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].

Related categories for SPECIES : Ceanothus integerrimus | Deerbrush