Introductory
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



ABBREVIATION : 
ATRLEN

SYNONYMS : 
NO-ENTRY


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   ATLE


COMMON NAMES : 
   big saltbrush
   big saltbush
   lens-scale saltbrush
   white-thistle
   quail-brush


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for big saltbrush is Atriplex
lentiformis (Torr.) Wats. [15,18,29].  Some authorities recognize
varieties while others recognize subspecies.  Recognized subspecies and
varieties are as follows [15,18,29]:

           Atriplex lentiformis var. lentiformis (Torr) Wats
           Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri (S.Wats) H.M. Hall & Clem
           Atriplex lentiformis var. breweri (S.Wats) McMinn
           Atriplex lentiformis var. torreyi (S.Wats) McMinn
           Atriplex lentiformis var. griffithii (Standley) Benson



LIFE FORM : 
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Julie L. Tesky, March 1992


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Tesky, Julie L. 1992. Atriplex lentiformis. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Big saltbrush occurs along the coast of California from San Francisco
southward into central Baja California, east to Nevada, Utah, Colorado,
central Arizona, New Mexico, and northwestern Sonora, Mexico
[15,18,20,29,30].  It is cultivated in Hawaii [37].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES29  Sagebrush
   FRES30  Desert shrub
   FRES34  Chaparral - mountain shrub
   FRES40  Desert grasslands


STATES : 
     AZ  CA  CO  HI  NV  NM  UT  MEXICO


ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : 
     CABR  CHIS  DEVA  GRCA  LAME  ORPI
     SAMO


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    7  Lower Basin and Range
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   12  Colorado Plateau


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K038  Great Basin sagebrush
   K039  Blackbrush
   K040  Saltbush - greasewood
   K041  Creosotebush
   K057  Galleta - threeawn shrubsteppe


SAF COVER TYPES : 
   242  Mesquite


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Big saltbrush seldom obtains dominance or codominance in plant
communities.  It therefore has not been identified in the literature as
an indicator species.

Big saltbrush is commonly associated with the following species:
salt-cedar (Tamarix chinensis), arrow-weed pluchea (Pluchea sericea),
screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), honey mesquite (P. glandulosa),
seepwillow baccharis (Baccharis glutinosa), devil-weed aster (Aster
spinosis), and shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) [1,3,14,28].

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
The twigs and foliage of big saltbrush provide forage for livestock,
mule deer, pronghorn, and many small mammals [8].  The seeds are
consumed by small mammals, and birds such as Gambel quail and
ring-necked pheasants [13].


PALATABILITY : 
In Utah, palatability of big saltbrush foliage has been rated as fair
for cattle, good for sheep, and poor for horses [8].


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
Atriplex spp. are known for their high productivity and quality forage
[31].  Nutritional value of big saltbrush is high; it contains almost as
much protein, fat, and carbohydrates as alfalfa hay [5,31].  Percent
nutrient values for big saltbrush are as follows:  6.11 percent water,
4.73 percent ash, 7.81 percent crude protein, 27.05 percent crude fiber,
1.99 percent fat, and 52.31 percent nitrogen-free extract [5].

Forage quality is influenced by age and phenological stage at the time
of harvest.  During the establishment years, high dry matter yields are
generally associated with lower nutritional values [31].


COVER VALUE : 
Big saltbrush grows in dense stands providing fair to good cover for
wildlife [27,29].  The degree to which this shrub provides environmental
protection during one or more seasons for wildlife species in Utah is
rated as follows [8]:

                        Pronghorn              Fair
                        Elk                    Poor
                        Mule deer              Fair
                        Small mammals          Good
                        Small nongame birds    Good
                        Upland game birds      Fair


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
Big saltbrush has been used for erosion control on disturbed riparian
sites in the San Joaquin Valley and Tapo Canyon Creek, California
[19,35].  After one growing season in the San Joaquin valley, big
saltbrush survival was 88 percent.  Most surviving shrubs were healthy
and grew quickly [35].

