• ABBREVIATION
• SYNONYMS
• NRCS PLANT CODE
• COMMON NAMES
• TAXONOMY
• LIFE FORM
• FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS
• OTHER STATUS
• AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION

ABBREVIATION:

CHRVIS

SYNONYMS:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. lanceolatus (Nutt) Greene - mountain low rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. puberulus (D.C. Easton) Jepson - downy rabbitbrush [19,89]
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. viscidiflorus - stickyleaf low rabbitbrush [19,37,89]

NRCS PLANT CODE:

CHVI8
CHVI4
CHVIL4
CHVIP3
CHNIP4
CHVIV2
CHVIS5
CHVIV4

COMMON NAMES:

green rabbitbrush
low rabbitbrush
Douglas rabbitbrush [11] :

TAXONOMY:

The fully documented scientific name of green rabbitbrush is Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt. (Asteraceae). Several subspecies and varieties with somewhat different geographic distributions, habitat preferences, and morphologies have been recognized [7]. Intermediate forms exist between some subspecies [57]. Infrataxa of green rabbitbrush are:

subspecies:
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. axillaris (Keck) L. Anderson [36]
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus (Nutt.) H.M. Hall & Clements [31,36,87]   mountain low rabbitbrush, lanceleaf rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus (D.C. Eaton) H.M. Hall & Clements [36]   downy rabbitbrush, hairy low rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus spp. viscidiflorus [31,36,87]  stickyleaf low rabbitbrush, varied-leaf green rabbitbrush

varieties:
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. latifolius (D.C. Eaton) Greene [19]
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. stenophyllus (Gray) Hall [41,89]  yellow rabbitbrush, low rabbitbrush

LIFE FORM:

shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No legal status

OTHER STATUS:

No entry

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Tirmenstein, D. (1999, April). Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus. In: Remainder of Citation

• GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
• ECOSYSTEMS
• STATES
• BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
• KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS
• SAF COVER TYPES
• SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES
• HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Green rabbitbrush is one of the most widely distributed shrubs on rangelands throughout western North America. It occurs from British Columbia south to southeastern California and east to North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Distribution by subspecies is as follows [10]:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus - southern British Columbia to northern New Mexico
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus - Great Basin
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus - southern California and northern Arizona to northern Washington and western Montana eastward to northwestern Nebraska

ECOSYSTEMS:

FRES17 	Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES20 	Douglas-fir
FRES21 	Ponderosa pine
FRES23 	Fir-spruce
FRES29 	Sagebrush
FRES30 	Desert shrub
FRES34 	Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 	Pinyon-juniper

STATES:

AZ  CA  CO  ID  MT  NE  NV  NM  ND  OR
SD  TX  UT  WA  WY 

BC  SK 

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:

 5  Columbia Plateau
 6  Upper Basin and Range
 7  Lower Basin and Range
12  Colorado Plateau

KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K011  Western ponderosa forest  		
K012  Douglas-fir forest 
K015  Western spruce-fir forest
K016  Eastern ponderosa forest  		
K017  Black Hills pine forest		
K018  Pine-Douglas-fir forest		
K019  Arizona pine forest 		
K021  Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K023  Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024  Juniper steppe woodland
K037  Mountain mahogany-oak scrub
K038  Great Basin sagebrush
K039  Blackbrush
K040  Saltbush-greasewood
K041  Creosotebush
K046  Desert; vegetation largely lacking
K051  Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K052  Alpine meadows and barren
K055  Sagebrush steppe
K056  Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057  Galleta-three-awn shrubsteppe
K063  Foothills prairie
K064  Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K065  Grama-buffalograss
K067  Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
K098  Northern floodplain forest

SAF COVER TYPES:

210  Interior Douglas-fir
219  Limber pine
220  Rocky Mountain juniper
237  Interior ponderosa pine
238  Western juniper
239  Pinyon-juniper

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:

104   Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 	
107   Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
210   Bitterbrush 
212   Blackbush 
302   Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass	
303   Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass 	
314   Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass	
315   Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue	
317   Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass	
322   Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass
324   Threetip sagebrush-Idaho fescue	
401   Basin big sagebrush	
402   Mountain big sagebrush
403   Wyoming big sagebrush	
404   Threetip sagebrush	
405   Black sagebrush	
406   Low sagebrush	
412   Juniper-pinyon woodland	
414   Salt desert shrub	
415   Curlleaf mountain-mahogany	
421   Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose	
501   Saltbush-greasewood	
611   Blue grama-buffalograss	
612   Sagebrush-grass	
615   Wheatgrass-saltgrass-grama
708   Bluestem-dropseed

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus grows with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.), and other rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.). Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus is most commonly found in big sagebrush communities with other subspecies of low rabbitbrush, as well as with salt-tolerant species such as halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), and winterfat (Krascheninnikova lanata). It is occasionally found with pinyon (Pinus spp.) and juniper (Juniperus spp.). Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus is most common in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and pinyon-juniper. It is associated with salt-tolerant shadscale, halogeton, and winterfat at lower elevations. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. stenophyllus is usually found in sagebrush communities on poor soils and disturbed sites. It also grows in more saline areas.

Community classifications in which green rabbitbrush is described as a dominant species are as follows:

An ecological reconnaissance of the Artemisia steppe on the east central Owyhee uplands of Oregon [20]
Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon [50]
Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) and longleaf snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) plant associations in northeastern Nevada [82]

• IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
• PALATABILITY
• NUTRITIONAL VALUE
• COVER VALUE
• VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
• OTHER USES AND VALUES
• MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Green rabbitbrush provides an important source of browse for livestock and wildlife, particularly in the late fall and early winter after more palatable species have been depleted. Livestock and wild ungulates show varying preference for green rabbitbrush depending on season, locality, and subspecies. Mature or partially mature plants are generally preferred to green, immature ones [55]. McArthur and Meyer [57] report that the subspecies Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus is often heavily used by both livestock and wildlife.

In southeastern Idaho, green rabbitbrush plants may be almost completely consumed by black-tailed jackrabbits during the winter and early spring [5]. Black-tailed jackrabbit use generally occurs when plants are dormant [21]. In south-central Idaho, mountain cottontail also feed on green rabbitbrush [39].

White-tailed deer in Montana feed on green rabbitbrush during the winter and early spring [2]. In the Missouri Breaks, mule deer consume this shrub during fall, winter, and spring. Some winter elk use has also been reported in the Missouri Breaks [51]. Green rabbitbrush furnishes some food for pronghorns in Utah [41,81]. Pronghorn browse it during spring and summer in southern Oregon [96].

Domestic sheep feed on Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus on spring pastures in southeastern Idaho [48].

PALATABILITY:

Palatability of green rabbitbrush varies by subspecies [56]. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus is palatable to both livestock and wildlife. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulusis rated as "low" in palatability [75]. Palatability by subspecies has been rated as follows [24]:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus

                        MT        UT       WY
Cattle                  ----  	  poor     poor
Sheep                   ----      fair     fair
Horses                  ----      poor     poor
Pronghorn               poor      fair     good
Elk                     poor      fair     good
Mule deer               good      fair     good
Small mammals           ----      fair     good
Small nongame birds     ----      poor     fair
Upland game birds       ----      fair     fair
Waterfowl               ----      poor     poor

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus    
         	
                        UT        WY
Cattle                  poor      poor 
Sheep                   fair      poor         
Horses                  poor      poor
Pronghorn               fair      ----
Mule deer               poor      ----    
Small mammals           good      ----
Small nongame birds     fair      ----        
Upland game birds       poor      ----
Waterfowl               poor      ---- 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. pumilus  
                
                        MT        WY
Cattle                  poor      poor
Sheep                   fair      fair
Horses                  poor      fair

 
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus

                       CO       MT        UT        WY
Cattle              	poor     poor      fair      poor
Sheep               	poor     poor      good      fair
Horses                 poor     poor      poor      fair
Pronghorn              ----     ----      fair      good
Elk                    good     ----      fair      ----
Mule deer              fair     ----      good      good
Small mammals          ----     ----      fair      good
Small nongame birds    ----     ----      fair      fair
Upland game birds      ----     ----      fair      fair
Waterfowl              ----     ----      poor      poor

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

Protein and energy levels in green rabbitbrush are rated poor to fair [24]. Nutritional value (%) of fresh green rabbitbrush is as follows [68]:

dry       ash      crude     ether      N-free      protein
matter    fiber    extract   extract    (N x 6.25)         
100.0     8.0      23.8      5.4        49.4        13.4

COVER VALUE:

Green rabbitbrush provides important cover for pronghorn fawns [81]. It also provides nesting cover for sage grouse in southeastern Oregon and for waterfowl on sand dunes of eastern Washington [32,34]. Green rabbitbrush provides nesting cover for some species of songbirds including the Brewer's sparrow and sage sparrow [70]. Generalized cover value by subspecies is as follows [24]:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus   

                     UT      WY
Elk                  poor    poor
Mule deer            poor    poor
White-tailed deer    ----    poor
Pronghorn            poor    ----
Upland game birds    good    good
Waterfowl            poor    poor
Small nongame birds  good    good
Small mammals        good    good

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus
     
                     UT      WY
Elk                  poor    ----
Mule deer            poor    ----
White-tailed deer    ----    fair
Pronghorn            poor    ----
Upland game birds    poor    ----
Waterfowl            poor    ----
Small nongame birds  fair    ----
Small mammals        fair    ----

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus 

                     UT     
Elk                  poor   
Mule deer            poor   
Pronghorn            poor   
Upland game birds    fair    
Waterfowl            poor    
Small nongame birds  fair     
Small mammals        fair    

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Green rabbitbrush is well suited for revegetating disturbed sites such as road cuts, strip mines, and depleted rangelands due to its prolific seed production and relatively high germination rates [14, 50]. It can be used for erosion control and to stabilize mass soil slippage and increase surface stability [38]. In the Wasatch Mountains of Utah, green rabbitbrush has been successfully used to stabilize soils on subalpine sites [71]. Once plants are established, growth is rapid. Subsequent spread is by seed. Two years of rest from grazing is recommended after seeding [75].

Establishment by direct seeding in late fall and winter is good to fair [72]. Seed can be difficult to collect, however [65]. Vegetative propagation from stem cuttings produces "poor" results [38]. Three- to 5-month-old rabbitbrush can be successfully transplanted onto disturbed sites [23]. Seed is commercially available [22].

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

Green rabbitbrush can be a source of rubber and possibly valuable resins [35].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Green rabbitbrush is killed by various herbicides, but control is difficult. For best control, the soil should be moist within 4 inches (10 cm) of the surface [63]. Detailed information on response to herbicides is available [26,49,81,90,92].

After a disturbance, there is a delay before green rabbitbrush reaches peak achene production in response to reduced competition. This is the appropriate time to conduct site rehabilitation if reduction of green rabbitbrush is a management objective. Seed and seedling production do not cease after the initial reproductive surge, but massive establishment will not occur if other species (especially perennial grasses) have already taken advantage of the site potential [98].

Green rabbitbrush is tolerant of grazing and may be "rejuvenated" by foliage removal [81]. In parts of the Great Basin, plants regrew rapidly after they were nearly completely consumed by spring-browsing black-tailed jackrabbits. There was no difference in biomass between browsed and unbrowsed plants by July [5]. Shrub control measures such as chaining may stimulate sprouting in green rabbitbrush [90]. Green rabbitbrush commonly increases on degraded rangelands as more palatable species are removed [16].

• GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM
• REGENERATION PROCESSES
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• SUCCESSIONAL STATUS
• SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

Green rabbitbrush is a low native shrub growing from 1 to 3.6 feet (0.3-1.1 m) with many brittle, erect stems branching from a compact base [57]. The species has a large geographic range and wide ecological amplitude. Leaves are deciduous [89]. Disc flowers are borne in terminal cymes [16]. The main taproot is at least 1.9 feet deep (0.6 m), and many major secondary roots extend laterally [61]. Plants are relatively short lived (approximately 12-13 years). Their senescence and attrition from some densely populated stands on early successional sites is related to infestation by larvae of the beetle Acamaeodera pulchella. Where green rabbitbrush is scattered within late-seral big sagebrush stands, there is a lower level of infestation [98].

RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Green rabbitbrush produces an abundance of small, viable, plumed seeds [69,86]. Seeds are easily dispersed even long distances by wind [69]. A stratification period does not appear to be necessary but may speed germination. In eastern Oregon, seedlings established in grass and litter on the northeast sides of older rabbitbrush and sagebrush plants. They also established on north-facing slopes of small mounds or indentations made by animals. Seedling mortality in these sites was greater than 50% by June 12. Established seedlings do not persist unless late spring rains replenish soil moisture. Green rabbitbrush establishment during dry years is unlikely because seedling roots do not elongate deeply enough before surface moisture is depleted [59]. Seedlings do not appear to originate from seed banked in soil [98,99].

Green rabbitbrush resprouts vigorously [95].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

It is well adapted to drought and occurs in desert or semi-desert environments [6,20]. Green rabbitbrush grows on open ridges, on slopes, and along drainageways [38]. It grows on dry, well-drained medium to coarse-textured soils and exhibits fair salt tolerance [46, 55,69]. Green rabbitbrush grows on alkaline soils and exhibits an affinity for calcium [53].

Subspecies overlap in range but have somewhat different ecological requirements [58]. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus is fairly common in dry foothills and mountainous habitats. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus generally occurs at lower elevations on dry plains, valleys, and foothills, particularly on poorer soils and in disturbed areas. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus grows on soils with a pH of 6.0 to 8.4 [10].

Green rabbitbrush is most commonly found at elevations between 2,600 and 11,000 feet (790 and 3,350 m) [37,90]. Elevational ranges for several subspecies are as follows [10]:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus 976 to 11,000 feet (297-2,590 m)
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus 4,200 to 10,000 feet (1,280-13,48 m)
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus 850 to 12,800 feet (259-3,901 m)

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Green rabbitbrush quickly and aggressively invades disturbed open sites including burns and overgrazed rangelands [7,12,86,90]. It is a seral species in sagebrush communities and occupies disturbed areas such as burns after competing vegetation has been removed [28,29]. This shrub persists in small numbers in naturally disturbed areas such as washes, sand dunes, and talus slopes [100]. However, it attains dominance only on highly disturbed early seral sites [84]. Green rabbitbrush often remains dominant for the first 15 years after disturbance, but then declines and is replaced by species such as big sagebrush [90]. In a Nevada study, individual plants become senescent in about 12 years [101]. Longevity may vary with subspecies, however. Tueller and Payne [81] report that Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. latifolius persists for approximately 10 years. In pinyon-juniper communities, green rabbitbrush is considered an early to mid-seral species [43].

Green rabbitbrush may continue as a minor component in stands near or at climax condition [29]. Green rabbitbrush is much reduced in 40- to 50-year-old stands [45]. One reason for the limited longevity of some green rabbitbrush stands may be infestation by the larvae of Aemaeodera. Elimination of green rabbitbrush plants or reduction of vigor makes the site more susceptible to invasion by sagebrush or other late successional species.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

The phenological development of green rabbitbrush varies by elevation, climate, and infrataxa. Restricted vegetative growth begins in early spring, with a period of accelerated growth occurring in late spring. Vegetative growth levels off just before flowering [81].

