Overview

Comprehensive Description

Description

Pure stands of bearberry can be extremely dense, with heights rarely taller than 6 inches. Erect branching twigs emerge from long flexible prostrate stems, which are produced by single roots. The

trailing stems will layer, sending out small roots periodically. The finely textured velvety branches are initially white to pale green, becoming smooth and red-brown with maturity. The small solitary three scaled buds are dark brown.

The simple leaves of this broadleaf evergreen are alternately arranged on branches. Each leaf is held by a twisted leaf stalk, vertically. The leathery dark green leaves are an inch long and have rounded tips tapering back to the base. In fall, the leaves begin changing from a dark green to a reddish-green to purple.

Terminal clusters of small urn-shaped flowers bloom from May to June. The perfect flowers are white to pink, and bear round, fleshy or mealy, bright red to pink fruits called drupes. This smooth, glossy skinned fruit will range from 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter. The fruit will persist on the plant into early winter. Each drupe contains 1 to 5 hard seeds, which need to be scarified and stratified prior to germination to reduce the seed coat and break embryo dormancy. There is an average of 40,900 cleaned seeds per pound.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Alternative names

kinnikinnick

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America

     AK  CA  CO  CT  GA  ID  IL  ME  MA  MI
     MN  MT  NV  NH  NJ  NM  ND  OH  OR  PA
     SD  UT  VT  VA  WA  WI  WY  AB  BC  LB
     MB  NB  NF  NT  NS  ON  PE  PQ  SK  YT

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Kinnikinnick is a widespread, circumpolar species [111].  In North America,
it grows from the northern half of California north to Alaska and across
Canada and the northern United States to New England and Newfoundland.
Its range extends south in the Rocky Mountains to New Mexico.  In
eastern North America, it extends south along the Atlantic Coast to New
Jersey and in the Appalachian Mountains to Virginia.  Rare, disjunct
populations occur in Georgia [59,117,152].

Most infrataxa occur in the Rocky Mountains and are widespread.
Distribution of the forms is as follows:

    Forma adenotricha is common in the Rocky Mountains but absent in the
Appalachian Mountain region and both Coasts.  A closely related taxa is
found in the Sierra Nevada [117,149]. 
    Forma coactilis may not be present in Alaska; it is most abundant
on both Coasts.  It is found farther south along the Pacific Coast and
in the Appalachian Mountains than the other forms [117,149].  It is the
primary form in Ohio and New England [15,125]. 
    Forma longipilosa is absent from the Appalachian Mountains and very
rare on both Coasts [117,149]. 
    Forma stipitata grows only in the Rocky Mountains and far West
[117,149]. 
    Forma uva-ursi extends the farthest north in the Arctic and is
circumboreal through Eurasia [117,149]. 
  • 15.  Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State        University Press. 362 p.  [12914]
  • 59.  Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular        plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through        Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.        [1170]
  • 111.  Remphrey, W. R.; Steeves, T. A.; Neal, B. R. 1983. The morphology and        growth of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry): an architectural        analysis. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 2430-2450.  [2963]
  • 117.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1987. Field and garden studies of Arctostaphylos        uva-ursi (Ericaceae) in North America. Systematic Botany. 12(1): 61-77.        [2025]
  • 125.  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]
  • 149.  Wells, Philip V. 1988. New combinations in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae):        Annotated list of changes in status. Madrono. 35(4): 330-341.  [6448]
  • 152.  Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue        Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p.  [12908]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    4  Sierra Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    8  Northern Rocky Mountains
    9  Middle Rocky Mountains
   10  Wyoming Basin
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   12  Colorado Plateau
   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont
   15  Black Hills Uplift
   16  Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Daphnidostaphylis fendleri Klotzsch:
Mexico (Mesoamerica)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arbutus uva-ursi L.:
Canada (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. marinensis Roof:
United States (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. leobreweri Roof:
United States (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi subsp. monoensis Roof:
United States (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. coactilis Fernald & J.F. Macbr.:
United States (North America)
Canada (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. adenotricha Fernald & J.F. Macbr.:
Canada (North America)
United States (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.:
Greenland (North America)
Guatemala (Mesoamerica)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution and adaptation

Bearberry’s native range is from Labrador to Alaska, south to Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska, and in the mountains from New Mexico north through California to Alaska. This long-lived, low growing shrub is very cold tolerant. This plant prefers coarse well to excessively drained soils of forests, sand dunes, bald or barren areas. It does not tolerate moist or off-drained sites. Although bearberry is often found growing in the open on sand dunes, it grows well under partial shade of forest canopies.

For a current distribution map, please consult the Plant Profile page for this species on the PLANTS Website.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

More info for the term: shrub

Kinnikinnick is a prostrate, evergreen shrub that produces extensive
trailing stems [92].  The bark is thin and exfoliates in largish flakes
[142].  The leathery, dark green leaves are about 0.5 to 1 inch
(1.27-2.54 cm) long.  The flowers are borne in terminal racemes [59] and
are followed by bright red berrylike drupes, 0.25 to 0.4 inch (6-10 mm)
broad. Each drupe contains five (sometimes four) single-seeded nutlets
[50,59].

In western Montana, kinnikinnick roots were found to extend to a depth of
36 inches (91 cm) on one site and 72 inches (183 cm) on a drier site
with the same soil type [100].  In two jack pine stands in central
Alberta, kinnikinnick roots extended from 43.3 to 53.1 inches deep (110-135
cm) [135].

The forms (sometimes classed as varieties) of kinnikinnick are primarily
distinguished by the types of pubescence.  These have been described in
detail [15,117,142].
  • 50.  Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.        Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p.  [1603]
  • 15.  Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State        University Press. 362 p.  [12914]
  • 59.  Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular        plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through        Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.        [1170]
  • 92.  McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced        by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122.  [1621]
  • 100.  Nimlos, Thomas J.; Van Meter, Wayne P.; Daniels, Lewis A. 1968. Rooting        patterns of forest understory species as determined by radioiodine        absorption. Ecology. 49(6): 1145-1151.  [4120]
  • 117.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1987. Field and garden studies of Arctostaphylos        uva-ursi (Ericaceae) in North America. Systematic Botany. 12(1): 61-77.        [2025]
  • 135.  Strong, W. L.; LaRoi, G. H. 1986. A strategy for concurrently monitoring        the plant water potentials of spatially separate forest ecosystems.        Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16(2): 346-351.  [10805]
  • 142.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat characteristics

More info for the terms: fern, organic soils, peat, taiga

Habitat:  Kinnikinnick is most often a dominant understory species in open
pine forests under jack pine (Pinus banksiana), lodgepole pine (P.
contorta), limber pine (P. flexilis), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) or
pitch pine (P. rigida) [47,96,113,138,148].  It is also found in the
understories of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), subalpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa), white spruce (Picea glauca), black spruce (P.
mariana), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), aspen, and some eastern
deciduous forests [6,30,96,134].  In the Pacific Northwest and Rocky
Mountains, it grows on steep, sunny, dry slopes [41,131].  In the
southern boreal forests of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, kinnikinnick is
characteristic of dry and very dry forests [113].  It is common in
heathland communities but grows in a variety of boreal forest sites,
including eroded banks and peat bogs.  It also grows in sand-dune areas
of subboreal regions [111].  Kinnikinnick is fairly abundant in the alpine
zone of the Northwest and northern Rocky Mountains and may be dominant
on stable, well drained, south-facing sites [10,27,31,32,33].  It grows
under Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) in Washington woodlands [42].
Kinnikinnick is conspicuous in the Badlands of eastern Alberta [96].  In
the foothills of the northern Great Plains, it grows in the rough fescue
(Festuca scabrella) prairie [21,80].  In the Alaskan taiga, kinnikinnick
occupies warmer sites [140].

In Michigan and Wisconsin, kinnikinnick is found on dry sand plains, and in
Wisconsin it grows in bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)-grasslands
[18,25].  In Ohio it grows on the beaches and dunes along Lake Erie
[15].  In Ontario, it frequently grows on the shores of lakes and rivers
and in semiopen coniferous woods [127].  In New England it grows in dry
sandy open woods [125].  Kinnikinnick is one of the most abundant low
understory species in the fire-prone, pygmy pine forests of the New
Jersey Pine Barrens [91].

