|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
ABBREVIATION :
CELRET
SYNONYMS :
Celtis rugulosa Rydb.
Celtis laevigata var. brevipes (Wats.) Sarg.
Celtis laevigata Willd. var. reticulata (Torr.)
SCS PLANT CODE :
CERE2
COMMON NAMES :
netleaf hackberry
western hackberry
hackberry
sugarberry
palo blanco
TAXONOMY :
Netleaf hackberry is a highly variable and taxonomically confusing
species [41,63]. Hybridization is common within the genus Celtis and
most species are poorly defined [23]. Intergrading forms and ecotypic
variants are common [23]. Some authorities consider netleaf hackberry
to be a variant of sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and still others place
it in synonymy with Douglas hackberry (C. douglasii) [63,73]. However,
many taxonomists now regard it as a discrete species [73]. The
currently accepted scientific name of netleaf hackberry is Celtis
reticulata Tougher. [40].
Netleaf hackberry readily hybridizes with sugarberry and populations
with intermediate characteristics have been reported [74]. Some
authorities delineate two forms of netleaf hackberry on the basis of
leaf size [63]. Still others recognize many intergrading forms [33].
According to Kearney and others [41], "it is highly probable that more
than one species is included ... as Celtis reticulata, but pending
thorough revision of North American species of Celtis, no other
treatment seems practicable." Biosystematic revision has been suggested
for the tribe Celteae [23].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, November 1990
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. A. 1990. Celtis reticulata. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Netleaf hackberry grows throughout scattered portions of the Great
Basin, Pacific Northwest, and Southwest [44]. Its range extends from
southern Nebraska south through central Kansas and Colorado into Texas
and northern Mexico [46,63], westward to southern California, and north
through Washington and Oregon into Idaho [23,46].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA CO ID KS NE NV NM OK OR
TX UT WA MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ARCH BIBE CACH CANY CARE CACA
CHIR COLO CORO CODA FOBO GLCA
GRCA GUMO JODA JOTR LAME MOCA
NABR ORPI SAGU TICA WUPA ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodlands
K027 Mesquite bosques
K031 Oak - juniper woodland
K033 Chaparral
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush - bursage
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K071 Shinnery
K084 Cross Timbers
K098 Northern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
63 Cottonwood
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Netleaf hackberry grows as an overstory dominant or codominant in a
number of communities, including riparian woodlands of the Southwest and
narrow gallery forests of eastern Washington and west-central Idaho.
Common codominants include live oak (Quercus virginiana), cedar elm
(Ulmus crassifolia), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), bluebunch wheatgrass
(Pseudoroegneria spicata), and sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus).
Published classifications listing netleaf hackberry as a dominant or
indicator in community types (cts), habitat types (hts), or plant
associations (pas) are presented below.
Area Classification Authority
w-c ID grassland and shrubland Tisdale 1986b
hts, cts
w-c ID, e WA riparian cts Miller and Johnson 1986
OK western oak cts Dooley and Collins 1984
OR, ID: Wallowa general veg. pas Johnson and Simon 1987
e WA, n ID steppe hts Daubenmire 1970a
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Wood of netleaf hackberry is light brown, heavy, and not easily worked
[37,43]. It is used to make boxes, crates, barrels, furniture,
cabinets, paneling, and miscellaneous items [23,55,65], and is used
locally for fenceposts and firewood [37,72]. Early homesteaders crafted
rough furniture from hackberry wood [44].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Netleaf hackberry is used extensively for food and cover by many birds
and mammals [37].
Browse: On the Edwards Plateau of Texas, netleaf hackberry is a
preferred white-tailed deer browse [3,15]. In parts of southern Texas,
it is a major component of mule deer diets but is relatively unimportant
to white-tailed deer [2]. It may be heavily utilized by deer during
drought years [1] and in southern Texas receives most use during winter
and spring [15]. Pronghorn commonly browse netleaf hackberry in the
spring [11]. Beaver feed on hackberry wood in many areas [48]. Scrub
jays commonly feed on leaf galls present on foliage of netleaf hackberry
[34].
