1Up Info - A Portal with a Difference

1Up Travel - A Travel Portal with a Difference.    
1Up Info

Earth & Environment History Literature & Arts Health & Medicine People Places Plants & Animals  Philosophy & Religion   Science & Technology Social Science & Law Sports & Everyday Life Wildlife, Animals, & Plants Country Study Encyclopedia A -Z
North America Gazetteer

You are here >1Up Info > Wildlife, Animals, and Plants > Plant Species > Shrub > SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush

Wildlife, Animals, and Plants


Wildlife, Animals, and Plants


Wildlife Species











  Fern or Fern Ally








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


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]


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].


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].


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)


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


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.
2nd CASE NAME : Mixed conifer - Sierra Nevada 2. Kauffman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1985 [9796] SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : early spring/moderate late spring/high early fall/high late fall/moderate STUDY LOCATION : Challenge Site: This prescribed burn took place in the Challenge Experimental Forest on the LaPorte Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. The study site was located approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 km) southeast of Challenge, California. Quincy Site: The Quincy burn site is located 9.9 miles (16 km) east of Quincy, Caliofornia in the Massak Unit on the Quincy Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : Challenge Site: Preburn overstory was dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). Common preburn plant associates include tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflora), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and bear clover (Chamaetia foliolosa). The site is described as productive. Quincy Site: Preburn stands were dominated by ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), and Douglas-fir. Common associates included black oak (Quercus kelloggii), incense cedar, and squaw carpet (Ceanothus prostratus). This site is less productive than the Challenge Site. TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : burn phenological state early spring burns prior to period of active growth late spring burns coincided with period of active leaf growth and stem expansion early fall burns aboveground shrub growth has ceased late fall burns leaf abscission was occurring in deciduous shrubs SITE DESCRIPTION : Challenge Site: elevation - 3,280 feet (1,000 m) aspect - generally west slope - 1 to 12 percent site index productivity class - I to III Quincy Site: elevation - 4,428 feet (1,350 m) aspect - 50 percent on north slopes 50 percent on south slopes slope - 35 to 75 percent site index productivity class III to IV FIRE DESCRIPTION : Challenge Site: Variable early late early late fall fall spring spring duff consumption % 93.6 83.4 91.6 69.7 duff consumption t/ha 111.2 105.8 111.3 72.3 total fuel consumption % 92.1 77.5 82.4 56.2 total fuel consump. t/ha 148.2 117.2 135.8 69.2 duff moisture % 15.7 43.4 30.9 119.5 soil moisture % 11.1 22.3 25.7 44.1 flame length cm 30.5 56.3 97.1 70.9 fireline intensity (kj m -1 s -1) 21.2 85.9 272.7 125.8 residence time sec. 47.8 51.2 83.6 55.9 Quincy Site: early late early late variable fall fall spring spring 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 consump. t/ha 79.7 49.5 58.9 59.3 duff moisture % 8.7 63.0 18.3 35.0 soil moisure % 3.6 11.3 11.0 20.3 flame length cm 44.3 31.0 60.1 50.7 fireline intensity (kj m -1 s -1) 56.0 20.8 110.6 63.9 residence time sec 91.5 37.0 49.5 49.5 FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : density of deerbrush (numbers/ha) before and after burning - treatment early spring late spring early fall late fall before after before after before after before after Challenge Site 0 0 0 0 0 215,977 0 264,486 (seedlings) Quincy Site 0 0 0 0 0 17,893 0 1,534 (seedlings) FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : Fall burns appeared to promote increases in deerbrush density whereas spring burns did not. Fall fuel conditions and moisture regimes apparently produced fires at both the Challenge and Quincy sites which were sufficient to scarify vast numbers of deerbrush seed stored in the soil. Spring burns may have provided inadequate scarification to promote germination, or subsequent weather conditions may have been unfavorable for good germination and establishment. Spring burns may be most effective in reducing deerbrush where brush reduction is a primary management goal.

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]

[4240] Index

Related categories for SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush

Send this page to a friend
Print this Page

Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities.

Information Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System

About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory
Link to 1Up Info | Add 1Up Info Search to your site

1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution.