|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
ABBREVIATION :
ARTNOV
SYNONYMS :
Artemisia tridentata ssp. nova
Artemisia tridentata var. nova
Artemisia arbuscula ssp. nova
SCS PLANT CODE :
NO-ENTRY
COMMON NAMES :
black sagebrush
little black sagebrush
small sagebrush
TAXONOMY :
The fully documented scientific name of black sagebrush is Artemisia
nova A. Nelson. The taxonomy presented here follows that of Beetle [5],
who recognized black sagebrush as a separate species. Other authorities
have placed both black sagebrush and low sagebrush (A. arbuscula) as
variants of big sagebrush (A. tridentata). The ability of both of these
species to hybridize with big sagebrush accounts for such placement.
Ward [57] designated black sagebrush as a subspecies of low sagebrush.
Black sagebrush occurs in diploid and polyploid forms. Hybrids with
basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata) are relatively
common where these two species occur together. Crosses with bigelow
sagebrush (A. bigelovii) and mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp.
vaseyana) have been documented but are rare [40]. Although no black
sagebrush subspecies are currently recognized, there are two color forms
which may occur in either pure or mixed stands. The darker form has
dark-green, glossy leaves, while the lighter, gray-green form may be as
light in color as low sagebrush or big sagebrush.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
N. McMurray, September 1986
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
N. McMurray, July 1988
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
McMurray, Nancy. 1986. Artemisia nova. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Primarily a Great Basin species, black sagebrush has a scattered
distribution throughout much of the western United States. Its range
extends from Montana south through Wyoming and Colorado to northern New
Mexico and westward through the southern third of Idaho. This species
occurs most commonly in Utah and Nevada but occurs in scattered
locations in California, Arizona, and Oregon [5,6,62].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM OR UT WY
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
BICA BLCA BRCA CHCU COLM DEVA
DINO GRCA GRBA MEVE ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K037 Mountain mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K066 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
Disturbed
SAF COVER TYPES :
210 Interior Douglas-fir
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Black sagebrush is considered a climax species and has been used as an
indicator in a number of habitat-typing systems within the
sagebrush-grass region. It also occurs as an understory dominant within
forested communities. Forested habitat types using black sagebrush as
an indicator have been identified within ponderosa pine, juniper, and
pinyon-juniper series [1]. Published classifications listing black
sagebrush as a dominant or indicator species include:
Presettlement vegetation of part of northwestern Moffat County,
Colorado, described from remnants [2]
Vegetation and soils of the Crane Springs Watershed [11]
Vegetation and soils of the Rock Springs Watershed [12]
Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon Watershed [14]
Habitat types of the Curlew National Grassland, Idaho [20]
A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado [23]
Phyto-edaphic communities of the Upper Rio Puerco Watershed, New Mexico [27]
Preliminary habitat types of a semiarid grassland [28]
Grassland, shrubland, and forestland habitat types of the White
River-Arapaho National Forest [30]
Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho [31]
Plant associations of Region Two: Potential plant communities of
Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas [35]
Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana [43]
Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National Forest [54]
Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah [66]
Artemisia arbuscula, A. longiloba, and A. nova habitat types in northern
Nevada [67]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Black sagebrush is a significant browse species within the Intermountain
region. It is especially important on low elevation winter ranges in
the southern Great Basin where extended snowfree periods allow animals
access to plants throughout most of the winter [32]. In these areas it
is heavily utilized by pronghorn and mule deer [3,19,39] and is highly
preferred by domestic sheep [18]. Stands are often contiguous with salt
desert communities in the southern Great Basin. Relative to the
surrounding vegetation, good condition winter ranges are productive and
also offer a good selection of associated species. Many of these ranges
have been seriously depleted by past overgrazing.
Black sagebrush may be lethal to sheep if it comprises the bulk of the
diet for even a short time. This situation is most likely to occur when
animals are concentrated on winter ranges [33]. On spring and
transitional ranges, this sagebrush is thought to cause abortion in
sheep. Recent studies have shown black sagebrush to be a
preconditioning plant responsible for horsebrush-related
photosensitization in sheep [33]. Apparently small amounts of black
sagebrush, when consumed in combination with horsebrush species
(Tetradymia canescens and particularly Tetradymia glabrata), can cause
liver damage. As a result, photosensitizing compounds are able to reach
the skin where they absorb large amounts of ultraviolet light. Acute
cases can result in severe facial swelling (a condition known as
"bighead"), blindness, wool sluffing, abortion, and death [34].
PALATABILITY :
Black sagebrush is a highly palatable forage throughout much of the
Great Basin. Plants are heavily utilized by sheep and big game on
winter ranges in Utah. The lighter gray-green form is usually more
heavily browsed [17]. Some accessions are more highly preferred by mule
deer than others, often with dramatic contrasts in utilization [8,58].
Recent uniform garden studies indicate differences in mule deer
preference for black sagebrush accessions are not related to
monoterpenoid content [9]. One particular accession located on the
Desert Experimental Range near Pine Valley, Utah is highly preferred by
domestic sheep, pronghorn, and mule deer [8,19], and this accession is
presently being tested for cultivar release [9]. Numerous studies have
cited highly variable results when comparing animal preference for black
sagebrush and big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp.) [44,47,49,51,58].
McArthur and Stevens [41] suggest that infraspecific as well as
interspecific variations probably account for such inconsistencies.
The relish and degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for
black sagebrush in several western states is rated as follows [25,62]:
CO MT OR UT WY
Cattle ---- ---- ---- Fair Fair
Sheep ---- ---- Fair Good Good
Horses ---- ---- ---- Poor Fair
Antelope ---- Poor Good Good Good
Elk ---- ---- ---- Good Fair
Mule deer ---- Poor Poor Good Good
White-tailed deer Poor ---- ---- ---- ----
Small mammals ---- ---- ---- Fair Fair
Small nongame birds ---- ---- ---- Fair Fair
Upland game birds ---- Fair ---- Good Good
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- Poor Poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Black sagebrush is a highly nutritious winter forage. Although not as
productive as many other forage species, its winter nutritive quality is
second only to big sagebrush [9,21]. Data from uniform garden studies
indicate that nutritional content, unlike preference, is not
significantly different among accessions [9]. Black sagebrush ranks
high in winter levels of crude protein when compared to other browse
species; mean winter crude protein levels of seven accessions equalled
6.8 percent (5.8 to 7.3 percent). Furthermore, digestable dry matter
values are very high; mean winter in vitro digestibility equalled 54.8
percent (51.9 to 57.2 percent) of dry matter digested. Black sagebrush
is also a good source of vitamin A and an above-average source of
phosphorus. Dittberner and Olson [25] rate this species as fair in both
energy and protein value.
COVER VALUE :
Black sagebrush provides valuable ground cover in areas where few other
species are adapted.
The degree to which black sagebrush provides environmental protection
during one or more seasons for wildlife species is as follows [25]:
CO MT UT WY
Pronghorn Poor Poor Poor Fair
Elk Poor ---- Poor Poor
Mule deer Poor Poor Poor Poor
White-tailed deer Poor ---- ---- ----
Small mammals Fair Poor Good Good
Small nongame birds Fair Poor Fair Good
Upland game birds Good Fair Fair Good
Waterfowl ---- ---- Poor Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Black sagebrush is an excellent species to establish on sites where
management objectives include restoration or improvement of domestic
sheep, pronghorn, or mule deer winter range. Although not as productive
as other winter forages such a big sagebrush, mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus montanus), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), or
fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), plants are adapted to sites
where these species do not grow. McArthur and others [42] recommend
using black sagebrush on sites having less than 6.9 inches (17.5 cm) of
rainfall. Black sagebrush is adapted to big sagebrush, pinyon-juniper,
mountain brush, and shadscale-sagebrush vegetation types. This species
spreads aggressively from seed on favorable sites and is a good
conservation plant for dry, shallow, stony soils and mine spoils. It
establishes better from direct seeding than big sagebrush [45]. A
highly preferred black sagebrush accession from Pine Valley, Utah is
currently being studied for release as a superior cultivar [42].
Survival of transplants in several new locations indicates a high
potential for wider planting.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Decreases in black sagebrush indicate a downward trend in grazing
condition. Poor condition black sagebrush stands are characterized by
bare ground in the shrub interspaces and are slow to recover. Moderate
mid-winter or alternate year grazing systems are recommended for
maintenance of black sagebrush [15,18,32]. Utilization levels of up to 70
percent of the current annual growth are considered acceptable [32].
Clary and Beale [19] report moderate sheep grazing (1ha/sheep month) of
black sagebrush winter ranges in Utah caused sites to be avoided by
pronghorn; apparently competitive impacts of sheep grazing on pronghorn
can be reduced by interspersing grazed and ungrazed units.
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Black sagebrush is a small, spreading, native, aromatic, evergreen
shrub. Heights usually range from 6 to 18 inches (1.5 to 4.5 dm) but
occasionally reach up to 30 inches (76 cm) on productive sites [41].
Although plants may have an upright habit, typically the branches are
decumbent and arise from a spreading base. Black sagebrush has a
shallower, more fibrous root system than big sagebrush [37]. As a
result, annual growth depends largely on soil moisture content near the
ground surface.
Distinguishing black sagebrush from low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula),
basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata), and Wyoming big
sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) is often difficult
[7,24,61]. Leaf gland visibility is a morphological character useful in
eliminating taxonomic confusion in the field [36]. Black sagebrush
exhibits tiny, black leaf glands which protrude well beyond the leaf
hairs when viewed with a 10X hand lens [17]; apparently these glands are
inconspicuous in low sagebrush and the three subspecies of big
sagebrush.
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
Chamaephyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Black sagebrush regenerates almost exclusively from seed. Although
layering has been documented on a road cut in Utah [41], vegetative
reproduction is quite rare. Numerous, wind-dispersed achenes are
typically shed in October. Abundant seed is produced annually, but
production is directly related to site characteristics and may be highly
variable from year to year [5]. Seeds require no dormancy breaking
treatment and usually germinate the spring following dispersal. Bare
mineral soil is needed for successful germination. Establishment can
occur even on fairly severe sites during good years. Seeds will remain
viable up to 2 years under proper storage conditions [50].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Black sagebrush is usually associated with areas with little soil
profile development in desert valleys and on west and south exposures
along the lower slopes of the high desert foothills. Typical sites
consist of the dry, shallow, gravelly, well-drained soils of alluvial
fans, sills, mountain slopes, and wind-blown ridges. It occurs most
abundantly at elevations between 4,900 to 7,000 feet (1,470 to 2,100 m)
where annual precipitation ranges between 7 and 18 inches (18 and 46
cm). Many of the soils supporting black sagebrush are derived from
limestone, particularly along the edges of its range [16]. Shultz [48]
reports this species occurring on shallow lithosols overlying bedrock.
Plants may form dense stands and dominate large areas or may be
associated with a large variety of both grasses and shrubs.
In communities where black and low sagebrush species occur together,
black sagebrush occupies the warmer, more xeric and more calcareous
sites; more mesic sites with deeper soils support basin big sagebrush
(A. tridentata ssp. tridentata) and Wyoming big sagebrush (A.
tridentata ssp. wyomingensis). With the exception of bud sage (A.
spinescens), black sagebrush is more closely associated with salt desert
habitats than any other Artemisia species. In the southern Great Basin
stands of black sagebrush are surrounded by salt desert vegetation and
are replaced by shadscale and other salt desert shrubs when sites become
too saline or dry [13,40].
Elevational ranges for several western states are as follows
[2,23,25,28,31,59,62,67]:
from 2,050 to 9,800 feet (625 to 2,988 m) in CO
5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,524 to 2,134 m) in ID
4,000 to 6,600 feet (1,220 to 2,012 m) in MT
5,904 to 7,544 feet (1,800 to 2,300 m) in NV
7,200 to 8,200 feet (2,195 to 2,500 m) in NM
4,000 to 4,000 feet (1,220 to 1,220 m) in OR
4,592 to 8,987 feet (1,400 to 2,740 m) in UT
5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,524 to 2,134 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Mature, self-perpetuating stands of black sagebrush are considered to be
indicators of climax conditions. Seedlings are present during early
seral stages and plants coexist with later arriving species.
Long-established, black sagebrush stands in Nevada have recently
undergone invasion by both Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and
singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla). This invasion, which accelerated
around 1921, has been attributed to the combined effects of overgrazing,
fire suppression, and climatic change [13].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
The phenology of black sagebrush is similar to low sagebrush (A.
arbuscula) but earlier. The general pattern in Wyoming is described by
Beetle [5]. Growth is initiated in April, with new leaves being
produced from May throughout most of the summer. Flower heads first
appear in July, but blooming does not occur until September; they may be
numerous one year and particularly sparse in another. Seed dispersal
takes place in October. Late spring leaves and summer leaves persist
through the winter. Decreases in soil moisture and amounts of
precipitation have a significant impact on the phenology of this
species. Moisture rapidly infiltrates the coarse, shallow soils of most
sites and is either immediately utilized by the plant or lost through
evaporation [37].
The carbohydrate reserve cycle in black sagebrush shows no pronounced
trend [22]. Generally there is a gradual buildup of root reserves from a
seasonal low in March to floral bud development in August. Immediately
afterwards a prolonged decline occurs which lasts until September. Data
is inconsistent on the buildup of reserves through initial flower
opening and fruit set. Over the winter, approximately one-half of the
root reserves and one-quarter of the crown reserves are lost; twigs
appear to be significant carbohydrate storage areas.
Average dates for the phenological development of black sagebrush on
similar sites in Wyoming have been documented by Kleinman [37] and are
presented below. He indicates that dates for full bloom and seed
dissemination are somewhat predicatable.
Growth initiation May 20
Full bloom September 15
Seed dissemination November 5
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Black sagebrush is highly susceptible to fire-caused mortality; plants
are readily killed by all fire intensities. Following burning,
reestablishment occurs through off-site seed sources [53,64,65].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Historically fire has had little or no influence in communities
dominated by black sagebrush [63]. When exposed to fire, plants are
easily killed and do not sprout [56,64].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Typically the sparse vegetation of most black sagebrush stands precludes
the occurrence of fire. In fact, dwarf sagebrush species are commonly
recognized as potential natural fire breaks. Beardall and Sylvester [4]
found that low sagebrush communities in Nevada did not burn on a hot day
in mid-August despite wind speeds of up to 25 miles per hour (40.3 km
per hour). Use of prescribed burning is not usually feasible where
black sagebrush forms dense stands. Since plants are nonsprouters, fire
is not recommended on winter ranges where this species constitutes an
important forage plant.
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Apparently black sagebrush reestablishes from off-site seed following
fire. Information concerning reestablishment after burning is lacking.
Effective soil moisture and patterns of burning have an influence upon
the rate of site recovery.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Since stands of black sagebrush do not readily burn, existing response
data involves information obtained from study sites where this species
is not a dominant component of the vegetation. In Utah, West and Hassan
[60] found no evidence of black sagebrush reestablishment up to 2 years
following a late July fire. Most black sagebrush seeds are dispersed
close to the parent plant; therefore, mosaic burning patterns which
leave unburned patches speed recovery. Favorable precipitation
following burning also aids in seedling establishment.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Artemisia nova | Black Sagebrush
REFERENCES :
1. Alexander, Robert R. 1985. Major habitat types, community types and
plant communities in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-123. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 105 p. [303]
2. Baker, William L.; Kennedy, Susan C. 1985. Presettlement vegetation of
part of northwestern Moffat County, Colorado, described from remnants.
Great Basin Naturalist. 45(4): 747-783. [384]
3. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption,
and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
4. Beardall, Louis E.; Sylvester, Vern E. 1976. Spring burning for removal
of sagebrush competition in Nevada. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire
ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October
8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 539-547. [406]
5. Beetle, A. A. 1960. A study of sagebrush: The section Tridentatae of
Artemisia. Bulletin 368. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming,
Agricultural Experiment Station. 83 p. [416]
6. Beetle, Alan A.; Johnson, Kendall L. 1982. Sagebrush in Wyoming. Bull.
779. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment
Station. 68 p. [421]
7. Beetle, Alan A.; Young, Alvin. 1965. A third subspecies in the Artemisia
tridentata complex. Rhodora. 67: 405-406. [422]
8. Behan, Barbara; Welch, Bruce L. 1985. Black sagebrush: mule deer winter
preference and monoterpenoid content. Journal of Range Management.
38(3): 278-279. [423]
9. Behan, Barbara; Welch, Bruce L. 1986. Winter nutritive content of black
sagebrush (Artemisia nova) grown in a uniform garden. Great Basin
Naturalist. 46(1): 161-165. [424]
10. 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]
11. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1969.
Vegetation and soils of the Crane Springs Watershed. R-55. Reno, NV:
University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 65 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Burearu of Land
Management. [456]
12. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1971.
Vegetation and soils of the Rock Springs Watershed. R-83. Reno, NV:
University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 116 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. [457]
13. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T. 1970. Pinyon and juniper
invasion in black sagebrush communities in east-central Nevada. Ecology.
51(5): 841-848. [459]
14. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969.
Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon Watershed. R-45. Reno, NV:
University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 155 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. [460]
15. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain
rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464]
16. Blaisdell, James P.; Murray, Robert B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1982.
Managing Intermountain rangelands--sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [467]
17. Brunner, James R. 1972. Observations on Artemisia in Nevada. Journal of
Range Management. 25: 205-298. [550]
18. Clary, Warren P. 1986. Black sagebrush response to grazing in the
east-central Great Basin. 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: 181-185. [639]
19. Clary, Warren P.; Beale, Donald M. 1983. Pronghorn reactions to winter
sheep grazing, plant communities, and topography in the Great Basin.
Journal of Range Management. 36(6): 749-752. [641]
20. Collins, P. D.; Harper, K. T. 1982. Habitat types of the Curlew National
Grassland, Idaho. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Department of
Botany and Range Science. 46 p. [editorial draft]. [663]
21. Cook, C. Wayne; Stoddart, L. A. 1953. The halogeton problem in Utah.
Bulletin 364. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 44 p. In cooperation with:U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [4597]
22. Coyne, Patrick I.; Cook, C. Wayne. 1970. Seasonal carbohydrate reserve
cycles in eight desert range species. Journal of Range Management. 23:
438-444. [707]
23. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank,
Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New
Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [781]
24. Dean, Sheila; Burkhardt, J. Wayne; Meeuwig, Richard O. 1981. Estimating
twig and foliage biomass of sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush in
the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 34(3): 224-227. [787]
25. 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]
26. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
27. Francis, Richard E. 1986. Phyto-edaphic communities of the Upper Rio
Puerco Watershed, New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 73 p. [954]
28. Francis, Richard E.; Aldon, Earl F. 1983. Preliminary habitat types of a
semiarid grassland. 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: 62-66. [956]
29. 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]
30. Hess, Karl; Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Grassland, shrubland, and
forestland habitat types of the White River-Arapaho National Forest.
Final Report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 335 p.
[1142]
31. Hironaka, M.; Fosberg, M. A.; Winward, A. H. 1983. Sagebrush-grass
habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 44
p. [1152]
32. Hutchings, Selar S.; Stewart, George. 1953. Increasing forage yields and
sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. Circular No. 925.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 63 p. [1227]
33. Johnson, A. Earl. 1978. Tetradymia toxicity - a new look at an old
problem. In: Effects of poisonous plants on livestock: Joint
U.S.-Australia symposium: 209-215. [7800]
34. Johnson, A. Earl. 1987. The relationship of Tetradymia species and
Artemisia nova to photosensitization in sheep. In: Provenza, Frederick
D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on plant- herbivore interactions; 1985 August
7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 113-117.
