|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
ABBREVIATION :
ARCPAT
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
ARPA6
COMMON NAMES :
greenleaf manzanita
buckbrush.
indian tobacco
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of greenleaf manzanita is
Arctostaphylos patula Greene [60,84]. There are no infrataxa [84].
Hybrids resulting from crsses between greenleaf manzanita and other
Arctostaphylos species include:
A. X coloradensis Rollins - a hybrid of A. uva-ursi x A. patula [71]
A. X jepsonii Eastwood - a hybrid of A. patula Greene x A.
viscidia ssp. mariposa Dudley var. bivisa Jepsson [21,69].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
MT State Rank: S1 - critically imperiled in Montana (5 or fewer
occurrences) [50].
Global Rank: G5 - demonstrably secure globally [50].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Mary Lou Zimmerman, April 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Zimmerman, Mary Lou. 1991. Arctostaphylos patula. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Greenleaf manzanita is the most common manzanita in the Great Basin and
much of the Sierra Nevada [43,59]. From the Great Basin it ranges north
through the Oregon Cascades to Klickitat County, Washington [22]; east
to western Colorado [21]; south to the higher elevations of northern
Arizona [31]; and west through the Sierra Nevada to the Coast Ranges of
California north of Lake County [44]. There is also an isolated
occurrence of this species in Lake County, Montana [13].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
STATES :
AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM OR UT WA
WY
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CARE BRCA CEBR CRLA DINO GRCA
LAVO LABE NABR YOSE ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K007 Red fir forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
SAF COVER TYPES :
207 Red fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
218 Lodgepole pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
247 Jefferey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Greenleaf manzanita is indicative of open areas having dry,
well-drained, coarse soils, poor site index, and a history of fire
[21,43,44,74]. Greenleaf manzanita is listed as a dominant, codominant,
or indicator species in the following publications:
Plant communities and habitat types in the Lava Beds National Monument,
California [14]
Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington [83]
Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah [40]
Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges [56]
Ponderosa pine habitat types as an indicator of site quality in the
Dixie National Forest, Utah [63]
Plant associations of the central Oregon Pumice Zone [64]
Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah [74]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
A 1986 study describes the feasibility of using greenleaf manzanita and
Parry manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita) as raw material for
processing into products such as torula yeast, furfural, methanol,
brewer's yeast, and other assorted sugars and acids. These products
were obtained through hydrolysis of various wood components [6].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Greenleaf manzanita is virtually worthless to livestock as browse
[43,49]. Even domestic goats only browsed this shrub when nothing
preferable was available [49,59].
Greenleaf manzanita is of considerable value as a food source for
wildlife. Mature berries are eaten by bear, grouse, turkey, and song
birds [59]. Use of the foliage as browse by deer is ample in the fall,
winter, and spring [39]. Deer also browse sprouts and seedlings [49].
Both livestock and deer prefer the tender young shoots and seedlings
common the first couple of years following fire to the mature foliage
[49].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of greenleaf manzanita is listed as poor for cattle,
sheep, and horses. It ranges from fair to good for various wildlife
species. The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for
greenleaf manzanita in Colorado, Utah, and California is rated as
follows [12,49]:
CO UT CA
Cattle ---- Poor Poor
Sheep ---- Poor Poor
Horses ---- Poor Poor
Elk Fair Poor ----
Mule deer Good Poor Good
Small mammals Good Good ----
Small nongame birds Good Fair ----
Upland game birds Good Fair ----
Waterfowl ---- Poor ----
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
No species of manzanita provides high quality browse [49]. The
percentage of crude protein of browse material of greenleaf manzanita is
relatively low year-round, ranging from 5.2 to 7.8 percent [4].
