoplectus fluviatilis), there were 28 egg masses .
Livestock: While some indicate that all classes of livestock avoid redosier dogwood unless more preferred foods are unavailable , others suggest that redosier dogwood is an "ice cream" plant for livestock and wildlife . During a 2-year study on a grazing allotment in the southern Blue Mountains of Oregon, cattle concentrated in the riparian zone early in the grazing season and utilized redosier dogwood considerably in one year but not the next .
Palatability and nutritional value: General descriptions of redosier dogwood's palatability are highly variable. Merigliano  suggests that redosier dogwood is palatable at all growth stages. While Sampson and Jespersen  indicate that young redosier dogwood sprouts are consumed to some degree but that stems are only browsed close to the ground when more palatable foods are unavailable. General palatability of redosier dogwood was rated as fair to poor for goats and deer, poor for sheep, and poor to useless for cattle in California . The value of redosier dogwood was considered low for cattle, horses, and elk in Nevada and eastern California , but in Colorado and Wyoming, redosier dogwood palatability was rated as fair in the fall . The above section on the Importance of redosier dogwood to Wildlife and Livestock should be considered in conjunction with general palatability ratings to appreciate the potential importance of redosier dogwood as wildlife and livestock browse.
Several studies provided information on the nutritional content of redosier dogwood stems and fruits from various locations and at different seasons. In the Quenel region of British Columbia, redosier dogwood ranked as low-quality ungulate browse from November through May. Although it was highly palatable, protein content averaged 4.8%. Researchers reported no change in protein content in forest stands of different ages . At the western boundary of Glacier National Park, Montana, crude protein averaged 5.8% and digestible dry matter averaged 41.8% in redosier dogwood stems collected in winter . In Minnesota, researchers determined the average nutrient content of redosier dogwood stems from September through June. Based on dry weight, protein content was 6.7% and crude fat was 4.2%. The lower portions of redosier dogwood branches were less nutritious than upper portions . A database has been developed for easy look-up of the nutritional content of redosier dogwood and many other browse species in the northeastern United States. For details, see .
Redosier dogwood fruits are especially high in fat content. In Alaska, the lipid content of redosier dogwood fruits was more than 25% of the dry pulp weight (Willson unpublished data cited in ). Based on comparisons with other collected fruits, redosier dogwood fruits collected in late summer from the Rainbow Creek Natural Area of southeastern Washington had high lipid levels  and moderate protein, fiber, and ash levels . In a study of fruits collected from northern Ontario, redosier dogwood fat content was 2nd highest among 17 browse species evaluated, and protein content was 6th highest . The nutritional content of fresh redosier dogwood fruits collected from central Pennsylvania averaged: 2.2% crude protein, 8.3% crude fiber, and 1.8% available protein. Nutritional values were much greater for dry than fresh fruits .
Cover value: Although cover value of redosier dogwood was not often described in detail in the reviewed literature (as of 2012), its multibranched structure and sometimes large size (see Botanical description) suggests it probably provides important cover for many wildlife species. A review reports that redosier dogwood provides dense summer and partial winter cover for birds and small mammals . In Montana, redosier dogwood is common in the understory of many coniferous and deciduous riparian vegetation types, which provide important (rated as good to excellent, usually) thermal and hiding cover for wildlife and livestock .
- 100. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; Cook, Bradley J.; Joy, John; Hinckley, Dan K. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. 
- 101. Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for reclamation in Alberta. Reclamation Research Technical Advisory Committee Report # RRTAC 89-4. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council; Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation. 436 p. 
- 105. Harry, G. Bryan. 1957. Winter food habits of moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 21(1): 53-57. 
- 108. Hazell, Megan. 2006. Behavioural responses of elk to the spatial distribution of resources. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 81 p. Thesis. 
- 110. Hering, Paul E. 1934. The food of the American crow in central New York State. The Auk. 51(4): 470-476. 
- 113. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. 
- 117. Houston, Douglas B. 1968. The Shiras moose in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Tech. Bull. No. 1. Moose, WY: The Grand Teton Natural History Association. 110 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 
- 118. Howard, William Johnston. 1937. Notes on winter foods of Michigan deer. Journal of Mammalogy. 18(1): 77-80. 
