|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
ABBREVIATION :
CERBET
SYNONYMS :
Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber (S. Wats.) F. L. Martin
Cercocarpus montanus var. blancheae (Schneid.) F. L. Martin
Cercocarpus montanus var. macrourus (Rydb.) F. L. Martin
Cercocarpus betulaefolius Nutt. ex Hook.
Cercocarpus parvifolius Nutt.
SCS PLANT CODE :
CEBE3
CEBEB
CEBEM
COMMON NAMES :
birchleaf mountain-mahogany
birchleaf cercocarpus
western mountain-mahogany
California mountain-mahogany
TAXONOMY :
Dispute over the taxonomic placement of Cercocarpus betuloides Nutt. has
been considerable. Martin's [32] 1950 taxonomic revision of the genus
Cercocarpus reduced C. betuloides to several varieties of C. montanus
Raf. [see SYNONYMS above]. Some taxonomists have adopted Martin's
revision [19,20,47], while others treat C. betuloides and C. montanus as
distinct species [21,30,37]. In this report, C. betuloides is
recognized as a distinct species, birchleaf mountain-mahogany, found in
southern Oregon, California, and Arizona. Plants found in the
Intermountain and Rocky Mountain regions are C. montanus, true
mountain-mahogany.
Munz [37] recognizes three varieties of birchleaf mountain-mahogany:
var. betuloides
var. blancheae (Schneid.) Little
var. macrourus (Rydb.) Jeps.
Plants on Santa Catalina Island off the coast of southern California
were once considered a fourth variety, var. traskiae (Eastw.) Dunkle,
but are now recognized as a distinct species: C. traskiae, Catalina
mountain-mahogany [30,37].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Ronald Uchytil, November 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Uchytil, Ronald J. 1991. Cercocarpus betuloides. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany's range extends from southwestern Oregon
south through California to Baja California, and east from southern
California to the mountains of central Arizona [30]. In California,
birchleaf mountain-mahogany is found primarily in the Coast Range, the
western slope of the Sierra Nevada's, and in the mountains of southern
California [5].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
STATES :
AZ CA OR MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CORO CHIS JOTR KICA PINN SAMO
SEQU WACA WHIS
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
7 Lower Basin and Range
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035
SAF COVER TYPES :
233 Oregon white oak
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
247 Jeffrey pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak - Digger pine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is a primary component of many chaparral
communities and is a dominant or codominant in localized areas. It is
codominant with shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella) in Arizona
chaparral. Other common associates in Arizona chaparral include desert
ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), Wright buckwheat (Rhamnus crocea), datil
yucca (Yucca baccata), sugar sumac (Rhus ovata), hollyleaf buckthorn
(Rhamnus crocea), broom snakewood (Gutierezia sarothrae), and Arizona
oak (Quercus arizonica) [8]. In California chaparral, associates
include eastwood manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), desert
ceanothus, chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), chamise
(Adenostoma fasciculatum), scrub and live oaks (Quercus spp.),
buckthorns (Rhamnus spp.), and sumacs (Rhus spp.) [5,17,35].
Published classifications listing birchleaf mountain-mahogany as a
dominant in community types (cts) or plant associations (pas) are listed
below:
Area Classification Authority
AZ chaparral pas Carmichael & others 1978
s CA: San Bernardino Mtns general veg. cts Minnich 1976
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is a valuable browse for ungulates. In
California, it is listed as one of primary browse species of deer in the
north and south Coast Ranges, along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada,
and in the southern mountain ranges [4]. Mule deer and white-tailed deer
consumption of birchleaf mountain-mahogany is light to heavy in the late
fall, winter, and spring [4,29,33].
PALATABILITY :
In California, birchleaf mountain-mahogany's palatability is rated as
good for cattle, good to excellent for sheep and goats, poor to good for
horses, excellent for mule deer, and good for bighorn sheep [9,42].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is a nutritious ungulate browse. The
protein content of leaves and twigs is somewhat higher than that of many
associated browse species [41,42]. Seasonal variation in birchleaf
mountain-mahogany twig and leaf chemical constituents has been reported
[2,41,46].
COVER VALUE :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany presumably provides cover for a wide variety
of animals, both in chaparral and forest communities.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany's ability to survive on harsh sites makes it
a useful candidate for erosion control of arid mountain slopes [10].
Its use in rehabilitation projects, however, has been very limited due
to problems with seedling establishment. Work with true
mountain-mahogany suggests that plants can be established via fall
planting [39].
Selective breeding within the Cercocarpus genus may provide crosses
useful for rehabilitation work. Monsen and Davis [36] suggest that
hybrids of true and birchleaf mountain-mahogany would retain the
favorable adaptive traits of their parents, including nondormant
seeds and an improved growth rate.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Native Americans used the strong wood of birchleaf mountain-mahogany to
make fish spears, arrow shafts, and digging sticks. They used the inner
bark for many medicinal purposes and to produce a purple dye [9].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Biological control: Browsing by domestic goats can reduce brush growth.
Studies in Arizona and California show that birchleaf mountain-mahogany
is highly preferred by goats, and that managed herds can keep this plant
closely browsed [16,27]. In Arizona, birchleaf mountain-mahogany height
in browsed areas was 67 percent less than in unbrowsed areas [27].
Chemical control: Phenoxy herbicides have generally been ineffective in
controlling sprouting chaparral shrubs. Fenuron and picloram applied to
the soil as pellets are more effective, killing 54 and 94 percent of
birchleaf mountain-mahogany, respectively, 3 years after application
[7].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is an erect, open shrub or small tree.
Plants are typically 5 to 12 feet (1.5-3.6 m) tall but occasionally grow
up to 20 feet (6 m) [42]. Birchleaf mountain-mahogany height varied as
follows in different aged chaparral stands in southern California [17]:
coastal chaparral desert chaparral
(feet) (meters) (feet) (meters)
Stand age
2-8 years 5.2 1.6 4.6 1.4
9-21 years 5.2 1.6 7.8 2.4
22-40 years 6.6 2.0 7.5 2.3
40+ years 7.2 2.2 9.1 2.7
Mature birchleaf mountain-mahogany plants typically have considerable
amounts of dead branches [14]. Simple, alternate, wedge-shaped leaves,
up to 1 inch (2.5 cm) long, are borne on spurlike branchlets [37]. Bark
is smooth and gray. The fruit is a soft, hairy, tubular achene with a
2- to 3-inch-long (5-7.5 cm) feathery style at the tip [10].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Microphanerophyte
Nanophanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany begins producing seed at about 10 years of
age. Seed crops vary from very light to very heavy [3]. The seeds are
not dormant and germinate readily without pretreatments. The fruit and
awned-seeds are dispersed widely by wind, and occasionally by animals
[10]. Seedling establishment is infrequent and is probably substantial
only in years of high precipitation.
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany sprouts vigorously from the root crown after
top-killing disturbances [3].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany occupies dry foothills and lower mountain
slopes and ridges [9,21,42]. It is most abundant in chaparral
vegetation types but is also common at its upper elevational limits in
the understory of pinyon-juniper (Pinus edulis, P. monophylla-Juniperus
spp.), oak (Quercus wislizeni, Q. chrysolepis), and pine (Pinus
ponderosa, P. sabiniana) woodlands [7,9,35].
In southern California, birchleaf mountain-mahogany occurs in both
coastal (west of the mountain range crest) and desert chaparral stands
(east of the crest) but generally makes up a greater percentage of the
cover in desert chaparral. It is often associated with north-facing
aspects. On coastal exposures it becomes more abundant with increasing
elevation [17]. Elevational range is 3,000 to 6,500 feet (915-1,982 m)
in Arizona, and 500 to 6,000 (152-1,829 m) in California [7,9].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is a stable member of chaparral communities.
The plant is a long-lived vigorous sprouter and neither a regime of
frequent fires nor long fire-free periods will eliminate it. During
long, fire-free intervals, birchleaf mountain-mahogany rejuvenates its
canopy by resprouting, ensuring continuous recruitment of new stems from
an established root crown [23]. Under a regime of frequent fires,
postfire sprouting ensures little demographic change [18]. In Arizona,
shrub live oak-birchleaf mountain-mahogany communities are considered
climax types [8].
Burcham [6] reported that in certain situations in southern California,
pinyon-juniper communities may be replaced by birchleaf
mountain-mahogany and desert ceanothus following fire.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany has been variously described as evergreen,
deciduous, and partly deciduous. In some areas it apparently loses 25
to 75 percent of its leaves each fall [3]. Flowering in California is
from March to May [9], and in Arizona from March to July [21].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany sprouts from the root crown following
top-kill by fire. Sprouting is usually the only method of postfire
regeneration [24]. Seedling establishment occurs infrequently from seed
blown onto the burn from off-site plants [18] or from on-site seeds that
fall from the crown of lightly burned plants [4].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by wind; postfire years 1 and 2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Plant: Most fires top-kill birchleaf mountain-mahogany. It is a common
component of chaparral where severe wildfires often defoliate all
aboveground vegetation and leave only charred stems and a layer of ash
over mineral ash [15,48]. Birchleaf mountain-mahogany is a strong
resprouter, and survival is usually high; however, 25 to 60 percent
mortality has been observed following hot chaparral fires [26,44].
Seed: Birchleaf mountain-mahogany seeds are not heat-resistant and are
easily destroyed by fire. Seeds on the ground are especially vulnerable
to heat damage; seeds in the crown of lightly damaged plants may
occasionally survive [4].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany sprouts vigorously following fire, and
recovery is relatively rapid. Sprouting is independent of the growing
season and can begin as soon as 10 days after burning [34]. Sixty-four
percent of preburn plants had sprouted within 4.5 months of an intense
summer chaparral fire in southern California [38]. Sprouts grow
rapidly. After one growing season, fire-borne sprouts in southern
California were taller than those of associated shrubs, averaging
between 12 and 27 inches (31-69 cm) tall [25]. Six to eight years after
fire, birchleaf mountain-mahogany sprouts are often 5 or 6 feet (1.5-1.8
m) tall [11,17]. Sprouts have produced seed as early as 5 years after
fire [3].
Small numbers of seedlings have been observed on some burns [17,25].
Mortality of postfire seedlings may be high. Sweeny [43] observed that
about 75 percent of first year birchleaf mountain-mahogany seedlings
were dead 4 years after fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Percentage of dead arial fuels is higher for birchleaf mountain-mahogany
than for associates such as chamise, manzanitas, and scrub oak (Quercus
dumosa). Nearly all of these dead fuels are consumed during fire.
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany, however, contains less volatile fats, oils,
and terpines than do many of its associates, and is therefore much less
flammable [15]. During prescribed fires in southern California, chamise
and manzanitas burned intensely, with 75 to 85 percent of live fuels
consumed, while only 45 percent of birchleaf mountain-mahogany live
fuels were consumed [14].
Birchleaf mountain-mahogany sprouts of fire origin are highly palatable
to deer and livestock. Although birchleaf mountain-mahogany is
generally resistant to browsing, excessive browsing can kill new sprouts
[3,42].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Cercocarpus betuloides | Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
REFERENCES :
1. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
2. Bissell, Harold D.; Strong, Helen. 1955. The crude protein variations in
the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and Game. 41(2):
145-155. [10524]
3. 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]
4. Biswell, H. H.; Schultz, A. M.; Hedrick, D. W. 1953. A possible method
of increasing western mountain mahogany on game ranges. California Fish
and Game. 39(2): 187-189. [16033]
5. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1989. Shrubs of California's chaparral,
timberland, and woodland: area, ownership, and stand characteristics.