This shrub is also used for wildlife habitat restoration.  In a Colorado
River Valley study, bird and rodent use was abundant 2 years after
planting with native species such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus
fremontii) and big saltbrush [7].  'Casa' big saltbrush, a cultivator
originating from San Bernito County, California, was utilized in 1979
for wildlife habitat plantings in California.  However, it lacks
sufficent cold hardiness to be recommended throughout the species'
range.  Nurseries produce about 15,000 plants annually [4].


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
Native Americans ground big saltbrush seeds for meal and for use as an
emetic.  They ground the roots and flowers to sooth ant bites [6].  This
shrub is also used as an ornamental hedge in coastal California [29].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Atriplex shrubs harbor spinach mildew and consequently should not
be planted where spinach is grown [27].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Big saltbrush is a deep-rooted, fast-growing, native perennial shrub
[20].  Branches are numerous, widespreading, slender, and flexible [29].
It normally grows to a height of 0.5 to 5.0 feet (0.15-1.52 m) [6,29],
but may reach 10.0 feet (3.0 m) in areas where the water table is high
[15].  Leaves are thickish with a fine, scaly surface and are 0.3 to 2.0
inches (1.0-5.0 cm) long and 0.15 to 1.6 inches (0.5-4.0 cm) wide
[6,29].  They are deciduous in desert ecotypes but tend to be evergreen
elsewhere [6,29].


RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Phanerophyte
   Chamaephyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Flowers:  Big saltbrush flowers are dioecious and wind pollinated [21].
These plants have the ability to alter their sexual state from one
season to the next in response to environmental conditions [10].  Plants
which change sex appear to begin reproducing earlier than pistillate
plants, while producing as many seeds [10].

Seeds and Germination:  Big saltbrush plants produce many seeds [27,29]
which are borne on bracts and wind dispersed [21].  Seeds germinate
well without pretreatment or light [30,34].

Vegetative reproducition:  Big saltbrush has been vegetatively
propagated by means of stem cuttings [30,33].


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Big saltbrush is a phretophyte and halophyte that is found in both
coastal and desert habitats [20].  Coastal populations typically occur
at the base of coastal bluffs and on coastal floodplains [20].  Interior
populations are found along valley bottoms and margins of dry lakebeds
[14], where groundwater of moderate salinity is available [20].

Soils:  Big saltbrush usually grows on poorly drained, saline, and/or
saline-sodic soils [14,15,29,31,] with a pH from 7.5 to 8.3 [28].

Elevation:  This shrub occurs from 300 to 4,500 feet (91-1,372 m)
[29,32] but most commonly below 1,600 feet (488 m) [6].

Temperature/Precipitation:  Big saltbrush typically occurs in areas with
mean annual temperatures of 59 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8-21.9 deg
C) and 3 to 16 inches (7.6-40.6 cm) of mean annual precipitation [20].


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Facultative Seral Species

Big saltbrush exhibits characteristics of a stress-tolerant ruderal and,
therefore, occurs in early to mid-seral communities.


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
Big saltbrush flowers mature from June to August.  Fruits mature from
September to October [29].  Maximum growth occurs in early summer [20].

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
The foliage of big saltbrush appears to have fire-retarding qualities
associated with the salt content of the leaves [6,25].  Additionally,
this species is a profuse seeder [6].


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush 



IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Although big saltbrush foliage is somewhat fire resistant [6], a severe
fire will typically kill aboveground portions of the plant [25].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
Specific information on big saltbrush's response to fire is lacking.
However, this shrub is known to be a profuse seeder and probably
colonizes burned sites by wind dispersed seeds [6].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
NO-ENTRY


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
NO-ENTRY

References for species: Atriplex lentiformis

1. Barbour, M. G.; MacMahon, J. A.; Bamberg, S. A.; Ludwig, J. A. 1977. The structure and distribution of Larrea communities. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.: 227-251. [7172]

2. 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]

3. Burk, Jack H. 1977. Sonoran Desert. In: Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 869-899. [3731]

4. Carlson, Jack. 1984. Atriplex cultivar development. In: Proceedings-symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 176-182. [603]

5. Catlin, C. N. 1925. Composition of Arizona forages, with comparative data. Bull. 113. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 155-171. [4525]

6. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]

7. Disano, John; Anderson, Bertin W.; Meents, Julie K.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1984. Compatibility of biofuel production with wildlife habitat enhancement. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 739-743. [5872]

8. 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]

9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

10. Freeman, D. C.; McArthur, E. D.; Harper, K. T. 1984. The adaptive significance of sexual lability in plants using Atriplex canescens as a principal example. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 71: 265-277. [6238]

11. 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]

12. Goldner, Bernard H. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts associated with structurally modified flood control channels. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 445-451. [5852]

13. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada. No. 49: Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops Research Division. 170 p. [6729]

14. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

15. 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]

16. 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]

17. 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]

18. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]

19. Patey, Katherine J.; Wishner, Carl; Gibson, Joseph G. 1991. Tapo Canyon Creek riparian habitat restoration plan. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 47-48. [15454]

20. Pearcy, R. W.; Harrison, A. T. 1974. Comparative photosynthetic and respiratory gas exchange characteristics of Atriplex lentiformis (Torr.) Wats. in coastal and desert habitats. Ecology. 55(5): 1104-1111. [17722]

21. Pendleton, Rosemary L.; Pendleton, Burton K.; Harper, Kimball T. 1989. Breeding systems of woody plant species in Utah. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 5-22. [5918]

22. Plummer, Mark. 1984. Considerations in selecting chenopod species for range seeding. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R. [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on thebiology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 183-186. [1903]

23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

24. Romney, E.M.; Wallace, A.; Hunter, R.B. 1989. Transplanting of native shrubs on disturbed land in the Mojave Desert. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 50-53. [5922]

25. Slatyer, R. O. 1975. Structure and function of Australian arid shrublands. In: Hyder, D. N., ed. Arid Shrublands-Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the United States/Australia Rangelands Panel; 1973 March 26 - April 5; Tucson, AZ. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 66-73. [17545]

26. 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]

27. 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]

28. Van Epps, Gordon A.; Barker, Jerry R.; McKell, C. M. 1982. Energy biomass from large rangeland shrubs of the Intermountain United States. Journal of Range Management. 35(1): 22-25. [16951]

29. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

30. Wallace, A.; Romney, E. M. 1972. Radioecology and ecophysiology of desert plants at the Nevada Test Site. Rep. TID-25954. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services. 439 p. [15000]

31. Watson, M. Carolyn; O'Leary, James W.; Glenn, Edward P. 1987. Evaluation of Atriplex lentiformis (Torr.) S. Wats. and Atriplex nummularia Lindl. as irrigated forage crops. Journal of Arid Environments. 13: 293-303. [4764]

32. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

33. Wieland, P. A. T.; Frolich, E. F.; Wallace, A. 1971. Vegetative propagation of woody shrub species from the northern Mojave and southern Great Basin deserts. Madrono. 21(3): 149-152. [2549]

34. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Roundy, Bruce A.; Cluff, Greg J. 1984. Ecology of seed germination in representative Chenopodiaceae. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R. [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 159-165. [2675]

35. Oldham, Jonathan A.; Valentine, Bradley E. 1990. Phase II of the crescent bypass riparian revegetation project. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 69-78. [14689]

36. 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. 10 p. [20090]

37. St. John, Harold. 1973. List and summary of the flowering plants in the Hawaiian islands. Hong Kong: Cathay Press Limited. 519 p. [25354]

Related categories for Species: Atriplex lentiformis | Big Saltbrush