- 125. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. 22: 380-395. 
- 127. Hunt, Robley W.; Mangus, Lloyd M. 1954. Deer management study: Mud Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Holt, Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 18(4): 482-495. 
- 128. Irwin, Larry L. 1985. Foods of moose, Alces alces, and white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, on a burn in boreal forest. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 99(2): 240-245. 
- 130. Jenkins, Kurt J.; Wright, R. Gerald. 1986. Dietary niche relationships among cervids relative to winter snowpack in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 65: 1397-1401. 
- 137. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. Dissertation. [In 2 volumes]. 
- 138. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. 
- 14. Baigas, Philip E. 2008. Winter habitat selection, winter diet, and seasonal distribution mapping of moose (Alces alces shirasi) in southeastern Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 242 p. Thesis. 
- 141. Kendall, Katherine C. 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress Report. West Glacier, Montana: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National Park Biosphere Preserve, Science Center. 42 p. 
- 148. Krefting, Laurits W. 1951. What is the future of the Isle Royale moose herd? Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference. 16: 461-470. 
- 149. Krefting, Laurits W. 1974. The ecology of the Isle Royale moose with special reference to the habitat. Technical Bulletin 297--1974: Forestry Series 15. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 75 p. 
- 150. Krefting, Laurits W.; Roe, Eugene I. 1949. The role of some birds and mammals in seed germination. Ecological Monographs. 19(3): 269-286. 
- 152. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. 
- 164. Limpert, Dana. 1993. Water gardening for wildlife. Wildflower. 6(1): 16-27. 
- 167. Lorenz, David G.; Sharp, W. Curtis.; Ruffner, Joseph D. 1991. Conservation plants for the Northeast. Program Aid 1154. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 43 p. 
- 171. Mace, Richard D. 1986. Analysis of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., comps. Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30-May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 136-149. 
- 174. Manning, Mary E.; Padgett, Wayne G. 1995. Riparian community type classification for Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada and eastern California. R4-Ecol-95-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 306 p. 
- 177. Matchett, Marc R. 1985. Moose-habitat relationships in the Yaak River drainage, northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 229 p. Thesis. 
- 190. Merigliano, Michael F. 1996. Ecology and management of the South Fork Snake River cottonwood forest. Tech. Bull. 96-9. Boise, ID: U.S. Department ot the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 79 p. 
- 196. Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L. 2004. Shrubs of other families. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 598-698. 
- 197. Morris, Melvin S.; Schmautz, Jack E.; Stickney, Peter F. 1962. Winter field key to the native shrubs of Montana. Bulletin No. 23. Missoula, MT: Montana State University, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 70 p. 
- 206. Mundinger, John D. 1978. Population ecology and habitat relationships of white-tailed deer in coniferous forest habitat of northwestern Montana. Montana deer studies: Job progress report 1977-1978. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish and Game. 74 p. 
- 208. Murie, Adolph. 1934. The moose of Isle Royale. Miscellaneous Publication No. 25. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 56 p. 
- 214. Nickell, Walter P. 1965. Habitats, territory, and nesting of the catbird. The American Midland Naturalist. 73(2): 433-478. 
- 215. Noble, William. 1985. Shepherdia canadensis: its ecology, distribution, and utilization by the grizzly bear. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 28 p. 
- 216. Noyce, Karen V.; Coy, Pamela L. 1990. Abundance and productivity of bear food species in different forest types of northcentral Minnesota. In: Darling, Laura M.; Archibald, W. Ralph, eds. Bears: Their biology and management: A Selection of papers from the 8th international conference on bear research and management; 1989 February; Victoria, BC. Volume 8. Knoxville, TN: International Association for Bear Research and Management: 169-181. 
- 218. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. 
- 219. Pardo, Linda H.; Robin-Abbott, Molly; Duarte, Natasha; Miller, Eric K. 2005. Tree chemistry database (version 1.0). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-324. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 45 p. 
- 222. Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North America. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 101: 195-215. 
- 223. Peek, James M. 1963. Appraisal of a moose range in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 16(5): 227-231. 
- 229. Pietz, Pamela J.; Tester, John R. 1983. Habitat selection by snowshoe hares in north central Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 686-696. 
