Introductory
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 


SPECIES : 
Ceanothus integerrimus

ABBREVIATION : 
CEAINT

SYNONYMS : 
NO-ENTRY


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   CEIN3


COMMON NAMES : 
   deer brush


TAXONOMY : 
The scientific name of deer brush is Ceanothus integerriums Hook. & Arn.
(Rhamnaceae) [31,32,39,58].  There are several poorly defined varieties
of deer brush based upon leaf morphology and flower color [31,58]:

Ceanothus integerrimus var. californicus (Kell.) Benson
C. i. var. integerrimus
C. i.  var. macrothyrsus (Torr.) Benson
C. i. var. puberulus (Greene) Abrams

Deer brush hybridizes with mountain whitethorn (C. cordulatus),
woolyleaf ceanothus (C. tomentosus), and Lemmon's ceanothus (C.
lemmonii) [58].


LIFE FORM : 
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Debra Tirmenstein, July 1989


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
Janet L. Howard, September 1997


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Howard, Janet L. 1997; Tirmenstein, Debra. 1989. Ceanothus integerrimus. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 


GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Deer brush occurs in the Cascade Range from southwestern Washington to
California.  In California, where deer brush is most abundant,
distribution continues south to the southern Sierra Nevada and west
through the Klamath and North Coast ranges, the San Francisco Bay Area,
and the South Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges to Baja
California.  Disjunct populations occur in the Warner Mountains of
California, central Arizona, southeastern Arizona, and west-central New
Mexico [21,31,32].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES20  Douglas-fir
   FRES21  Ponderosa pine
   FRES23  Fir-spruce
   FRES28  Western hardwoods
   FRES34  Chaparral-mountain shrub


STATES : 
     AZ  CA  NM  OR  WA  MEXICO



BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    4  Sierra Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    7  Lower Basin and Range
   12  Colorado Plateau


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K003  Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest
   K005  Mixed conifer forest
   K007  Red fir forest
   K010  Ponderosa shrub forest
   K019  Arizona pine forest 
   K026  Oregon oakwoods
   K028  Mosaic of K002 and K026
   K029  California mixed evergreen forest
   K030  California oakwoods
   K033  Chaparral
   K034  Montane chaparral


SAF COVER TYPES : 
   207  Red fir
   211  White fir
   229  Pacific Douglas-fir
   233  Oregon white oak
   234  Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
   243  Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
   244  Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
   245  Pacific ponderosa pine
   246  California black oak
   249  Canyon live oak
   250  Blue oak-foothills pine


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
   201  Blue oak woodland
   206  Chamise chaparral
   208  Ceanothus mixed chaparral
   209  Montane shrubland
   415  Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
   422  Riparian
   503  Arizona chaparral


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Deer brush is a component of chaparral communties including Arizona
chaparral.  In the Cascade-Sierra Nevada cordillera, it is most common
in montane chaparral but also occurs in upper, moister portions of
lower-elevation chaparral types such as chamise (Adenostoma
fasciculatum) and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) [14,74].

Deer brush grows in the understories of conifer and oak (Quercus spp.)
communites [39,54,55,82] and in scattered patches within timberlands and
woodlands.  Patches of decadent deer brush are common in open Coulter
pine (Pinus coulteri) stands [82].  Deer brush often dominates early
successional stages of low-elevation conifer communities [33].  About 16
thousand acres (6,400 ha) of California's timberland is occupied by deer
brush fields [16].

In Arizona chaparral, deer brush occurs in Turbinella oak (Q.
turbinella)-shrub and Pringle manzanita (A. pringlei) communities
[20,23].  Deer brush also occurs in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var.
arizonica and P. p. var. scopulorum) and riparian forests of Arizona.
In New Mexico, it occurs primarily in riparian forest [21].

Plant associates:  Shrub associates in Turbinella oak-shrub communities
of Arizona include birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides),
banana yucca (Yucca bacata), and yellowleaf silktassel (Garrya
flavescens) [21].

Associates in montane chaparral include manzanitas, especially
whiteleaf manzanita (A. viscida), pale serviceberry (Amelanchier
pallida), chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), oceanspray
(Holodiscus discolor), and twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata)
[33].

Shrub associates in coniferous forest of California and Oregon include
Sierra mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliosus) [6], whitethorn ceanothus
(Ceanothus cordulatus), gooseberries and currants (Ribes spp.), and
manzanitas [22].

Overstory tree associates of deer brush not previously listed as Kuchler
[47] or SAF [24] types include incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens),
sugar pine (P. lambertiana) [45,54], giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron
giganteum) [44,84], bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa),
interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), Nuttall's scrub oak (Q. dumosa) [33],
California buckeye (Aesculus californica) [9], and Baker cypress
(Cupressus bakeri) [70].