[1270]
35. 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]
36. Kelsey, Rick G. 1984. Using glandular trichomes as a taxonomic
characteristic for black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Abstracts: The 37th
annual meeting of the Society for Range Management, 1984 February 12-17;
Rapid City, SD. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 201. Abstract.
[1325]
37. Kleinman, Larry H. 1976. Phenodynamics and ecology of sagebrush-grass
rangelands. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 143 p. Ph.D.
dissertation. [1350]
38. 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]
39. McAdoo, J. Kent; Klebenow, Donald A. 1979. Native faunal relationships
in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium:
Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University,
College of Natural Resources: 50-61. [1562]
40. 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]
41. 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]
42. McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L.; Nelson, David L. 1985. Developing
improved cultivars of sagebrushes and other composite shrubs. In:
Carlson, Jack R.; McArthur, E. Durant, chairmen. Range plant improvement
in western North America: Proceedings of a symposium at the annual
meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985 February 14; Salt Lake
City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 80-88. [1581]
43. Mueggler, W. F.; Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat
types of western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-66. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 154 p. [1717]
44. Nagy, Julius G.; Tengerdy, Robert P. 1968. Antibacterial action of
essential oils of Artemisia as an ecological factor. II. Antibacterial
action of the volatile oils of Artemisisa. tridentata (big sagebrush) on
bacteria from the rumen of mule deer. Applied Microbiology. 16(3):
441-444. [11986]
45. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.
Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah
Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
46. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
47. Sheehy, Dennis P.; Winward, A. H. 1981. Relative palatability of seven
Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management.
34(5): 397-399. [2128]
48. Shultz, Leila M. 1986. Taxonomic and geographic limits of Artemisia
subgenus tridentatae (Beetle). 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: 20-28. [2141]
49. Smith, Arthur D. 1950. Sagebrush as a winter feed for deer. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 14(3): 285-289. [2159]
50. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Davis, James N. 1981. Viability of
seed from thirty-two shrub and forb species through fifteen years of
warehouse storage. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 274-277. [2244]
51. Stevens, Richard; McArthur, E. Durant. 1974. A simple field technique
for identification of some sagebrush taxa. Journal of Range Management.
27(4): 325-326. [2245]
52. 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]
53. Tisdale, E. W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review
of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho,
Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [2344]
54. Tweit, Susan J.; Houston, Kent E. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat
types of the Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest. 143 p. [2377]
55. 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]
56. 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]
57. Ward, George H. 1953. Artemisia, section Seriphidium, in North America:
a cytotaxonomic study. Contributions from the Dudley Herberium.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Natural History Museum; 4(6):
155-205. [2454]
58. Welch, Bruce L.; McArthur, E. Durant; Davis, James N. 1981. Differential
preference of wintering mule deer for accessions of big sagebrush and
for black sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 34(5): 409-411.
[7801]
59. 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]
60. West, Neil E.; Hassan, M. A. 1985. Recovery of sagebrush-grass
vegetation following wildfire. Journal of Range Management. 38(2):
131-134. [2513]
61. West, Neil E.; Rea, Kenneth H.; Tausch, Robin J.; Tueller, Paul T. 1975.
Distribution and indicator values of Artemisia within the juniper-pinyon
woodlands of the Great Basin. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs:
Proceedings-- symposium and workshop; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, Utah.
Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University: 166-167. [2516]
62. Winward, Alma H. 1980. Taxonomy and ecology of sagebrush in Oregon.
Station Bulletin 642. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 p. [2585]
63. Winward, Alma H. 1985. Fire in the sagebrush-grass ecosystem--the
ecological setting. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire
effects: a symposium: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29;
Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Idaho State Office: 2-6. [2587]
64. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The
role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant
communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Statio. 48 p. [2625]
65. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in
rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw,
Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of
range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin
Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681]
66. 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]
67. Zamora, B.; Tueller, Paul T. 1973. Artemisia arbuscula, A. longiloba,
and A. nova habitat types in northern Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist.
33(4): 225-242. [2688]
Index
Related categories for Species: Artemisia nova
| Black Sagebrush
|
 |
