Introductory
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



ABBREVIATION : 
CHRSEM

SYNONYMS : 
   Castanopsis sempervirens (Kell.) Dudley


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   CASE8


COMMON NAMES : 
   bush chinquapin
   bush chinkapin
   chinquapin
   Sierra chinquapin
   Sierra evergreen chinquapin
   Dudley Sierra chinquapin


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name of bush chinquapin is Chrysolepis
sempervirens (Kell.) Hjelmqv.  It is a member of the Fagaceae, or oak
family [9,21,33].  The older name of Castanopsis sempervirens (Kell.)
Dudley is still frequently encountered in the literature.  There are no
subspecies, varieties, or forms.

Bush chinquapin hybridizes with giant chinquapin (C. chrysophylla) in
western Siskiyou County, where distributions of the two species overlap
[16,25].


LIFE FORM : 
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Janet L. Howard, November 1992


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Howard, Janet L.  1992. Chrysolepis sempervirens. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Bush chinquapin occurs in mountainous regions of California and southern
Oregon.  It is distributed along the Pacific Coast from the San Jacinto
and San Bernadino mountains north through the Coast Ranges to
southwestern Oregon.  Eastward it is distributed through the Sierra
Nevada and Cascade Range to south-central Oregon [9,25,33].  Giant
chinquapin has a shrub form that is difficult to distinguish from bush
chinquapin, and there is some confusion as to the exact distribution of
each [25].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES20  Douglas-fir
   FRES21  Ponderosa pine
   FRES24  Hemlock - Sitka spruce
   FRES26  Lodgepole pine
   FRES27  Redwood
   FRES28  Western hardwoods
   FRES34  Chaparral - mountain shrub
   FRES35  Pinyon - juniper
   FRES44  Alpine


STATES : 
     CA  OR


ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : 
     CRLA  KICA  LAVO  SEQU  WHIS  YOSE


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    4  Sierra Mountains


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K002  Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
   K003  Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K004  Fir - hemlock forest
   K005  Mixed conifer forest
   K006  Redwood forest
   K007  Red fir forest
   K008  Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
   K010  Ponderosa shrub forest
   K011  Western ponderosa forest
   K012  Douglas-fir forest
   K013  Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
   K024  Juniper steppe woodland
   K028  Mosaic of K002 and K026
   K029  California mixed evergreen forest
   K030  California oakwoods
   K034  Montane chaparral
   K052  Alpine meadows and barren


SAF COVER TYPES : 
   229  Pacific Douglas-fir
   230  Douglas-fir - western hemlock
   231  Port-Orford-cedar
   232  Redwood
   233  Oregon white oak
   238  Western juniper
   243  Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
   244  Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
   245  Pacific ponderosa pine
   246  California black oak
   247  Jeffrey pine
   249  Canyon live oak
   256  California mixed subalpine


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Bush chinquapin is a common codominant of montane chaparral.  Occurring
at higher elevations than other types of chaparral, montane chaparral
consists of low-growing, often dense thickets of sclerophyllous shrubs
in the coniferous forest zone.  Forest cover is lacking, usually due to
removal of trees by fire or logging [22,23].  Mountain whitethorn
(Ceanothus cordulatus), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus viscidiflorus),
and greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) are frequent codominants
[6,22].  Together these shrubs may form almost impenetrable stands [6].
Bush chinquapin also occurs in pure stands.  These are not extensive in
montane chaparral but are common in alpine zones [11,36].

Bush chinquapin often dominates or codominates the understories of
mid-seral coniferous forests adjacent to montane chaparral [18].
Coniferous forests may also contain scattered thickets of bush
chinquapin on sites unfavorable to conifer growth, such as rocky
outcrops or dry ridges [26].  Bush chinquapin occupies breaks
in the overhead canopy where windthrow or tree death has occurred [8].

On the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range, bush
chinquapin is associated with the western juniper (Juniperus
occidentalis)-big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata)-bluebunch wheatgrass
(Pseudoroegenaria spicata) community of the Great Basin [13,32].

Publications listing bush chinquapin as a dominant or codominant species
are as follows:

California chaparral [18].
Terrestrial natural communities of California [22].
Vegetation types of the San Bernadino Mountains [23].
Vegetation and fire history of a ponderosa pine-white fir forest in
  Crater Lake National Park [31]
A vegetation classification system applied to southern California [36].

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
The seeds of bush chinquapin are a staple diet item of various birds and
rodents [9,24,26].  Twigs and leaves are rarely browsed by either
livestock or big game animals [24,32,40].


PALATABILITY : 
Bush chinkapin is rated as poor to useless for sheep, goats,
black-tailed deer, and bighorn sheep and useless for cattle and horses
[9,40].


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


COVER VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
Managers have been largely frustrated in attempts to use bush chinquapin
for site rehabilitation, although it is recommended for such use on
disturbed watersheds and wildlife habitations [24].  The species is
difficult to cultivate.  Hormone-treated cuttings fail to root [24,26],
and containerized seedlings do not transplant well [24,39].  Seedlings
outplanted on a favorable central Sierra Nevada site denuded by a large
broken water pipe showed poorer survival (81 percent) after 2 years than
any of six other native species.  Average height and stem diameter of
surviving bush chinquapin was significantly (p>0.05) less than other
outplanted species [7].  Many managers have experienced 100 percent
mortality of transplants [24].  No attempts at establishing plants from
seed sown directly on-site were found in the literature, although this
method is recommended [26].  Managers have found onsite sowing of seed
to be the most effective in establishing the closely-related native
California oaks (Quercus spp.) because taproots develop normally [17].
Seed collection and processing information is available in the
literature [24].


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
The golden sheen of the lower leaf epidermis, showy cream-white male
catkins, and attractive burred fruits makes bush chinquapin of interest as
an ornamental, but commercial cultivation of the species has not been
successful [24,26].

The seeds are palatable to humans, either raw or roasted.  They were a
common diet item of Native Americans [25].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Rangeland:  Large numbers of bush chinquapin in rangelands are considered
indicators of overgrazing [40].

Timber:  Bush chinquapin suppress growth of young conifers in the shrub
understory. In one such case, a brushfield of bush chinquapin, greenleaf
manzanita, and Sierra mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliolosa) on the
Blodgett Forest Research Station of El Dorado County, California, was
cleared and planted with sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum).  Within 16
years, the bush chinquapin and greenleaf manzanita had grown to 6 feet
(1.8 m) in height.  Sequoia saplings were suppressed at or below this
level.  Researchers removed all brush and sprayed sprouting brush with
herbicide the following year.  Released sequoias developed much broader
crowns and grew from 3 to 4 feet (0.9-1.2 m) within 2 years [20].

Control:  Mature bush chinquapin sprouts after initial herbicide
spraying and requires repeated treatments to effect a high percentage of
kill.  Foliar sprays of phenoxy herbicides applied in early spring are
effective [15].  Bush chinquapin cover was significantly (p>0.05) reduced
on a burn planted with Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) following treatment
with 2,4,5-T [5].

Diseases:  Bush chinquapin is susceptible to oak wilt, a potentially
lethal disease caused by a fungal pathogen (Ceratocyctic fagacearum).
Oak wilt is spreading westward from the Great Plains area [38].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Bush chinquapin is a monecious, native, evergreen, schlerophyllous
shrub.  It may grow up to 8 feet (2.5 m) tall [9] but is typically from
1 to 5 feet (0.3-1.5 m) in height [22].  Plants have a prostrate to
spreading, round-topped growth form [9].  Male catkins are produced from
the tips of terminal and side branches [26].  One to three female
flowers grow at the base of the male catkins or on short separate
catkins [9,24].  The fruit is a nut with a woody seed coat enveloped by
a densely burred involucre [9,26,32].  Nuts contain from one to three
seeds, usually one [33].  No information concerning the bark thickness
or rooting habit of bush chinquapin is available.


RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Phanerophyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Chinquapins are wind pollinated [29].  The age of sexual maturity and
maximum seed production are not reported in the literature.  Most seed
falls under the parent.  Some seed may be disseminated by animals when
the nut burs catch on furs or hides.  Other seed is dissemminated by
seed-eating birds and rodents [30].  Seed predation is high [24].  Some
seed is probably buried by seed-caching animals, and unconsumed seed so
buried may have higher rates of germination.  Germination is hypogeal
and occurs from 16 to 25 days after nuts split and release seed.  Cold
stratification does not increase germination rates.  Investigations of
fresh seed viability are scant, but one study showed 30 percent
germination of seeds 25 days following sowing.  Chinquapins seeds has
remained viable for 5 years with cold, dry laboratory storage [24].
Research on the long-term viability of seed in seed banks is lacking.


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Bush chinquapin grows on steep, often south-facing slopes within the
coniferous forest zone [22,23,43].  It is also found on the more gentle
slopes of that zone where disturbance has removed the original forest
cover [23].  Low-growing forms of this shrub occur above timberline and
can be found on Sonora, Tioga, and Carson passes [39].  Bush chinquapin
occurs as high as 12,000 feet (3,658 m) [26] but is most common from
1,500 to 6,000 feet (459-1,829 m) in elevation [22].

