|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
ABBREVIATION :
ARCVIS
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
ARVI4
ARVIM
ARVIP
ARVIV
COMMON NAMES :
whiteleaf manzanita
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of whiteleaf manzanita is
Arctostaphylos viscida Parry (Ericaceae) [34,35]. There are three
recognized subspecies [14,47]:
A. viscida ssp. mariposa (Dudley) Wells
A. viscida ssp. pulchella (Howell) Wells
A. viscida ssp. viscida
Whiteleaf manzanita hybridizes with hoary manzanita (A. canescens) [18]
and greenleaf manzanita (A. patula) [2,14].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet L. Howard, March 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Arctostaphylos viscida. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Whiteleaf manzanita occurs in California and Oregon. It is found in the
foothills of the Sierra Nevada from Kern County north to Butte County,
California, and in the North Coast Ranges, Klamath Ranges, and Siskiyou
Mountains from Lake County, California north to Josephine County, Oregon
[13,36,37].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
STATES :
CA OR
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
REDW WHIS YOSE
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
KOO5 Mixed Conifer forest
KOO6 Redwood forest
KO10 Ponderosa shrub forest
KO29 California mixed evergreen forest
KO30 California oakwoods
KO33 Chaparral
KO34 Montane chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
SAF COVER TYPES :
299 Pacific Douglas-fir
232 Redwood
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
244 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
245 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
246 California black oak
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak - Digger pine
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Whiteleaf manzanita is a dominant or codominant chaparral species.
Common codominants include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), Ceanothus
spp., hoary manzanita (Arctostaphylos canescens), greenleaf manzanita
(A. patula), and Eastwood manzanita (A. glandulosa) [14,18,23].
Other associated species include birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cerocarpus
betuloides), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa
californica), and Sierra mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliosa) [9,28,38].
The following published classification schemes list whiteleaf manzanita
as a climax or indicator species:
California chaparral [22]
Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California [23]
Forest plants of the Eastern Siskiyous: their environment and
vegetational distribution [48]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Whiteleaf manzanita is useless as livestock browse but is a valuable
source of food for wildlife. Various chaparral animals including black
bear, coyote, dusky-footed woodrat, and brush rabbit eat manzanita
fruits. Birds such as Merriam's turkey, dusky grouse, and band-tailed
pigeon also consume the fruits [45]. Black-tailed deer sometimes browse
older leaves in the winter, but they prefer sprouts or seedlings [5].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of whiteleaf manzanita leaves is rated as poor for
goats, sheep, cattle, and black-tailed deer [43].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Whiteleaf manzanita provides poor quality browse [43,45]. The protein
content of manzanita leaves ranges from 6 percent in December and
January, when deer are most likely to consume them, to 8 percent in
August and September. Black-tailed deer need a minimum of 7 percent
protein in their diet for normal maintenance [6].
COVER VALUE :
Whiteleaf manzanita often forms dense stands that provide good cover and
nesting sites for small birds and mammals [44].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The fruits of whiteleaf manzanita can be used to make jelly [2]. Native
Americans used the fruits to make cider [13].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Timber: Whiteleaf manzanita allelopathically inhibits growth of conifer
seedlings [1,30,34]. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) production can
be increased, however, if planted in cleared whiteleaf manzanita
brushfields. Some of the fungi (Azospirillum spp.) which form
ectomycorrhizal associations with whiteleaf manzanita will infect
Douglas-fir roots once whiteleaf manzanita hosts are removed.
Douglas-fir seedling survival rates have increased by 50 percent when
planted in cleared whiteleaf manzanita brushfields, as opposed to other
types of chaparral brushfields. [1].
Control: Whiteleaf manzanita can be controlled by aerial applications
of 2,4-D, glyphosate, or picloram in May or June [8,32]. It can also be
controlled by prescribed burning (see Fire Management Considerations).
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Whiteleaf manzanita is an erect, long-lived, native evergreen shrub. It
ranges from 3 to 13 feet (1-4 m) high, with spreading branches covering
an average area of 16 square feet (1.5 sq m). Its bark is continually
shed [36]. The leaves, pedicels, and fruits are often glandular-viscid.
Its fruit is a drupe containing hardcoated seeds [2,13,35]. The
laterally spreading, shallow roots usually penetrate less than 8 inches
belowground (20 cm) [10,39].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: Whiteleaf manzanita reproduces by seed [13]. Seeds are
dispersed by animals and can remain dormant in seedbanks for decades
[3,22,33]. Seeds require scarification prior to germination. This may
occur by heat, mechanically, or chemically [3,15,26]. Seeds require
overwinter stratification after scarification has occurred [26]. Seeds
are produced annually, although production slows during drought years
[39]. Seedling mortality is low [33].
Vegetative: All manzanita species can regenerate by layering [2].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Whiteleaf manzanita is typically found on dry, sunny slopes [37].
Climate: Whiteleaf manzanita occurs in a mediterranean climate, with
mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers [22,23].
Elevation: Whiteleaf manzanita occurs at elevations of 500 to 5,000
feet (152-1,524 m) [37].
Soil: Whiteleaf manzanita grows in shallow, rocky, sandy soil [31].
Some populations have adapted to serpentine soil [33].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Whiteleaf manzanita is shade intolerant [7,11]. It is both a resisdual
colonizer and a survivor in disturbed communities [22,30]. Whiteleaf
manzanita communities are sometimes seral to coniferous forest or oak
woodland [30]. Manzanita chaparral, however, is considered a temporally
and spatially stable community, and is often described as climax or
pyric climax [22,23].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Whiteleaf manzanita flowers from February to April [36]. Fruits appear
in early summer and ripen in late summer or early fall. Seeds are
dispersed from late summer until the following spring [2]. Growth
begins in February and ceases in June with the onset of summer drought
[24].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Plant adaptations: Whiteleaf manzanita establishes after fire by
fire-stimulated germination of dormant seeds stored in the soil
[13,22,23].
Fire ecology: Whiteleaf manzanita has various morphological adaptations
which encourage fire. During drought, the plant undergoes branch
die-back, which contributes to fuel loading. Continuous shedding of
bark adds additional fuel [36]. The surface-to-volume ratio of leaves
and twigs are perfectly scaped for maximum air circulation, resulting in
more complete burning of the plant and adding to fire intensity [20].
Additionally, leaves and twigs contain flammable oils and terpenes [40].
Philpot [40] has reported the heat value of whiteleaf manzanita leaves
and twigs at 8,942 Btu per pound (4,973 cal/kg).
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Intense fire kills whiteleaf manzanita [13].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fire-activated seeds germinate during the first postfire growing season
[13,22,23]. Seedling success rates are good. Whiteleaf manzanita
stands are dense by postfire years 3 or 4 [24], and generally remain so.
Nine years following a fire in Yuba County, California, the combined
density of whiteleaf manzanita and its codominant, deerbrush (Ceanothus
integerrimus), was 6,523 plants per acre (16,118/ha) [33]. By postfire
year 10, these dense stands of whiteleaf manzanita have reached sexually
maturity [12].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Timber and grazing: Annual prescribed burning can convert whiteleaf
manzanita brushfields to timber or pastureland if the site is otherwise
suitable. Yearly fires prevent whiteleaf manzanita seedlings from
maturing and gradually reduce the residual seed stock. Eventually,
whiteleaf manzanita is eradicated from the site [20,26]. Safe
conditions exist for a late winter or early spring burning if each of
these elements is within the following range [19]:
Element Intensity
low high
fuel stick moisture (%) 15 5
relative humidity (%) 58 26
wind speed (mi/h) 0 10
air temperature (degrees F) 40 84
Fire suppression: Fire suppression in whiteleaf manzanita chaparral
results in unnaturally high fuel levels. This eventually results in
severe wildfires that are extremely difficult to contain. Prescribed
burning is recommended for reducing fuel loading in whiteleaf manzanita
communities [20].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida | Whiteleaf Manzanita
REFERENCES :
1. Amaranthus, M. P.; Li, C. Y.; Perry, D. A. 1990. Influence of vegetation
type and madrone soil inoculum on associative nitrogen fixation in
Douglas-fir rhizospheres. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20:
368-371. [11185]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. Biswell, H. H.; Gilman, J. H. 1961. Brush management in relation to fire
and other environmental factors on the Tehama deer winter range.
California Fish and Game. 47(4): 357-389. [6275]
6. 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]
7. Buchanan, Hayle; Biswell, Harold H.; Gibbens, Robert P. 1966. Succession
of vegetation in a cut-over Sierra redwood forest. Utah Academy
Proceedings. 43(Part 1): 43-48. [16543]
8. 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]
9. Clark, Harold W. 1937. Association types in the North Coast Ranges of
California. Ecology. 18: 214-230. [11187]
10. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.
Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.
145 p. [6716]
11. Davis, Craig B. 1973. "Bark striping" in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae).
Madrono. 22: 145-149. [12203]
12. Detling, LeRoy E. 1961. The chaparral formation of southwestern Oregon,
with considerations of its postglacial history. Ecology. 42(2): 348-357.
[6360]
13. Eastwood, Alice. 1934. A revision of Arctostaphylos with key and
descriptions. Leaflets of Western Botany. 1(11): 105-127. [12207]
14. Ellstrand, Norman C.; Lee, Janet M.; Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C.
1987. Ecological isolation and introgression: biochemical confirmation
of introgression in an Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae) population. Acta
Oecologica, Oecologica Plantarum. 8(4): 299-308. [7907]
15. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at
the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
16. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
17. 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]
18. Gottlieb, Leslie D. 1968. Hybridization between Arctostaphylos viscida
and A. canescens in Oregon. Brittonia. 20(1): 83-93. [10143]
19. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush problems in southwestern Oregon. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 53 p. [8596]
20. Green, Lisle R. 1977. Fuel reduction without fire--current technology
and ecosystem impact. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Proc. of the symp. on the environmental
consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems;
1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 163-171. [4840]
21. Griffin, James R. 1977. Oak woodland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 383-415. [7217]
22. 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]
23. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial
natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
24. Hughes, Thomas F.; Christopher, R. L.; Tappeiner, John C., II; Newton,
Michael. 1987. Biomass and leaf-area estimates for varnishleaf
ceanothus, deerbrush, and whiteleaf manzanita. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry. 2(4): 124-128. [2894]
25. James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function
and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical
Review. 50(3): 225-266. [5590]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. Kilgore, Bruce M. 1971. Response of breeding bird populations to habitat
changes in a giant sequoia forest. American Midland Naturalist. 85(1):
135-152. [7281]
29. Kotok, E. I. 1933. Fire, a major ecological factor in the pine region of
California. In: Pacific Science Congress Proceedings. 5: 4017-4022.
[4723]
30. 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]
31. Lanini, W. Thomas; Radosevich, Steven R. 1982. Herbicide effectiveness
in response to season of application and shrub physiology. Weed Science.
30: 467-475. [3389]
32. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
33. McDonald, Philip M. 1981. Adapatations of woody shrubs. In: Hobbs, S.
D.; Helgerson, O. T., eds. Reforestation of skeletal soils: Proceedings
of a workshop; 1981 November 17-19; Medford, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 21-29. [4979]
34. McDonald, Philip M. 1983. Clearcutting and natural
regeneration...management implications for the northern Sierra Nevada.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-70. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
11 p. [15953]
35. McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus
in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26:
177-212. [11884]
36. Minore, Don; Weatherly, Howard G.; Means, Joseph E. 1988. Growth of
whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida Parry). Forest Science.
34(4): 1094-1100. [6616]
37. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
38. Parsons, David J. 1981. The historical role of fire in the foothill
communities of Sequoia National Park. Madrono. 28(3): 111-120. [13586]
39. Parsons, David J.; Rundel, Philip W.; Hedlund, Richard P.; Baker, Gail
A. 1981. Survival of severe drought by a non-sprouting chaparral shrub.
American Journal of Botany. 68(7): 973-979. [7638]
40. Philpot, C. W. 1969. Seasonal changes in heat content and ether
extractive content of chamise. Res. Pap. INT-61. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 10 p. [13250]
41. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
42. 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]
43. Schimke, Harry E.; Dougherty, Ronald H. 1966. Disposal of logging slash,
thinnings, and brush by burying. Res. Note PSW-111. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [11516]
44. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
45. 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]
46. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L.
1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 295-358. [7219]
47. Wells, Philip V. 1968. New taxa, combinations, and chromosome numbers in
Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae). Madrono. 19: 193-210. [12171]
48. Waring, R. H. 1969. Forest plants of the eastern Siskiyous: their
environment and vegetational distribution. Northwest Science. 43(1):
1-17. [9047]
49. 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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Arctostaphylos viscida
| Whiteleaf Manzanita
|
 |