Publications describing plant communities in which deer brush is a
dominant component of the vegetation follow.

A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands [3]
California chaparral [30]
Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
  California [33]
Montane and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges [64]
Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges [78]
An introduction to the plant communities of the Santa Ana and San Jacinto
  mountains [82]

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 



IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
Deer brush provides high-quality, palatable, and often abundant forage
for livestock and wildlife, especially deer [1,22,65].  On Arizona
chaparral of the Tonto National Forest, deer brush was one of three
principle browse species used by white-tailed deer in fall [50].  In
California, deer brush is the most important summer browse species for
mule deer and livestock in the ponderosa pine belt.  Mule deer also make
moderate to heavy use of it on California's winter ranges [22,48].

Porcupine browse deer brush stems.  Gambel quail have been observed
eating large quantities of the seed [13].


PALATABILITY : 
Deer brush is highly palatable to ungulates [65,72].


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
Deer brush leaves are high in protein, and calcium levels are high in
both leaves and twigs.  However, based on the nutritional standard for
lactating cows, deer brush provides inadequate levels of phosphorus and
digestible energy.  Overall, browse quality decreases from late spring
to late summer.  On the Sierra National Forest, nutritional quality of
deer brush browse varied significantly by year, but not by shrub age or
degree of overstory canopy closure.  Average nutritional content of deer
brush, collected every 2 weeks from June 1 to September 8, 1982 and
1983, follows.  Data are means (standard errors) [42].

Variable                         Year        Leaves           Twigs
_______________________________________________________________________
neutral-detergent fiber (%)      1982     33.66 (1.92)     65.48*(2.25)
                                 1983     25.38 (1.39)     53.17*(1.05)  
acid-detergent fiber (%)         1982     19.85*(1.71)     48.42*(2.02)
                                 1983     14.65*(0.89)     38.95*(0.88)
in-vitro digestible dry matter   1982     53.93*(3.64)     33.49 (1.70)
                                 1983     63.60*(1.38)     35.14 (1.40)
digestible energy (kcal/g)       1982      2.42*(0.18)      1.48 (0.08)
                                 1983      2.93*(0.06)      1.56 (0.06)
crude protein (%)                1982     18.15*(0.43)      8.22*(0.34)
                                 1983     16.92*(0.30)      7.77*(0.23)
calcium (%)                      1982      3.66*(0.47)      1.27*(0.10)
                                 1983      2.33*(0.10)      1.07*(0.05)
phosphorus (%)                   1982      0.18 (0.01)      0.16*(0.01)
                                 1983      0.19 (0.01)      0.12*(0.01)
_______________________________________________________________________ 
*Significant (p<0.05) difference with respect to year of collection

Average protein content of deer brush collected from various California
locations varied seasonally as follows [11]:

                  April       August       October
                  ------      ------       -------
                  25.2 %      13.7 %        8.9 %


COVER VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
Deer brush is recommended for use on restoration projects due to its
nitrogen-fixing ability [25].  Transplanting wild 1-, 2-, and 3-year-old
shrubs has been successful in the Sierra Nevada [13].  Growing stock
from seed has shown good results, although seed requires several months
of pregermination treatment.  Reed [63] has compiled procedures for
germinating seed in the laboratory.


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
Deer brush has attractive white, lilac, or pink flowers and is planted
as an ornamental [46].  It is also a valuable honey plant [72].

Miwok Indians of California made baskets from deer brush branches [5].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Bartolome and Kosco [8] and Minore and others [56] have developed models
for predicting growth and browse production of deer brush.

Deer brush can outcompete conifer seedlings for root space, water, and
nutrients.  Plantation conifers have generally shown better growth with
deer brush control [27,34,51].  Deer brush may not adversely affect
natural conifer regeneration, however. Griffin [28] reported that after
severe, stand-replacing wildfire on the Los Padres National Forest,
sugar and Coulter pine establishment was more successful in the presence
of deer brush than on sites where deer brush was absent.

Control:  Amitrole (95-98 %), 2,3,6-TBA (80-95 %), 2,4,5-T (85-100 %),
and 2,4-D (90-100 %) give good to excellent control of deer brush
[68,86].  (Percent control obtained on Oregon brushfields and
timberlands is given in parenthesis [68].)

