CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. 1 FIELD RESEARCH IN THE MOUNT ADAMS AREA. ................ 4 History ............................... 4 1972Experiment. .......................... 5 Area Description ......................... 5 Objectives ............................ 9 Experimental Design. ....................... 9 Treatments ............................ 9 Data Collection and Processing .................. 13 Results .............................. 14 Conclusions. ........................... 22 Additional Mount Adams Field Research ................ 24 FIELD RESEARCH IN THE MOUNT HOOD AREA ................. 25 Area Description. .......................... 25 Bulldoze-and-Burn Experiment. .................... 26 Objectives ............................ 26 Experimental Design. ....................... 28 Treatment. ............................ 28 Data Collection and Processing .................. 29 Results .............................. 29 Conclusions. ........................... 29 Karbutilate Experiment. ....................... 29 Objective. ............................ 29 Experimental Design. ....................... 29 Treatments ............................ 32 Data Collection and Processing .................. 32 Results .............................. 32 Conclusions. ........................... 34 Five-Treatment Grid ......................... 34 Objective. ............................ 34 Experimental Design. ....................... 34 Treatments ............................ 34 Data Collection and Processing .................. 36 Results .............................. 36 Conclusions. ........................... 41 LABORAlIORYRESEARCH..... 43 DISCUSSION. 45 MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS. 47 LITERATURECITED............................ 49 This page was intentionally left blank . - _--_ _.-- - ..- -, -._ For centuries before men prevented or controlled in recent learned to prevent and control years, and Indian-set fires have them, wildfires periodically raced not burned over the most heavily through northwestern forests. used, high-elevation, huckleberry Often destroying the forests on fields for several generations. As large areas in catastrophic burns, a result, trees of low timber these wildfires frequently created quality have been invading many open, tree-free environments above high quality huckleberry fields 3,000 ft (914 m) that were suitable (figs. 1 and 2). These trees for the growth and development of eventually form dense subalpine wild huckleberries. Some of the forests that crowd and shade the resulting huckleberry fields were shrubs, eventually eliminating heavily used by Indians. huckleberry production. Indians apparently dried their Berry production is surpris- huckleberries by placing them near ingly high in some of the fields. campfires or slowly burning rotten We measured a yield of 100 gal per logs ignited for that purpose. acre (935 1 per ha) on one high Some years, when dry conditions and quality huckleberry area in 1976. high winds were favorable, these In 1977, when overall berry pro- drying fires may have spread and duction tended to be poorer, reburned the berry fields. The another area produced 77 gal per Indians also may have deliberately acre (720 1 per ha). Fresh set fires to reburn the heavily huckleberries sold for $10.00-11.00 used fields during dry, windy per gal ($2.64-2.90 per 1) in periods. In any event, periodic 1977. Most berry pickers do not fires kept trees out of many pick every berry on an area, but huckleberry fields and created new picking only half the berries would fields where postfire environmental have produced economic yields of conditions were favorable for over $300 per acre ($741 per ha) on huckleberry growth. several areas sampled in 1977. Twelve blueberry-like huckle- berry species grow in Oregon and Washington (Minore 1972), and huckleberry fields occupy over 100,000 acres (40 469 ha) in these two states. 1/ Unfortunately, this acreage is dwindling. Most large wildfires have been effectively lGerhart H. Nelson. Huckleberry management. 4 P. May 14, 1970. (Unpublished, on file at USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, Oreg.) Figure 1. --A portion of the Sawtooth huckleberry field near Mount Adams, Washington in 1938. Note snags and open aspect. 2 Figure 2.-- The same area shown in figure 1, 34 years later. These two photographs, taken at the same point, illustrate the rapid invasion by trees of this highly productive huckleberry field. Subalpine forest will soon reduce berry production. I 3 FIELD RESEARCH IN THE MOUNT ADAMS / -AREA Economic yields do not ade- History quately reflect the importance of the northwestern huckleberry The huckleberry fields near resource, however, for the in- Mount Adams have been heavily used tangible values of fresh air, by berry pickers for many years. mountain scenery, and berry buckets Members of the expedition led by they have filled themselves are far Captain George B. McClellan noted more important than market values the extensive burned-over areas in I to most huckleberry pickers. Many this vicinity and found many people pick berries just for fun. Indians picking and drying berries i I Over a thousand vehicles were there in 1853. One member re- * I tallied in one ranger district's collected "a full tribe" and wrote berry fields during a single "I never saw so many (Indians) and huckleberry-season weekend in 1971. so ma kinds of berries in all my On another district, 163,000 life" 2/ visitor-days were recorded in one heavily used field during 1969 (see Eighty-one years later, in footnote 1). 1934, an animal exclosure was constructed to monitor the effects Considered either economically of grazing in the berry fields. or recreationally, deterioration of Vegetation within the exclosure and the northwestern huckleberry on an adjacent unfenced plot was observed yearly until 1942. The resource is serious. Several factors are involved: natural Forest Service observers concluded that sheep benefited the berries by succession in the, absence of reducing vegetative competition and wildfires; huckleberry regener- lightly browsing the huckleberry ation, growth, and berry produc- 3 shrubs. / In 1937, all trees were tion; meteorological effects; and the regeneration, growth, and competition of associated species. Seeking a better understanding of these factors, we studied huckle- berries from 1972 through 1977. Field phenomena were investigated in two areas near Mount Adams, 2George Henry C. Hodges. Personal recollec- Washington, and Mount Hood, Oregon. tion. Page 146, Washington State Historical We conducted laboratory and green- Society Publication. Volume 2, 1907 to 1914. (On file at USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot house studies at the USDA Forestry National Forest. Vancouver, Wash.) Sciences Laboratory in Corvallis, 3K. C. Langfield. Effect of grazing on Oregon. This report is a summary huckleberry production. 2 p. December 9. of the research at all three 1942. (Unpublished, on file at Mount Adams locations during the 6-year study. Ranger District, Trout Lake, Wash.) -__-.----- ---. .------ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ felled on 5 acres (2 ha) of berry field in the same Mount Adams area. 4/ Later (1963), more trees AREA DESCRIPTION were felled, and 6 acres were disked in an attempt to control We established a vegetation vegetative competition. 5/ Berry control experiment 13 mi. (21 km) production was not measured on southwest of Mount Adams during the these felled or disked areas, but summer of 1972 in sec. 16, T. 7 N., disking apparently stimulated R. 8 E. Located in a portion of rhizome sprouting. A huckleberry the Sawtooth Huckleberry Field management plan was formulated for already invaded by subalpine the Mount Adams huckleberry re- forest, this experimental area is source in 1968, but never imple- at an elevation of 4,000 ft. mented (see footnote 5). (1 219 m), with a gently sloping WSW aspect. Lodgepole pine, Dr. Perry C. Crandall (Wash- western white pine, subalpine fir, ington State University, personal Douglas-fir, mountain hemlock, and communication, March 17, 1972) Engelmann spruce comprise most of applied replicated herbicide the forest canopy (see table 1, treatments near Mount Adams in fig. 3).61 1969. He found that Casaron, The 1972 experimental area Simazine, Atrazine, and Paraquat occupies soil that is shallow, were ineffective in selectively coarse-textured, gravelly, low in controlling vegetation competing nutrients (table 2), and subject to with huckleberries. Crandall's erosion. Invading trees are short huckleberry pruning trials (50 and poorly formed, often showing percent and 80 percent top removal) considerable snow damage. Snow were also ineffective, damaging the packs usually are deep and long- huckleberry shrubs rather than lasting, and the growing season is improving them. cool and short. 4George A. Bright. Buckleberry release from reproduction. 3 p. September 24, 1937. (Unpublished, on file at Mount Adams Ranger Station, Trout Lake, Wash.) 5 Donald E. Wermlinger. Twin Buttes huckle- berry management plan. 25 p. January 5, 1968. (Unpublished, on file at Mount Adams Ranger 6Table 1 lists scientific names for all plants Station, Trout Lake, Wash.) mentioned in this report. 5 - -_ -_ . -. ., . _ . , .- .- Table l--Names of plants 1/ Common name Scientific name Agoseris , orange Agoseris aurantiaca Greene Beadlily, Queencup Clintonia uniflora (Schult.) Kunth Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. Blueberry, eastern lowbush Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. Bramble, dwarf Rubus lasiococcus Gray Bunchberry Cornus canadensis L. Cinquefoil, Drummond