Habitat variation by form:  Collections of North American kinnikinnick
plants exhibit form differences between sites.  In the Rocky Mountains
these ecological differences between forms are less pronounced
[116,117].  Forma coactilis grows best on the driest sites and is
generally more common on acidic and drier substrates.  It is the only
form found along the Coasts (pH of most sites less than 6.6) and on the
relatively moist substrates of the Appalachian Mountains (pH of most
sites 3.7-5.5).  Forma coactilis grows most frequently in full sunlight
and is relatively uncommon on shaded sites [116,117].  Forma adenotricha
is most common on basic substrates and seldom occurs on very acidic
soils.  It seems to grow better on relatively moist sites.  In the Great
Lakes area, it is the most shade-tolerant form [116,117].  Forma
stipitata is more frequent on relatively basic sites; forma longpilosa
grows well on acidic soils.  Both grow well on sites with intermediate
moisture status.  Forma stipitata is most common on open sites in the
Rocky Mountains; forma longipilosa grows in intermediate light
conditions [116,117].

Soils:  Kinnikinnick grows on a wide range of soil textures, although it is
commonly found on well-drained soils that have relatively low amounts of
clay and silt [8,76,142,147,148].  It frequently occurs on sandy soils,
shallow soils, soils on rock outcrops, and rapidly drained
coarse-skeletal soils [70,127].  Along both Coasts and in conifer
forests, kinnikinnick occurs on dry, acidic substrates [117].  In the
Appalachian Mountains, it usually grows on moist, acidic soils.  The
sandy to rocky soils on which kinnikinnick grows in the Great Lakes region
are neutral to basic [117].  In Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming, kinnikinnick growth is fair to good on acidic soils; poor to
fair on organic soils and poor on saline, sodic and sodic-saline soils.
Optimum soil depth in this area is 10 to 20 inches (25.4-50.8 cm) [30].

In the subalpine zone of western Montana, kinnikinnick grows on soils
derived from granite and quartzite parent materials but not on soils
developed on limestone [48].  However, it grows on soils formed from
calcareous parent materials in the alpine zone [10].  It is found on
basaltic lava flows, mudflow deposits, serpentine outcrops, and coarse
glacial outwash in the Pacific Northwest [42].

Kinnikinnick is common on dry, nutrient-poor soils [8,76,148].  Information
relating kinnikinnick growth habits to specific soil nutrient levels is
available for British Columbia [147].  Results of one study indicate
that leaves are retained longer on plants growing on a sandy,
nutrient-poor substrate than on plants growing on a site with better
nutrient availability [111].

Elevation:  Elevational ranges in some western regions are
[20,30,142,150]:

                     Minimum                   Maximum
                   feet      meters         feet      meters

Alberta             500       150            2000      610
Colorado           6000      1829           11700     3566
Montana            2900       884            7700     2347
New Mexico         5000      1524           10000     3048
Utah               7021      2140           11516     3510
Wyoming            4000      1219            9700     2957
  • 6.  Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest        succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.        INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p.  [349]
  • 8.  Bakuzis, E. V.; Hansen, H. L. 1962. Ecographs of shrubs and other        undergrowth species of Minnesota forest communities. Minnesota Forestry        Notes. 117: 1-2.  [10316]
  • 10.  Bamberg, Samuel A.; Major, Jack. 1968. Ecology of the vegetation and        soils associated with calcareous parent materials in three alpine        regions of Montana. Ecological Monographs. 38(2): 127-167.  [12554]
  • 15.  Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State        University Press. 362 p.  [12914]
  • 18.  Coffman, Michael S.; Alyanak, Edward; Resovsky, Richard. 1980. Field        guide habitat classification system: For Upper Peninsula of Michigan and        northeast Wisconsin. [Place of publication unknown]
  • 20.  Corns, I. G. W.; Annas, R. M. 1986. Field guide to forest ecosystems of        west-central Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry Service, Northern        Forestry Centre. 251 p.  [8998]
  • 21.  Coupland, Robert T. 1961. A reconsideration of grassland classification        in the northern Great Plains of North America. Journal of Ecology. 49:        135-167.  [12588]
  • 25.  Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The        University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p.  [7116]
  • 27.  del Moral, Roger; Wood, David M. 1988. The high elevation flora of Mount        St. Helens, Washington. Madrono. 35(4): 309-319.  [6412]
  • 30.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 31.  Douglas, George Wayne. 1970. A vegetation study in the subalpine zone of        the western North Cascades, Washington. Seattle, WA: University of        Washington. 293 p. Thesis.  [8560]
  • 32.  Douglas, George W.; Ballard, T. M. 1971. Effects of fire on alpine plant        communities in the North Cascades, Washington. Ecology. 52(6):        1058-1064.  [6738]
  • 33.  Douglas, George W.; Bliss, L. C. 1977. Alpine and high subalpine plant        communities of the North Cascades Range, Washington and British        Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 47: 113-150.  [9487]
  • 41.  Forsythe, Warren Louis. 1975. Site influence on the post-fire        composition of a Rocky Mountain forest. Missoula, MT: University of        Montana. 173 p. Dissertation.  [6723]
  • 42.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon        and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range        Experiment Station. 417 p.  [961]
  • 47.  Givnish, Thomas J. 1981. Serotiny, geography, and fire in the pine        barrens of New Jersey. Evolution. 35(1): 101-123.  [8634]
  • 70.  Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator        plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British        Columbia Press. 288 p.  [10703]
  • 76.  La Roi, George H.; Hnatiuk, Roger J. 1980. The Pinus contorta forests of        Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study in comparative synecology and        syntaxonomy. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 1-29.  [8347]
  • 80.  Looman, J. 1969. The fescue grasslands of western Canada. Vegetatio. 19:        128-145.  [1471]
  • 91.  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]
  • 96.  Moss, E. H. 1955. The vegetation of Alberta. Botanical Review. 21(9):        493-567.  [6878]
  • 111.  Remphrey, W. R.; Steeves, T. A.; Neal, B. R. 1983. The morphology and        growth of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry): an architectural        analysis. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 2430-2450.  [2963]
  • 113.  Rowe, J. S. 1956. Uses of undergrowth plant species in forestry.        Ecology. 37(3): 461-473.  [8862]
  • 116.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1982. Trichome variation and the ecology of        Arctostaphylos in Michigan. Michigan Botanist. 21: 171-180.  [13059]
  • 117.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1987. Field and garden studies of Arctostaphylos        uva-ursi (Ericaceae) in North America. Systematic Botany. 12(1): 61-77.        [2025]
  • 125.  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]
  • 127.  Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life        Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p.  [12907]
  • 131.  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.  [13851]
  • 134.  Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed        dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous        forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688.  [6508]
  • 138.  Uresk, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth E. 1989. Understory-overstory        relationships in ponderosa pine forests, Black Hills, South Dakota.        Journal of Range Management. 42(3): 203-208.  [6705]
  • 140.  Viereck, Leslie A. 1975. Forest ecology of the Alaska taiga. In:        Proceedings of the circumpolar conference on northern ecology; 1975        September 15-18; Ottawa, ON. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 1-22.  [7315]
  • 142.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]
  • 150.  Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry        C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,        UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.  [2944]
  • 48.  Goldin, A.; Nimlos, T. J. 1977. Vegetation patterns on limestone and        acid parent materials in the Garnet Mountains of western Montana.        Northwest Science. 51(3): 149-160.  [10675]
  • 147.  Wali, M. K.; Krajina, V. J. 1973. Vegetation-environment relationships        of some sub-boreal spruce zone ecosystems in British Columbia.        Vegetatio. 26: 237-381.  [9856]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: association, natural, series

In British Columbia kinnikinnick indicates sites that are moisture
deficient because of rapid drainage [70].  Published classification
schemes listing kinnikinnick as an indicator species or a dominant part of
vegetation include:

The Alaska vegetation classification [141]
A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of
  Arizona and New Mexico [94]
Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
  National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico [40]
A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado [7]
Forest habitat types of Montana [107]
Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of northern New
  Mexico and northern Arizona [77]
Climax forest series of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado [28]
A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and
  southern Colorado [29]
Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema
  National Forests [72]
Plant association and management guide: Willamette National Forest [57]
Plant associations of south Chiloquin and Klamath Ranger
  Districts--Winema National Forest [64]
Plant associations of the central Oregon Pumice Zone [145]
Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah [90]
Forested plant associations of the Okanogan National Forest [151]
The forest communities of Mount Rainier National Park [43
Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex [3]
Alpine and high subalpine plant communities of the North Cascades Range,
  Washington and British Columbia [33]
Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho [26]
Field guide to forest habitat types of northern Wisconsin [71]
Forest vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming: a habitat type
  classification [61]
Forest vegetation of the Medicine Bow National Forest in southeastern
  Wyoming [5]
The Pinus contorta forests of Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study
  in comparative synecology and syntaxonomy [76]
Field guide to forest ecosystems of west-central Alberta [20]
  • 3.  Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades        National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65:        1520-1530.  [6327]
  • 5.  Alexander, Robert R.; Hoffman, George R.; Wirsing, John M. 1986. Forest        vegetation of the Medicine Bow National Forest in southeastern Wyoming:        a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-271. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 39 p.  [307]
  • 7.  Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural        vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676.  [380]
  • 20.  Corns, I. G. W.; Annas, R. M. 1986. Field guide to forest ecosystems of        west-central Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry Service, Northern        Forestry Centre. 251 p.  [8998]
  • 26.  Daubenmire, Rexford F.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of        eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Technical Bulletin 60. Pullman,        WA: Washington State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 104 p.        [749]
  • 28.  DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A. 1983. Climax forest series of        northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel,        Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on Southwestern        habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 45-53.        [779]
  • 29.  DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank,        Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New        Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest        and Range Experiment Station. 59 p.  [781]
  • 33.  Douglas, George W.; Bliss, L. C. 1977. Alpine and high subalpine plant        communities of the North Cascades Range, Washington and British        Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 47: 113-150.  [9487]
  • 40.  Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.        1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola        National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort        Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky        Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p.  [4206]
  • 43.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Moir, William H.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; [and others]
  • 57.  Hemstrom, Miles A.; Logan, Sheila E.; Pavlat, Warren. 1987. Plant        association and management guide: Willamette National Forest. R6-Ecol        257-B-86. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Pacific Northwest Region. 312 p.  [13402]
  • 61.  Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1976. Forest vegetation of the        Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap.        RM-170. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p.        [1180]
  • 64.  Hopkins, William E. 1979. Plant associations of south Chiloquin and        Klamath Ranger Districts-- Winema National Forest. R6-Ecol-79-005.        Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific        Northwest Region. 96 p.  [7339]
  • 70.  Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator        plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British        Columbia Press. 288 p.  [10703]
  • 71.  Kotar, John; Kovach, Joseph A.; Locey, Craig T. 1988. Field guide to        forest habitat types of northern Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of        Wisconsin, Department of Forestry; Wisconsin Department of Natural        Resources. 217 p.  [11510]
  • 72.  Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes,        Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87.        Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific        Northwest Region. 171 p.  [9632]
  • 76.  La Roi, George H.; Hnatiuk, Roger J. 1980. The Pinus contorta forests of        Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study in comparative synecology and        syntaxonomy. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 1-29.  [8347]
  • 77.  Larson, Milo; Moir, W. H. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant        associations) of northern New Mexico and northern Arizona. 2d ed.        Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Southwestern Region. 90 p.  [8947]
  • 90.  Mauk, Ronald L.; Henderson, Jan A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types        of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment        Station. 89 p.  [1553]
  • 94.  Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir        and mixed conifer habitat types of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap.        RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p.        [1677]
  • 107.  Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby,        Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.        INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 174 p.  [1878]
  • 141.  Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T.; Batten, A. R.; Wenzlick, K. J. 1992. The        Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland,        OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Research Station. 278 p.  [2431]
  • 145.  Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon        Pumice Zone. Rt-ECOL-104-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 138 p.  [7341]
  • 151.  Williams, Clinton K.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1983. Forested plant        associations of the Okanogan National Forest. R6-Ecol-132b. Portland,        OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Region. 116 p.  [2566]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

     1  Jack pine
    12  Black spruce
    15  Red pine
    18  Paper birch
    45  Pitch pine
   107  White spruce
   202  White spruce - paper birch
   206  Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
   208  Whitebark pine
   210  Interior Douglas-fir
   211  White fir
   212  Western larch
   213  Grand fir
   215  Western white pine
   216  Blue spruce
   217  Aspen
   218  Lodgepole pine
   219  Limber pine
   229  Pacific Douglas-fir
   237  Interior ponderosa pine
   251  White spruce - aspen

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Plant Associations

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

   K005  Mixed conifer forest
   K011  Western ponderosa forest
   K012  Douglas-fir forest
   K013  Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
   K014  Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K015  Western spruce - fir forest
   K016  Eastern ponderosa forest
   K017  Black Hills pine forest
   K018  Pine - Douglas-fir forest
   K019  Arizona pine forest
   K020  Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K021  Southwestern spruce - fir forest
   K022  Great Basin pine forest
   K026  Oregon oakwoods
   K037  Mountain mahogany - oak scrub
   K050  Fescue - wheatgrass
   K052  Alpine meadows and barren
   K056  Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
   K063  Foothills prairie
   K064  Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
   K066  Wheatgrass - needlegrass
   K067  Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
   K081  Oak savanna
   K093  Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
   K095  Great Lakes pine forest
   K110  Northeastern oak - pine forest

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

   FRES10  White - red - jack pine
   FRES11  Spruce - fir
   FRES13  Loblolly - shortleaf pine
   FRES19  Aspen - birch
   FRES20  Douglas-fir
   FRES21  Ponderosa pine
   FRES22  Western white pine
   FRES23  Fir - spruce
   FRES25  Larch
   FRES26  Lodgepole pine
   FRES28  Western hardwoods
   FRES29  Sagebrush
   FRES34  Chaparral - mountain shrub
   FRES36  Mountain grasslands
   FRES38  Plains grasslands
   FRES44  Alpine

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Dispersal

Establishment

Bearberry can be propagated from seeds, softwood cuttings or pre-rooted stem cuttings. It is difficult to root this plant from bare cuttings in the greenhouse. Scarified seed sown in early summer will improve germination the following spring, but this technique is not as reliable as cuttings. Softwood cuttings should be harvested in late summer, and rooted stem cuttings are most successful when harvested during the dormant season. Successfully grown seedlings or cuttings should be handled carefully in containers; bare root plantings are rarely effective.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Associations

In Great Britain and/or Ireland:
Foodplant / mycorrhiza / ectomycorrhiza
fruitbody of Cortinarius venetus is ectomycorrhizal with live root of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Remarks: Other: uncertain

Foodplant / saprobe
effuse colony of Domingoella dematiaceous anamorph of Domingoella arctostaphyli is saprobic on dead leaf of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Remarks: season: 10

Foodplant / parasite
fruitbody of Exobasidium sydowianum parasitises live leaf of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Plant / associate
fruitbody of Leccinum vulpinum is associated with Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Foodplant / parasite
amphigenous thyriothecium of Lembosina gontardii parasitises leaf of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Remarks: season: 5

Foodplant / pathogen
Phytophthora kernoviae infects and damages Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Foodplant / parasite
hypophyllous apothecium of Propolis phacidioides parasitises grey leaf of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Other: major host/prey

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: fuel, fuel loading

Equations have been developed for estimating the fuel loading of kinnikinnick from
cover and plant height values in the northern and central
Rocky Mountains [4,16].
  • 4.  Alexander, Martin E. 1978. Estimating fuel weights of two common shrubs        in Colorado lodgepole pine stands. Res. Note RM-354. Fort Collins, CO:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest        and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.  [302]
  • 16.  Brown, James K.; Marsden, Michael A. 1976. Estimating fuel weights of        grasses, forbs, and small woody plants. Res. Note INT-210. Ogden, UT:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest &        Range Experiment Station. 11 p.  [5030]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Broad-scale Impacts of Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: cover, frequency, heath, prescribed fire, restoration, succession, wildfire

Kinnikinnick's response is variable and dependent upon survival of shallow
regenerative organs and seed sources.  Several studies seem to indicate
a slow postfire response with a definite increase in early succession.
Immediate postfire results of a study in Scotland heath were variable.
In one set of plots, seedling establishment during the first 3 years
after a March fire was good [87].  A second set of plots monitored
following the same fire had good vegetative recovery but no seedlings
[88].  Results of a northwestern Montana study showed the following
average percent cover of kinnikinnick 3 years after fire on plots burned at
different intensities [130]:

    Unburned       Light burn     Medium burn     Hot burn
      3.27            1.80            0.89          none

Following spring burning in a Montana shrubfield created 35 years
previously by wildfire, kinnikinnick volume decreased the first two
seasons, but kinnikinnick appeared to be recovering well [101].  Kinnikinnick
had an average of 0.6 percent frequency in samples from sites where
slash pile fires occurred 2 to 15 years previously and was considered to
be a retreater on hotly burned sites [144].  Following fire in Colorado
lodgepole pine forest stands, kinnikinnick was one of the major shrub
dominants during the first century of succession [17].  However, data
from this study do not show any kinnikinnick in the first few years after
fire [17].  Ten or 11 years after fire on the Tillamook Burn in Oregon,
kinnikinnick had 11 percent frequency on burned areas and was not present
in or near plots in adjacent unburned forest [98].  Following fire in
British Columbia, kinnikinnick cover is weakly correlated with
environmental factors.  Evidently, kinnikinnick is able to grow on a
variety of sites under postfire conditions [41].  Twenty-nine years
after an alpine wildfire in British Columbia, kinnikinnick cover and
frequency were slightly higher in burned areas of both krummholz and
heath than in unburned areas [32].