Biological control:  Grazing cattle or domestic sheep on conifer
plantations has given good control of deer brush stems [49,57,51].
Prescribed grazing may not result in conifer seedling release, however.
On the Tahoe National Forest, a 9-year study on the effects of grazing
domestic sheep on a ponderosa pine plantation showed that although
domestic sheep significantly (p=0.05) reduced aboveground deer brush
biomass, deer brush still remained competitive.  After 9 years, height
and stem diameter of ponderosa pine were not statistically different
between grazed and ungrazed control plots, while ponderosa pine on
grubbed plots was significantly (p=0.05) taller and larger in stem
diameter than on control plots [53].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 


GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Deer brush is a native, drought-deciduous shrub reaching 3 to 18 feet
(1-6 m) in height at maturity.  It is loosely branched and spreading in
form.  Flowers are borne in compound clusters.  The fruit is a sticky
capsule containing small, obovoid seeds [31,58].  Nitrogen-fixing
actinomycetes form nodules in deer brush roots [17,25].

Deer brush stems, excluding the root crown, live about 35 years.  The
stem of one specimen has been aged at 47 years.  Maximum age attained by
roots and root crowns has not been determined, but life span of these
organs can be more than 35 years if periodic top-kill occurs [22].


RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Phanerophyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Deer brush reproduces from seed and by sprouting from the root crown
and/or stem [22].  It occasionally layers where branches contact soil
[15].

Seed reproduction:  Deer brush first produces seed at about 4 years of
age [21].  Ripe seed is forcibly ejected from the capsule when the
capsule dries and splits [63].  Deer brush is a seedbanking species.
Seed is stored in extremely high densities in duff and the upper few
centimeters of mineral soil.  Anderson [4] estimated that the deer brush
seed population in a mixed coniferous forest in northern California was
greater than 2 million seeds per hectare.  Viability of the seed
averaged 90.6 percent in the laboratory [4].  Similarly, Kauffman and
Martin [36,37] reported a range of 60 to 90 percent viability of deer
brush seed from three northern California mixed-conifer forests.
Viability of deer brush seed is generally high, and the seed is
long-lived.  Quick and Quick [61] reported 90 percent viability of
24-year-old seed.  Other researchers have suggested that deer brush seed
remains viable for well over 100 years [4,22,61].

Seed is dormant until the hard seedcoat is scarified by fire or
mechanical disturbance such as logging [19,22].  Optimal temperatures
for scarification range from 170 to 195 degrees Fahrenheit (77-90 deg C)
[35].  High-comsumptive fire (> 90% of duff burned) kills most seed in
duff, but most seed in mineral soil survives.  Anderson [4] found that
following one high-consumptive fire, 12.5 percent of seed in duff and
52.4 percent of seed in mineral soil was viable.  Seed requires
stratification follow scarification, and usually germinates in spring
[35].  Keeley [40] reported that light inhibited germination, an unusual
response, and that charate (charred wood powder) had no effect on
germination.

Best establishment occurs with seed in bare mineral soil [7,22].  In a
greenhouse study, seeds planted at one-half inch (1 cm) when in shade
and at 1 inch (2.5 cm) when in sun showed better seedling emergence than
seeds planted at greater or lesser depths.  Emergence did not occur with
seeds planted on the soil surface [1].  Nearly all seedling
establishment occurs in the first postfire spring; establishment after
the second postfire year is rare [22].  Plants typically average 3 to 4
inches (8-18 cm) in height at the end of their first growing season and
8 inches (20 cm) in height at the end of the second growing season
[21,22,76].

Vegetative reproduction:  Sprouts grow more rapidly than seedlings,
reaching a height of 30 or more inches (76 cm) in their first year [22].
Age at which deer brush sprouts first produce seed is undocumented;
however, sprouts of most Ceanothus species produce seed after 3 to 6
years [21].  When deer brush plants are top-killed before they become
decadent, roots remain alive, and root crowns retain the ability to
sprout for years beyond the 35-year life expectancy of other stem
tissue.  Without periodic top-kill, root systems and root crowns of
decadent plants die [22].


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Deer brush grows on well-drained soils of all textures [22].  Slope
varies from gentle to steep [14].  In California, deer brush occurs
primarily on the west slope of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest [22,33].
In Oregon, deer brush occurs on both sides of the Cascade Range [79].