Res. Bull. PNW-RB-160. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station. 50 p. [7426]
6. Burcham, L. T. 1974. Fire and chaparral before European settlement. In:
Rosenthal, Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral:
Proceedings; 1973 March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The
Sierra Club: 101-120. [4669]
7. 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]
8. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona
chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
9. 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]
10. Deitschman, Glenn H.; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1974.
Cercocarpus H.B.K. cercocarpus (mountain-mahogany). 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: 309-312. [7583]
11. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at
the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
13. 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]
14. Green, Lisle R. 1970. An expermintal prescribed burn to reduce fuel
hazard in chaparral. Res. Note PSW-216. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 6 p. [16164]
15. Green, Lisle R. 1982. Prescribed burning in the California Mediterranean
ecosystem. 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: 464-471.
[6052]
16. Green, Lisle R.; Newell, Leonard A. 1982. Using goats to control brush
regrowth on fuelbreaks. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-59. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [10681]
17. Hanes, Ted L. 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern
California. Ecological Monographs. 41(1): 27-52. [11405]
18. Hanes, Ted L.; Jones, Harold W. 1967. Postfire chaparral succession in
southern California. Ecology. 48(2): 259-264. [9824]
19. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
20. 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]
21. 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]
22. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney,
H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical
coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the
conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277.
[4395]
23. Keeley, Jon E. 1986. Resilience of Mediterranean shrub communities to
fires. In: Dell, B.; Hopkins, A. J. N.; Lamont B. B., editors.
Resilience in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Dr. W. Junk Publishers: 95-112. [9826]
24. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in
California chaparral. Ecology. 68(2): 434-443. [5403]
25. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C. 1981. Post-fire regeneration of
southern California chaparral. American Journal of Botany. 68(4):
524-530. [4660]
26. Kinucan, Edith Seyfert. 1965. Deer utilization of postfire chaparral
shrubs and fire history of the San Gabiel Mountians. Los Angeles, CA:
California State College, Los Angeles. 61 p. Thesis. [11163]
27. Knipe, Oren D. 1983. Effects of Angora goat browsing on burned over
Arizona chaparral. Rangelands. 5(6): 252-255. [1363]
28. 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]
29. Leach, Howard R.; Hiehle, Jack L. 1956. Food habits of the Tehama deer
herd. California Fish and Game. 43: 161-178. [6874]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Martin, Floyd L. 1950. A revision of Cercocarpus. Brittonia. 7(2):
91-111. [12586]
33. McCulloch, Clay Y. 1973. Part I: Seasonal diets of mule and white-tailed
deer. In: Deer nutrition in Arizona chaparral and desert habitats.
Special Report No. 3. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department:
1-37. [9894]
34. Menke, John W.; Villasenor, Ricardo. 1977. The California Mediterranean
ecosystem and its management. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Proc. of the symp. on the environmental
consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems;
1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 257-270. [4847]
35. 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]
36. McKone, Mark J. 1985. Reproductive biology of several bromegrasses
(Bromus): breeding system, pattern of fruit maturation, and seed set.
American Journal of Botany. 72(9): 1334-1339. [1618]
37. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
38. Plumb, T. R. 1961. Sprouting of chaparral by December after a wildfire
in July. Technical Paper 57. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 12 p. [9799]
39. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.
Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah
Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
40. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
41. Reynolds, Hudson G. 1967. Chemical constituents and deer use of some
crown sprouts in Arizona chaparral. Journal of Forestry. 65(12):
905-908. [12057]
42. 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]
43. Sweeney, James R. 1956. Responses of vegetation to fire: A study of the
herbaceous vegetation following chaparral fires. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 249 p. [3776]
44. Tratz, Wallace Michael. 1978. Postfire vegetational recovery,
productivity, and herbivore utilization of a chaparral-desert ecotone.
Los Angeles, CA: California State University. 133 p. Thesis. [5495]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. 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]
48. Pase, Charles P.; Granfelt, Carl Eric, tech. coords. 1977. The use of
fire on Arizona rangelands. Arizona Interagency Range Committee
Publication No. 4. [Place of publication unknown]: [Arizona Interagency
Range Committe]. 15 p. [1827]
Index
Related categories for Species: Cercocarpus betuloides
| Birchleaf Mountain-Mahogany
|
 |
