UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
MISCEiLANEODS PUBLICATION No. 303 
Washington, D. G. Slightly revised May 1939 
NATIVE WOODY PLANTS OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THEIR EROSION-CONTROL 
AND WILDLIFE VALUES 
By William R. Van Deesal, biologist, Division of Conservation Operations, Soil 
Conservation Service 
Page 
Introduction 1 
Tiie relation of vegetation to soil conservation. 2 
Evaluation of plants for erosion control and 
wildlife 4 
Planting for soil and wildlife conservation 5 
Planting for wildlife 6 
Highway planting 7 
Plants of objectionable characteristics 8 
Poisonous plants 9 
Aggressive plants 9 
Plants harboring fungi or insect pests 10 
Selection of species for planting 11 
Primary succession 11 
Secondary succession and pioneer species... 12 
Native versus introduced species 13 
Fruit production 14 
The correlation of soils and plant growth. . . 15 
Development of the plant-growth region map. 16 
Plant-growth regions 17 
Factors in plant distribution 17 
Thornthwaite's climatic provinces 19 
Page 
Plant-growth regions— Continued. 
Length of the growing season 20 
Snow cover 20 
Climates of growth regions 21 
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria 27 
Explanation of the list 28 
Scope 28 
Latin names and synonyms 28 
Vernacular names of plants 29 
Range 30 
Site designations 30 
Growth habits 31 
Fruiting 31 
Propagation 32 
Utilization by wildlife 34 
List of woody plants . 35 
Bibliography 293 
Mimeographed and unpublished refer- 
ences 321 
List of common names of woody plants 322 
INTRODUCTION 
At no time has the need for conservation of our natural resources 
been as apparent as it is at present. ¥/ e have seen the wasteful de- 
struction of our most basic resource, the soil, take place at an ever- 
increasing rate within a comparatively short span of years. The 
original vegetation of the country has in large part been removed, 
and as a consequence of this^ not only has soil become increasingly 
subject to erosion, but wildlife, being dependent on vegetation for 
existence, has also become severely depleted. 
The same forces that cause soil losses have destroyed wildlife habi- 
tats. The removal of the vegetative cover has permitted washing 
away of topsoil, and this in turn has prevented the return of vegeta- 
tion and the consequent restoration of wildlife. It is only natural, 
therefore, that revegetation should be relied upon to conserve soil, 
and since the same vegetation can be made to provide more wildlife 
habitats, it is possible to conserve two resources with one operation. 
It becomes apparent that soil conservation, if properly managed, 
can mean wildlife conservation. 
1 