Elevational ranges of deer brush are as follows:

Arizona                  3,500 to 7,000 feet (1,100-2,100 m) [39]
northern California      2,000 to 4,000 feet (600-1,200 m) [22,63]
central Sierra Nevada    3,000 to 5,550 feet (900-1,700 m)   
southern California      5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,500-2,100 m) [22]
Oregon                   2,000 to 4,000 feet (600-1,200 m)
Washington               2,000 to 4,000 feet (600-1,200 m) [63]


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Deer brush grows in open sun to partial shade.  When overtopped by
trees, deer brush dies out [22,30,73].  It is typically successional
after fire, landslide, logging, mining, or other stand-replacing events
[7,22,33].  Deer brush seedlings establish in the initial
postdisturbance commmunity.  If fire or other distrubance is frequent
enough to prevent conifers from establishing a canopy, deer brush and
other shrubs may occupy a site indefinitely [7].  A brushfield
containing deer brush, on the Tahoe National Forest, has a history of
wildfire occurrence at approximate 10-year intervals.  The brushfield
has remained stable for over 100 years [85].  More often, deer brush is
replaced by conifers [7,22].  In montane chaparral, herbs, deer brush,
and other shrubs are replaced by pines (Pinus spp.).  In the absence of
fire, pines are replaced by firs (Abies spp.) and other shade-tolerant
tree species [30,75].

On the Klamath National Forest of California, Stuart and others [71]
identified two seral communities in which deer brush was an important
component of the vegetation after stand-replacing events in old-growth
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).  After wildfire and no subsequent
salvage operation, a deer brush-canyon live oak-blue wildrye (Quercus
chrysolepis-Elymus glaucus) community developed.  After wildfire
followed by salvage, or logging followed by site preparation and
planting of Douglas-fir seedlings, a tanoak-Pacific madrone-(Lithocarpus
densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii)-deer brush community developed.  The
authors speculated that with either successional pathway, natural
release of Douglas-fir would not occur for at least 50 years, but the
long-term fertility of the deer brush-canyon live oak-blue wildrye
community may be greater because nitrogen-fixing deer brush is the
primary dominant.


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
Deer brush flowers from spring to early fall [31,39,58].  Heaviest
flowering occurs in May and June [72], with seeds dispersing in summer
[40].  Since deer brush is drought-deciduous, most leaves are shed in
summer.  A few leaves are usually retained throughout winter [21,31].

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 


FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
Deer brush recovers from fire by establishing from seed and by sprouting
from the root crown [12,22,36,37,30,41,44,55].  Seedling establishment
is the most common method of postire regeneration.  Heat scarification
of seed and increased light after fire favor deer brush seedling
establishment, and seedlings are often dense in the first few years
after fire [14,30].  Deer brush is apparently a weak sprouter after
fire.   

Fire regimes:  Chaparral - Historic fire return interval in chaparral
has been estimated at 20 to 30 years [59].  Fires perpetuated a mosaic
of age classes on chaparral landscapes, which decreased the chances for
widespread fires.  The intense, fast-moving chaparral fires tended to be
confined by natural fuel breaks formed from age-class boundaries and
topographic features [18].

Mixed conifer - These forests were characterized by frequent,
low-intensity surface fires that favored ponderosa and sugar pines,
oaks, and sprouting shrubs over shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive species
such as incense-cedar and white fir (Abies concolor) [18].  Based upon
fire scar data, fire return intervals averaged 8 years [67,83] and
ranged from 4 to 20 years [43].

Deer brush appears to be important in early postfire succession but only
a minor species in mature mixed-conifer forest.  Deer brush in the
understory of mixed coniferous forest is usually decadent, and decadent
plants show poor sprouting response after top-kill.  Seedling
establishment, however, is usually good, even if deer brush plants are
no longer present in the understory [22,36,37].


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
   Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 


IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Mature deer brush is usually killed by fire [35].  A few plants may be
only top-killed [7,41].

Most soil-stored deer brush seed survives fire [14].  Seed in heavy duff
may be killed by moderate to intense fire.


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
After soil-stored seed is scarified by fire, deer brush seedlings
establish in great numbers.  Most seedlings establish in the first
postfire growing season [14,22].  Natural thinning reduces seedling
density as the stand ages.  After a July 1942 wildfire consumed a deer
brush stand on the El Dorado National Forest, deer brush density was
about 300,000 seedlings per acre at postfire year 1; 10,000 per acre at
postfire year 10; 2,500 at postfire year 20; and less than a few hundred
seedlings at postfire year 30 [22].  A similar pattern occurred after a
"fairly intense" prescribed fire in a giant sequoia grove in Kings
Canyon National Park.  Burning was conducted in fall 1969.  No deerbrush
seedlings occurred on the unburned control plot.  Deerbrush seedling
establishment on burned plots follows [44].

