|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
ABBREVIATION :
CEACUN
SYNONYMS :
Rhamnus cuneatus
Ceanothus submontanus
SCS PLANT CODE :
NO-ENTRY
COMMON NAMES :
wedgeleaf ceanothus
buckbrush ceanothus
buckbrush
narrowleaf buckbrush
hornbrush
wedgeleaf
chaparral
greasebush
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of wedgeleaf ceanothus is
Ceanothus cuneatus (Hook.) Nutt. [14,32,42]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus is a
member of the section Cerastes [13]. Species within this section are
described as "highly interfertile," and wedgeleaf ceanothus is known to
hybridize with bigpod ceanothus (C. megacarpus), C. flexilis,
squawcarpet ceanothus (C. prostratus), C. connivens, and Fresno mat (C.
fresnensis) [13,42,52]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus is extremely variable and a
number of forms have been named [43]. Commonly recognized varieties are
as follows [31]:
Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus
C. cuneatus var. fascicularis (McMinn) Hoover
C. cuneatus var. rigidus (Nutt.) Hoover
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
See OTHER STATUS
OTHER STATUS :
C. c. var. rigidus is federally listed as a Category 2 taxa [68].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, May 1989
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. 1989. Ceanothus cuneatus. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus grows from Mexico northward to California, western
Nevada, Oregon, and into southern Washington [43,48]. It is
well-represented throughout the Coast Ranges, inland mountains of
southern California, and the western Sierra Nevada, but occurs only
rarely on the east slope of the Sierra [55,64]. Fossil evidence
indicates that wedgeleaf ceanothus was much more widely distributed
during drier periods of the Middle Pliocene [15].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
STATES :
CA NV OR WA MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
KICA PINN SAMO SEQU WHIS YOSE
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K031 Oak - juniper woodland
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
SAF COVER TYPES :
211 White fir
233 Oregon white oak
239 Pinyon - juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus occurs as an understory dominant or codominant with
manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.) in a number of ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) communities of the Pacific Northwest. It has also been
described as an important codominant in certain desert chaparral
communities of southern California with such species as desert ceanothus
(Ceanothus greggii) and chaparral whitethorn (C. leucodermis).
Wedgeleaf ceanothus has been listed as a dominant or codominant species
in the following publications:
Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington [22]
Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific Northwest plant associations [28]
The vascular plant communities of California [63]
Wedgeleaf ceanothus most commonly occurs in association with the
following species: California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum),
scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), juneberry
(Amelanchier pallida), Fremont silktassel (Garrya fremontii), birchleaf
mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), California buckthorn
(Rhamnus californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), chaparral
whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), desert ceanothus (C. greggii),
deerbrush (C. integerrimus), hoaryleaf ceanothus (C. crassifolius),
skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), and manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.)
[7,10,12,15,41,63].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus provides excellent browse and cover for a wide
variety of wildlife species. Since leaves persist, it is particularly
important to deer during the winter months, and in some areas 50 to 70
percent of the current growth is utilized annually [13,24,25]. Often,
heavy wet snow will bend the branches of taller, older plants to within
easy reach of deer [25]. Where deer utilization is heavy, browse may
stay within reach of deer for 20 to 25 years [9]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus
generally loses its value as a browse before stands reach 60 years of
age [53].
Domestic sheep and goats feed on wedgeleaf ceanothus where available
[9,55,61]. However, cattle and horses generally use this browse only
when other more preferred species are scarce or absent [61,64].
Many small birds, mammals, and insects consume large numbers of
wedgeleaf ceanothus seed. Seeds are important food items for many
species of squirrels, the chaparral mouse, house mouse, deer mouse,
California mouse, California pocket mouse, valley quail, mountain quail,
and mariposa brush rabbit [39,61,66].
