|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
ABBREVIATION :
CEAFOL
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
CEFO
COMMON NAMES :
waveyleaf ceanothus
vinehill ceanothus
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of waveyleaf ceanothus is
Ceanothus foliosus Parry, in the family Rhamnaceae [21]. There are three
recognized varieties:
C. foliosus var. medius McMinn
C. foliosus var. vineatus McMinn (vinehill ceanothus)
C. foliosus var. foliosus
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
See OTHER STATUS
OTHER STATUS :
Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus (vinehill ceanothus) is federally
listed as a Category 2 taxa [31].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet L. Howard, March 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Ceanothus foliosus. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is endemic to California. It is found in the North
and South Coast Ranges, from Humbolt County south to Santa Cruz County.
It also occurs in the Cuyamaca Mountains of San Diego County [21].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
STATES :
CA
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
NO-ENTRY
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
3 Southern Pacific Border
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
KOO6 Redwood forest
KOO9 Pine - cypress forest
KO10 Ponderosa shrub forest
KO18 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
KO29 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
KO33 Chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
SAF COVER TYPES :
232 Redwood
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is not listed as a dominant or indicator species in
any published classifications.
Waveyleaf ceanothus is associated with Eastwood manzanita
(Arctostaphylos glandulosa), Stanford manzanita (A. stanfordiana), toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia), wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus),
deerbrush (C. integerrimus), yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), and
chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana) [2,11]. (also see SAF Cover Types)
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is of limited value as livestock browse but is an
important source of food for wildlife. Of the domestic animals, only
sheep and goats will utilize it. It is readliy browsed by black-tailed
deer and cottontail rabbit [19,26]. Various birds and small mammals
consume the seeds, including western meadowlark, valley quail,
large-eared and Portola woodrat, and California ground squirrel [19].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of the leaves and twigs of waveyleaf ceanothus is rated
as good for deer, fair to poor for sheep and goats, and poor for cattle
and horses [2,26].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
The protein content of waveyleaf ceanothus leaves and twigs varies from
25.0 percent in May to 7.5 percent in January [3].
COVER VALUE :
Waveyleaf ceanothus provides cover for various chaparral birds and small
mammals, such as valley quail, band-tailed pigeon, harvest mouse,
long-eared and Portola woodrat, brush rabbit, and cottontail rabbit [26].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Within its range, waveyleaf ceanothus is useful for soil erosion control
and improvement. Its presence increases available nitrogen in poor
soils through the action of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in root nodules
[6,29]. It can be propagated by stem cuttings or by seed. Van Dersal
[29] reported a 92 percent germination success rate following a hot
water treatment at 158 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees C) and a 3-month
stratification period at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees C).
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The dark blue flowers and prostrate form of waveyleaf ceanothus make it
an attractive ground cover for landscaping [29].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Grazing: Waveyleaf ceanothus is undesirable browse for cattle [26,29].
Control: Waveyleaf ceanothus can be controlled by aerial applications
of 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T [11]. It can also be controlled by burning. (see
Fire Management Considerations)
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is a procumbent or prostrate, native evergreen shrub
[21,26,29]. Its small, waxy leaves, from 0.2 to 0.6 inch (0.5-1.5 cm)
long, are borne on spreading glandular branches. The fruits are small
capsules containing about 12 hard-coated seeds. The growth habit of
waveyleaf ceanothus roots remains unstudied. Gregg ceanothus (Ceanothus
greggii), an obligate seeder of similar size, has lateral roots
spreading to 6.6 feet (2 m), with vertical growth from 11.8 to 15.7
inches (30-40 cm) [17]. Waveyleaf ceanothus roots develop large
nitrogen-fixing nodules [6,29]. Plants live about 30 years [20].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is classified as an obligate seeder [21,23,26,29].
Seed production varies, depending upon available soil moisture. During
wet years, an individual plant may produce hundreds of seeds. During
drought, the plant may produce no seed at all. Most seeds remain under
the parent plant and are gradually covered by duff. Some seeds are
dispersed by water, or by birds and small mammals [12]. The maximum
length of viability is unknown but is believed to be several decades
[24]. Germination generally requires overwinter stratification [24,29].
The seeds, however, demonstrate some ability to germinate without prior
stratification. Under natural conditions, germination of unscarified
seeds is probably rare [12]. Quick [24] found that 33 percent of the
waveyleaf ceanothus seeds he tested, however, germinated without prior
scarification under greenhouse conditions. Seedling mortality is high,
with seedlings vulnerable to competition from other species, drought,
and herbivory [12]. Waveyleaf ceanothus plants are sexually mature at
about 5 years [7,14].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is most common in the low coastal hills. These
hills are often fog-bound from November to mid-April, with the fog
burning off in the afternoon. From mid-April on, the slopes are dry and
sunny until the next rainy season begins [24]. Mean temperatures run
from 75 degrees Fahrenheit (24 degrees C) in July and August to 45
degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees C) in December and January [11].
Climate: Waveyleaf ceanothus occurs in a Mediterranean climate with
mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers [21,26,29].
Elevation: Waveyleaf ceanothus occurs between 200 to 5,000 feet
(61-1,524 m) [26].
Soil: Waveyleaf ceanothus grows in rocky, sandy or sandy-loam soil. It
will tolerate serpentine soil [15].
Associated species: Waveyleaf ceanothus is associated with Eastwood
manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), Stanford manzanita (A.
stanfordiana), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), wedgeleaf ceanothus (C.
cuneatus), deerbrush (C. integerrimus), yerba santa (Eriodictyon
californicum), and chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana) [2,11]. (also
see SAF Cover Types)
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Waveyleaf ceanothus is shade intolerant [10]. It is a residual
colonizer on disturbed sites, where its nitrogen-fixing ability gives it
an early competitive edge over most chaparral species [6]. The presence
of sexually mature waveyleaf ceanothus individuals within a community
denotes mid-seral status. Waveyleaf ceanothus is rarely found in climax
communities [10,20].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Waveyleaf ceanothus flowers from March to May, producing most of its
vegetative growth at the same time [11,21]. The floral primordia for
the following year's flowers are produced in May [12]. Fruits develop
in late spring to early summer, and their seed is cast from June through
August [7]. Although waveyleaf ceanothus leaves persist throughout the
year, many are lost in the summer [11].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Plant adaptations: Waveyleaf ceanothus establishes from seedbanks.
Large numbers of hard-coated, long-lived seeds accumulate in the litter,
duff, and soil beneath the parent plant. Germination is usually fire
stimulated [11,24,26,29]. The seed is extremely resistant to heat and
will remain viable after exposure to temperatures up to 176 degrees
Fahrenheit (80 deg C) [27]. Waveyleaf ceanothus appears to have a
competitive edge over sprouting species when there are long intervals
between fires. When fire does not occur for 50 to 100 years, the fuel
build-up results in an intense fire once it does start. The mortality
of sprouting species is unusually high, resulting in more openings for
waveyleaf ceanothus seedlings [13].
Fire ecology: Waveyleaf ceanothus twigs and leaves contain flammable
waxes, oils, and terpenes [5]. The prostrate growth form of the plant
encourages fire to spread.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Moderate fire kills waveyleaf ceanothus [11].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Waveyleaf ceanothus regenerates by fire-stimulated germination of seed
stored in the soil [11,12,24,29]. Seedling establishment is always more
successful following a fall burn, which allows the seed a timely period
of overwinter stratification [14,22]. With spring burns, sprouting
species become established before waveyleaf ceanothus seeds can
overwinter and germinate. Even under ideal conditions, seedling
mortality is high [12,20]. From postfire years 1 to 3, the seedlings
must compete with herbaceous as well as sprouting species. By postfire
years 5 to 10, surviving waveyleaf ceanothus plants have usually
established codominance with other chaparral brush. After about 35 to
40postfire years, waveyleaf ceanothus will be displaced by taller
chaparral brush species until the next fire cycle [20].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Grazing: A prescribed fire, followed by second fire prior to maturation
of the seed crop, can reduce or eliminate waveyleaf ceanothus from a
pasture. Hedrick [11] found waveyleaf ceanothus was eliminated from a
Lakeport, California, pasture that was reburned 3 years after an initial
fire.
Wildlife considerations: Periodic burning can increase production of
waveyleaf ceanothus for deer browse. Open shrubland areas created by
burning small patches of land within a chaparral community creates
extremely favorable deer habitat and increases the population of
waveyleaf ceanothus [4]. To maximize wavyleaf ceanothus growth, burns
should be carried out in late fall and conducted at intervals of 10 to
15 years to allow seedlings time to mature and replenish the seedbank.
Managers recommend burning 5 to 10 acre (2-4 ha) patches and providing
as much edge effect as possible to maximize value to deer. Waveyleaf
ceanothus can persist much longer in a chaparral community that has been
opened up in this manner because it is not shaded out by taller species
[4].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Ceanothus foliosus | Waveyleaf Ceanothus
REFERENCES :
1. 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]
2. Bissell, Harold Deane. 1951. Nutritive value of winter deer browse with
respect to burning and growth stage. Berkeley, CA: University of
California. 31 p. Thesis. [17046]
3. Bissell, Harold D.; Strong, Helen. 1955. The crude protein variations in
the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and Game. 41(2):
145-155. [10524]
4. Biswell, H. H. 1961. Manipulation of chamise brush for deer range
improvement. California Fish and Game. 47(2): 125-144. [6366]
5. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.
Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.
145 p. [6716]
6. Delwiche, C. C.; Zinke, Paul J.; Johnson, Clarence M. 1965. Nitrogen
fixation by Ceanothus. Plant Pathology. 40: 1045-1047. [16852]
7. 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]
8. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
9. 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]
10. Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.;
Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John
Wiley and Sons: 417-469. [7216]
11. Hedrick, Donald W. 1951. Studies on the succession and manipulation of
chamise brushlands in California. College Station, TX: Texas
Agricultural and Mechanical College. 113 p. Dissertation. [8525]
12. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Seed production, seed populations in soil, &
seedling production after fire for 2 congeneric prs. of sprouting &
nonsprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology. 58: 820-829. [6220]
13. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Fire-dependent reproductive strategies in
Arctostaphylos and Ceanothus. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Symposium on the environmental consequences of
fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems: Proceedings; 1977
August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 391-396. [4868]
14. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Fruit production patterns in the chaparral shrub
Ceanothus crassifolius. Madrono. 34(4): 273-282. [6179]
15. Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1984. California serpentines: flora, vegetation,
geology, soils and management problems. Publications in Botany Volume
48. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 180 p. [12482]
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. Kummerow, Jochen; Krause, David; Jow, William. 1977. Root systems of
chaparral shrubs. Oecologia. 29: 163-177. [5352]
18. 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]
19. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
20. 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]
21. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
22. 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]
23. Parker, Virgil Thomas. 1984. Correlation of physiological divergence
with reproductive mode in chaparral shrubs. Madrono. 31(4): 231-242.
[5360]
24. Quick, Clarence R. 1935. Notes on the germination of ceanothus seeds.
Madrono. 3: 135-140. [4135]
25. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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 foliosus
| Waveyleaf Ceanothus
|
 |