         ____________________________________________________     
         | Plot           Size         Deerbrush seedlings  |
         |  no.        (hectares)       (no. per hectare)   |
         |__________________________________________________|
         |                            1970     1971     1972|
         |__________________________________________________|
         |   1            1.52        9,284    5,248     403|
         |   2            2.47       13,993    6,459     808|
         |   3            2.53          539      672     269|
         |__________________________________________________|
         | means                      7,939    4,127     494| 
         |__________________________________________________|

Arizona chaparral:  A dense stand of Pringle manzanita on the Tonto
National Forest was burned to reduce fire hazard, increase browse, and
increase water yield.  Shrubs were sprayed with 2,4-D prior to the fire
to increase their flammability. Deer brush was apparently absent from
the area prior to burning.  At postfire year 1, deer brush seedling
density was [60]:

_______________________________________________________________________
severe fire*     light-severity fire**    herbicide only   no treatment
    190                    0                    0                0 
_______________________________________________________________________
*leaves and twigs mostly consumed
**leaves and small twigs mostly intact

Deer brush sprouts from the root crown after fire, but sprouting
response may be weak [21,41].  Sprouts on older plants have been
observed to die in their first year even when watered in summer [87].
Park records from Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park note numerous sites
where deer brush seedlings occurred after fire, but only two sites where
sprouts were found after fire.  In sequoia-mixed conifer forest in
Sequoia National Park, deer brush sprouts occurred on 2 of 30 plots that
were prescribe burned in November.  After October wildland fire on the
same watershed, sprouts occurred on 2 of 6 plots [41].  If they survive,
deer brush sprouts may grow rapidly.  On a site on the Stanislaus
National Forest, deer brush sprouts grew 30 inches (75 cm) in the first
postfire year [22].  Data on long-term survival of deer brush sprouts
are lacking.

Frequent top-kill by fire or other disturbance (approximate fire return
interval of less than 4 years) can eliminate deer brush [21,22].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
NO-ENTRY


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Deer brush fuels:  When deer brush is overtopped by trees, dead and
decadent deer brush in the understory can create a severe fuel hazard.
Repeated light-severity surface fires are needed to remove dead and
dying shrubs and to thin the developing understory of shade-tolerant
trees [75].

Fuel accumulation, fire frequency, and fire severity (as well as aspect,
soil type, and soil moisture) play major roles in determining patch size
and elevational limits of treeline and chaparral.  The transition zone
between mid-elevation Coulter pine forest and lower-elevation chaparral
is a dynamic mosaic of Coulter pine, oaks, deer brush, and manzanitas.
The mosaic contains so much dead and decadent deer brush, presumably as
a result of fire exclusion, that subsequent wildfires are expected to be
abnormally hot.  Severe fire is expected to kill Coulter pine and reduce
the oaks, thereby increasing chaparral coverage and raising the lower
limit of treeline [82].

In the Klamath Geographic Province of Oregon and California, deer brush
occurs in the moderate fuel type [7].

When prescribed burning in ponderosa pine with an understory of deer
brush and manzanita, Biswell [12] recommended broadcast burning in one
or more of three steps:  (1) broadcast burning; (2) in heavy timber,
piling coarse dead material by hand and burning; (3) in open areas,
crushing coarse dead material with a bulldozer and burning.  In order to
keep fire severity low, he recommended burning in fall, winter, or
spring when soil is thoroughly wet, and setting fires so that they burn
downhill.  Pine needles may be dry enough to carry fire within a day or
so after rain.  After broadcast burning, remaining coarse dead fuels are
piled in open areas within timber.  In areas open enough for a
bulldozer, the bulldozer can be used to crush the slash.  Slash is
broadcast burned after it is dry.

Broadcast burning was used on a brushfield on the El Dorado National
Forest to enhance forage for livestock and wildlife.  A dense deer brush
stand originated following a 1924 wildife in ponderosa pine and
incense-cedar.  By postfire year 18, browse was inacessible to
ungulates.  Small ponderosa pine and incense-cedar that survived the
previous fire were slashed to enhance fuels.  Prescribed burning was
conducted in July 1942 and resulted in "an intense fire that consumed
most of the plant material."  Deer brush seedling establishment and
survivorship was as follows [22]:

                  number of seedlings
                  ___________________ 
postfire year 1        300,000
postfire year 2        150,000
postfire year 8          1,500




FIRE CASE STUDIES : 
list of sub frames

FIRE CASE STUDIES
SPECIES: Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush 




CASE NAME : 
Understory Composition by Season of Burning/Plumas NF



REFERENCES : 
Kauffman, J. B. 1986 [35]
Kauffman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1985 [36]
Kauffman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1985 [37]
Kaufman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1990 [38]


SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : 
early spring/moderate
late spring/moderate      
early fall/moderate
late fall/moderate


STUDY LOCATION : 
Prescribed fires were set at two locations:  the Challenge site and the
Quincy site.  The Challenge site is on the Challenge Experimental Forest
on the La Porte Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.  The site is
approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) southeast of Challenge, California
[35,36,37,38].

The Quincy site is on the Massak Unit of the Quincy Ranger District,
Plumas National Forest.  It is located 9.9 miles (16 km) east of Quincy,
California [35,36,37,38].


PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : 
Challenge site - The overstory was a mature mixed stand of Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens), ponderosa
pine (Pinus ponderosa), and sugar pine (P. lambertiana) with occasional
mature California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and tanoak (Lithocarpus
densiflorus) [35,37].  The site was logged in the late 1870's.  Mean basal
area of the stand was 80.52 sq m/ha; productivity class was I - II [35].
The shrub layer was predominantly tanoak.  Other common shrubs included
deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), waveyleaf ceanothus (C. foliosus),
poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), and Pacific dogwood (Cornus
nuttallii).  The herb layer was dominated by rainbow iris (Iris
hartwegii) and was sparsely populated with Bolander's bedstraw (Galium
bolanderi) and deervetch (Lotus spp.) [35].

Quincy site - The overstory was a mixed forest of Jeffrey pine (P.
jeffreyi), ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and incense-cedar [35,37].  Except
for select insect damage cuts in the 1960's and 1970's, the site has
never been logged [35].  Mean basal area was 48.01 sq m/ha; productivity
class was III - IV [35].  The most common understory shrubs were deer
brush, California black oak, thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and
sharpleaf snowberry (Symphoricarpos acutus) [38].  Dense thickets of
stunted Douglas-fir and incense-cedar were also present in the
understory.  The most abundant herbs were western fescue (Festuca
occidentalis) and broadleaf lupine (Lupinus latifolius ssp. latifolius)
[35].


TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : 
Season of burning was timed to correspond with the phenological
development of understory shrubs.  Season of burning by phenological
stage was [35]:

    Season                        Phenological stage
__________________________________________________________________________
|early spring  | dormant                                                 |
|late spring   | active growth                                           |
|early fall    | aboveground growth has stopped                          |
|late fall     | leaf abscission in deciduous shrubs; since deer brush is|
|              |   drought-deciduous, leaf drop may have already occurred|
|______________|_________________________________________________________|


SITE DESCRIPTION : 
Challenge - The study area is on the Yuba River watershed.  Elevation is
3,317 feet (1,005 m).  Mean annual precipitation is 72 inches (1,800
mm).  Aspect is generally west (280-300 deg).  Slopes vary from 35 to 55
percent [35].

Quincy - The study area is on the Plumas River watershed.  Elevation is
4,053 feet (1,351 m).  Mean annual precipitation is 36 inches (900 mm).
Half of the study area is on north- to northwest-facing slopes (310-340
deg), and half is on south- or west-facing slopes (170-180 deg and 260
deg).  Slopes vary from 35 to 75 percent [35].


FIRE DESCRIPTION : 
The purpose of the prescribed fire treatments was to determine
understory vegetation response to varying season and consumption levels
of fire.  Four fire treatments were used:  (1) early spring,
moderate-consumption; (2) late spring, high-consumption; (3) early fall,
high-consumption; (4) late fall, moderate-consumption.  Prescriptions
called for the early spring fire to be implemented as soon as it was
possible to carry a fire; the late spring fire to be implemented as late
in the spring as safely possible; the early fall fire to be implemented
as early in fall as possible and before a major precipitation event; and
the late fall fire to be implemented as late in the fall as possible and
after a major precipitation event had occurred.  If other variables
could be met to ensure a safe burn, high-consumption fires were to be
conducted when duff moisture content was less than 15 to 20 percent, and
moderate-consumption fires were to be conducted when duff moisture
content was greater than 30 percent.  Strip- and backfires were used.
Fall burning was conducted from mid-September to mid-October, 1983.
Spring burning was conducted from April to June, 1984.  Fire and fuel
variables are given below.  Data are means.  Different letters indicate
a significant difference (p < 0.1) among means [35,36,37].

Challenge Site:

                            early fall  late fall  early spring  late spring
Variable                      (high)    (moderate)  (moderate)      (high) 
____________________________________________________________________________
duff consumption (%)           93.6        83.4        91.6          69.7a
duff consumption (t/ha)       111.2       105.8       111.3          72.3
total fuel consumption (%)     92.1a       77.5b       82.4b         56.2c
total fuel consumption (t/ha) 148.2       117.2       135.8          69.2a
duff moisture (%)              15.7        43.4        30.9         119.5a
soil moisture (%)              11.1a       22.3b       25.7b         44.1c
flame length (cm)              30.5a       56.3ab      97.1c         70.9bc
fireline intensity             21.2a       85.9ab     272.7b        125.8ab
  (kj/m/s) 
residence time (sec)           47.8        51.2        83.6a         55.9 