Flowering usually begins in mid- to late summer [89]. Green rabbitbrush flowers during summer in all but the most extreme drought years [86]. Seed ripens from late fall to early winter [89]. Seeds generally begin sprouting in March and continue sprouting into June. The following table gives a generalized comparison of flowering development of various subspecies [24]:

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus

            Begin        	Full            End
State       Flowering      	Flowering       Flowering
---------------------------------------------------------	
UT          May         	Aug.		Aug.
CO          June                Aug.            Sept.
WY          July                July            Sept.
MT          July                Aug.            Aug.

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus 

            Begin          	Full            End
State       Flowering      	Flowering       Flowering
---------------------------------------------------------
WY          July            	Aug.            Aug.
MT          May             	Aug.            Aug.

Phenological development for Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. 
puberulus in Idaho was [15]:

Leaf growth starts             	4/13
Twig growth starts             	5/24
Fl. buds visible               	6/30
First bloom                    	7/27
Full bloom                     	8/18
Bloom over                     	9/8
Seed ripe                      	9/2
Dissemination over               10/10

Young and Evans [97] report that green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus 
viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus) undergoes 2 phases of 
branch elongation between bud burst and flowering.  A period of 
restricted growth in early spring is followed by accelerated 
growth in late spring and early summer. 

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Green rabbitbrush regenerates after fire by sprouting and by establishing from off-site seed.

Green rabbitbrush is commonly observed on burned sites in west-central Utah [12]. Burning temporarily eliminates big sagebrush and other plants that compete for resources such as water or space. Release from competition stimulates green rabbitbrush to produce large numbers of viable achenes that are widely dispersed by wind. Seedlings that emerge from these achenes establish successfully because of their rapid root elongation [59,60].

The range of fire intervals reported for some species that dominate communities where green rabbitbrush occurs are listed below. To learn more about the fire regimes in those communities refer to the FEIS summary for that species, under "Fire Ecology or Adaptations."

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa): 2 to 42 years
Mexican pinyon (P. cembroides): 20 to 70 years

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:

Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)

• IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT
• PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE
• FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Green rabbitbrush is usually top-killed by fire [45,54]. It has high resin content, and both foliage and stems may be consumed, even with relatively high moisture content. Fuel distribution as well as overall fuel loading affects the potential survival of green rabbitbrush [101].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

The potential damage done to the plant is affected by the proximity of other shrubs, which provide additional fuel and higher fire intensity. With higher intensity or a longer burnout time, there is a greater chance of lethal heating of basal buds [101].

In sagebrush-grass communities of the Great Basin, burning during flowering when carbohydrate levels are at their lowest can be most deleterious to rabbitbrush species. If plants are defoliated by insects or browsing ungulates prior to burning they may lack sufficient reserves to resprout [69].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Green rabbitbrush sprouts vigorously after fire [1,45,78]. Sprouts originate from epicormic buds located just below the soil surface [69]. Typically, a single shoot appears the first year after burning [91,99]. Green rabbitbrush also reestablishes rapidly through seeds which may be carried relatively long distances [1]. Response to fire could vary by subspecies [69].

Green rabbitbrush often increases on burned range sites [46]. Production may be reduced for 1 to 3 years after fire, but then increases rapidly [45,66]. Studies have documented a 4- to 9-fold increase in production within the first 20 years after fire in northeastern Idaho [37]. After fire near Dubois, Idaho, production was reduced by 59% in the first postfire year [95]. Three years after the fire, production had doubled relative to preburn levels. It had tripled at the end of 12 years [95].

Green rabbitbrush is relatively short lived and is eventually overtaken by reinvading sagebrush. In sagebrush-grass communities of Nevada, recovery of green rabbitbrush to preburn levels may occur within 20 to 25 years, with green rabbitbrush much reduced in 40- to 50-year-old stands [45,69].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

Green rabbitbrush sprouts vigorously after fire [1,45,78]. Sprouts originate from epicormic buds located just below the soil surface [69]. Typically, a single shoot appears the first year after burning [91,99]. Green rabbitbrush also reestablishes rapidly through seeds which may be carried relatively long distances [1]. Response to fire could vary by subspecies [69].

Green rabbitbrush often increases on burned range sites [46]. Production may be reduced for 1 to 3 years after fire, but then increases rapidly [45,66]. Studies have documented a 4- to 9-fold increase in production within the first 20 years after fire in northeastern Idaho [37]. After fire near Dubois, Idaho, production was reduced by 59% in the first postfire year [95]. Three years after the fire, production had doubled relative to preburn levels. It had tripled at the end of 12 years [95].

Green rabbitbrush is relatively short lived and is eventually overtaken by reinvading sagebrush. In sagebrush-grass communities of Nevada, recovery of green rabbitbrush to preburn levels may occur within 20 to 25 years, with green rabbitbrush much reduced in 40- to 50-year-old stands [45,69].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Green rabbitbrush produces small stems and seed stalks annually which die but remain on the plant for a year or more. During drought periods, this dry, dead material may increase fuel accumulation and contribute to the spread of fire [64].

The recovery of green rabbitbrush after fire depends on both its ability to resprout after fire and its production of large numbers of achenes when released from competition. To prevent massive reestablishment of green rabbitbrush, potential treatment sites should be chosen carefully. An adequate cover of perennial grasses and forbs reduces green rabbitbrush reproduction. In northern Nevada, a density of not less than 2.5 perennial grass plants/m² is recommended [98].

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus: References

1. Akinsoji, Aderopo. 1988. Postfire vegetation dynamics in a sagebrush steppe in southeastern Idaho, USA. Vegetatio. 78: 151-155. [6944]

2. Allen, Eugene O. 1968. Range use, foods, condition, and productivity of white-tailed deer in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(1): 130-141. [16331]

3. Anderson, Jay E.; Holte, Karl E. 1981. Vegetation development over 25 years without grazing on sagebrush-dominated rangeland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 34(1): 25-29. [319]

4. Anderson, Jay E.; Jeppson, R. J.; Wildosz, R. J.; [and others]. 1978. Trends in vegetation development on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site. In: Markham, O. D., ed. Ecological studies on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site: 1978 Progress Report. IDO-112087. Idaho Falls, ID: U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Sciences Branch, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Lab: 144-166. [320]

5. Anderson, Jay E.; Shumar, Mark L. 1986. Impacts of black-tailed jackrabbits at peak population densities on sagebrush vegetation. Journal of Range Management. 39(2): 152-155. [322]

6. Anderson, Loran C. 1975. Modes of adaptation to desert conditions in Chrysothamnus. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Symposium and workshop proceedings; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University: 141. Abstract. [325]

7. Anderson, Loran C. 1980. Identity of narrow-leaved Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (Asteraceae). The Great Basin Naturalist. 40(2): 117-120. [326]

8. Anderson, Loran C. 1981. Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. iridis (Asteraceae): a new endemic from Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 311-313. [327]

9. Anderson, Loran C. 1986. An overview of the genus Chrysothamnus (Asteraceae). In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 29-45. [328]

10. Anderson, Loran C. 1986. Cytogeography of Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 93-97. [329]

11. Astroth, Kirk A.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--research on the Benmore Experimental Range, 1940-84. Gen. Tech, Rep. INT-175. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [361]

12. Barney, Milo A.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1974. Vegetation changes following fire in the pinyon-juniper type of west-central Utah. Journal of Range Management. 27(2): 91-96. [397]

13. Beetle, Alan A. 1962. Range survey in Teton County, Wyoming: Part 2. Utilization and condition classes. Bull. 400. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 38 p. [418]

14. 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]

15. Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climatic factors. Tech. Bull. 1190. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 68 p. [463]

16. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464]

17. Clary, Warren P. 1988. Plant density and cover response to several seeding techniques following wildfire. Res. Note INT-384. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 p. [5609]

18. Cottam, W. P.; Stewart, George. 1940. Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862. Journal of Forestry. 38(8): 613-626. [696]

19. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. [28653]

20. Culver, Roger Norman. 1964. An ecological reconnaissance of the Artemisia steppe on the east central Owyhee uplands of Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 99 p. Thesis. [723]

21. Currie, Pat O.; Goodwin, D. L. 1966. Consumption of forages by black-tailed jackrabbits on salt-desert ranges of Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 30(2): 304-311. [25015]

22. Davenport Seed Corporation. 1997. Rainier Seed., Inc. [Catalog]. Davenport, WA: Davenport Seed Corporation. 20 p. [27624]

23. Deitschman, Glenn H.; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1974. Chrysothamnus Nutt. rabbitbrush. 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: 326-328. [7589]

24. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]

25. Donart, Gary B. 1969. Carbohydrate reserves of six mountain range plants as related to growth. Journal of Range Management. 22(6): 411-415. [817]

26. Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Evans, Raymond A. 1968. Chemical control of low sagebrush and associated green rabbitbrush. Journal of Range Management. 21: 325-328. [841]

27. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

28. Gabbert, W. D.; Schultz, B. W.; Angerer, J. P.; Ostler, W. K. 1995. Plant succession on disturbed sites in four plant associations in the northern Mojave Desert. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Haley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K., compilers. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 183-188. [24846]

29. Ganskopp, David C. 1986. Tolerances of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and greasewood to elevated water tables. Journal of Range Management. 39(4): 334-337. [991]

30. 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]

31. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]

32. Gregg, Michael A.; Crawford, John A.; Drut, Martin S.; DeLong, Anita K. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(1): 162-166. [25626]

33. Hargis, Christina; McCarthy, Clinton. 1986. Vegetation changes following a prescribed burn on a Great Basin meadow. In: Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 22: 47-51. [15955]

34. Harris, Stanley W. 1954. An ecological study of the waterfowl of the Potholes Area, Grant County, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 52(2): 403-432. [11207]

35. Hegerhorst, D. F.; Weber, D. J.; McArthur, E. D.; Khan, A. J. 1987. Chemical analysis and comparison of subspecies of Chrysothamnus nauseosus and other related species. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 15(2): 201-208. [3636]

36. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

37. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]

38. Institute for Land Rehabilitation. 1979. Selection, propagation, and field establishment of native plant species on disturbed arid lands. Bulletin 500. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 49 p. [1237]

39. Johnson, Mark K.; Hansen, Richard M. 1979. Foods of cottontails and woodrats in south-central Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy. 60(1): 213-215. [23859]

40. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

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. Klebenow, Donald A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 649-662. [26035]

43. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371]

44. 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]

45. Kuntz, David Edward. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/ Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 73 p. Thesis. [1388]

46. Kunzler, L. M.; Harper, K. T.; Kunzler, D. B. 1981. Compositional similarity within the oakbrush type in central and northern Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(1): 147-153. [1390]

47. Lauer, Jerry L.; Peek, James M. 1976. Big game-livestock relationships on the bighorn sheep winter range, East Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Bulletin No. 12. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [1417]

48. Laycock, William A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management. 20: 206-213. [1421]

49. Laycock, William A.; Phillips, Thomas A. 1968. Long-term effects of 2,4-D on lanceleaf rabbitbrush and associated species. Journal of Range Management. 21: 90-93. [1426]

50. Lewis, Mont E. 1971. Flora and major plant communities of the Ruby-East Humboldt Mountains with special emphasis on Lamoille Canyon. Elko, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Humboldt National Forest. 62 p. [1450]

51. Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs No. 20. 79 p. [5897]