During the first 3 years after prescribed fire on jack pine clearcuts in
Michigan, kinnikinnick cover and frequency were very low when compared to
similar clearcuts that were not burned or undisturbed forest [1].
Another Michigan study found the highest postfire frequency of kinnikinnick
occurred 31 years after fire [120].  Results of a paired plot study in
the northern Wisconsin pine barrens indicated that kinnikinnick frequency
decreases after a single fire or repeated fires [143].

The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed fire
use and postfire response of plant community species including kinnikinnick:
  • 1.  Abrams, Marc D.; Dickmann, Donald I. 1984. Floristic composition before        and after prescribed fire on a jack pine clear-cut site in northern        lower Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 14: 746-749.        [7236]
  • 17.  Clagg, Harry B. 1975. Fire ecology in high-elevation forests in        Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 137 p. Thesis.        [113]
  • 32.  Douglas, George W.; Ballard, T. M. 1971. Effects of fire on alpine plant        communities in the North Cascades, Washington. Ecology. 52(6):        1058-1064.  [6738]
  • 41.  Forsythe, Warren Louis. 1975. Site influence on the post-fire        composition of a Rocky Mountain forest. Missoula, MT: University of        Montana. 173 p. Dissertation.  [6723]
  • 87.  McClaran, Mitchel P.; Bartolome, James W. 1989. Fire-related recruitment        in stagnant Quercus douglasii populations. Canadian Journal of Forest        Research. 19: 580-585.  [7416]
  • 88.  Mallik, A. U.; Hobbs, R. J.; Rahman, A. A. 1988. Seed-bed substrates and        revegetation of Calluna heathlands following burning. Journal of        Environmental Management. 27: 379-397.  [6594]
  • 98.  Neiland, Bonita J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn        area of northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 39(4): 660-671.  [8879]
  • 101.  Noste, Nonan V. 1982. Vegetation response to spring and fall burning for        wildlife habitat improvement. In: Baumgartner, David M., compiler &        editor. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain:        Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman,        WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 125-132.  [1784]
  • 120.  Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest        succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist.        20(1): 3-14.  [5022]
  • 130.  Stark, N.; Steele, R. 1977. Nutrient content of forest shrubs following        burning. American Journal of Botany. 64(10): 1218-1224.  [2224]
  • 143.  Vogl, Richard J. 1971. Fire and the northern Wisconsin pine barrens. In:        Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers Fire ecology conference; 1970 August        20-21; New Brunsick, Canada. No. 10. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers        Research Station: 175-209.  [2432]
  • 144.  Vogl, Richard J.; Ryder, Calvin. 1969. Effects of slash burning on        conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission Range. Northwest Science.        43(3): 135-147.  [8546]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Plant Response to Fire

More info for the term: root crown

Kinnikinnick sprouts from the root crown and establishes from
seedbank-stored seed after fire [85,114,115,129].  Kinnikinnick seeds have
been reported to survive fire in the upper soil and be stimulated to
germinate by heat from the fire [114].  Rowe [114] suggests that
kinnikinnick may be a shade-intolerant species that stores seed in the
soil.

After fire in heathland, kinnikinnick sprouts vigorously and expands
rapidly [85].  Kinnikinnick reinvades burned sites from adjacent, unburned
vegetation and/or from seed [6,23,39,81,148]. 

In boreal forest, kinnikinnick has regenerated from surviving basal sprouts
following fire [115,129].  Full recovery in many areas has been slow
[17,32,120].
  • 6.  Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest        succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.        INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p.  [349]
  • 17.  Clagg, Harry B. 1975. Fire ecology in high-elevation forests in        Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 137 p. Thesis.        [113]
  • 23.  Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest        habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 85 p.  [5297]
  • 32.  Douglas, George W.; Ballard, T. M. 1971. Effects of fire on alpine plant        communities in the North Cascades, Washington. Ecology. 52(6):        1058-1064.  [6738]
  • 39.  Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western        Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 95 p.  [633]
  • 81.  Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of        Alaska. Tech. Bull. No. 1133. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 121 p.  [7653]
  • 85.  Mallik, A. U.; Gimingham, C. H. 1983. Regeneration of heathland plants        following burning. Vegetatio. 53: 45-58.  [6337]
  • 114.  Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and        species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role        of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John        Wiley & Sons: 135-154.  [2038]
  • 115.  Rowe, J. S.; Scotter, G. W. 1973. Fire in the boreal forest. Quaternary        Research. 3: 444-464.  [72]
  • 120.  Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest        succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist.        20(1): 3-14.  [5022]
  • 129.  Stallard, Harvey. 1929. Secondary succession in the climax forest        formations of northern Minnesota. Ecology. 10(4): 476-547.  [3808]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Broad-scale Impacts of Fire

More info for the term: cover

In a controlled experiment, five kinnikinnick plants were burned at
different temperatures.  Heat treatments lasted about 2 minutes apiece.
Kinnikinnick response was strongest at the middle temperature of 1112
degrees F (600 degrees C).  The number of postfire sprouts after 3
months, and the amount of cover, height of the sprouts, and oven-dry
biomass after 17 months were recorded [86]:

                        Temperature in degrees F (degrees C)
                   752 (400)           1112 (600)          1472 (800)

                  mean  S.E.          mean  S.E.          mean  S.E.
Sprout numbers     44    20            48    13            26     7
Percent cover      42    15            78    19            45    19
Height (in)         2.4   3.5           2.4   0.4           1.6   0.4
       (cm)         6     9             6     1             4     1
Biomass (oz)        1.1   0.4           1.9   0.5           0.9   0.4
        (g)        30    11            54    15            26    10
  • 86.  Mallik, A. U.; Gimingham, C. H. 1985. Ecological effects of heather        burning. II. Effects on seed germination and vegetative regeneration.        Journal of Ecology. 73: 633-644.  [6338]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

More info for the terms: duff, severity

Fire effects vary with the season, severity and intensity of the fire,
site and surface soil characteristics, and the age, location, and vigor
of the plants.  When kinnikinnick is rooted in mineral soil, it can survive
moderate fire [114].  However, when kinnikinnick is rooted in organic soil
horizons, a fire that removes those horizons will kill kinnikinnick
[6,14,39].  If the duff and soil are moist and not completely consumed
by fire, some kinnikinnick root crowns may survive [23].  Rooted stolons
under rocks, moist logs, or in other protected microsites may also
survive [22].  Kinnikinnick plants are sufficiently resistant to ignition
to inhibit fire spread in light, flashy fuels [46,68].
  • 6.  Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest        succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.        INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p.  [349]
  • 14.  Bradley, Anne Foster. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and        the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western        Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 183 p. Thesis.  [502]
  • 22.  Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest        habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file        with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain        Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.  [5292]
  • 23.  Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest        habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 85 p.  [5297]
  • 39.  Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western        Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 95 p.  [633]
  • 46.  Gawlowska, Jadwiga. 1969. Seminatural cultivation of economically        important plant species growing in the wild state. Biological        Conservation. 1: 151-155.  [13013]
  • 68.  Keown, L. D. 1977. Interim report: Black Tail Hills Prescribed Fire        Project: implementation and results. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 9 p.        [12233]
  • 114.  Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and        species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role        of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John        Wiley & Sons: 135-154.  [2038]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: ground residual colonizer, secondary colonizer, shrub

   Prostrate woody plant, stem growing on organic mantle
   Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
   Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
   Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
   Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: duff, fuel, root crown

Kinnikinnick is a sprouting species that is best suited to short fire
cycles with low fuel buildup and low fire intensities [65,76,114,122].
It possesses latent buds on the horizontal stems and dormant buds on the
stembase or root crown that allow sprouting of surviving plants or
rooted stems [22,23,39,85].  In northern Saskatchewan, it is a strong
sprouter from golfball-sized lignotubers located in mineral soil [114].
The crown of kinnikinnick plants may lie just below the top of mineral
soil, but as duff increases it migrates into the duff layer and becomes
susceptible to fire [14,92,114].  Kinnikinnick's main roots extend into
mineral soil, but it has been considered to be incapable of regeneration
from the roots if the crown is killed [81,92].  Since it can be
propagated from root cuttings [63], it might be capable of regeneration
from the roots under some circumstances.  Kinnikinnick may be a
seedbanking species with fire resistant seed [81,114].
  • 14.  Bradley, Anne Foster. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and        the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western        Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 183 p. Thesis.  [502]
  • 22.  Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest        habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file        with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain        Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.  [5292]
  • 23.  Crane, M. F.; Fischer, William C. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest        habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-218. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 85 p.  [5297]
  • 39.  Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western        Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 95 p.  [633]
  • 63.  Holloway, Patricia; Zasada, John. 1979. Vegetative propagation of 11        common Alaska woody plants. Res. Note PNW-334. Portland, OR: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 12 p.  [1183]
  • 65.  Johnson, E. A. 1975. Buried seed populations in the subarctic forest        east of Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of        Botany. 53: 2933-2941.  [6466]
  • 76.  La Roi, George H.; Hnatiuk, Roger J. 1980. The Pinus contorta forests of        Banff and Jasper National Parks: a study in comparative synecology and        syntaxonomy. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 1-29.  [8347]
  • 81.  Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of        Alaska. Tech. Bull. No. 1133. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 121 p.  [7653]
  • 85.  Mallik, A. U.; Gimingham, C. H. 1983. Regeneration of heathland plants        following burning. Vegetatio. 53: 45-58.  [6337]
  • 92.  McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced        by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122.  [1621]
  • 114.  Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and        species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role        of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John        Wiley & Sons: 135-154.  [2038]
  • 122.  Scotter, George W. 1972. Chemical composition of forage plants from the        Reindeer Preserve, Northwest Territories. Arctic. 25(1): 21-27.  [16563]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: cover, lichens, shrub, shrubs, succession, taiga

Kinnikinnick is a seral, shade-intolerant species often found in seral,
open pine forests [47,69,96,113,114,148].  It grows best in high light
situations and becomes very rare when shade becomes intense [8,41,123].
In the open, kinnikinnick forms a compact and intricate mat; under a
canopy, long, thin trailing stems creep along the forest floor. Shoots
are more upright under partial shade than in the open [111].  Pubescence
of cuttings from the same plant may vary with light intensity and
substrate [117].  Results of a Rocky Mountain study of postdisturbance
vegetation cover indicate that the primary variables governing early
seral kinnikinnick cover are overtopping cover of other shrubs and site
variables such as elevation [78].

Kinnikinnick pioneers on dry rock outcrops in the Pacific Northwest [42].
It is an integral part of succession on dry, stable, sand dunes in the
Great Lakes and along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts [34,42].  On
Lake Michigan sand dunes, it invades bunchgrass communities and thrives
under slow burial by drifting sand that covers part of the plant [103].
On drier sites in Yukon Territory and the Alaskan taiga, kinnikinnick is
part of secondary succession in communities with aspen and willows
(Salix spp.)  [56,140].  Kinnikinnick enters seral communities on glacial
outwash in the pioneer stage, reaches its highest cover early in the
meadow stage, and continues declining in the early shrub stage [139].
Kinnikinnick succeeds lichens in northern Manitoba when the lichens are
damaged by caribou use [93].
  • 8.  Bakuzis, E. V.; Hansen, H. L. 1962. Ecographs of shrubs and other        undergrowth species of Minnesota forest communities. Minnesota Forestry        Notes. 117: 1-2.  [10316]
  • 34.  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]
  • 41.  Forsythe, Warren Louis. 1975. Site influence on the post-fire        composition of a Rocky Mountain forest. Missoula, MT: University of        Montana. 173 p. Dissertation.  [6723]
  • 42.  Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon        and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range        Experiment Station. 417 p.  [961]
  • 47.  Givnish, Thomas J. 1981. Serotiny, geography, and fire in the pine        barrens of New Jersey. Evolution. 35(1): 101-123.  [8634]
  • 56.  Hawkes, Brad C. 1982. Fire history and ecology of forest ecosystems in        Kluane National Park. In: Wein, Ross W.; Riewe, Roderick R.; Methven,        Ian R., eds. Resources and dynamics of the Boreal Zone; [Date of        conference unknown]
  • 69.  Kittredge, J., Jr. 1934. Evidence of the rate of forest succession on        Star Island, Minnesota. Ecology. 15(1): 24-35.  [10102]
  • 78.  Laursen, Steven B. 1984. Predicting shrub community composition and        structure following management disturbance in forest ecosystems of the        Intermountain West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 261 p.        Dissertation.  [6717]
  • 93.  Miller, Donald R. 1976. Taiga winter range relationships and diet.        Canadian Wildlife Service Rep. Series No. 36. Ottawa, ON: Environment        Canada, Wildlife Service. 42 p. (Biology of the Kaminuriak population of        barren-ground caribou; pt 3).  [13007]
  • 96.  Moss, E. H. 1955. The vegetation of Alberta. Botanical Review. 21(9):        493-567.  [6878]
  • 103.  Olson, Jerry S. 1958. Rates of succession and soil changes on southern        Lake Michigan sand dunes. Botanical Gazette. 119(3): 125-170.  [10557]
  • 111.  Remphrey, W. R.; Steeves, T. A.; Neal, B. R. 1983. The morphology and        growth of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry): an architectural        analysis. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 2430-2450.  [2963]
  • 113.  Rowe, J. S. 1956. Uses of undergrowth plant species in forestry.        Ecology. 37(3): 461-473.  [8862]
  • 114.  Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and        species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role        of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John        Wiley & Sons: 135-154.  [2038]
  • 117.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1987. Field and garden studies of Arctostaphylos        uva-ursi (Ericaceae) in North America. Systematic Botany. 12(1): 61-77.        [2025]
  • 123.  Severson, Kieth E.; Garrett, E. Chester. 1974. Growth characteristics of        bearberry in the Black Hills. Res. Note. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 3 p.  [5408]
  • 139.  Viereck, Leslie A. 1966. Plant succession and soil development on gravel        outwash of the Muldrow Glacier, Alaska. Ecological Monographs. 36(3):        181-199.  [12484]
  • 140.  Viereck, Leslie A. 1975. Forest ecology of the Alaska taiga. In:        Proceedings of the circumpolar conference on northern ecology; 1975        September 15-18; Ottawa, ON. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 1-22.  [7315]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the terms: adventitious, duff, lignotuber, litter

Vegetative:  Regeneration is primarily asexual [129].  After the second
year, the stems (stolons) produce adventitious, feeding roots at the
nodes which seldom grow deeper than the duff layer [92].  If a stem is
severed from the original plant, roots develop which penetrate into
mineral soil [92].  When plants are growing in sandy soil or loose duff,
the creeping stems often grow under the surface [14,111,129].  After 7
or 8 years, small nodules may appear at intervals along buried stems.
These nodules resemble nitrogen-fixing root nodules but examination has
shown these nodules to be composed of latent buds that have no ability
to fix nitrogen [38,136].  In eastern North America and Scotland, plants
subjected to physical damage or fire appear to have more of these
structures [136].  On 10-year-old or older stems, there may be as many
as 100 buds surrounding the lignotuber [111].  Kinnikinnick's clonal
pattern is generally compact.  Recruitment of new seedlings into
established clones has been reported [36].  A growth model based on a
detailed study of the morphology and growth of kinnikinnick is available
[111,112].