Quincy Site:
                            early fall  late fall  early spring  late spring
Variable                      (high)    (moderate)  (moderate)      (high)
__________________________________________________________________________
duff consumption (%)           72.4        70.0        86.2          82.8
duff consumption (t/ha)        47.9        40.1        53.1          50.6
total fuel consumption (%)     77.2        56.2        77.4          77.3
total fuel consumption (t/ha)  79.7        49.5        58.9          59.3
duff moisture (%)               8.7a       63.0c       18.3a         35.0b
soil moisure (%)                3.6a       11.3b       11.0b         20.3c
flame length (cm)              44.3        31.0        60.1          50.7
fireline intensity             56.0ab      20.8a      110.6b         63.9ab
  (kj m -1 s -1)        
residence time (sec)           91.5        37.0        49.5          49.5      


FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : 
Mature deer brush experienced 100 percent mortality on both sites under
all four fire treatments [35,36].  Deer brush seedlings established on
fall-burned sites but not on spring-burned sites.  An early/late
seasonal pattern of seedling establishment not was apparent with the
fall burns:  on the Challenge site, more seedlings established on late
fall-burned sites; on the Quincy site, more seedlings established on the
early fall-burned site.  Number of deer brush seedlings before and after
treatment follows [36].

            early spring      late spring      early fall        late fall
            _____________    _____________   _______________  _______________
            before  after    before  after   before   after   before   after
Challenge     0       0        0       0       0     215,977    0     264,486
Quincy        0       0        0       0       0      17,893    0       1,534


FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : 
Sprouting:  Decadent deer brush in the understory of a mature forest is
unlikely to sprout after prescribed fire.

Seedling establishment:  spring fire - Few, if any, deer brush seedlings
are liable to establish after spring prescribed fire.  Deer brush seed
requires stratification following scarification, and spring fire may not
allow enough time for the complete embryonic development that occurs
with overwinter stratification.

fall fire - Early to late fall prescribed fire will result in good deer
brush seedling establishment if deer brush seed was present in the soil
before fire.  Although seedling establishment on the late fall-burned
Quincy site was low relative to the other fall-burned site, seedling
mortality on such thinner stands probably will not be as great as on
sites where deer brush seedlings establish in larger numbers.  Over a
decade's time, deer brush density will probably be similar on both
sites.

References for species: Ceanothus integerrimus

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. Bartolome, James, W.; Kosco, Barbara H. 1982. Estimating browse production by deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus). Journal of Range Management. 35(5): 671-672. [6354]

3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

4. 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]

5. Biswell, H. H. 1961. Manipulation of chamise brush for deer range improvement. California Fish and Game. 47(2): 125-144. [6366]

6. 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]

7. Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural Communications. 276 p. [6235]

8. Cable, Dwight R. 1975. Range management in the chaparral type and its ecological basis: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-155. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p. [579]

9. 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]

10. Conard, S. G.; Radosevich, S. R. 1982. Post-fire succession in white fir (Abies concolor) vegetation of the northern Sierra Nevada. Madrono. 29(1): 42-56. [4931]

11. 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]

12. Cronemiller, Fred P. 1959. The life history of deerbrush--a fire type. Journal of Range Management. 12: 21-25. [4811]

13. Davis, Edwin A. 1987. Chaparral conversion to increase streamflow in Arizona: sequential treatments extend duration of nitrate loss to stream water. Forest Science. 33(1): 89-103. [754]

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

15. 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]

16. 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]

17. Gibbens, R. P.; Schultz, A. M. 1963. Brush manipulation on a deer winter range. California Fish and Game. 49(2): 95-118. [5976]

18. Graham, Joseph N.; Murray, Edward W.; Minore, Don. 1982. Environment, vegetation, and regeneration after timber harvest in the Hungry-Pickett area of southwest Oregon. Res. Note PNW-400. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [8424]

19. Gratkowski, H. 1974. Origin of mountain whitethorn brushfields on burns and cuttings in Pacific Northwest forests. In: Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science. 27: 5-8. [4898]

20. Gratkowski, H. 1978. Herbicides for shrub and weed control in western Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-77. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [6539]

21. Greiman, Harley L. 1988. Sheep grazing in conifer plantations. Rangelands. 10(3): 99-101. [5411]

22. Griffin, James R. 1982. Pine seedlings, native ground cover, and Lolium multiflorum on the Marble-Cone burn, Santa Lucia Range, California. Madrono. 29(3): 177-188. [4935]

23. Hall, Frederick C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-418. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 290 p. [7650]