- 23. Belovsky, Gary E. 1981. Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: the moose. Ecology. 62(4): 1020-1030. 
- 231. Pinkowski, Benedict C. 1978. Feeding of nestling and fledging eastern bluebirds. The Wilson Bulletin. 90(1): 84-98. 
- 232. Piper, Jon K. 1986. Seasonality of fruit characters and seed removal by birds. Oikos. 46: 303-310. 
- 233. Piper, Jon Kingsbury. 1984. Reproductive and dispersal ecology of understory fruiting plants in coniferous forests. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 96 p. Dissertation. 
- 235. Pojar, Jim; MacKinnon, Andy, eds. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 526 p. 
- 236. Pope, Michael D. 2002. The ecology of mountain quail in Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 155 p. Dissertation. 
- 238. Quimby, Don C. 1951. The life history and ecology of the jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius. Ecological Monographs. 21(1): 61-95. 
- 239. Ralphs, Robert M., tech. ed. 1981. Elk habitat relationships of central Idaho. [Boise, ID]: [Idaho Department of Fish and Game]. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 57 p. 
- 247. Ringius, Gordon S.; Sims, Richard A. 1997. Indicator plant species in Canadian forests. Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 218 p. 
- 250. Ritchie, Brent W. 1978. Ecology of moose in Fremont County, Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 7. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 33 p. 
- 251. Roath, Leonard Roy; Krueger, William C. 1982. Cattle grazing influence on a mountain riparian zone. Journal of Range Management. 35(1): 100-103. 
- 256. Rounds, Richard C. 1979. Height and species as factors determining browsing of shrubs by wapiti. Journal of Applied Ecology. 16(1): 227-241. 
- 26. Bird, Ralph D. 1961. Ecology of the aspen parkland of western Canada in relation to land use. Contribution No. 27. Ottawa: Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch. 153 p. 
- 261. Ruediger, William; Mealey, Stephen. 1978. Coordination guidelines for timber harvesting in grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. [Libby, MT]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest]. 44 p. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
- 266. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences; California Agricultural Experiment Station, Extension Service. 162 p. 
- 268. Schallenberger, Allen Dee. 1966. Food habits, range use and interspecific relationships of bighorn sheep in the Sun River area, west-central Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 44 p. Thesis. 
- 27. Blower, Dan. 1982. Key winter forage plants for B.C. ungulates. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Terrestrial Studies Branch. 57 p. 
- 274. Singer, Francis James. 1975. Wildfire and ungulates in the Glacier National Park area, northwestern Montana. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 53 p. Thesis. 
- 275. Smith, Arthur D. 1953. Consumption of native forage species by captive mule deer during summer. Journal of Range Management. 6(1): 30-37. 
- 278. Smith, Felisa A. 1997. Neotoma cinerea. Mammalian Species. 564: 1-8. 
- 285. Stelfox, John G. 1976. Range ecology of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Canadian national parks. Report Series Number 39. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service. 50 p. 
- 287. Stevens, David R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin Mountains, Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 37-46. 
- 295. Thompson, Ian D.; Vukelich, Milan F. 1981. Use of logged habitats in winter by moose cows with calves in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59(11): 2103-2114. 
- 297. Timmermann, H. R.; McNicol, J. G. 1988. Moose habitat needs. In: Bourchier, R. J., ed. Forestry and wildlife management in the boreal forest--an Ontario workshop; 1987 December 7-9; Thunder Bay, ON. [Peterborough, ON]: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. In: The Forestry Chronicle: 238-245. 
- 299. Todd, John B. 1927. Winter food of cottontail rabbits. Journal of Mammalogy. 8(3): 222-228. 
- 3. Aldous, Shaler E. 1941. Food habits of chipmunks. Journal of Mammalogy. 22(1): 18-24. 
- 30. Boileau, F.; Crete, M.; Huot, J. 1994. Food habits of the black bear, Ursus americanus, and habitat use in Gaspesie Park, eastern Quebec. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 108(2): 162-169. 
- 300. Todesco, C. J.; Cumming, H. G.; McNicol, J. G. 1985. Winter moose utilization of alternate strip cuts and clearcuts in northwestern Ontario: preliminary results. Alces. 21: 447-74. 
- 308. Usui, Masayuki; Kakuda, Yukio; Kevan, Peter G. 1994. Composition and energy values of wild fruits from the boreal forest of northern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 74(3): 581-587. 
- 312. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. 
- 313. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. 
- 319. Wainio, Walter W.; Forbes, E. B. 1941. The chemical composition of forest fruits and nuts from Pennsylvania. Journal of Agricultural Research. 62(10): 627-635. 
- 325. Wetzel, John F.; Wambaugh, James R.; Peek, James M. 1975. Appraisal of white-tailed deer winter habitats in northeastern Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(1): 59-66. 
- 326. Whitcomb, Douglas A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular woodcock population. Wildlife Division Report No. 2702. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 78 p. 
- 329. Willson, Mary F. 1993. Mammals as seed-dispersal mutualists in North America. Oikos. 67: 159-176. 
- 330. Willson, Mary F. 1994. Fruit choices by captive American robins. The Condor. 96(2): 494-502. 
- 333. Young, Vernon A.; Robinette, W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. Bulletin No. 9. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. 
- 335. Zach, R.; Crichton, V. F. J.; Stewart, J. M.; Mayoh, K. R. 1982. Early winter food habits of Manitoba moose as determined by three rumen analysis methods. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 60(6): 1300-1304. 
- 40. Brown, David T.; Doucet, G. Jean. 1991. Temporal changes in winter diet selection by white-tailed deer in a northern deer yard. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(3): 361-376. 
- 52. Cowan, I. M.; Hoar, W. S.; Hatter, J. 1950. The effect of forest succession upon the quantity and upon the nutritive values of woody plants used by moose. Canadian Journal of Research. 28(5): 249-271. 
- 53. Cumming, H. G. 1987. Sixteen years of moose browse surveys in Ontario. Alces. 23: 125-156. 
- 56. Day, Susan Marie. 1997. Aspects of Newfoundland black bear (Ursus americanus hamiltoni) food habits and habitat use in human-influenced environments. Wolfville, NS: Acadia University. 107 p. Thesis. 
- 57. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. No. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. 
- 61. DelGiudice, Glenn D.; Mech, L. David; Seal, Ulysses S. 1991. Browse diversity and physiological status of white-tailed deer during winter. In: Rodiek, Jon E.; Bolen, Eric G., eds. Wildlife and habitats in managed landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press: 77-93. 
- 7. Allen, Arthur W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: beaver. FWS/OBS-82/10.30 (Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 p. 
- 71. Fashingbauer, Bernard A.; Moyle, John B. 1963. Nutritive value of red-osier dogwood and mountain maple as deer browse. Minnesota Academy of Science Proceedings. 31(1): 73-77. 
- 74. Flook, Donald R. 1964. Range relationships of some ungulates native to Banff and Jasper National Parks, Alberta. In: Crisp, D. J., ed. Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments: A symposium of the British Ecological Society: Proceedings; 1962 April 11-14; Bangor, UK. No. 4. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications: 119-128. 
- 8. Allen, Eugene O. 1968. Range use, foods, condition, and productivity of white-tailed deer in Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(1): 130-141. 
- 80. Gaffney, William S. 1941. The effects of winter elk browsing, South Fork of the Flathead River, Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 5(4): 427-453. 
- 82. Gilbert, Mireille; Leclair, Raymond, Jr.; Fortin, Rejean. 1994. Reproduction of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in floodplain habitat in the Richelieu River, P. Quebec, Canada. Journal of Herpetology. 28(4): 465-470. 
- 85. Goldsmith, Audrey; Walraven, Michael E.; Graber, David; White, Marshall. 1981. Ecology of the black bear in Sequoia National Park. Technical Report No. 1. Davis, CA: University of California at Davis, Institute of Ecology, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 64 p. [Final report to the National Park Service, Western Region for contract CX-8000-4-0022]. 
- 91. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada: No. 49. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Research Division; Washington, DC: U.S. National Arboretum, Herbarium. 170 p. 
- 97. Hamilton, Anthony; Archibald, W. Ralph. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat in the Kimsquit River valley, coastal British Columbia: evaluation. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers. Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 - May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 50-56. 
No one has provided updates yet.