Physiognomy and Structure: This alliance is characterized by a moderate to dense canopy of cold-deciduous shrubs up to 4 m in height. There is often another stratum (sometimes two) of low cold-deciduous shrubs from 0.5-2 m tall. The ground layer is usually a species-rich assemblage of cespitose graminoids and erect forbs.

Floristics: These shrublands are typically sparse to dense and tall with multiple vegetation layers. The upper shrub layer is typically dominated by Amelanchier utahensis, Cercocarpus montanus, or Cercocarpus intricatus. Species that may codominate in some stands include Artemisia tridentata, Fendlera rupicola, Glossopetalon spinescens, and Rhus trilobata. Other shrub associates may include Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Ephedra viridis, Eriogonum corymbosum, Holodiscus dumosus, Mahonia repens, Purshia tridentata, Ribes cereum, Rosa woodsii, Symphoricarpos oreophilus, and Tetradymia canescens. Occasional trees, such as Juniperus spp., Quercus spp., Pinus edulis, Pinus ponderosa or Pseudotsuga menziesii, may be scattered in some stands. The herbaceous layer is variable and may have sparse to moderate cover and is most often dominated by graminoids. Dominant graminoids may include Carex geyeri, Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Hesperostipa comata, and Pseudoroegneria spicata. Other associated graminoids may include Achnatherum hymenoides, Koeleria macrantha, Leymus salinus, Poa fendleriana, and Poa fendleriana. Forbs do not contribute significant cover, but may be diverse in some stands. Associates may include Artemisia ludoviciana, Balsamorhiza sagittata, Collinsia parviflora, Hedeoma hispida, Lathyrus pauciflorus, and Symphyotrichum oblongifolium (= Aster oblongifolius).

Dynamics:  Yake and Brotherson (1979) noted that regeneration of Amelanchier utahensis was most favorable on moderately deep, fine-textured soils of northerly-aspected sites. They noted that seedling herbivory by native ungulates was greater at such sites. Annual grasses were noted to have a negative effect on seedling densities. Amelanchier utahensis hybridizes with Amelanchier alnifolia, and distinctions between the two species may become blurred in areas where their ranges overlap. Cercocarpus montanus is a dominant understory species in several woodland and forests dominated by Juniperus deppeana, Juniperus monosperma, Juniperus osteosperma, Juniperus scopulorum, Pinus edulis, Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus gambelii, Quercus grisea, and Quercus x pauciloba. Cercocarpus montanus stands often occur in the more xeric habitat below these woodland and forest stands. In xeric habitats studied by Greenwood and Brotherson (1978), Cercocarpus montanus sites had significantly more rock than the Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma sites. Brotherson et al. (1984) suggested that stands are moisture-limited because stands on southern aspects were always higher in elevation than stands on northern aspects. They also found that the Cercocarpus montanus stands were more likely to occur on northern slopes than on southern in central Utah. However, Cercocarpus montanus did not typically occur with mesic shrubs such as Symphoricarpos oreophilus and Amelanchier alnifolia. There is often a broad Cercocarpus montanus shrub/herbaceous ecotone between these shrublands and grasslands. Ecological factors that control shrub densities such as fire and drought need more investigation. Unlike other species of Cercocarpus, Cercocarpus montanus is a fire-resistant species because it can resprout from the base after a fire has killed the top (Cronquist et al. 1997). In the southern portion of its range, Cercocarpus montanus functions as an evergreen shrub by retaining leaves during mild winters and losing them during cold winters (Dick-Peddie 1993). Cercocarpus montanus is preferred winter range browse for deer (Roughton 1966, 1972, Hoffman and Alexander 1987). Stands can also produce significant forage that can be utilized by grazing livestock provided the slopes are not too steep (Hoffman and Alexander 1987). More information is needed on the effects of livestock grazing and wildlife browsing on the structure and function of these shrublands.