COVER VALUE :
Chaparral generally harbors numerous species of seed-eating birds and
rodents [51]. The value of greenleaf manzanita as cover for small
mammals and birds is good, but for large mammals is poor. The degree to
which greenleaf manzanita provides environmental protection during one
or more seasons for wildlife species in Colorado and Utah is as follows
[12]:
CO UT
Elk Poor Poor
Mule deer Poor Poor
Small mammals Good Good
Small nongame birds Good Good
Upland game birds Fair Fair
Waterfowl ---- Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Because of its ability to resprout quickly from the lignotuber (as
little as 10 days to 3 weeks), this is an important species for
rehabilitating disturbed sites, especially burned areas [3,43,59]. The
shrub forms a good ground cover, and through the addition of humus tends
to improve the site [51,59].
Seeds of this species are produced annually in large quantities and lie
dormant in the soil [30,51,68]. These seeds will not germinate until
exposed to heat from fire or unless they are otherwise mechanically
scarified [43,51,53,66]. Seedling establishment is dependent upon seed
production prior to fire, protection during fire, microsite
characteristics, and postfire weather [24].
Greenleaf manzanita is listed as a superior shrub species for erosion
control on sites in the Tahoe Basin of California [52].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Food: Native peoples of the Great Basin ate the fruits occasionally and
made an extract from the leaves for use as a diuretic [43]. They also
made cider from the ripe fruits [59]. The berries can be made into
jelly, and the seeds can be ground into flour [43].
Landscaping: The shrub is recommended for use in native and dryland
landscaping in California [3].
Livestock barrier: Using brush fields of this shrub as natural fencing
is suggested as a method to prevent the unwanted free movement of cattle
on open range. Unless special trails are built and maintained within
the brush, the cattle are not able to move through it [59].
Watersheds: This shrub is an important cover for many critical
watersheds, especially in California [59].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Timber management: Timber concerns related to the competition of
greenleaf manzanita with regeneration of desirable tree species are as
follows:
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) - A recent study showed that the
uncontrolled development of canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and
greenleaf manzanita sprouts following site preparation caused a
significant reduction in Douglas-fir seedling growth. Growth of
Douglas-fir seedlings was enhanced by the removal of these sprouts.
Management practices that allow the development of even moderate levels
of sprout competition with newly planted seedlings will substantially
lengthen the rotation age of the stand [25,54]. The leaves of greenleaf
mazanita have shown allelopathic qualities that have the potential to
contribute to slow regeneration of managed stands of Douglas-fir in
southern Oregon [57].
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) - The growth of ponderosa pine
seedlings is severely limited by the presence of sprouting greenleaf
manzanita shrubs. The decline in growth is due to root competition for
water. A greenleaf manzanita crown density of only 25 percent of the
total cover resulted in a nearly 60 percent loss in tree productivity
[47]. Established tree seedlings seldom die from the suppressing
effects of the competing vegetation, but the growth loss could be
substantial. Shrub crown cover of greater than 30 percent can cause
significant growth loss, and rotations can be lengthened from 1 to 20
years [42].
Sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) - The growth of sugar pine seedlings is
severely retarded by the presence of greenleaf manzanita in the
overstory; only 18 percent will survive in the understory over an 18- to
24-year period. However, sugar pine seedlings will compete if given an
even start with shrub seedlings [37].
Brewer spruce (Picea breweriana) - The seedlings of Brewer spruce can
establish under greenleaf manzanita shrubs. They have the ability to
grow well despite competition for soil moisture and light [55].
Control treatments: The application of herbicides such as 2,4,D;
2,4,5-T; 2,4,DB; and Triclopyr ester have been proven effective in
controlling greenleaf manzanita [7,9,17,46,61]. The nonsprouting form
of this shrub is particularly vulnerable to herbicidal treatment
[17,61]. The sprouting form may be more persistent and require more
frequent applications of higher concentration herbicides carried in oil
emulsions rather than water [17,61]. Mechanical treatments, such as
slashing, disking, brushraking, and controlled burning (when done in
open areas, not in the forest understory), were ineffective as a means
of hrub control when applied alone. This is due to the sprouting
ability of root burls, and the presence of viable seeds in the soil
[38,54].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Greenleaf manzanita is an erect native perennial shrub, approximately 3
to 7 feet (1-2 m) tall. Its limbs are crooked, many branched, stout,
and rigid. The twigs are covered with fine hairs. The bark is smooth,
shiny, and reddish brown. On older stems the bark becomes "shreddy".