Cattle sometimes browse netleaf hackberry [59], although it is most
often used on overgrazed sites where more preferred forage is
unavailable [20]. Spanish goats often seek out tender young sprouts
during the first year after fire [70].
Fruit: Fruit of netleaf hackberry is readily consumed by many birds
[55,73]. It is considered the single most important winter bird food at
the lower edge of the mountain brush zone along the Wasatch Front of
northern Utah [34]. The band-tailed pigeon, Steller's jay, northern
flicker, American robin, Townsend's solitaire, Bohemian waxwing, cedar
waxwing, American crow, scrub jay, and rufous-sided towhee feed on this
persistent berry [34,43]. It reportedly constitutes an emergency food
source for avian seed eaters during January and February [62]. Many
mammals, including squirrels, foxes, Barbary sheep, and coyotes, also
eat netleaf hackberry fruit [43,76].
PALATABILITY :
Leaves of netleaf hackberry become somewhat tough as they mature [74]
and may decline in palatability to some species; however, white-tailed
deer preference for this species tends to be highest in summer and fall
[60,62]. In Texas, general palatability has been rated as follows [11]:
Pronghorn excellent
Cattle poor
Domestic sheep poor
Fruit of netleaf hackberry is highly palatable to many birds and mammals
[48].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Netleaf hackberry browse in the Edwards Plateau of Texas has been rated
as good in protein (14.35%), good in phosphoric acid (P2O5) (0.38%), and
fair in lime (CaO) (6.27%) [26].
COVER VALUE :
Netleaf hackberry provides good cover for a variety of big game species
[39,43]. The dense cover of netleaf hackberry stands is favored by
white-tailed deer in the Rio Grande Valley of southern Texas [49].
Southern plains woodrats use netleaf hackberry twigs to construct houses
[66]. Netleaf hackberry provides nesting sites for the white-tailed
raven, Swainson's hawk, scissor-tailed flycatcher, Bullock's oriole, and
many doves, quail, and numerous desert songbirds [19,27,43].
Hackberries offer good hiding or resting cover for quail in many parts
of the Southwest [27]. Netleaf hackberry provides much sought-after
shade for domestic livestock in the Southwest and in the Snake River
Drainage of Idaho [18,39].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Netleaf hackberry can be used to aid in soil stabilization on various
types of disturbed sites [54,67]. It is well adapted to mountain-brush
and pinyon-juniper communities [54]. Netleaf hackberry can be
propagated from seed, which when cleaned, averages 4,870 per pound
(10,727/kg) [8]. It can also be propagated vegetatively from stem
cuttings [8]. Nursery or container stock can be transplanted onto
disturbed sites with good results [54,64].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Netleaf hackberry is well suited for use in landscaping [38]. This
small shade tree is tolerant of dry sites and can be planted in yards or
patios [23,64], and along streets in urban areas [23]. The shade value
of netleaf hackberry was also recognized by early Native American
peoples, including the Basketmakers of the Southwest [44]. Because of
its tendency to grow near flowing water, this tree provided the focus
for habitations such as Hovenweep and Montezuma Castle [44].
The sweet, edible fruit [37,63] was traditionally an important food
source for many Native American peoples [55,72]. Today, the fruit
receives only limited human use [37].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Netleaf hackberry is susceptible to "witches broom" and various insect
infestations [37,44,75]. Netleaf hackberry can be reduced by heavy
grazing [59].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Netleaf hackberry is a spreading, scraggly, often stunted tree or large
shrub [44,55,63,75]. It commonly grows from 7 to 20 feet (2-6 m) in
height but can reach up to 53 feet (16 m) in height and 24 inches (60
cm) in diameter on favorable sites [31,53]. Plants generally grow
slowly [64] and live for 100 to 200 years [62]. The trunk is usually
short and crooked [4,44] with thick, warty, reddish-brown to gray bark
[37,44]. Slender twigs are reddish-brown, glabrous or puberulent [53],
and often form a twisting network [4]. Plants are strongly taprooted
but possess many shallow roots as well [62]. Roots are fibrous, wide
spreading, and can reach maximum depths of 15 feet (5 m) or more
[64,80].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Flowering and fruiting: Netleaf hackberry is monoecious [63]. Small,
inconspicuous green flowers are borne singly in the leaf axils on
current year's twigs [33,37,63]. The fruit is an orange to reddish,
purplish, or black drupe that contains a single seed or nutlet [33].
The fruit is sweet with thin, dry pulp [4,76].
Seed: Netleaf hackberry produces an abundance of persistent seed nearly
every year [8]. The hard, bony seeds are cream-colored and
approximately 0.22 inch (5.5 mm) in diameter [4,63]. Seed is readily
dispersed by a variety of birds and mammals [44]. Seed remains viable
under laboratory conditions for at least several years [8]; seed
longevity under natural conditions has not been documented.
Germination: Seed dormancy can be broken by stratification for 120 days
at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C) [8]. Germination is also enhanced by
depulping the fruit prior to planting [8]. Germination has averaged 37
to 80 percent in laboratory tests [8,72]. Natural germination occurs in
late winter and spring [80].
Seedling establishment: Seedlings are commonly observed on moist loamy
drainageway soils, in the sand of ephemeral streambeds, and in saturated
alluvium in waterways with sustained flows [22,80]. Establishment may
be favored on high terraces in riparian zones where floods may disturb
the channels themselves but leave terraces relatively undisturbed [5].
Vegetative regeneration: Netleaf hackberry sprouts from the root crown
after aboveground portions of the plant are removed or damaged [14].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Netleaf hackberry commonly grows in bottomlands, washes, ravines,
arroyos, rocky canyons, and along streamcourses, water tanks, and ponds
[31,33,37,55,79]. Netleaf hackberry is particularly abundant in
floodplain forests along large rivers of the Edwards Plateau of Texas
[71,79] and is common in gallery forests along the major canyons of
Snake, Salmon, and Columbia River valleys [18,50,68]. Netleaf hackberry
also occurs as scattered individuals in desert shrubland and in
semidesert grassland communities [9,28]. Scattered individuals often
occur where upper desert grassland communities grade into low savannas
[21]. In Texas, netleaf hackberry is particularly common on rolling
plains and breaks, and as a component of hill and bluff timber
[25,55,62]. Netleaf hackberry occurs in Great Basin montane scrubland,
creosotebush scrub, and wash scrub communities, pinyon-juniper and
Joshua tree woodlands, and mesquite bosques of the Southwest
[10,13,30,52,53].
Plant associates: Common associates in Southwestern riparian woodland
communities include walnut (Juglans spp.), willow (Salix spp.),
cottonwood (Populus spp), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
Texas mulberry (Morus microphylla), western soapberry (Sapindus
saponaria var. drummondii), live oak (Quercus virginana), cedar elm
(Ulmus crassifolia), ash (Fraxinus spp.), Texas persimmon (Diospyros
texana), and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) [52,78,79]. Overstory
codominants in terrace communities include live oak, little walnut
(Juglans microcarpa), and pecan (Carya illinoensis) [79]. Other common
Southwestern associates include Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma),
Ashe juniper (J. ashei), live oak (Quercus fusiformis), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), whitethorn acacia (Acacia constricta), fendlerbush
(Fallugia paradoxa) [12,13,81]. Cheatgrass, white alder (Alnus
rhombifolia), water birch (Betula occidentalis), black poplar (Populus
trichocarpa), sand dropseed, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis) occur with netleaf hackberry in gallery
forests of Idaho and Washington [18,50,68].
Soils: Netleaf hackberry grows on well-drained, dry to moist soils
[64]. It occurs on gravelly or rocky soils, and also on sand and loam
[22,31,72]. Netleaf hackberry grows on alkaline or acidic soils [54],
but pH averages 7.0 to 7.5 [64]. Soils are commonly derived from
limestone, or alluvial or colluvial parent materials [31,39,68]. Near
the Gulf, plants occur on calcareous shell banks [73]. In many areas,
netleaf hackberry develop best on alluvial soils [71].
Climate: Netleaf hackberry grows well in sun and is tolerant of drought
[38,72]. It occurs in subhumid to semiarid areas characterized by
mesothermal climatic regimes [71]. Average annual precipitation ranges
from 15 to 33 inches (38-84 cm) in parts of Texas [71]; however, netleaf
hackberry can grow where annual precipitation averages only 7 inches (18
cm) [4]. In some areas, summertime temperatures may exceed 110 degrees
F (43 degrees C) [4]. Netleaf hackberry may be restricted by soil
moisture levels [79]. Its distribution may also be largely limited by
flood tolerance.
Elevation: In many areas, netleaf hackberry is restricted to waterways
and spans a considerable elevational range [32]. It grows at elevations
ranging from 2,500 to 6,000 feet (762-1,829 m) in Arizona [41]; from
2,800 to 5,000 feet (853-1,524 m) in California [53]; and up to 6,000
feet (2,000 m) in Utah [37].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Netleaf hackberry can invade many types of newly disturbed sites but can
also persist in a number of climax communities where soil-water regimes
are favorable.
Texas: On the Edwards Plateau, netleaf hackberry is among the
large-seeded facultative riparian species that invade river terrace
communities [5]. It also increases after prescribed burns in Ashe
juniper communities on toeslopes where water availability is relatively
high [57]. Although it commonly codominates these moister toeslopes
with flameleaf sumac (Rhus lanceolata) and live oak (Quercus
fusiformis), it is often absent on adjacent drier sites [57].
Idaho-eastern Washington: In the middle Snake and lower Salmon
drainages of west-central Idaho and eastern Washington, netleaf
hackberry occurs as an overstory dominant on lower valley slopes and
alluvial terraces [18,68]. Many of these sites have been disturbed by
domestic livestock. Current understory dominants on disturbed sites
include annual bromes (cheatgrass, Japanese brome (B. japonicus), and
poverty brome (B. sterilis), and sand dropseed, but evidence suggests
that bluebunch wheatgrass grew as an understory dominant beneath netleaf
hackberry prior to disturbance [68]. Daubenmire [18] identified a
netleaf hackberry/cheatgrass habitat type, although Tisdale [68]
maintained that "designation of a climax community type with an exotic
annual as one of the dominants seems inappropriate, especially when
stands of Celtis douglasii [reticulata]/ bluebunch wheatgrass can be
found on similar habitats in Washington along the Grande Ronde River."
Tallgrass prairie: Plowing in the tallgrass prairie disturbs the roots
of grasses, reducing their competitive ability and allowing for the
subsequent establishment of weeds and woody invaders. Woody plants such
as netleaf hackberry tend to increase after annual cultivation in
tallgrass prairies of central Oklahoma [16]. Grass cover typically
increases immediately after plowing stops and peaks 5 years later.
Sumac (Rhus spp.), indian-currant coralberry (Symphoricarpos
orbiculatus), and roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii) soon become
established, and netleaf hackberry and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)
gradually invade the area. Although woody plants remain rare during the
first 9 years, these invaders begin to increase dramatically as
grassland vegetation loses dominance. Netleaf hackberry, indian-currant
coralberry, flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallina), and weedy grasses such as
johnson-grass (Sorghum halepense) dominate some 9- to 32-year-old
stands. Collins and Adams [16] noted that succession can be both rapid
and unpredictable in the tallgrass prairie, and "even at the
physiognomic level, general successional trends may be difficult to
quantify."
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Leaves of netleaf hackberry first appear in early April to late May [23]
and mature in June [74]. Plants flower in spring, with or shortly after
initial leaf development [23]. Fruit ripens in late summer or fall
[64]. Fruit may persist through the winter [62], although some seed is
dispersed during the fall and winter [8,72]. Generalized flowering and
fruiting dates by geographic location are as follows:
Location Flowering Fruit ripe Authority
c Great Plains late April August-Sept. Stephens 1973
s CA April-May ---- Munz 1974
Great Plains April-Sept. ---- Great Plains Flora
Association 1986
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Netleaf hackberry is often associated with riparian woodlands which burn
infrequently. These narrow canyon or gallery forests contrast
strikingly with adjacent desert shrublands or grasslands where netleaf
hackberry occurs as scattered individuals. Recurrent fires in drier
upland types may eliminate or reduce invading shrubs and trees [32].
Netleaf hackberry also persists in fire-prone toeslope communities of
Texas [57]. It commonly sprouts from the stem base or root crown after
fire [57,70] and becomes prominent in many postburn communities. Birds
and mammals presumably transport some seed from adjacent unburned areas
[44], and limited postfire seedling establishment is possible.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Netleaf hackberry is described as fairly tolerant of fire [3]. Portions
of the root crown commonly survive after aboveground vegetation is
consumed by fire [3,57,70]. Plants are rarely killed by fire [14].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Netleaf hackberry sprouts from the root crown after aboveground
vegetation is consumed by fire [3,14]. In some instances, recovery may
be relatively rapid and cover can increase dramatically. Netleaf
hackberry can reportedly outcompete species such as agarito (Mahonia
trifoliolata) in early postburn communities [59].
On the Edwards Plateau, netleaf hackberry readily sprouted and increased
in canopy cover after prescribed fire and mechanical scarification [57].
After fire it codominated (18 percent cover) relatively moist toeslopes
with flameleaf sumac (22 percent cover), and live oak (Quercus
fusiformis) (20 percent cover). Very little netleaf hackberry was
observed on unburned areas or on drier burned sites (< 1 percent) [57].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed fire: Bock and Bock [7] reported that prescribed fire is
"difficult to manage and potentially very destructive" in established
riparian woodlands of the Southwest. These relatively rare and fragile
areas provide important food and cover for desert wildlife [61].
Because browse and cover are often limited in these areas, burning is
not generally recommended [63].
Wildlife: Removal of shrub-dominated communities can adversely impact
wildlife in many areas. Deer commonly avoid open areas, and if burning
is planned in shrub communities, efforts should be made to burn in
mosaics, leaving strips of cover [3,49]. In some instances, it may be
advisable to leave drainages intact for deer use [49]. On the Edwards
Plateau of Texas, burning at 7- to 10-year intervals is recommended if
management aims include controlling shrubs while maintaining deer
populations. Deer numbers can be reduced if burns are conducted at more
frequent intervals [3]. Burning woody vegetation in some
shrub-grassland communities can be detrimental to birds, especially if
conducted during the breeding season [19].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Celtis reticulata | Netleaf Hackberry
REFERENCES :
1. Anthony, Robert G. 1976. Influence of drought on diets and numbers of
desert deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(1): 140-144. [11558]
2. Anthony, Robert G.; Smith, Norman S. 1977. Ecological relationships
between mule deer and white-tailed deer in southeastern Arizona.
Ecological Monographs. 47: 255-277. [9890]
3. Armstrong, W. E. 1980. Impact of prescribed burning on wildlife. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 22-26. [11430]
4. Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. 1977. Northwest trees. Seattle,
WA: The Mountaineers. 222 p. [4208]
5. Asplund, Kenneth K.; Gooch, Michael T. 1988. Geomorphology and the
distributional ecology of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) in a
desert riparian canyon. Desert Plants. 9(1): 17-27. [563]
6. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
7. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1990. Effects of fire on wildlife in
southwestern lowland habitats. In: Krammes, J. S., technical
coordinator. Effects of fire management of Southwestern natural
resources: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 November 15-17; Tucson,
AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 50-64. [11273]
8. Bonner, F. T. 1974. Celtis L. Hackberry. 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: 298-300. [7579]
9. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of
the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94.
[495]
10. Brown, David E. 1982. Great Basin montane scrubland. In: Brown, David
E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 83-84. [8890]
11. Buechner, Helmut K. 1950. Life history, ecology, and range use of the
pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos Texas. American Midland Naturalist.
43(2): 257-354. [4084]
12. Campbell, C. J. 1973. Pressure bomb measurements indicate water
availability in a southwestern riparian community. Res. Note RM-246.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [11155]
13. Carignan, Jeanette M. 1988. Ecological survey and elevational gradient
implications of the flora and vertebrate fauna in the northern Del Norte
Mountains, Brewster Co., Tx. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University. 181
p. Thesis. [12255]
14. Carter, Meril G. 1. Effects of drougth on mesquite. Journal of Range
Management. 17: 275-276. [10176]
15. Chamrad, Albert D.; Box, Thadis W. 1968. Food habits of white-tailed
deer in south Texas. Journal of Range Management. 21: 158-164. [10857]
16. Collins, S. L.; Adams, D. E. 1983. Succession in grasslands: thirty-two
years of change in a central Oklahoma tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio. 51:
181-190. [2929]
17. Cox, Mary Josephine. 1941. The comparative anatomy of the secondary
xylem of five American species of Celtis. American Midland Naturalist.
25: 348-357. [11743]
18. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin
62. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture,
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 131 p. [733]
19. Davis, C. A.; Sawyer, P. E.; Griffing, J. P.; Borden, B. D. 1974. Bird
populations in a shrub-grassland area, southeastern New Mexico. Bulletin
619. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 29 p. [4548]
20. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
21. Dick-Peddie, W. A.; Moir, W. H. 1970. Vegetation of the Organ Mountains,
New Mexico. Science Series No. 4. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State
University, Range Science Department. 28 p. [6699]
22. Dooley, Karen L.; Collins, Scott L. 1984. Ordination and classification
of western oak forests in Oklahoma. American Journal of Botany. 71(9):
1221-1227. [11543]
23. Elias, Thomas S. 1970. The genera of Ulmaceae in the southeastern United
States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 51: 18-40. [11742]
24. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
25. Foster, J. H.; Krausz, H. B.; Leidigh, A. H. 1917. General survey of
Texas woodlands including a study of the commercial possibilities of
mesquite. Bulletin of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas,
Third Series. College Station, TX: Agricultural and Mechanical College
of Texas, Department of Forestry; 3(9): 1-47. [11796]
26. Fraps, G. S.; Cory, V. L. 1940. Composition and utilization of range
vegetation of Sutton and Edwards Counties. Bulletin No. 58. College
Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p. [5746]
27. Fulbright, Timothy E.; Flenniken, Kay S.; Waggerman, Gary L. 1986.
Enhancing germination of spiny hackberry seeds. Journal of Range
Management. 39(6): 552-554. [3020]
28. Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing
in desert grassland. Ecology. 31(1): 44-50. [4423]
29. 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]
30. Glinski, Richard L. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and
cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. In:
Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation
and management of riparian habitat: a symposium: Proceedings; 1977 July
9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 116-123. [5340]
31. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
32. Hastings, James R.; Turner, Raymond M. 1965. The changing mile: An
ecological study of vegetation change with time in the lower mile of an
arid and semiarid region. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 317
p. [10533]
33. White, E. M. 1961. A possible relationship of little bluestem
distribution to soils. Journal of Range Management. 14: 243-247. [110]
34. Hayward, C. Lynn. 1948. Biotic communities of the Wasatch Chaparral,
Utah. Ecological Monographs. 18: 473-506. [9633]
35. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
36. Huston, J. E.; Rector, B. S.; Merrill, L. B.; Engdahl, B. S. 1981.
Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region of
Texas. Report B-1375. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University System,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [4565]
37. Johnson, Carl M. 1970. Common native trees of Utah. Special Report 22.
Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources,
Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. [9785]
38. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty
landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166]
39. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of
the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399
p. [9600]
40. 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]
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to
wildlife. Bull. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish. 80 p. [9818]
44. Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p. [1401]
45. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1976. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 3.
Minor western hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1314. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 13 p. 290 maps. [10430]
46. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
47. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
48. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
49. McMahan, Craig A.; Inglis, Jack. 1974. Use of Rio Grande plain brush
types by white-tailed deer. Journal of Range Management. 27(5): 369-374.
[11557]
50. Miller, Thomas B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1986. Sampling and data analyses
of narrow, variable-width gallery forests over environmental gradients.
Tropical Ecology. 27: 132-142. [12310]
51. Minckley, W. L.; Brown, David E. 1982. Wetlands. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 223-287. [8898]
52. Minckley, W. L.; Clark, Thomas O. 1981. Vegetation of the Gila River
Resource Area, eastern Arizona. Desert Plants. 3(3): 124-140. [10863]
53. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
54. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area
sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of
the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]
55. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including
Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park,
TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]
56. Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa
State College Press. 371 p. [1913]
57. Rasmussen, G. Allen; Wright, Henry A. 1989. Succession of secondary
shrubs on Ashe juniper communities after dozing and prescribed burning.
Journal of Range Management. 42(4): 295-298. [7856]
58. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
59. Schmidt, Harold. 1980. Improving shinoak range with prescribed fire. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 45-47. [11432]
60. Severson, Kieth E.; Medina, Alvin L. 1983. Deer and elk habitat
management in the Southwest. Journal of Range Management Monograph No.
2. Denver: Society for Range Management. 64 p. [2110]
61. Severson, Kieth E.; Rinne, John N. 1990. Increasing habitat diversity in
Southwestern forests and woodlands via prescribed fire. In: Krammes, J.
S., technical coordinator. Effects of fire management of Southwestern
natural resources: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 November 15-17;
Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 94-104. [11277]
62. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas
Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708]
63. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains.
Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]
64. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's
mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative
Extension Service. 135 p. [49]
65. Sweitzer, Edward M. 1971. Comparative anatomy of Ulmaceae. Journal of
the Arnold Arboretum. 52(4): 523-585. [11744]
66. Thies, Monte; Caire, William. 1990. Association of Neotoma micropus
nests with various plant species in southwestern Oklahoma. Southwestern
Naturalist. 35(1): 80-102. [11140]
67. Thornburg, Ashley A. 1982. Plant materials for use on surface-mined
lands. SCS-TP-157. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 88 p. [3769]
68. Tisdale, E. W. 1986. Canyon grasslands and associated shrublands of
West-central Idaho and adjacent areas. Bulletin Number 40. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. 42 p. [2338]
69. 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]
70. Ueckert, Darrell N. 1980. Manipulating range vegetation with prescribed
fire. In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards
Plateau of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction,
TX. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas
A&M University System: 27-44. [11431]
71. Van Auken, O. W.; Ford, A. L.; Stein, A. 1979. A comparison of some
woody upland and riparian plant communities of the southern Edwards
Plateau. Southwestern Naturalist. 24(1): 165-180. [10489]
72. 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]
73. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
74. Waller, D. A. 1982. Leaf-cutting ants and avoided plants: defences
against Atta texana attack. Oecologia. 52(3): 400-403. [12160]
75. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO:
Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
76. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
77. Wheeler, E. A.; LaPasha, C. A.; Miller, R. B. 1989. Wood anatomy of elm
(Ulmus) and hackberry (Celtis) species native to the United States.
International Association of Wood Anatomy Bulletin. 10(1): 5-26.
[11552]
78. Wood, Carl E.; Wood, Judith K. 1988. Woody vegetation of the Frio River
riparian forest, Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 40(3): 309-322.
[11870]
79. Wood, Carl E.; Wood, Judith K. 1989. Riparian forests of the Leona and
Sabinal Rivers. Texas Journal of Science. 41(4): 395-412. [11869]
80. Zimmermann, Robert C. 1969. Plant ecology of an arid basin: Tres
Alamos-Redington Area, southeastern Arizona. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 485-D. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey. 51 p. [4287]
81. Van Auken, O. W.; Ford, A. L.; Stein, A.; Stein, A. G. 1980. Woody
vegetation of upland plant communities in the southern Edwards Plateau.
Texas Journal of Science. 32: 23-35. [10859]
Index
Related categories for Species: Celtis reticulata
| Netleaf Hackberry
|
 |