The climate of montane chaparral is dry in summer, with precipitation
usually plentiful from October until May.  Some precipitation is in the
form of snow.  One 5,500-foot (1,676 m) site on the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, California, receives an average of 38 inches (985 mm)
of annual precipitation, half as snow [6].  Soil conditions are
generally the same as those of adjacent coniferous forests [18].

Overstory associates not listed in Distribution and Occurrence include
sequoia, sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), incense-cedar (Libocedrus
decurrens), Sierra western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis var.
australis), Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), and Pacific dogwood (Curnus nuttallii) [2,12,19,34,35].

Shrub associates not previously mentioned include Sierra mountain
misery, pinemat manzanita (Arctoshaphylos nevadensis), Saskatoon
serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), sharpleaf snowberry
(Symphoricarpos mollis), Parish snowberry (S. parishii), huckleberry oak
(Quercus vaccinifolia), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata)
[2,8,19,34,43].

Herbaceous associates include bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),
feather Solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa), rockcress (Arabis
platysperma), Penstemon spp., fleabane (Erigeron breweri), and goosefoot
violet (Viola purpurea).  Grass associates are few but include crested
stipa (Stipa coronata var. depauperata), California needlegrass (S.
californica), bluebunch wheatgrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus
elymoides) [2,31,34,35,41].


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Facultative Seral Species

Montane chaparral is seral to various coniferous forests [4].  Bush
chinquapin is an enhanced survivor in these early- to mid-seral
communities.  Its cover is greatest in the late mid-seral stage, when
tree canopy begins to close [8].  Bush chinquapin is moderately shade
tolerant and grows in the lower strata of near-climax open coniferous
forests.  When fire is excluded from coniferous forests for long periods
of time, bush chinquapin is shaded out [19,43].

Montane chaparral represents a topographic or edaphic climax on some
sites, such as steep, south-facing slopes or areas with shallow rocky
soil.  Bush chinquapin is considered part of climax vegetation on such
sites [22,23,43].


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
Plants flower continuously from July through September in most of their
range [9,33].  Bush chinquapin on the western edge of the Great Basin
bloom from June until the onset of winter [32].  Seed ripens in the late
summer or early fall of the second year of development [9,24,26,32].
Nuts open in mid-fall [25,26].    

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
Bush chinquapin survives fire by sprouting from the roots, root crown,
and stump when aboveground portions of the plant have burned
[9,30,32,40].  Because bush chinquapin occurs in many plant communities,
natural fire regimes vary.  Thickets growing in rock outcrops escape
fire for long periods of time [12].  Plants in the understory of
coniferous forests historically burned often.  Mixed coniferous,
sequoia, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Jeffrey pine forests
burned at 2- to 8-year intervals prior to fire suppression [4].
Frequent fire in these forests favors understories of bush chinquapin
over understories of coniferous seedlings [23].  High-elevation thickets
of bush chinquapin in the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) cover type
typically escape burning for 50 to 300 years [1].


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
   Geophyte, growing points deep in soil

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin 



IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Fire top-kills bush chinquapin [4,30].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
Very little research has been conducted on postfire recovery of bush
chinquapin.  Most sprouting schlerophyllous shrubs of California and
Oregon begin growth within weeks of fire, even when soils are dry [10].
Bush chinquapin presumably sprouts soon after fire.  Following a
wildfire of unreported severity in a mixed coniferous forest of the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest, bush chinquapin sprouts did not grow as
quickly as greenleaf manzanita seedlings but outcompeted snowbrush
ceanothus.  Bush chinquapin density at postfire year 5 was 9,650 plants
per acre (3,860 plants/ha), with plants averaging 1.7 feet (0.6 m) in
height.  There were no bush chinquapin seedlings present [30].  Reports
of seedling colonization of other burn sites were not found in the
literature.

Montane chaparral species, including bush chinquapin, recover from fire
more slowly than species of other types of chaparral due to the shorter
growing season [22].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
NO-ENTRY


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Countryman [11] supplies data regarding characteristics of bush
chinquapin fuel, including ash content, density, surface-to-volume
ratio, heating value (Btu/lb), and weight of solvent extractives present
in leaves.  He also details fuelbed characteristics of bush chinquapin
and mixed bush chinquapin-mountain whitethorn-snowbush ceanothus stands,
including standing fuel loading and standing fuel vertical distribution,
dead fuel loading, and litter loading.  Carpenter [6] provides data
regarding seasonal moisture content of bush chinquapin leaves, twigs,
and stems.

Frequent fires in ponderosa or Jeffrey pine forests following logging
operations may convert these communities to montane chaparral [23].

References for species: Chrysolepis sempervirens

1. Arno, Stephen F. 1986. Whitebark pine cone crops--a diminishing source of wildlife food? Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 3: 92-94. [341]

2. Bancroft, Larry. 1979. Fire management plan: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Region. 190 p. [11887]

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, Harold H. 1974. Effects of fire on chaparral. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 321-364. [14547]

5. Bock, Jane H.; Raphael, Martin; Bock, Carl E. 1978. A comparison of planting and natural succession after a forest fire in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Applied Ecology. 15: 597-602. [480]

6. Carpenter, Stanley B.; Bentley, Jay R.; Graham, Charles A. 1970. Moisture contents of brushland fuels desiccated for burning. Res. Note PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. [13588]

7. Chan, Franklin J.; Wong, Raymond M. 1989. Reestablishment of native riparian species at an altered high elevation site. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 428-435. [13771]

8. 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]

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. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California. Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington. 145 p. [6716]

11. Countryman, Clive M. 1982. Physical characteristics of some northern California brush fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-61. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [4177]

12. Dawson, Kerry J.; Greco, Steven E. 1991. Prescribed fire and visual resources in Sequoia National Park. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 192-201. [16650]

13. 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]

14. 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]

15. Gratkowski, H. 1975. Silvicultural use of herbicides in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-37. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [10998]

16. Griffin, James R.; Critchfield, William B. 1972. The distribution of forest trees in California. Res. Pap. PSW-82. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 118 p. [1041]

17. Griggs, F. Thomas. 1988. Plan major forest, wetland restoration (California). Restoration & Management Notes. 6(1): 40. [5421]

18. Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 417-469. [7216]

19. 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]

20. Heald, Robert C. 1986. Management of giant sequoia at Blodgett Forest Research Station. In: Weatherspoon, C. Phillip; Iwamoto, Y. Robert; Piirto, Douglas D., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the workshop on management of giant sequoia; 1985 May 24-25; Reedley, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-95. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 37-39. [9810]

21. Hjelmquist, H. 1960. Notes on some names and combinations within the Amentiferae. Botaniska Notiser. 113(4): 373-380. [7536]

22. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

23. Horton, Jerome S. 1960. Vegetation types of the San Bernardino Mountains. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [10687]

24. Hubbard, R. L. 1974. Castanopsis (D.Don) Spach chinkapin. 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: 276-277. [7573]

25. Krochmal, Arnold; Krochmal, Connie. 1982. Uncultivated nuts of the United States. Agriculture Information Bulletin 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 89 p. [1377]

26. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]

27. 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]

28. 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]

29. McArthur, E. Durant. 1989. Breeding systems in shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.: 341-361. [8039]

30. McDonald, Philip M.; Fiddler, Gary O. 1990. Ponderosa pine seedlings and competing vegetation: ecology, growth, and cost. Res. Pap. PSW-199. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 10 p. [15769]

31. McNeil, Robert Curlan. 1975. Vegetation and fire history of a ponderosa pine - white fir forest in Crater Lake National Park. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 171 p. Thesis. [5737]

32. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]

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

34. Myatt, Rodney G. 1980. Canyon live oak vegetation in the Sierra Nevada. In: Plumb, Timothy R., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology, management and utilization of California oaks; 1979 June 26-28; Claremont, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 86-91. [7019]

35. Pase, Charles P. 1982. Sierran subalpine conifer forest. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 40-41. [8883]

36. 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]

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

38. Riffle, Jerry W.; Peterson, Glenn W., technical coordinators. 1986. Diseases of trees in the Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-129. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 149 p. [16989]

39. Roof, J. B. 1970. Some brief acquaintances with chinquapins-II. Four Seasons. 3(2): 15-19. [8094]

40. 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]

41. Taylor, Alan H.; Halpern, Charles B. 1991. The structure and dynamics of Abies magnifica forests in the southern Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2(2): 189-200. [15768]

42. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California. 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: 1-31. [3289]

43. Hughes, Lee E. 1982. A grazing system in the Mohave Desert. Rangelands. 4(6): 256-257. [4214]

44. 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]

Related categories for Species: Chrysolepis sempervirens | Bush Chinquapin