Seed:  The berrylike drupes persist on the plants through winter and are
dispersed by animals and gravity [114,134].  Seeds have hard seedcoats
and dormant embryos, and may be stored in the soil [11,81].  Soil-stored
seed has been found near the surface [87].  Study results indicate that
removing the surface litter increases seedling establishment, although
the total number of germinants in this study was very small [87].  In a
natural environment, seedling growth is slow for the first 3 years, then
increases.  During the first year, root growth exceeds shoot growth
[111].  Kinnikinnick plants which originated naturally as seedlings appear
to be rare [111].
  • 11.  Berg, Arthur R. 1974. Arctostaphylos Adans. manzanita. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 228-231.  [7428]
  • 14.  Bradley, Anne Foster. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and        the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western        Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 183 p. Thesis.  [502]
  • 36.  Eriksson, O. 1989. Seedling dynamics and life histories in clonal        plants. Oikos. 55: 231-238.  [10322]
  • 38.  Farnsworth, Raymond B. 1975. Nitrogen fixation in shrubs. In: Stutz,        Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings--symposium and workshop;        1975 November 5-7; Provo, UT. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University:        32-71.  [909]
  • 81.  Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of        Alaska. Tech. Bull. No. 1133. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 121 p.  [7653]
  • 87.  McClaran, Mitchel P.; Bartolome, James W. 1989. Fire-related recruitment        in stagnant Quercus douglasii populations. Canadian Journal of Forest        Research. 19: 580-585.  [7416]
  • 92.  McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced        by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122.  [1621]
  • 111.  Remphrey, W. R.; Steeves, T. A.; Neal, B. R. 1983. The morphology and        growth of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry): an architectural        analysis. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 2430-2450.  [2963]
  • 112.  Remphrey, W. R.; Neal, B. R.; Steeves, T. A. 1983. The morphology and        growth of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry): an architectural model        simulating colonizing growth. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61( 451):        2451-2457.  [2964]
  • 114.  Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and        species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. SCOPE 18: The role        of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Chichester; New York: John        Wiley & Sons: 135-154.  [2038]
  • 129.  Stallard, Harvey. 1929. Secondary succession in the climax forest        formations of northern Minnesota. Ecology. 10(4): 476-547.  [3808]
  • 134.  Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed        dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous        forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688.  [6508]
  • 136.  Tiffney, W. N., Jr.; Benson, D. R.; Eveleigh, D. E. 1978. Does        Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry) have nitrogen-fixing root nodules?.        American Journal of Botany. 65(6): 625-628.  [13495]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: chamaephyte

  
   Chamaephyte

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the term: shrub

Shrub

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

Fruit dispersal in eastern deciduous forests occurs between August and
March [134].  In California, flowering primarily occurs between March
and May, fruit ripening between June and August, and seed dispersal from
August to March [11].  In Ontario, bloom is in May and June, and fruit
is ripe by August or September [127].  In the northern Great Plains,
flowering is in June, and fruit develops by September [132].  In New
England, flowering is from May 1 to June 10 [125].  Virginia and
disjunct Georgia populations bloom in May and June [152].  In the Black
Hills of South Dakota, growth begins in May and ends in September, but
over half the season's total growth occurs during June [123].
Phenological observations of kinnikinnick made over an 8-year period east
of the Continental Divide in Montana and in Yellowstone National Park
are summarized below [121]:

                            Earliest        Average          Latest
                              Date            Date            Date
Leaf buds burst                May 27          June  6         June 22
Leaves full grown             July 21        August  2       August 15
Flowers start                  May 15           May 30         June 20
Flowers end                    May 31          June 11         June 30
Fruits ripe                    May 25        August 23    September 25
Seed fall starts (2
  observations)                October 16       October 16      October 16
  • 11.  Berg, Arthur R. 1974. Arctostaphylos Adans. manzanita. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 228-231.  [7428]
  • 121.  Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest        flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden,        UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest        and Range Experiment Station. 20 p.  [2082]
  • 123.  Severson, Kieth E.; Garrett, E. Chester. 1974. Growth characteristics of        bearberry in the Black Hills. Res. Note. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 3 p.  [5408]
  • 125.  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]
  • 127.  Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life        Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p.  [12907]
  • 132.  Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains.        Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p.  [3804]
  • 134.  Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed        dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous        forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688.  [6508]
  • 152.  Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue        Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p.  [12908]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 8
Specimens with Barcodes: 28
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Status

Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values).

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Management considerations

More info for the term: cover

Kinnikinnick increases following moderate disturbances [151].  In western
Montana, it increased strongly after clearcutting with no further
treatment but showed little change after clearcutting with broadcast
burning or mechanical scarification [6].  It is easily killed by
scraping or fire but is able to regenerate from surviving parts or seed
[6].  In north-central Washington it is often the only species growing
on abandoned stock driveways [151].  Kinnikinnick is moderately resistant
to trampling and has low short-term and long-term resilience [19].  In
northern Idaho, its cover was sharply reduced in grazed stands, and it
was considered to be less resistant to trampling due to its small size
and shallow rhizomes (buried stems) [153].  In the Wind River Range of
Wyoming, kinnikinnick increases in response to heavy livestock grazing and
trampling and becomes characteristic of disturbed aspen (Populus
tremuloides) stands [110].

Kinnikinnick is a host to yellow witch's broom, which also affects three
species of spruce (Picea spp.) in Alberta [148].  Kinnikinnick's
sensitivity to herbicides varies from susceptible to intermediate
resistance, depending on both the type of treatment and the life stage
treated [9,13].  Resprouts following disturbance are easily killed by
herbicides, while old-growth is more difficult to kill [13].  Detailed
treatment information is available [13,104].

Kinnikinnick is relatively insensitive to the effects of sulfur dioxide gas
[60].  Concentrations of heavy metals due to air pollution have been
determined for fruit, stems, and leaves [126].
  • 6.  Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest        succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep.        INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p.  [349]
  • 9.  Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important        wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of        Forests, Research Branch. 58 p.  [12148]
  • 13.  Bovey, Rodney W. 1977. Response of selected woody plants in the United        States to herbicides. Agric. Handb. 493. Washington, DC: U.S. Department        of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 101 p.  [8899]
  • 19.  Cole, David N. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of trampled montane        grassland and forests in Montana. Res. Pap. INT-389. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 37 p.  [3622]
  • 60.  Hocking, Drake. 1975. Effects on the forest of sulphur dioxide from a        sulphur fire near Edson, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-139.        Edmonton, AB: Environment Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Northern        Forest Research Center. 8 p.  [7610]
  • 104.  Parker, Robert, compiler. 1982. Reaction of various plants to 2,4-D,        MCPA, 2,4,5-T, silvex and 2,4-DB. Pullman, WA: Washington State        University, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension. 61 p. In        cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture.  [1817]
  • 110.  Reed, Robert M. 1971. Aspen forests of the Wind River Mountains,        Wyoming. American Midland Naturalist. 86(2): 327-343.  [1951]
  • 126.  Shaw, George. 1981. Concentrations of twenty-eight elements in fruiting        shrubs downwind of the smelter at Flin Flon, Manitoba. Environmental        Pollution (Series A). 25(3): 197-209.  [10794]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]
  • 151.  Williams, Clinton K.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1983. Forested plant        associations of the Okanogan National Forest. R6-Ecol-132b. Portland,        OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Region. 116 p.  [2566]
  • 153.  Zimmerman, G. T.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1984. Livestock grazing        influences on community structure, fire intensity, and fire frequency        within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range        Management. 37(2): 104-110.  [10103]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Cultivars, improved and selected materials (and area of origin)

There are no known varieties of bearberry available; local or regional selections are available from commercial nurseries.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

This shrub species requires very little maintenance once it has been established. Annual spring applications of 10-10-10 will increase the growth rate of bearberry, but will also increase weed growth. Weed growth must be controlled to sustain healthy stands of bearberry.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Economic Uses

Uses: Fruit, Beverage (non-alcoholic), MEDICINE/DRUG, Pharmaceutical

Comments: BLACKFOOT: leaves dried and mixed with tobacco. berries eaten raw or preserved. MENOMINI: seasoner for "female remedies"; dried leaves used as a diuretic, tonic, astringent. useful for inflamed urinary diseases. for bronchitis, diarrhea, leucorrhea, amenorrhea and uterine hemorrhages. powdered dry leaves used as a substitute for, or mixed with, tobacco. KUTENAI: berries boiled for emergency food (left on shrubs, not stored). WY, MN, MO, OR, BC: fruit eaten raw or cooked, or dried, ground and made into bread or mush; also used for seasoning meats. fruit = good source of vitamin C, used raw or as a sauce or jam. leaf = tobacco substitute, used as a tea for urinary tract inflammation

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Other uses and values

More info for the terms: cover, layering

Smoking the leaves as a tobacco substitute is the most widely mentioned
human use of kinnikinnick.  However, medical uses of kinnikinnick leaves were
recognized by early Romans, Native Americans, and settlers [54,95,142].
At the present, kinnikinnick leaves are used medicinally in Poland and many
other countries [46].  The most important medical use of the leaves is
for treating urinary tract disease.  They can also be used to make a
highly astringent wash and as a vasoconstrictor for the endometrium of
the uterus [46,54,79,95].  Some Native American tribes powdered the
leaves and applied them to sores [54].  For medical use the leaves are
best collected in the fall [46].