24. Hanes, Ted L. 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern California. Ecological Monographs. 41(1): 27-52. [11405]

25. Hanes, Ted L. 1976. Vegetation types of the San Gabriel Mountians. 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: 65-76. [4227]

26. Hartesveldt, Richard J.; Harvey, H. Thomas; Shellhammer, Howard S.; Stecker, Ronald E. 1975. The sequoia of the Sierra Nevada. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 180 p. [4233]

27. Harvey, H. Thomas; Shellhammer, Howard S.; Stecker, Ronald E. 1980. Giant sequoia ecology: Fire and reproduction. Scientific Monograph Series No 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 182 p. [6587]

28. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45. [1120]

29. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

30. Hughes, Thomas F.; Christopher, R. L.; Tappeiner, John C., II; Newton, Michael. 1987. Biomass and leaf-area estimates for varnishleaf ceanothus, deerbrush, and whiteleaf manzanita. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2(4): 124-128. [2894]

31. James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical Review. 50(3): 225-266. [5590]

32. Jaramillo, Annabelle E. 1988. Growth of Douglas-fir in southwestern Oregon after removal of competing vegetation. Res. Note PNW-470. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. [6224]

33. 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]

34. Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, R. E. 1985. A preliminary investigation on the feasibility of preharvest prescribed burning for shrub control. In: Proceedings, 6th annual forestry vegetation management conference; [Date of conference unknown]; Redding, CA. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 89-114. [7526]

35. Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, Robert E. 1985. Shrub and hardwood response to prescribed burning with varying season, weather, and fuel moisture. In: Proceedings, 8th conference on fire and forest meteorology; 1985 April 29-May 2; Detroit, MI. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 279-286. [9796]

36. 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]

37. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in California chaparral. Ecology. 68(2): 434-443. [5403]

38. Kie, John G. 1985. Production of deerbrush and mountain whitethorn related to shrub volume and overstory crown closure. Res Note PSW-377. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Staion. 4 p. [4835]

39. Kie, John G. 1986. Nutritive quality of Ceanothus shrubs in California mixed conifer forest. Journal of Range Management. 39(6): 521-526. [4071]

40. Kilgore, Bruce M. 1972. Fire's role in a Sequoia forest. Naturalist. 23(1): 26-37. [8783]

41. Kilgore, Bruce M. 1973. The ecological role of fire in Sierran conifer forests - its application to National Park management. Quaternary Research. 3: 496-513. [6267]

42. Kilgore, Bruce M.; Biswell, H. H. 1971. Seedling germination following fire in a giant Sequoia forest. California Agriculture. 25(2): 8-10. [6355]

43. 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]

44. Lanini, W. Thomas; Radosevich, Steven R. 1982. Herbicide effectiveness in response to season of application and shrub physiology. Weed Science. 30: 467-475. [3389]

45. 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]

46. Minnich, Richard A. 1976. Vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains. 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: 99-124. [4232]

47. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]

48. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]

49. 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; Missoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 391-420. [6273]

50. Pase, Charles P.; Brown, David E. 1982. Interior chaparral. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 95-99. [1826]

51. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others]. 1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [1849]

52. Peck, Morton E. 1941. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Portland, OR: Binfords & Mort. 800 p. [12444]

53. Quick, Clarence R. 1935. Notes on the germination of ceanothus seeds. Madrono. 3: 135-140. [4135]

54. Quick, Clarence R.; Quick, Alice S. 1961. Germination of ceanothus seeds. Madrono. 16: 23-30. [4134]

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

56. 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]

57. 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]

58. 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]

59. Schmida, Avi; Barbour, Mitchel. 1982. A comparison of two types of Mediterranean scrub in Israel and California. 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: 100-106. [6014]

60. 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]

61. Stewart, R. E. 1978. Site preparation. In: Cleary, Brian D.; Greaves, Robert D.; Hermann, Richard K., eds. Regenerating Oregon's forests: A guide for the regeneration forester. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service: 99-129. [7205]

62. 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]

63. Strothmann, R. O.; Roy, Douglass F. 1984. Regeneration of Douglas-fir in the Klamath Mountains Region, California and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-81. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p. [5640]

64. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 465 p. [2270]

65. Talley, Steven N.; Griffin, James R. 1980. Fire ecology of a montane pine forest, Junipero Serra Peak, California. Madrono. 27: 49-60. [4788]

66. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]

67. 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]

68. Urness, Philip J. 1973. Part II: Chemical analyses and in vitro digestibility of seasonal deer forages. In: Deer nutrition in Arizona chaparral and desert habitats. Special Report 3. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department: 39-52. [93]

69. 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]

Related categories for SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush