|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
ABBREVIATION :
ARTFIL
SYNONYMS :
Artemisia plattensis
SCS PLANT CODE :
NO-ENTRY
COMMON NAMES :
sand sagebrush
sandsage
sand sage
oldman sage
threadleaf sagebrush
oldman sagebrush
TAXONOMY :
The fully documented scientific species name of sand sagebrush is
Artemisia filifolia Torr. [18]. This species is a member of the
subgenus Dracunculus [25]. It is not known to hybridize with any other
species in the genus Artemisia [26].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, September 1986
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, October 1988
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Sand sagebrush is widely distributed throughout grasslands, prairies,
plains, and desert scrublands of western North America [28,39]. It
occurs from Nevada eastward to Wyoming and the Black Hills of South
Dakota and southward to Texas and Mexico [26,27].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CO KS NE NV NM OK SD TX UT
WY MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ARCH BADL CANY CARE CHCU GLCA
GRCA GUMO LAME LAMR PEFO SCBL
WICA WUPA ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
9 Middle Rocky Mountain
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K037 Mountain mahogany - oak scrub
K039 Blackbrush
K041 Creosote bush
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - three awn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K075 Nebraska sandhills prairie
Disturbed areas
SAF COVER TYPES :
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon - juniper
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Sand sagebrush is a climax indicator in several grassland and shrubland
classification schemes. It occurs as a codominant with sand bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii var. paucipilus), big bluestem (A. gerardii var.
gerardii), needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), prairie sandreed
(Calamovilfa longifolia), or blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) in plains
grasslands or prairies. Sand sagebrush also grows with shinnery oak
(Quercus havardii) throughout much of the Southwest [9,17,23]. Other
species commonly associated with sand sagebrush include soapweed yucca
(Yucca glauca), pricklypear (Opuntia spp.), galleta (Hilaria jamesii),
mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), dropseeds (Sporobolus spp.), threeawns
(Aristida spp.), and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae)
[9,11,16,34]. Sand sagebrush is listed as a dominant, codominant, or
indicator species in the following publications:
A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado [2]
Plant associations of Region Two: Potential plant communities of
Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas [22]
A series vegetation classication of Region 3 [29]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
The importance of sand sagebrush to livestock and wildlife depends on
the vegetative composition of a particular site. It is rarely used in
grasslands where more preferred forage species are available but may be
used heavily in arid desert regions where other forage is scarce or
unavailable [26,27]. Sand sagebrush is heavily browsed on some low
elevation cold desert ranges [26].
Mule deer use of sand sagebrush in Texas and eastern new Mexico ranges
from light to heavy [7]. It is one of the most important pronghorn
foods in Woming [45]. In some areas pronghorn feed on sand sagebrush
during the spring, summer, and winter [36]. A number of upland game
birds including the lesser prairie chicken rely on sand sagebrush for
both food and cover [17]. Bobwhite quail use sand sagebrush as nesting
cover in the northern Panhandle of Texas [21]. Sand sagebrush provides
hiding or thermal cover for numerous smaller birds and mammals.
PALATABILITY :
Sand sagebrush provides forage for livestock and wildlife on sites where
more palatable species are sparse or absent. In some desert areas, sand
sagebrush may be one of the most palatable species available. It is
considered a locally good forage plant for wildlife and domestic
livestock in parts of southern Utah [12]. Sand sagebrush is highly
palatable to pronghorn in parts of Wyoming and probably in other
locations as well [45,50]. This species is widely utilized during much
of the year by upland game birds such as the lesser prairie chicken. It
is particularly palatable during the winter months [17]. The
palatability of sand sagebrush has been rated as follows [13]:
CO WY UT
Cattle Poor Poor Fair
Sheep Fair Poor Fair
Horses Poor Poor Poor
Pronghorn ---- ---- Fair
Elk ---- ---- Fair
Mule deer ---- ---- Fair
Small mammals ---- ---- Fair
Small nongame birds ---- ---- Fair
Upland game birds ---- ---- Fair
Waterfowl ---- ---- Poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Sand sagebrush is rated fair in energy value and protein content [13].
The plant concentrates nutrients in levels greater than those present in
the soils in which it grows. In southern Utah, plant:soil nutrient
levels ranged from 5:9 for sodium to 484:2 for potassium and 342:5 for
phosphorus [32]. Nutrient levels are comparable to those of other
desert shrubs [32].
COVER VALUE :
Sand sagebrush has some cover value for small birds and mammals.
Patches of sand sagebrush can even provide summer thermal cover for
animals as large as mule deer [7]. Sand sagebrush sites are used by
mule deer if hiding cover is present within 100 to 200 yards (91-183 m)
[7]. Sand sagebrush also provides good cover for the lesser prairie
chicken and favorable nesting habitat for bobwhite quail [17,21]. Cover
values in Utah are as follows [13]:
Pronghorn Poor
Elk Poor
Mule deer Poor
Small mammals Good
Small nongame birds Good
Upland game birds Good
Waterfowl Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Sand sagebrush can be planted to minimize erosion on light, sandy soils.
It is rated as having high to moderate potential for erosion control as
well as having value in long-term revegetation [13]. Seedlings may be
transplanted during the spring and fall, although survival rates are
poor when they are transplanted outside their natural range [27].
Seedlings have been successfully transplanted onto many types of
disturbed sites [31].
Sand sagebrush has favorable seed production and handling
characteristics [31]. Direct seeding attempts have, however, yielded
variable results. Plummer [31] reports that this species typically
spreads well through natural seeding, but other researchers obtained
extremely low germination rates for sand sagebrush on certain arid
rangelands of New Mexico [5]. In desert shrub ranges of eastern New
Mexico, though, spring plantings of sand sagebrush were largely
successful, with best germination and establishment occurring following
plantings made from April 15 through May 15 or from April 1 through
April 15 on sites with considerable amounts of stubble [6]. Successful
seedings were also obtained in July and August in areas with significant
rainfall during this time period [6].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Sand sagebrush is extremely effective in preventing wind erosion on
light, sandy soils [26]. A canopy of sand sagebrush can afford some
protection to grasses such as needle-and-thread on heavily grazed sites
[11].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Drought or heavy grazing generally produces an increase in sand
sagebrush [20,35]. Crown cover of sand sagebrush decreased from 4
percent to 2 percent following 11 years of light grazing in the plains
of eastern Colorado but increased from 6 percent to 7 percent under
moderate or heavy grazing [35]. Seedling survival is greater on more
heavily grazed pastures because of decreased competition from grasses
and forbs [35]. As a result of years of heavy grazing, sand sagebrush
has increased dramatically during the past century on many grasslands of
the Southwest.
Sand sagebrush can be readily killed by herbicides such as 2,4-D,
2,4,5-T, or picloram [1,4,19]. Eighty percent of sand sagebrush plants
were killed by aerial application of 2,4-D at the rate of 1 pound per
acre in Texas and Oklahoma shrublands [1]. Best results have been
obtained following two consecutive spring applications of herbicides
[4]. Herbicide treatments in mid- to late June during the period of
most active growth and highest photosynthetic rate most seriously damage
sand sagebrush [5]. Mowing has also been effective in removing sand
sagebrush on southern Great Plains sites containing little surface rock
[30].
Early efforts at eradicating sand sagebrush were aimed at increasing
forage production for domestic livestock. Bovey [4] reported that on
some sites, forage and beef production could be increased by 50 to 75
percent following herbicide treatment. Although forage production may be
increased on some sites, on many others, the removal of sand sagebrush
results in wind erosion, the formation of dunes, and an overall decrease
in forage production [20,22].
Where control or eradiction of sand sagebrush is planned, small patches
(less than 5 acres) or swaths should be treated to avoid adversely
impacting wildlife species such as mule deer and smaller birds and
mammals [7,10]. The lesser praire chicken is relatively mobile and is
reportedly unaffected by overstory removal on blocks of 370 to 740 acres
(150-300 hectares) [17].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Sand sagebrush is a round, freely branching, cold temperate shrub which
grows up to 5 feet (1.5 m) tall [27,39]. Leaves are filiform, and both
fertile pistillate and sterile disk flowers are present [26]. It is
well adapted to low-fertility sandy soils and concentrates nutrients in
levels greater than those of the soil in which it grows. Sand sagebrush
may have reduced mineral requirements for growth or an increased ion
exchange capacity in the root system which allows this plant to survive
on infertile, sandy sites [32].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sand sagebrush produces seed in abundance which enables the species to
quickly reoccupy a site [21]. Seed is small and light, and cleaned seed
averages approximately 3,134,000 per pound (6,910 per gram) [27]. Seed
ripens from October to December, but relatively little is reported about
germination or seed dispersal [26]. Research indicates that seeds
buried shallowly germinate better than seeds planted at greater depths
[5].
Germination of sand sagebrush is generally rapid, and no stratification
or scarification is required. In laboratory experiments, seeds of sand
sagebrush first germinated 17 days after planting [5]. The lightness of
sand sagebrush seeds suggests that wind dispersal from off-site sources
is probable. It is unclear whether individual plants can resprout after
disturbance [46,49], but, in any event, resprouting is probably unlikely
or rare.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Sand sagebrush grows on dunes, sand hills, and deep sands throughout the
southern Great Plains, southern Rocky Mountains, northern Chihuahuan
Desert, and portions of the Mohave Desert and Great Basin [22,34,42,43].
It is the most widespread shrub on dunes and sand hills from Nebraska to
Arizona and is the dominant woody plant of the southern Great Plains
[26,28,48]. Sand sagebrush is locally dominant in desert scrub, plains
grasslands, prairie, and semidesert grassland communities [28,39].
Distribution of sand sagebrush is largely related to edaphic factors.
Sand sagebrush typically grows on dry, coarse, sandy, low-fertility
soils and is reported to be an excellent indicator of sandy soil
[22,26]. Sand sagebrush soils in southern Utah were found to have less
clay and organics, fewer nutrients, and a lower overall soil fertility
than neighboring blackbrush (Colegyne ramosissima) soils [32]. Sand
sagebrush is particularly well adapted to grow on low-fertility or
alkaline soils [31,32]. Widely scattered individuals and occasional
denser concentrations are present in the Great Basin and Mohave desert
scrub communities on dunes or deep loose sand where sandstone has been
weathered and redeposited [39,43]. Sand sagebrush communities of
southern Utah commonly occur on deep sands derived from the Navajo
Formation [32].
Sand sagebrush is a cold temperate shrub [39]. Average annual
temperatures on sand sagebrush sites of southern Utah range from 58 to
l66 degrees F (14-19 degrees C), with an annual growing season of 190 to
205 days [32]. Annual precipitation averages 8 to 10 inches (200 to 275
mm) [32].
Elevational ranges of sand sagebrush are as follows [13]:
from 3,600 to 5,500 ft (1,097 to 1,676 m) in CO
4,500 to 6,000 ft (1,372 to 1,829 m) in UT
4,100 to 4,600 ft (1,250 to 1,402 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
A preference for sandy soils allows sand sagebrush to thrive and grow as
an important climax species on a variety of sandy sites throughout its
relatively wide range. Sand sagebrush is an important constituent of a
number of edaphic climax communities on sand sagebrush-bluestem prairie
in the Southwest and with sand bluestem in parts of Colorado and Kansas
[23,29]. It also grows as a climax species in sand dune communities of
southern New Mexico [8] and presumably elsewhere. Succession in these
dune communities begins with a "mat stage" in which drought-tolerant
plants begin colonizing unstable sand and progresses to a "ruderal weed
stage" with greater moisture [8]. As erosion decreases,
drought-enduring shrubs such as broom snakeweed and sand sagebrush
increase in prominence, along with switchgrass (Panicum spp.),
three-awns, and other grasses [8]. Grasses such as dropseed may then
increase following several years of adequate precipitation, until
ultimately black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) dominates the climax
community [8].
Precise patterns of succession are less well documented in many other
types of sand sagebrush communities. Generally, sand sagebrush,
although a climax species, increases in response to grazing or drought.
Sand sagebrush has the ability to increase rapidly following disturbance
and also grows well in a number of early seral communities. Sand
sagebrush has not been well studied, and the ecology of this species is
still poorly known [11].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Yearly growth of sand sagebrush begins in the early spring. In the
southern Great Plains, one-half of the season's twig growth is completed
by May 25 and growth is nearly finished by June 15 [19]. By mid- to
late June twigs have attained approximately 6 to 10 inches (15-25 cm) of
new growth [37]. Flowers typically form a plumelike structure from July
to October [44]. In many locations, full biomass potential is reached
by the last week of July [11]. Flowering dates are as follows [13]:
State Earliest date of flowering Latest date of flowering
CO July September
UT August October
WY August September
Seed ripens from October to December [26].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Specific fire adaptations of sand sagebrush are not documented. Many
sand sagebrush stands are characterized by an abundance of exposed sand
and sparse understory vegetation. Fires are probably infrequent on such
sites. Fires, however, have been historically important in many
grasssland or shrubland communities of the Great Plains and Southwest
which support the growth of sand sagebrush [21]. Fires presumably carry
well in sand sagebrush stands with a dried herbaceous understory of
forbs and grasses.
Sand sagebrush quickly reoccupies burned sites with an abundance of
seedlings [21]. It is not known if sand sagebrush typically resprouts,
or if reestablishment is more often through seed. Sand sagebrush
produces an abundance of light, wind-dispersed seed, and relatively
rapid reestablishment through off-site sources is frequently possible.
In the northern Texas panhandle, sand sagebrush is considered a
"nonsprouter' [47]; it is often severely damaged or even killed by fire
[41,47]. Conversely, it is described as a fire-tolerant species capable
of resprouting after fire in the southern Great Plains [48,49].
Relatively little is reported about the ecology of sand sagebrush, and
ecotypic differences in sprouting capabilities may exist. Similarly,
differences in season of burn, soil characteristics, fire intensity and
severity, and climatic factors may also influence the sprouting ability
of sand sagebrush.
Some attempts have been made to burn sand sagebrush sites to reduce
shrub growth and increase forage production or to create more diverse
wildlife habitat [21]. However, no specific prescriptions have been
reported for use in sand sagebrush communities.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The effect of fire on sand sagebrush is not well documented. It is
reported as being both tolerant and intolerant of fire [41,47]. Still
others describe sand sagebrush as somewhat fire tolerant with the
ability to sprout after fire [48,49]. Ecotypic differences are possible,
considering the relatively wide range of this species. Differences in
fire effects may also be related to season of burn, and fire intensity
and severity. Limited evidence suggests that sand sagebrush may be much
more severely damaged by fire during drought periods.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Sand sagebrush vigorously reoccupies burned areas. It can reestablish a
site through an abundance of light, wind-dispersed seed from off-site
sources, but it is unclear whether or not sand sagebrush is capable of
resprouting following a fire [47,49]. In the northern Panhandle of
Texas, Wright [47] reports that sand sagebrush is a nonsprouter which
comes back vigorously through seedlings after fire, while others report
that sand sagebrush is capable of sprouting after fire [21,48,49].
Variable sprouting responses may be due to fire intensity and severity,
season of burn, or ecotypic differences.
Recovery time of sand sagebrush has not been well documented. In the
northern Texas Panhandle, an abundance of seedlings was observed by
August following a March burn earlier in the same year [21]. Climatic
factors may exert an important influence on recovery time. After two
growing seasons, little recovery was noted following a burn in a drought
year in the same part of Texas [21]. Grazing may slow recovery of sand
sagebrush following fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sand sagebrush generally grows on light sandy soils which are
susceptible to wind erosion. Consequently, burning plans for eradicating
sand sagebrush should consider erosion potential of the site [20].
Burning has been used to a limited extent to increase forage production
or to improve wildlife habitat. Throughout much of the southern Great
Plains, species such as sand sagebrush and shinnery oak have increased
as palatable perennial grasses have declined with overgrazing. In some
instances, burning may cause decreases in overall shrub cover and, when
combined with carefully regulated grazing, promote the growth of more
valuable forage species. Little specific information is available on
fire use in sand sagebrush communities, and no prescriptions have been
reported.
Areas dominated by sand sagebrush, shinnery oak, and skunkbush sumac
(Rhus trilobata) in Texas and eastern New Mexico have been burned to
promote forbs and to encourage new shrub growth [7]. Such fires can
enhance the value of these areas to mule deer and other wildlife
species. Recommended procedure is to burn small patches of 5 acres or
less in years with greater than normal fall and winter precipitation
[7]. The patches should be left unburned for 10 to 12 years and
scattered more than 0.25 miles apart to encourage mule deer utilization
of these areas [7]. Burning small patches or swaths minimizes adverse
impacts on many wildlife species including small birds [10,17]. Lesser
prairie chickens are more mobile than many other species and can
reportedly tolerate brush control on blocks of 370 to 740 acres (150-300
hectares) [17].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Artemisia filifolia | Sand Sagebrush
REFERENCES :
1. Allred, B. W. 1949. Distribution and control of several woody plants in
Texas and Oklahoma. Journal of Range Management. 2: 17-29. [311]
2. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural
vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]
3. 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]
4. Bovey, Rodney W. 1964. Aerial application of herbicides for control of
sand sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 17: 253-256. [492]
5. Bridges, J. O. 1941. Reseeding trials on arid range land. Bulletin 278.
Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station. 48 p. [5186]
6. Bridges, J. O. 1942. Reseeding practices for New Mexico ranges. Bull.
291. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 48 p. [5204]
7. Bryant, Fred C.; Morrison, Bruce. 1985. Managing plains mule deer in
Texas and eastern New Mexico. Management Note 7. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and
Wildlife Management. 5 p. [187]
8. Campbell, R. S. 1929. Vegetative succession in the Prosopis sand dunes
of southern New Mexico. Ecology. 10(4): 392-398. [4466]
9. Costello, David F. 1944. Important species of the major forage types in
Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Monographs. 14: 107-134. [693]
10. Davis, C. A.; Sawyer, P. E.; Griffing, J. P.; Borden, B. D. 1974. Bird
populations in a shrub-grassland area, southeastern New Mexico. Bulletin
619. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 29 p. [4548]
11. Davis, Joseph H., III; Bonham, Charles D. 1979. Interference of sand
sagebrush canopy with needleandthread. Journal of Range Management.
32(5): 384-386. [760]
12. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
13. 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]
14. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
15. 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]
16. Herbel, Carlton H. 1979. Utilization of grass- and shrublands of the
south-western United States. In: Walker, B. H., ed. Management of
semi-arid ecosystems. Volume 7. Developments in agriculture and
managed-forest ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company: 161-203. [1134]
17. Holechek, Jerry L. 1981. Brush control impacts on rangeland wildlife.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 36(5): 265-269. [1182]
18. Holmgren, Arthur H.; Reveal, James L. 1966. Checklist of the vascular
plants of the Intermountain Region. Res. Pap. INT-32. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 160 p. [1184]
19. Hull, A. C., Jr.; Vaughn, W. T. 1951. Controlling big sagebrush with
2,4-D and other chemicals. Journal of Range Management. 4: 158-164.
[1212]
20. Humphrey, Robert R. 1955. Forage production on Arizona ranges, IV.
Coconino, Navajo, Apache Counties: A study in range condition. Bulletin
266. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station.