The berrylike drupes have dry, insipid, and tasteless flesh when raw but
are useful emergency food [53,54,142].  Native Americans fried them or
dried them and used them in pemmican [54].  The fruit is also used in
jelly, jam, and sauces [53].  In Scandinavia, kinnikinnick is used
commercially to tan leather [79].

Kinnikinnick is an attractive and excellent garden ground cover on sunny,
sandy banks, along roadways, rock walls, rockeries, parking strips, and
other sunny places in urban areas [73,128].  It withstands low summer
moisture; some forms will withstand salt spray, grow very slowly, or
grow under semishady conditions [73,128].  Branches with fruit are used
for fall and Christmas decorations [53].  Kinnikinnick plants are available
in nurseries [11,119].  Propagation by layering or rooted cuttings is
easy and well described [46,73,128].
  • 11.  Berg, Arthur R. 1974. Arctostaphylos Adans. manzanita. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 228-231.  [7428]
  • 46.  Gawlowska, Jadwiga. 1969. Seminatural cultivation of economically        important plant species growing in the wild state. Biological        Conservation. 1: 151-155.  [13013]
  • 53.  Harrington, H. D. 1976. Edible native plants of the Rocky Mountains.        Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 392 p.  [12903]
  • 54.  Hart, J. 1976. Montana--native plants and early peoples. Helena, MT:        Montana Historical Society. 75 p.  [9979]
  • 73.  Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific        Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p.  [9980]
  • 79.  Lewin, Renate. 1989. Vanishing resources; Protecting medicinal plants of        the forest. Forest World. 5(2): 15-20.  [11058]
  • 95.  Moore, Michael. 1979. Medicinal plants of the Mountain West. Santa Fe,        NM: Museum of New Mexico Press. 200 p.  [12905]
  • 119.  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.  [3240]
  • 128.  Sperka, Marie. 1973. Growing wildflowers: A gardener's guide. New York:        Harper & Row. 277 p.  [10578]
  • 142.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Cover Value

More info for the term: cover

Kinnikinnick has little or no cover value for most game animals but may
have fair cover value for upland game birds in Colorado and Utah.  It
offers fair to good cover for small mammals and small nongame birds
[30]. 
  • 30.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Nutritional Value

More info for the term: cover

The energy and protein values of kinnikinnick browse are low [30].  Results
of a nutrient study in stands of sapling and pole-sized ponderosa pine
in the Black Hills of South Dakota showed no trends in the nutrients
sampled relative to stocking (shade) levels that ranged from 0 (0 m2/ha
basal area) to unthinned (40 m2/ha basal area) [124].  Production
decreases when crown cover exceeds 40 percent [105].  Average
percentages of the six nutrients studied for kinnikinnick forage are given
below [124]:

Attribute                    Pole Stands              Sapling Stands
                          Mean  Standard Error     Mean  Standard Error
Crude Protein              5.5       0.1            5.7       0.1
Acid Detergent Fiber      25.8       0.6           26.8       0.1
Acid Detergent Lignin     12.6       0.3           13.3       0.2
Ash                        3.15      0.55           3.08      0.09
Calcium                    0.63      0.01           0.60      0.01
Phosphorus                 0.14      0.01           0.14      0.01

A similar nutrient study done previously in the Black Hills gave the
percent composition by season [45]:

Attribute               Oct. 1      Jan. 1     April 1     July 1  
Carotene (micrograms
 per gram)               18.67       10.86      31.97       38.10
Moisture                 47.54       49.11      36.65       60.81
Ash                       1.93        2.01       2.27        1.66
Crude Fat                 5.97        4.88       8.28        4.72
Crude Fiber               9.00        8.29       9.18        6.22
Crude Protein             2.70        2.55       2.98        3.30
N-Free Extract           32.86       33.16      40.63       23.29
Phosphorus                0.064       0.067      0.09        0.08
Calcium                   0.39        0.60       0.52        0.22
Iron (ppm)              270.75      309.28     236.51      173.70
Manganese (ppm)          12.38       13.36      20.91       16.29
  • 30.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 45.  Gastler, George F.; Moxon, Alvin L.; McKean, William T. 1951.        Composition of some plants eaten by deer in the Black Hills of South        Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 15(4): 352-357.  [3996]
  • 105.  Pase, Charles P. 1958. Herbage production and composition under immature        ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills. Journal of Range Management.        11: 238-243.  [1823]
  • 124.  Severson, Kieth E.; Uresk, Daniel W. 1988. Influence of ponderosa pine        overstory on forage quality in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Great        Basin Naturalist. 48(1): 78-82.  [2807]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Palatability

Kinnikinnick is unpalatable to domestic livestock but relished by wildlife
[49].  It is palatable to white-tailed deer in the Black Hills of South
Dakota from fall to late spring [58].  Kinnikinnick fruits are relished and
highly important to black bear in the Yukon [84].  The fruit is of
moderate importance to grizzly bear in Montana [83].  The degree of use
shown by livestock and wildlife species for kinnikinnick is rated as
follows [30]:

                         CO      MT      UT      WY      ND
Cattle                  poor    poor    poor    poor    poor
Sheep                   poor    poor    poor    poor    poor
Horses                  poor    poor    poor    poor    poor
Pronghorn               ----    ----    poor    poor    poor
Elk                     fair    poor    poor    poor    ----
Mule deer               fair    fair    poor    fair    fair
White-tailed deer       ----    fair    ----    fair    fair
Small mammals           good    fair    good    good   
Small nongame birds     good    fair    fair    fair   
Upland game birds       good    fair    good    good   
Waterfowl               ----    ----    poor    poor   
  • 30.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 49.  Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions        toward a flora of Nevada No. 49. Beltsville, MD: U. S. Department of        Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops        Research Division. 170 p.  [6729]
  • 58.  Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for        white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54.  [3270]
  • 83.  Mace, Richard D. 1986. Analysis of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob        Marshall Wilderness, Montana. 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: 136-149.        [10814]
  • 84.  MacHutchon, A. Grant. 1989. Spring and summer food habits of black bears        in the Pelly River Valley, Yukon. Northwest Science. 63(3): 116-118.        [12249]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Importance to Livestock and Wildlife

Kinnikinnick browse is of moderate importance to bighorn sheep, mountain
goat, black-tailed deer, and white-tailed deer [9,142].  Kinnikinnick is
important to moderately important browse for Rocky Mountain mule deer
[9,24,75].  Elk browse it on winter ranges in Alberta [148].  During
early spring in Montana, moose browse kinnikinnick in snowfree areas near
trees on south and west aspects [133].

Since kinnikinnick's low-quality fruit spoils slowly, it lasts through
winter and is available when other fruits are gone [134].  The fruits of
kinnikinnick are eaten by songbirds, gamebirds, including five species of
grouse and wild turkey, deer, elk, and small mammals [49,89,134,148].
Black bear and grizzly bear eat kinnikinnick fruits in the autumn, but
fruits are especially important to bears in the early spring
[55,83,84,148].  In Montana, grouse may be attracted to very recent
burns by fire-exposed kinnikinnick fruit [68].

Hummingbirds take nectar from the flowers of kinnikinnick and have been
observed to alight momentarily to probe low flowers [108]. 
  • 9.  Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important        wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of        Forests, Research Branch. 58 p.  [12148]
  • 24.  Currie, P. O.; Reichert, D. W.; Malechek, J. C.; Wallmo, O. C. 1977.        Forage selection comparisons for mule deer and cattle under managed        ponderosa pine. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 352-356.  [4697]
  • 49.  Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions        toward a flora of Nevada No. 49. Beltsville, MD: U. S. Department of        Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops        Research Division. 170 p.  [6729]
  • 55.  Hatler, David F. 1972. Food habits of black bears in interior Alaska.        Canadian Field-Naturalist. 86(1): 17-31.  [10389]
  • 68.  Keown, L. D. 1977. Interim report: Black Tail Hills Prescribed Fire        Project: implementation and results. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 9 p.        [12233]
  • 75.  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.  [1387]
  • 83.  Mace, Richard D. 1986. Analysis of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob        Marshall Wilderness, Montana. 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: 136-149.        [10814]
  • 84.  MacHutchon, A. Grant. 1989. Spring and summer food habits of black bears        in the Pelly River Valley, Yukon. Northwest Science. 63(3): 116-118.        [12249]
  • 89.  Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American        wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.        [4021]
  • 108.  Pojar, Jim. 1975. Hummingbird flowers of British Columbia. Syesis. 8:        25-28.  [6537]
  • 133.  Stevens, David R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin        Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 37-46.        [7932]
  • 134.  Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed        dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the Eastern deciduous        forest. American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688.  [6508]
  • 142.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites

Kinnikinnick is very useful in erosion control plantings and attractive
along highway embankments [11,73,118,148].  It is recommended for
revegetation projects on well-drained soils in Alaska and moist to dry
sites in most of Alberta.  It is well suited to coarse-textured soils
that are low in nutrients.  Kinnikinnick can be aggressive on open sites and
may invade disturbed sites vegetatively [148].  Its potential is better
as a long-term revegetative species than as a short-term revegatative
species because its growth rate is moderate [30,148].  Growth is good on
gentle to steep sites [30].

Stem cuttings taken in the fall are described as the best method of
establishment [11,63,148].  Kinnikinnick roots normally form
endomycorrhizae, and cuttings can be inoculated with endomycorrhizal
fungi prior to rooting [99].  Propagation by root cuttings has been done
successfully [63].  Good seed crops occur at 1- to 5-year intervals.
Seedling establishment is difficult and time consuming
[11,30,46,146,148].  Details on seed cleaning, stratification,
scarification, and germination as well as culture are well known and
described [11,46,142,146,148].  Seed is available commercially [148].
  • 11.  Berg, Arthur R. 1974. Arctostaphylos Adans. manzanita. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 228-231.  [7428]
  • 30.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 46.  Gawlowska, Jadwiga. 1969. Seminatural cultivation of economically        important plant species growing in the wild state. Biological        Conservation. 1: 151-155.  [13013]
  • 63.  Holloway, Patricia; Zasada, John. 1979. Vegetative propagation of 11        common Alaska woody plants. Res. Note PNW-334. Portland, OR: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 12 p.  [1183]
  • 73.  Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific        Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p.  [9980]
  • 99.  Nelson, S. D. 1987. Rooting and subsequent growth of woody ornamental        softwood cuttings treated with endomycorrhizal inoculum. Journal of the        American Society of Horticultural Science. 112(2): 263-266.  [8377]
  • 118.  Rudolf, Paul O. 1950. Forest plantations in the Lake States. Tech. Bull.        1010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 171 p.  [13463]
  • 142.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707]
  • 146.  Vories, Kimery C. 1981. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of        the art. Volume I. Shrubs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-103. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 80 p.  [3426]
  • 148.  Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant        species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and        trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p.        [8855]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Uses

Bearberry serves a dual role on sandy soils, as both a beautification plant as well as a critical area stabilizer. The thick, prostrate, vegetative mat and evergreen character are what make bearberry a very popular ground cover. It is often planted around home sites, sand dunes, sandy banks, and commercial sites. The fruit it produces is eaten by a few species of songbirds and game animals. Deer will sometimes browse the foliage lightly.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi subsp. uva-ursi fruit

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi is a plant species of the genus Arctostaphylos (manzanita). Its common names include kinnikinnick and pinemat manzanita, and it is one of several related species referred to as bearberry.[1]

Distribution[edit]

The distribution of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi is circumpolar, and it is widespread in northern latitudes, but confined to high altitudes further south:

In some areas the plant is endangered or has been extirpated from its native range. In other areas, such as the Cascade Range, it is abundant.

Description[edit]

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi is a small procumbent woody groundcover shrub 5–30 cm high. The leaves are evergreen, remaining green for 1–3 years before falling. The fruit is a red berry.

The leaves are shiny, small, and feel thick and stiff. They are alternately arranged on the stems. Undersides of leaves are lighter green than on the tops. New stems can be red if the plant is in full sun, but are green in shadier areas. Older stems are brown. In spring, they have white or pink flowers.

Pure stands of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi can be extremely dense, with heights rarely taller than 6 inches. Erect branching twigs emerge from long flexible prostrate stems, which are produced by single roots. The trailing stems will layer, sending out small roots periodically. The finely textured velvety branches are initially white to pale green, becoming smooth and red-brown with maturity. The small solitary three scaled buds are dark brown.

The simple leaves of this broadleaf evergreen are alternately arranged on branches. Each leaf is held by a twisted leaf stalk, vertically. The leathery dark green leaves are an inch long and have rounded tips tapering back to the base. In fall, the leaves begin changing from a dark green to a reddish-green to purple.

Terminal clusters of small urn-shaped flowers bloom from May to June. The perfect flowers are white to pink, and bear round, fleshy or mealy, bright red to pink fruits called drupes. This smooth, glossy skinned fruit will range from 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter. The fruit will persist on the plant into early winter. Each drupe contains 1 to 5 hard seeds, which need to be scarified and stratified prior to germination to reduce the seed coat and break embryo dormancy. There is an average of 40,900 cleaned seeds per pound.[2]

Subspecies[edit]

There are at least five reported subspecies:

Sources do not agree on the list of subspecies, so some of these may be identical, or may be separate species rather than subspecies. See bearberry and manzanita. For a list of reported North American subspecies and varietals see USDA Plants Profile in External Links below. For a complete list of related plants see Arctostaphylos. ***Further research needed to clarify botanical classification***.

Uses[edit]

Medicinal[edit]

Bearberry has historically been used for medicinal purposes. It contains the glycoside arbutin, which has antimicrobial properties and acts as a mild diuretic. It has been used for urinary tract complaints, including cystitis and urolithiasis. An infusion may be made by soaking the leaves in ethanol and then diluting with water.[4] In the 19th century before the introduction of sulfa drugs and modern antibiotics, it was among the few herbal drugs with antibacterial properties, but some constituents, such as the hydroquinones are hepatotoxic, and in cases of urinary tract infections, more pertinent treatment options are recommended.[5]

Smoking[edit]

Bearberry is the main component in many traditional North American Native smoking mixes,[6] known collectively as "kinnikinnick" (Algonquin for a mixture). Bearberry is used especially amongst western First Nations, often including other herbs and sometimes tobacco. Some historical reports indicate a "narcotic" or stimulant effect,[7] but since it is almost always smoked with other herbs, including tobacco, it is not clear what psychotropic effects may be due to it alone. For a full discussion of Amerindian smoking mixtures see kinnikinnick.

Cultivation[edit]

There are several cultivars that are propagated for use as ornamental plants. It is an attractive evergreen plant in gardens, and it is also useful for controlling erosion.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Casebeer, M. (2004). Discover California Shrubs. Sonora, California: Hooker Press. ISBN 0-9665463-1-8
  2. ^ http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_aruv.pdf
  3. ^ Elven, Reidar (editor-in-chief): Pan-arctic Flora
  4. ^ Grieve, M.: Botanical.com - A Modern Herbal
  5. ^ Uva Ursi (Bearberry) University of Maryland Medical Center retrieved July 29, 2013.
  6. ^ Moerman, Daniel E.: "Arctostaphylos uva-ursi" in Native American ethnobotany, pages 87–88. ISBN 0-88192-453-9.
  7. ^ "''Psychotropia: The Psychoactive Database''". Psychotropia.co. 2011-02-08. Retrieved 2012-10-16. 
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

The currently accepted scientific name of kinnikinnick is Arctostaphylos
uva-ursi (L.) Spreng [59,67]. The following forms are recognized
[117,149]:

A. u. forma adenotricha (Fern. & Macbr.) Wells
A. u. forma coactilis (Fern. & Macbr.) Wells
A. u. forma longipilosa (Packer & Denford) Wells
A. u. forma stipitata (Packer & Denford) Wells
A. u. forma uva-ursi

Kinnikinnick hybridizes with hairy manzanita (A. columbiana) to produce A.
Xmedia Greene [59,73]. It occasionally hybridizes with greenleaf
manzanita (A. patula) [150].
  • 59.  Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1959. Vascular        plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 4: Ericaceae through        Campanulaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 510 p.        [1170]
  • 73.  Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific        Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p.  [9980]
  • 117.  Rosatti, Thomas J. 1987. Field and garden studies of Arctostaphylos        uva-ursi (Ericaceae) in North America. Systematic Botany. 12(1): 61-77.        [2025]
  • 149.  Wells, Philip V. 1988. New combinations in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae):        Annotated list of changes in status. Madrono. 35(4): 330-341.  [6448]
  • 67.  Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of        the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume        II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North        Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie        Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p.  [6954]
  • 150.  Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry        C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,        UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.  [2944]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

kinnikinnick
bearberry

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!