PALATABILITY :
The foliage and twigs of wedgeleaf ceanothus are highly palatable to
mule deer and black-tailed deer, and to domestic sheep and goats
[25,57,64]. Tender young sprouts and seedlings are particularly
relished by these animals [8,54]. Interestingly, wedgeleaf ceanothus is
of relatively greater palatability to older sheep, which tend to be more
selective foragers, than to the less discriminating juvenile sheep [27].
Overall palatability to cattle is low [64]. However, studies have shown
that the relative palatability of wedgeleaf ceanothus to cattle, and to
other species as well, may be enhanced through the application of
fertilizers [24]. Seeds are highly palatable to many small mammals,
birds, and insects [14]. The relish and degree of use shown by livestock
and wildlife species for wedgeleaf ceanothus is rated as follows [13,64]:
California
Cattle poor
Sheep good-fair
Domestic goats good
Deer fair
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus is moderately high in protein, and is an important
source of vitamin A during the summer and fall when grasses have dried
[55]. Overall nutritional value of wedgeleaf ceanothus varies
seasonally [26,55,58]. Crude protein generally decreases as leaves
mature, while crude fiber increases [55]:
crude protein - % crude fiber - %
young leaves 15 5.5
mature leaves 8 12.2
Mineral composition has been determined as follows [58]:
average % dry weight -
P S Ca Mg K
.12 .11 .62 .23 .74
A number of studies have documented the specific nutritional content of
wedgeleaf ceanothus by both plant part and phenological stage
[26,54,58].
COVER VALUE :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus provides excellent cover for many wildlife species
including the valley quail, California jackrabbit, brush rabbit, and
mourning dove [8,14]. Studies have shown that the preferred habitat of
the chaparral mouse is under the protective branches of wedgeleaf
ceanothus [39]. Many other small rodents, including the deer mouse,
California mouse, house mouse, and California pocket mouse, hide, feed,
and nest beneath the canopy of this shrub [39]. Plants frequently grow
tall enough, and with sufficient density, to furnish good hiding cover
for larger ungulates such as deer.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Many species within the genus Ceanothus are well suited for use in
rehabilitation because of rapid growth rates and an ability to improve
soil fertility through fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Some cultivars are
now commercially available [19].
Wedgeleaf ceanothus has been successfully planted onto many types of
disturbed sites throughout southern California and the desert Southwest
[19]. It established well on disturbed sites near Lake Tahoe but
exhibited poor long-term survival due to cold winter temperatures [59].
Properly treated seed can be hand-sown onto burned slopes as an
emergency revegetation measure in southern California chapparal [5].
Good seedling establishment has been reported following seeding of these
sites [5].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Native peoples boiled the leaves and flowers of wedgeleaf ceanothus for
use in teas and tonics [61]. Flowers contain detergentlike substances
known as saponins, and have been made into perfumes and soaps [61,64].
Branches of wedgeleaf ceanothus were formerly used to construct fish
dams or weirs [64]. Many species of ceanothus are well suited for use
as ornamentals [30]; wedgeleaf ceanothus has been cultivated since 1848
[52].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Competition: In some areas, vigorous postdisturbance growth of
wedgeleaf ceanothus can retard the establishment and growth of conifers
[13].
Chemical treatment: Although the application of fertilizers may help
restore vigor to decadent plants, leader growth is generally not
stimulated [24]. Fertilizers often result in increased mortality of
young wedgeleaf ceanothus seedlings as competitive herbaceous vegetation
is stimulated and overtops the young plants [24].
Grazing: Wedgeleaf ceanothus has been observed to increase after cattle
grazing in foothill hardwood rangelands [16].
Production: Preliminary estimates have been made of wedgeleaf ceanothus
biomass in Sequoia National Park. Results are as follows [47]:
density/ha biomass (kg ha -1)
stem foliage total
1,380 7,670 469 8,139
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus is a rigid, warm-season, evergreen shrub which grows
from 3 to 12 feet (1 to 3.5 m) in height [43,61]. Plants frequently
form dense, impenetrable thickets [61,66].
Branches are thorny, rigid, and covered with a grayish pubescence [61].
The thick, leathery leaves are opposite, entire to thinly toothed at the
tip, and mostly obtuse [43,61]. Leaves are grayish-green and glabrous
above, and paler beneath [43]. The showy flowers occur in small, dense,
rounded umbellate clusters [43,48,55]. Flowers are generally white or,
less commonly, light blue to lilac [55,64], and have a sweet-scented,
"balsamlike" fragrance [64]. Shiny, black, round to oblong seeds are
borne in subglobose capsules [43]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus is noted for its
ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen [67].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus is most often described as a nonsprouter, or
obligate seeder [8,35,44,45,54]. Regeneration from exposed roots or
root crowns has also been reported, although it is probably extremely
rare and of minimal importance [14,66].
Seed: Cleaned seed averages 49,000 to 54,000 per pound (108-119 g)
[52,66]. Hard-coated, shiny seed is contained in a subglobose capsule
which breaks apart explosively at maturity, dispersing seed away from
the parent plant [9,35,43,61]. Plants begin producing seed at
approximately 4 to 5 years of age [9]. Some seed is produced annually,
but the size of the seed crop varies [9]. Weather conditions during the
preceding year may significantly influence seed production. Seed
predation by small mammals and insects may be severe. Rodents have
reportedly removed up to 99 percent of the annual ceanothus seed crop in
some areas [13].
Seed dispersal: Seed of wedgeleaf ceanothus can be cast up to 35 feet
(11 m) from the parent plant [9], but most seed falls beneath the
canopy. Evans and others [17] reported that 32 percent of wedgeleaf
ceanothus seed was dropped beneath the canopy, with 42 percent located
at the edge of the plant. The remaining seed was dispersed outward to
30 feet (11 m) from the parent plant. Most seed was cast in a
southwesterly direction.
Seed dispersal is often completed in a relatively short period of time.
Approximately 95 percent of all seed was cast within 14 days in the
central Sierra Nevada of California [17]. A specific threshold of
temperature and moisture may be necessary to initiate seed casting [17].
Germination: Wedgeleaf ceanothus germinates in large numbers after fire
[52,55,64]. Exposure to heat apparently stimulates seed germination by
increasing permeability to water [52]. Hot water soaks at 160 degrees
Fahrenheit (71 deg C) for 12 hours are effective in breaking seed
dormancy [11]. In laboratory tests, approximately 40 to 50 percent
germination was obtained under dry heating at temperatures of 194 to 212
degrees Fahrenhiet (90-100 deg C) [4]. Seeds planted 0.5 to 1 inch
(1.2-2.5 cm) deep show best emergence in either sun or shade [1,52].
Although seeds germinate best after fire, exposure to fire is not
essential for germination [8]. In some areas a few seedlings emerge in
openings in the absence of fire [9]. Seeds in openings are apparently
exposed to high enough temperatures through solar heating to cause
scarification and subsequent germination [4]. New seedlings rarely
emerge from beneath dense brush [9].
Seedbanking: The seed of wedgeleaf ceanothus remains viable for long
periods of time [21,55,64]. Although the maximum length of viability
has not been documented, seed apparently remains viable for at least
several decades. Approximately 98 percent of seed aged 17 years and 5
months germinated in carefully controlled laboratory experiments [50].
Large numbers of seed accumulate in the soil, litter, or duff beneath
parent plants during fire-free intervals [17,45]. This pool of buried
seed, partially insulated from the most extreme temperatures, germinates
after fire [4].
Seedling establishment: Most natural seedling emergence occurs in March
or April, with emergence 80 percent complete by the middle of April [5].
Most seedlings emerge during the first year after fire, although a few
emerge during the second postfire year [62]. Seedling mortality is high
during the first few years [13,21] and often ranges from 36 to 68
percent by the third year after fire [25]. During the first few years
seedlings are vulnerable to drought, competition from other species, and
herbivory [9,25,55].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus commonly grows in semiarid valleys and interior
foothills on dry slopes, alluvial fans, and gravelly, open ridges
[14,43,55,61]. This shrub is a constituent of southern California
chaparral communities, but becomes dominant in central and northern
California chaparral [15]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus is an important
component of many drier conifer forests dominated by ponderosa (Pinus
ponderosa) or Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi) [14], and occurs in
pinyon-juniper and oak (Quercus spp.) woodlands [10,13,43]. This shrub
grows as a scattered understory species in some locations, but
frequently forms dense, pure stands [7,55].
Soils: Wedgeleaf ceanothus typically grows on shallow, well-drained,
gravelly soils [13,48,55]. This shrub is also noted for its ability to
grow well on nutrient-poor serpentine soils of southern Oregon and
northern California [67].
Elevational range: Wedgeleaf ceanothus generally grows from 300 to
4,000 feet (91-1,219 m) in elevation, although more rarely occurs up to
6,000 feet (1,829 m) [43,55].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Wedgeleaf ceanothus is known for its wide ecological amplitude [44], and
can occur as either a seral or climax species [15]. In the Klamath and
Rogue regions of southern Oregon, it grows as a climax species, often
intermixed with oaks (Quercus spp.), on xeric slopes immediately above
the valley floors [2,15,33]. These harsh, arid sites are subject to
extreme diurnal and seasonal temperature variation [2]. In other, often
more mesic, portions of Oregon chaparral, wedgeleaf ceanothus is
successional to oaks (Quercus spp.) [15].
The successional status of wedgeleaf ceanothus in California chaparral
is less well-known. Many consider chaparral dominated by wedgeleaf
ceanothus to represent fire-induced climax communities [41]. Hanes [29]
aptly notes that succession here is "more a gradual elimination of
individuals present from the outset than a replacement of initial shrubs
[such as wedgeleaf ceanothus] by new species." Wedgeleaf ceanothus
frequently retains its importance in northern California chaparral
communities for a period of 100 years or more [33]. However, Noble and
Slatyer [45] report that once an established chaparral community in
southern California has matured, wedgeleaf ceanothus generally dies out
within 50 years. Limited evidence suggests that this shrub is
relatively more important in later seral or even climax communities
towards the northern edge of its range.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
In southern California chaparral wedgeleaf ceanothus undergoes most
active vegetative growth during late winter and spring [3]. The growth
of new leaves, initiation of flowerbuds, and branch elongation all occur
simultaneously [3]. Wedgeleaf ceanothus flowers from March through May
or June [14,43,52], and fruit ripens from April through June [52]. Seed
may be cast from June through August, with dispersal peaking in July
[3,17]. Although leaves of wedgeleaf ceanothus persist throughout the
year, many are lost during the summer [3].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus exhibits numerous specialized adaptations to fire
[35]. An abundance of long-lived seed accumulates in the soil, litter,
or duff during fire-free intervals [17,52,55]. Significant amounts of
seed are protected from the harmful effects of fire by overlying soil.
Heat generated by fire subsequently stimulates widespread germination.
Wedgeleaf ceanothus often occurs in chaparral communities characterized
by dense shrub growth with interlocking crowns and an abundance of
deadwood [21,39]. These fire-prone communities are subject to large-scale
conflagrations at periodic intervals. Historic fire frequencies have
been estimated at 25 to 40 years for chaparral in southern California
[38] and 30 to 60 years for chaparral in the central part of the state
[20]. Broadleaf sclerophylls such as wedgeleaf ceanothus are
characterized by a relatively large amount of fine fuels, low moisture
content, much dead material, and a high proportion of resin, oil, wax,
and volatile products, and thus contribute to the overall flammability
of these communities [40]. Traits such as seedbanking and lack of a
widespread seed dispersal mechanism suggest that ceanothus may be
particularly well adapted to large fires so typical of chaparral [34].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus is typically killed by fire. However, seeds stored
in soil beneath the parent plants are generally unharmed by most fires.