84 p. [5087]
21. Jackson, A. S. 1965. Wildfires in the Great Plains grasslands. In:
Proceedings, 4th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1965 March
18-19; Tallahasee, FL. Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:
241-259. [1239]
22. Johnson, Kendall L. 1987. Sagebrush types as ecological indicators to
integrated pest management (IPM) in the sagebrush ecosystem of western
North America. In: Onsager, Jerome A., ed. Integrated pest management on
rangeland: State of the art in the sagebrush ecosystem. ARS-50.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service: 1-10. [2841]
23. Johnston, Barry C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential
plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and
Kansas. 4th ed. R2-ECOL-87-2. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 429 p. [3519]
24. 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]
25. McArthur, E. Durant. 1979. Sagebrush systematics and evolution. In: The
sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT.
Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 14-22.
[1564]
26. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens,
Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important
Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571]
27. McArthur, E. Durant; Stevens, Richard. 1986. Composite shrubs.
Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Labortory,
Missoula, MT. 155 p. [7342]
28. McKell, Cyrus M.; Goodin, J. R. 1975. United States arid shrublands in
perspective. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. Arid shrublands--proceedings,
3rd workshop of the United States/Australia rangelands panel; 1973 March
26 - April 15; Tucson, AZ. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management:
12-18. [1614]
29. Moir, W. H. 1983. A series vegetation classification for Region 3. In:
Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop
on Southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM.
Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southwestern Region: 91-95. [1672]
30. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Plummer, A. Perry; Robertson, Joseph H.; Hull, A.
C., Jr. 1965. Sagebrush control on rangelands. Agriculture Handbook No.
277. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 40 p. [1858]
31. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area
sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of
the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]
32. Rasmussen, Lars L.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1986. Habitat relationships of
sandsage (Artemisia filifolia) in southern Utah. In: McArthur, E.
Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the
biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station: 58-66. [1940]
33. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
34. Secor, Jack B.; Shamash, Saied; Smeal, Daniel; Gennaro, Antonio L. 1983.
Soil characteristics of two desert plant community types that occur in
the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico. Soil Science. 136(3):
133-144. [2103]
35. Sims, P. L.; Dahl, B. E.; Denham, A. H. 1976. Vegetation and livestock
response at three grazing intensities on sandhill rangeland in eastern
Colorado. Colorado State University Experimental Station Technical
Bulletin. 130 pp. [5415]
36. Smith, Arthur D.; Beale, Donald M. 1980. Pronghorn antelope in Utah:
some research and observations. Publication No. 80-13. Salt Lake City,
UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 88 p. [5305]
37. Sosebee, Ronald E. 1983. Physiological, phenological, and environmental
considerations in brush and weed control. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed.
Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque,
NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 27-43. [2199]
38. 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]
39. Turner, Raymond M. 1982. Great Basin desertscrub. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 145-155. [2373]
40. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
41. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [n.d.]. Fire
effects in plant communities on the public lands. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 164 p. [2394]
42. Vale, Thomas R. 1975. Ecology and environmental issues of the Sierra
Redwood (Sequoiadendron giganteum), now restricted to California.
Environmental Conservation. 2(3): 179-188. [8776]
43. West, N. E. 1983. Great Basin-Colorado plateau sagebrush semi-desert.
In: Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York:
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: 331-349. (Goodall, David W., ed.
in chief; Ecosystems of the world; vol. 5). [2505]
44. Whitson, Thomas D. 1987. Weeds in Wyoming causing livestock poisoning.
In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th
Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie,
WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management: 55-57.
[13922]
45. Wilson, Roger W. 1977. Sagebrush utilization by mule deer and antelope.
In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 6th
Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1977 May 24-25; Buffalo, WY. Laramie,
WY: Shrub Ecology Workshop: 25-34. [2581]
46. Wright, Henry A. 1970. Response of big sagebrush and three-tip sagebrush
to season of clipping. Journal of Range Management. 23: 20-22. [2608]
47. Wright, Henry A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. In: McKell, Cyrus M.;
Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology
and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 204-217.
[2611]
48. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed
burning in the Great Plains--a research review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-77.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 60 p. [2618]
49. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
50. Yoakum, Jim. 1986. Use of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus by pronghorns. In:
McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium
on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo,
UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 176-180. [2638]
Index
Related categories for Species: Artemisia filifolia
| Sand Sagebrush
|
 |