Stripping occurs and exposes the light colored whitish-green wood
underneath. Those stems that are stripped of their bark become
especially twisted and gnarled. The evergreen leaves are bright green
to yellow-green, simple, alternate, leathery, broadly oval, hairless,
entire, and have distinct petioles. The pinkish flowers are borne on
nodding terminal clusters. The petals are fused together in an urn
shape. The manzanita fruit is a berrylike drupe that looks like a small
apple. It is dark reddish-brown to black and has a thin mealy pulp
enclosing 4 to 10 stony seeds. The seeds may be separate or variously
coalesced [3,26,43,44,49,59,69].
Greenleaf manzanita has a heavy, turnip-shaped or globular lignotuber
which may include a tabular platform [24,26,76]. Its roots generally
reach 10 feet (3 m) or more in depth [24].
Stands of greenleaf manzanita may reach 20 to 100 hundred years of age
[20,32,58]. Lignotuber age is rarely documented. It is difficult to
determine the age of a burl by its annual rings because the wood tissue
is swirled and arranged in an irregular pattern. Carbon-dating
techniques have shown that burls may persist in some species of
chaparral brush for 200 hundred years or more [24].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: Greenleaf manzanita reproduces sexually by seed. These seeds
have an extremely thick endocarp and will not germinate unless
scarified. Seed coat scarification may occur naturally by the high
temperatures associated with fire, mechanically by soil disturbances,
such as those associated with logging activities, or chemically
[3,28,51]. A recent laboratory study suggested that exposure to light
inhibited the germination of greenleaf manzanita seeds [35].
Seeds stored in the soil appear to have a great longevity as evidenced
by the synchronous establishment of large numbers of seedlings after
fire in 400-year-old forests [36]. Seed longevity is also illustrated
by the fact that there is little difference in the number of seedlings
after fires in 100-year-old stands of chaparral than after fires in
20-year-old stands [32].
Greenleaf manzanita produces heavy seed crops nearly every year ( 10,000
seeds per acre [24,710 seeds/ha]) [51]. These seeds can tolerate soil
temperatures in excess of 200 degrees F (93 degrees C) [66]. Animals
are the primary mode of seed dispersal [41]. Insects are primarily
responsible for the pollination of greenleaf manzanita flowers [41].
The flowers occurring on one individual are usually noncompatible [43].
Outcrossing and hybridization are common within this species [2,24].
Vegetative: Greenleaf manzanita regenerates vegetatively through
sprouting and layering. Sprouting occurs from dormant buds located
within the root burl or lignotuber [75]. These buds are stimulated to
sprout after the removal of the aboveground crown [23,24,43,51]. This
type of new growth occurs rather rapidly and may be observed in as
little as 10 days to 3 weeks [23,24,43]. Greenleaf manzanita is
generally able to sprout when the plant reaches approximately 2 years of
age, as it takes about this long for the root burl to fully develop
[24]. Fire may promote an increase in the size of the root burl [26].
Forma platyphylla does not have a root burl and is not able to sprout
[71].
Layering may occur when manzanita branches are forced to the ground and
kept there for long periods of time, such as may occur with a heavy
snowfall. Under conditions such as these, the branches may sprout roots
and develop into separate plants [24,43,69].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Greenleaf manzanita is typically found on dry sites. It
characteristically grows in full sunlight on well-drained soils. It is
found in the openings of coniferous forests, on old burns, and in arid
chaparral belts [59]. It is found on a variety of aspects and at
elevations ranging between 3,100 and 10,000 feet (945 and 3,048 m)
throughout its range [1,5,11,40,56,64,74].
Soil: Greenleaf manzanita typically occurs on soils that are
well-drained, shallow to moderately deep, and sandy loam to silty loam
in texture. Parent materials may include sandstones, limestones, and
granite types [5,11,40,64,74]. In Utah greenleaf manzanita shows a
preference for acidic and saline soils over sodic-saline and organic
soils [12].
Climate: Greeenleaf manzanita usually occurs within warm, dry, semiarid
climes [5,40,56,74].
Elevation: Elevational ranges for greenleaf manzanita in several
western locations follow:
Location Elevation Reference
w Colorado 7,500 to 9,000 feet (2,286-2,743 m) [59]
Utah 3,700 to 10,000 feet (1,128-3,048 m) [12,40,72]
n Arizona 7,000 to 8,500 feet (2,134-2,591 m) [31]
Sierra Nevada 2,500 to 9,000 feet ( 762-2,743 m) [59]
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Greenleaf manzanita-dominated communities have been variously referred
to as grassland climax, true climax, pyric climax, and transitional
vegetation [19,51].
Greenleaf manzanita displays characteristics common to shade intolerant
pioneer species [73,59]. It begins to die back when overtopped by
trees, preferring open areas in full sunlight [53]. It is often one of
the first plants to become established on disturbed sites, especially
after fire [59].
When this plant occurs in locations susceptible to frequent fires, it
has the ability to regenerate quickly, allowing it to perpetually
dominate a site [8,59,65,73]. On sites where fire is excluded for long
periods of time, greenleaf manzanita may provide a better microclimate
for some tree seedlings than would exist on harsh sites in full
sunlight, and it may enhance soil conditions through the addition of
organic material [51]. This would allow for the relatively slow but
sure establishment of the seedlings of some species of pine. Several
authors have noted that conifers may regain site dominance from
chaparral within 10 to 30 years [51].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Greenleaf manzanita flowers from late March to June, depending on
location [59]. In California flowering occurs from April to June
[44,49], in the Great Basin from May to June [43]. Flowering of this
species may be triggered by summer moisture stress [3]. The number of
flowers produced by a shrub is dependent upon the amount of the previous
year's precipitation. The flower buds form 1 year prior to the time
they mature. They are dormant the following summer, fall, and winter,
and bloom the next spring [43].
The fruits ripen in late summer to early fall [59]. Generally, this
species fruits over its entire range between July and October [3,67].
In Nevada, fruiting occurs from May to September [67]. The fruits may
occasionally persist on the shrub year-round [62]. The seeds are
generally dispersed in the summer and fall [3,34].
Most chaparral species experience the greatest amount of growth in May
and June. Growth ceases in mid-July, due to high air temperatures and
low soil-moisture [24].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Greenleaf manzanita has a dynamic relationship with fire [18]. This
shrub has adapted specialized reproductive processes that enhance its
ability to survive fires [36]. It can reestablish by sprouting from
dormant buds in the root burl or from fire-stimulated germination of
dormant residual seeds in the soil [36,59,66].
Greenleaf manzanita is very susceptible to fire due to its stand
density, presence of volatile materials in its leaves, low moisture
content of foliage during summer, and the persistence of its dead
branches and stems [10,18,51]. This shrub forms stands that are
conducive to very rapid and extensive fire spread due to its physical
and chemical characteristics [33].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire generally top-kills greenleaf manzanita, but severe fire may kill
it completely. Fire generally scarifies the seed, which promotes later
germination [32,33,35].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
The seeds of greenleaf manzanita can survive temperatures in excess of
200 degrees Fahrenheit (93 deg C) for 40 minutes and still germinate
[66].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fire stimulates greenleaf manzanita seeds stored in the soil to
germinate [15,28,36,59,68]. Germination of these seeds occurs in the
1st postfire year [36]. It may take 10 or more years before these
seedlings mature and produce a significant seed crop [33].
Unless the entire periphery of the lignotuber is deeply charred, which
seldom occurs, vigorous sprouting occurs following fire [48]. Shrubs
produce new sprouts from dormant buds in the lignotuber in as little as
10 days to 3 weeks [23,24,43]. These new sprouts are capable of heavy
seed production by the 2nd postfire year [33].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Weatherspoon [68] reported on the effects of preharvest burning for
shrub control in a white fir (Abies concolor var. lowiana) stand in
California. The density of greenleaf manzanita seedlings after
postharvest burning was considerably higher for spring burns than for
fall burns. This seasonal difference was attributable to consistently
higher percent burned area in spring than in fall; in the fall burning
period the available fuels were wet due to rains.
The density of greenleaf manzanita seedlings was not significantly
reduced by preharvest burning. This may have been due to the relatively
low fuel-consuption levels in these burns [68].
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
An understanding of the dynamics of shrub reestablishment after fire is
an important fire management concern. This is dependent upon an
understanding of shrub reproductive strategies [33].
When fire is used for brush control, consumption level, as well as shrub
phenology, is an important factor contributing to mortality.
Phenologically, shrubs are more resistant to fire in fall, but more
fuels are generally available for consumption at this time. Therefore,
more destructive heat can be generated around meristematic tissues and
root crowns [28]. It has been reported that the greatest mortality of
shrubs occurred during high consumption burns regardless of season, and
that burning during the active aboveground growing season appeared to
increase mortality regardless of the amount of duff consumed. Timing
controlled burns to coincide with dryer fuel conditions and active
aboveground growth may result in the highest mortality rates [29].
Fire can also be used to reduce or eliminate the greatly increased fire
hazard of the standing dead brush, to set back resprouting brush a
second time, and to remove the impenetrable mass of dead brush resulting
from herbicide application [15].
Prescribed burning in the early spring, before active shrub growth, can
be used to increase palatability of foliage to wildlife [29].
Studies indicate that prescribed understory burning can used
successfully to kill or reduce the vigor of greenleaf manzanita shrubs
and seedlings, deplete the amount of viable residual seed in the soil,
and thus prepare a better seedbed for pine and white fir (Abies
concolor) regeneration [28,68]. An increase in understory slash depth
may reduce the density of manzanita seedlings [68].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos patula | Greenleaf Manzanita
REFERENCES :
1. Ball, Charles T.; Keeley, Jon; Mooney, Harold; [and others]. 1983.
Relationship between form, function, and distribution of two
Arctostaphylos species (Ericaceae) and their putative hybrids. Oecologia
Plantarum. 4: 153-164. [12179]
2. Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. 1988. North American
terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
434 p. [13876]
3. 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]
4. Bissell, Harold D.; Strong, Helen. 1955. The crude protein variations in
the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and Game. 41(2):
145-155. [10524]
5. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969.
Vegetation and soils of the Pine and Mathews Canyon watersheds. Reno,
NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. [7437]
6. Brink, D. L.; Merriman, M. M.; Gullekson, E. E. 1987. Ethanol fuel,
organic chemicals, single-cell proteins: a new forest products industry.
In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators.
Proceedings of the symposium on multiple-use management of California's
hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 237-243.
[5379]
7. Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and
others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural
Communications. 276 p. [6235]
8. Clements, Frederic E. 1936. Nature and structure of the climax. Journal
of Ecology. 24: 252-284. [11729]
9. Conard, Susan G.; Emmingham, W. H. 1984. Herbicides for forest brush
control in southwestern Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,
College of Forestry. 7 p. [10817]
10. Countryman, Clive M. 1982. Physical characteristics of some northern
California brush fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-61. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [4177]
11. Dealy, J. Edward. 1971. Habitat characteristics of the Silver Lake mule
deer range. Res. Pap. PNW-125. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 99 p. [782]
12. 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]
13. Dorn, Robert D. 1984. Vascular plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain
West Publishing. 276 p. [819]
14. Erhard, Dean H. 1979. Plant communities and habitat types in the Lava
Beds National Monument, California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University. 173 p. Thesis. [869]
15. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush seedlings after controlled burning of
brushlands in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 59(12): 885-888.
[3392]
16. Gratkowski, H. 1975. Silvicultural use of herbicides in Pacific
Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-37. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 44 p. [10998]
17. Gratkowski, H. 1978. Herbicides for shrub and weed control in western
Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-77. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 48 p. [6539]
18. Hanes, Ted L. 1974. The vegetation called chaparral. In: Rosenthal,
Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral: Proceedings; 1973
March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The Sierra Club: 1-5.
[3261]
19. Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.;
Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John
Wiley and Sons: 417-469. [7216]
20. Hanes, Ted L. 1981. California chaparral. In: Di Castri, F.; Goodall, D.
W.; Specht, R. L., eds. Mediterranean-type shrublands. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V: 139-174. [13576]
21. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed.
Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]
22. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
23. Hobbs, Stephen D.; Wearstler, Kenneth A., Jr. 1985. Effects of cutting
sclerophyll brush on sprout development and Douglas- fir growth.
Forestry Ecology and Management. 13: 69-81. [9690]
24. James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function
and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical
Review. 50(3): 225-266. [5590]
25. Jaramillo, Annabelle E. 1988. Growth of Douglas-fir in southwestern
Oregon after removal of competing vegetation. Res. Note PNW-470.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. [6224]
26. Jepson, Willis L. 1916. Regeneration in Manzanita. Madrono. 1: 3-11.
[12206]
27. 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]
28. Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, R. E. 1985. A preliminary investigation on
the feasibility of preharvest prescribed burning for shrub control. In:
Proceedings, 6th annual forestry vegetation management conference; [Date
of conference unknown]; Redding, CA. [Place of publication unknown].
[Publisher unknown]. 89-114. [7526]
29. Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, Robert E. 1985. Shrub and hardwood response
to prescribed burning with varying season, weather, and fuel moisture.
In: Proceedings, 8th conference on fire and forest meteorology; 1985
April 29-May 2; Detroit, MI. Bethesda, MD: Society of American
Foresters: 279-286. [9796]
30. Kauffman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1990. Sprouting shrub response to
different seasons and fuel consumption levels of prescribed fire in
Sierra Nevada mixed conifer ecosystems. Forest Science. 36(3): 748-764.
[13063]
31. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
32. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Seed production, seed populations in soil, &
seedling production after fire for 2 congeneric prs. of sprouting &
nonsprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology. 58: 820-829. [6220]
33. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Fire-dependent reproductive strategies in
Arctostaphylos and Ceanothus. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Symposium on the environmental consequences of
fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems: Proceedings; 1977
August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 391-396. [4868]
34. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in
California chaparral. Ecology. 68(2): 434-443. [5403]
35. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Ten years of change in seed banks of the chaparral
shrubs, Arctostaphylos glauca and A. glandulosa. American Midland
Naturalist. 117(2): 446-448. [5607]
36. Keeley, Jon E. 1988. Bibliographies on chaparral and the fire ecology of
other Mediterranean systems. 2d ed. Report No. 69. Riverside, CA:
University of California, California Water Resources Center. 328 p.
[6521]
37. Kinloch, Bohun B., Jr.; Scheuner, William. 1990. Pinus lambertiana
Dougl. sugar pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H.,
technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers.
Agric. Handb. 654.. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 370-379. [13194]
38. Lanini, W. T.; Radosevich, S. R. 1986. Response of three conifer species
to site preparation and shrub control. Forest Science. 32(1): 61-77.
[4711]
39. Leach, Howard R. 1956. Food habits of the Great Basin deer herds of
California. California Fish and Game. 38: 243-308. [3502]
40. 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]
41. McArthur, E. Durant. 1989. Breeding systems in shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus
M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, Inc.: 341-361. [8039]
42. Miller, Daniel L. 1986. Conifer release in the Inland
Northwest--effects. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Breuer,
David W.; Miller, Daniel L., compilers and eds. Weed control for forest
productivity in the Interior West: Symposium proceedings; 1985 February
5-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative
Extension: 17-24. [1646]
43. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
44. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
45. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
46. 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]
47. Radosevich, Steven R. 1984. Effect of competition on conifers. In:
Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Proceedings; [Date of
conference unknown]; Sacramento, CA. 5th Conference. Redding, CA:
[Publisher unknown]. 54-64. [6835]
48. Sampson, Arthur W. 1944. Effect of chaparral burning on soil erosion and
on soil-moisture relations. Ecology. 25(2): 171-191. [16841]
49. 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]
50. Shelly, J. Stephen, compiler. 1990. Plant species of special concern.
Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 20 p. [12960]
51. Skau, C. M.; Meeuwig, R. O.; Townsend, T. W. 1970. Ecology of eastside
Sierra chaparral: A literature review. R71. Reno, NV: University of
Nevada, Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 14 p. [3798]
52. Slayback, Robert D.; Clary, Raimond F., Jr. 1988. Vegetative solutions
to erosion control in the Tahoe Basin. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams,
Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation
symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management:
66-69. [4097]
53. Sweeney, James R. 1968. Ecology of some "fire type" vegetation in
northern California. In: Proceedings, California Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference; 1967 November 9-10; Hoberg, CA. Number 7.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 111-125. [6573]
54. Tesch, Steven D.; Hobbs, Stephen D. 1986. Sprouting brush is tough
competition for planted Douglas-fir seedlings in southwest Oregon. In:
Proceedings, 7th annual forest vegetation management conference; 1985
November 6-7; Eureka, CA. Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management
Conference: 81-84. [3839]
55. Thornburgh, Dale. 1990. Picea breweriana Wats. Brewer spruce. In:
Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics
of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 181-186. [13383]
56. Thorne, Robert F. 1977. Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse
and Peninsular ranges. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds.
Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons:
537-557. [7214]
57. Tinnin, Robert O.; Kirkpatrick, Lee Ann. 1985. The allelopathic
influence of broadleaf trees and shrubs on seedlings of Douglas-fir.
Forest Science. 31(4): 945-952. [9692]
58. Townsend, Thomas William. 1966. Plant charac. relating to the desirabil.
of rehabil. the Arctostaphylosw patula-Ceanothus velutina-C. prostratus
assoc. on e slope Sierra Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 84 p.
Thesis. [3241]
59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
60. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
61. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior; Range
Seeding Equipment Committee. 1959. Handbook: Chemical control of range
weeds. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 93 p. [12129]
62. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
63. Verbyla, David L.; Fisher, Richard F. 1989. Ponderosa pine habitat types
as an indicator of site quality in the Dixie National Forest, Utah.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 52-54. [6650]
64. 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]
65. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Ecological classification of lodgepole pine in
the United States. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Krebill, Richard G.;
Arnott, James T.; Weetman, Gordon F., compilers and editors. Lodgepole
pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1984 May
8-10; Spokane, WA; 1984 May 14-16; Vancouver, BC. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 63-75. [9441]
66. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific
Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management
and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]
67. 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]
68. Weatherspoon, C. Phillip. 1985. Preharvest burning for shrub control in
a white fir stand: preliminary observations. In: Proceedings, 6th annual
forest vegetation management conference; 1984 November 1-2; Redding, CA.
Redding, CA: Forest Vegetation Management Conference: 71-88. [11568]
69. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO:
Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
70. Wells, Philip V. 1968. New taxa, combinations, and chromosome numbers in
Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae). Madrono. 19: 193-210. [12171]
71. Wells, Philip V. 1988. New combinations in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae):
Annotated list of changes in status. Madrono. 35(4): 330-341. [6448]
72. 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]
73. Wilken, Gene C. 1967. History and fire record of a timberland brush
field in the Sierra Nevada of California. Ecology. 48(2): 302-304.
[11399]
74. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Mauk, Ronald L. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat
types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 89 p. [2684]
75. Sutton, R. F.; Tinus, R. W. 1983. Root and root system terminology.
Forest Science Monograph 24. Washington DC: Society of American
Foresters. 137 p. [10854]
76. 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]
77. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
78. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
79. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
80. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
81. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
82. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
83. 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]
84. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
85. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
Index
Related categories for Species: Arctostaphylos patula
| Greenleaf Manzanita
|
 |