Seed retains viability even when exposed to temperatures up to 176
degrees F (80 degrees C) [62].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Wedgeleaf ceanothus regenerates through seed after fire [8,35,45,52].
Seed is noted for its long viability [34], and great numbers accumulate
in the soil, litter, or duff beneath the parent plants [9,17]. Seed is
extremely resistant to heat and remains undamaged even when exposed to
temperatures up to 176 degrees F (80 degrees C) [62].
Seedling establishment: Heat generated by fire stimulates the
germination of numerous seedlings by breaking down dormancy mechanisms
[52]. Concentrations of seedlings are frequently observed in areas
which burned particularly hot, such as under brush piles or shrubs [21].
These high temperatures may have reduced competing vegetation as well as
enhanced germination through mechanical changes in the seed itself [21].
Establishment is generally rapid. Seedlings are common during the first
postfire year, but few emerge during the second year [25,62]. Emergence
after the second postfire year is rare.
Germination and subsequent seedling establishment appears to be highest
following fall burns, and lowest after fires which occur from March 15
through April 1 [8,25]. This is presumably due to the ameliorating
affective of moisture on heat transfer [4]. Following fall burns, seeds
are also naturally stratified over the winter months, which promotes
germination. Seedlings which emerge after early spring burns are not
stratified and, in addition, must compete with a thick growth of
herbaceous vegetation [25]. Seedling emergence is generally deferred
until the following year when chaparral is burned after early April [8].
Seedling mortality: Seedling mortality is great during the first few
years after fire [55]. Declines in seedling numbers of up to 90 percent
have been observed during the first 3 years, with first year mortality
of 84 percent or more [5]. Much of this mortality is attributable to
the effects of drought, competition with grasses and other herbaceous
vegetation [56], or intense browsing by herbivores.
Growth: Postfire growth of seedlings has been correlated with the
amount of available nitrogen [46]. Maximum seedling height growth
during the first summer after fire was 10 inches (25 cm) [9]. On
unbrowsed burned plots, plants reached maximum heights of 16 inches (41
cm) after 4 growing seasons [25].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Since most seed germinates after a single fire, wedgeleaf ceanothus can
be significantly reduced if an area is reburned prior to maturation of a
second seed crop [8]. Frequent fires can eliminate this species [44],
although single fires appear to favor species such as wedgeleaf
ceanothus [36]. To ensure good vigor and adequate regeneration
potential, managers recommend against burning wedgeleaf ceanothus at
less than 20 to 25 year intervals [9].
Wildlife considerations: Open brush created by burning stands of
wedgeleaf ceanothus provides extremely favorable deer habitat [8].
However, deer relish seedlings during the first few years after fire and
can adversely impact regeneration, particularly on small burns.
Managers recommend burning 5 to 10 acre (2-4 ha) patches, and providing
as much edge effect as possible to maximize value to deer [8].
Production: Postfire production of wedgeleaf ceanothus was found to
average approximately 145 lbs. per acre (27 kg per ha) 5 years after a
fall burn [25].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Ceanothus cuneatus | Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
REFERENCES :
1. Adams, Lowell. 1962. Planting depths for seeds of three speceis of
Ceanothus. Res. Note PSW-194. Berekeley, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 3 p. [6356]
2. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1982. Historical and ecological
perspectives on fire activity in the Klamath Geological Province of the
Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 16 p. [6252]
3. Baker, G. A.; Rundel, P. W.; Parsons, D. J. 1982. Comparative phenology
and growth in three chaparral shrubs. Botanical Gazette. 143(1): 94-100.
[6533]
4. Barro, S. C. 1986 [pers. comm.]
5. Barro, Susan C.; Conard, Susan G. 1987. Use of ryegrass seeding as an
emergency revegetation measure in chaparral ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-102. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [4257]
6. 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]
7. Biswell, H. H. 1959. Prescribed burning and other methods of deer range
improvement in ponderosa pine in California. In: Proceedings, Society of
American Foresters; 1959; San Francisco, CA. Bethesda, MD: Society of
American Foresters: 102-105. [5269]
8. Biswell, H. H. 1961. Manipulation of chamise brush for deer range
improvement. California Fish and Game. 47(2): 125-144. [6366]
9. 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]
10. Burcham, L. T. 1957. California range land: An historico-ecological
study of the range resource of California. Sacramento, CA: State of
California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 247
p. [186]
11. Burcham, L. T. 1974. Fire and chaparral before European settlement. In:
Rosenthal, Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral:
Proceedings; 1973 March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The
Sierra Club: 101-120. [4669]
12. Burma, George D. 1968. Controlled burning on the public domain in
California. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967
November 9-10; Hoberg, California. No. 7. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers
Research Station: 235-243. [6269]
13. Conard, Susan G.; Jaramillo, Annabelle E.; Cromack, Kermit, Jr.; Rose,
Sharon, compilers. 1985. The role of the genus Ceanothus in western
forest ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-182. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 72 p. [668]
14. 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]
15. Detling, LeRoy E. 1961. The chaparral formation of southwestern Oregon,
with considerations of its postglacial history. Ecology. 42(2): 348-357.
[6360]
16. Duncan, Don A.; McDougald, Neil K.; Westfall, Stanley E. 1987. Long-term
changes from different uses of foothill hardwood rangelands. In: Plumb,
Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of
the symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood
resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 367-372. [5389]
17. Evans, Raymond A.; Biswell, Harold H.; Palmquist, Debra E. 1987. Seed
dispersal in Cenothus cuneatus and C. leucodermis in a Sierran
oak-woodland savanna. Madrono. 34(4): 283-293. [6149]
18. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
19. Fessenden, R. J. 1979. Use of actinorhizal plants for land reclamation
and amenity planting in the U.S.A. and Canada. In: Gordon, J. C.;
Wheeler, C. T.; Perry, D. A., eds. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the
management of temperate forests: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 April
2-5; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest
Research Laboratory: 403-419. [4308]
20. Florence, Melanie. 1987. Plant succession on prescribed burn sites in
chamise chaparral. Rangelands. 9(3): 119-122. [6143]
21. Florence, Melanie; Florence, Scott. 1987. Prescribed burns of chaparral
on BLM lands. Fremontia. 15(2): 7-10. [6153]
22. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
23. 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]
24. Gibbens, R. P.; Pieper, R. D. 1962. The response of browse plants to
fertilization. California Fish and Game. 48(4): 268-281. [6358]
25. Gibbens, R. P.; Schultz, A. M. 1963. Brush manipulation on a deer winter
range. California Fish and Game. 49(2): 95-118. [5976]
26. Gordon, Aaron; Sampson, Arthur W. 1939. Composition of common California
foothill plants as a factor in range management. Bull. 627. Berkeley,
CA: University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 95 p. [3864]
27. Greiman, Harley L. 1988. Sheep grazing in conifer plantations.
Rangelands. 10(3): 99-101. [5411]
28. Hall, Frederick C. 1984. Ecoclass coding system for the Pacific
Northwest plant associations. R6 Ecol 173-1984. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 83
p. [7650]
29. Hanes, Ted L. 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern
California. Ecological Monographs. 41(1): 27-52. [11405]
30. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six
hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45.
[1120]
31. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
32. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
33. Keeley, Jon E. 1975. Longevity of nonsprouting Ceanothus. American
Midland Naturalist. 93(2): 504-507. [6357]
34. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney,
H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical
coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the
conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277.
[4395]
35. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in
California chaparral. Ecology. 68(2): 434-443. [5403]
36. Kotok, E. I. 1933. Fire, a major ecological factor in the pine region of
California. In: Pacific Science Congress Proceedings. 5: 4017-4022.
[4723]
37. 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]
38. Kummerow, Jochen; Ellis, Barbara A.; Mills, James N. 1985. Post-fire
seedling establishment of Adenostoma fasciculatum and Ceanothus greggii
in southern California chaparral. Madrono. 32(3): 148-157. [4911]
39. Lawrence, George E. 1966. Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to
chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology. 47(2): 278-291.
[147]
40. 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]
41. Menke, John W.; Villasenor, Ricardo. 1977. The California Mediterranean
ecosystem and its management. 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: 257-270. [4847]
42. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
43. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
44. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected
shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests:
A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of
Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in
Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications
Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p.
Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.
[1747]
45. Noble, I. R.; Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Post-fire succession of plants in
Mediterranean ecosystems. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, tech
coords. 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: 27-36. [1766]
46. Orme, Mark L.; Leege, Thomas A. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem
(Ceanothus sanguineus) following prescribed burning. In: Proceedings,
annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1974 October 8-10;
Misssoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 391-420. [6273]
47. Parsons, David J.; Stohlgren, Thomas J. 1986. Long term chaparral
research in Sequoia National Park. In: DeVries, Johannes J., ed.
Proceedings of the chaparral ecosystems research conference; 1985 May
16-17; Santa Barbara, CA. Report No. 2. Davis, CA: University of
California, California Water Resources Center: 107-114. [4830]
48. Peck, Morton E. 1941. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Portland,
OR: Binfords & Mort. 800 p. [12444]
49. Quick, Clarence R. 1935. Notes on the germination of ceanothus seeds.
Madrono. 3: 135-140. [4135]
50. Quick, Clarence R.; Quick, Alice S. 1961. Germination of ceanothus
seeds. Madrono. 16: 23-30. [4134]
51. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
52. Reed, Merton J. 1974. Ceanothus L. ceanothus. 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: 284-290. [7576]
53. Rundel, Philip W. 1982. Successional dynamics of chamise chaparral: the
interface of basic research and management. In: Conrad, C. Eugene;
Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium
on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June
22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station: 86-90. [6012]
54. Sampson, Arthur W. 1944. Plant succession on burned chaparral lands in
northern California. Bull. 65. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 144 p. [2050]
55. 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]
56. Schlesinger, William H.; Gray, John T.; Gill, David S.; Mahall, Bruce E.
1982. Ceanothus megacarpus chaparral: a synthesis of ecosystem processes
during development and annual growth. Botanical Review. 48(1): 71-117.
[4941]
57. Scrivner, Jerry H.; Vaughn, Charles E.; Jones, Milton B. 1988. Mineral
concentrations of black-tailed deer diets in California chaparral.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(1): 37-40. [3055]
58. Sidahmed, Ahmed E.; Morris, James G.; Radosevich, Steven; Koong, Ling J.
1982. Seasonal changes in chaparral composition and intake by Spanish
goats. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators.
Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of
Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 258-263.
[6027]
59. Slayback, Robert D.; Clary, Raimond F., Jr. 1988. Vegetative solutions
to erosion control in the Tahoe Basin. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams,
Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation
symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management:
66-69. [4097]
60. 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]
61. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North
American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press. 465 p. [2270]
62. Sweeney, James R. 1956. Responses of vegetation to fire: A study of the
herbaceous vegetation following chaparral fires. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 249 p. [3776]
63. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California.
In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of
southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No.
2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
64. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
65. 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]
66. 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]
67. White, C. David. 1967. Absence of nodule formation on Ceanothus cuneatus
in serpentine soils. Nature. 215: 875. [6352]
68. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 50 CFR
Part 17: Plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species;
notice of review--September 30, 1993. Federal Register. 58(188):
51144-51190. [23816]
Index
Related categories for Species: Ceanothus cuneatus
| Wedgeleaf Ceanothus
|
 |