52. Madany, Michael H.; West, Neil E. 1984. Vegetation of two relict mesas in Zion National Park. Journal of Range Management. 37(5): 456-461. [6883]

53. Marchand, Denis E. 1973. Edaphic control of plant distribution in the White Mountains, eastern California. Ecology. 54(2): 233-250. [1521]

54. Martin, Robert E.; Dell, John D. 1978. Planning for prescribed burning in the Inland Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-76. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 67 p. [18621]

55. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens, Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571]

56. McArthur, E. Durant; Giunta, Bruce C.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Shrubs for restoration of depleted range and disturbed areas. Utah Science. 35: 28-33. [25035]

57. McArthur, E. Durant; Meyer, Susan E. 1987. A review of the taxonomy and distribution of Chrysothamnus. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 4th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Chrysothamnus; 1986 September 17-18; Cedar City, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 9-17. [2718]

58. McArthur, E. Durant; Stevens, Richard. 1986. Composite shrubs. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Labortory, Missoula, MT. 155 p. [7342]

59. McKell, Cyrus M. 1956. Some characteristics contributing to the establishment of rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus spp. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State College. 130 p. Dissertation. [1609]

60. McKell, Cyrus M.; Chilcote, William W. 1957. Response of rabbitbrush following removal of competing vegetation. Journal of Range Management. 10: 228-230. [1613]

61. Melgoza, Graciela; Nowak, Robert S. 1991. Competition between cheatgrass and two native species after fire: implications from observations and measurements of root distribution. Journal of Range Management. 44(1): 27-33. [15492]

62. Menke, John W.; Trlica, M. J. 1981. Carbohydrate reserve, phenology, and growth cycles of nine Colorado range species. Journal of Range Management. 34(4): 269-277. [1639]

63. Mohan, Joseph M. 1973. 14 Years of rabbitbrush control in central Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 26(6): 448-451. [1669]

64. Monsen, Stephen B. 1994. Selection of plants for fire suppression on semiarid sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 363-373. [24310]

65. Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard. 1987. Seed and seeding characteristics of rabbitbrush. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 4th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Chrysothamnus; 1986 September 17-18; Cedar City, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 41-49. [2722]

66. Mueggler, Walter F. 1976. Ecological role of fire in western woodland and range ecosystems. In: Use of prescribed burning in western woodland and range ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1976 March 18-19; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station: 1-9. [1709]

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

68. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 p. [1731]

69. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747]

70. Petersen, Kenneth L.; Best, Louis B. 1987. Effects of prescribed burning on nongame birds in a sagebrush community. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15: 317-329. [173]

71. Plummer, A. Perry. 1974. Morphogenesis and management of woody perennials in the United States. In: Plant morphogenesis as the basis for scientific management of range resources: Proceedings of a Workshop of the U.S./Australia Rangelands Panel. Berkley, CA: 72-80. [1898]

72. 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]

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

74. Robertson, Joseph H.; Cords, H. P. 1957. Survival of rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus spp., following chemical, burning, and mechanical treatments. Journal of Range Management. 10: 83-89. [9946]

75. Rosentreter, Roger; Jorgensen, Ray. 1986. Restoring winter game ranges in southern Idaho. Tech. Bull. 86-3. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 26 p. [5295]

76. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

77. Smith, Arthur D.; Beale, Donald M. 1980. Pronghorn antelope in Utah: some research and observations. Publication No. 80-13. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 88 p. [5305]

78. Stafford, Michael P.; Johnson, James B. 1986. Phytophagous insects of green rabbitbrush in southeastern Idaho. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 211-214. [2218]

79. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]

80. Tisdale, E. W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [2344]

81. Tueller, Paul E.; Payne, E. Don. 1987. The ecology and management of the genus Chrysothamnus. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 4th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Chrysothamnus; 1986 September 17-18; Cedar City, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 1-8. [2717]

82. Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1987. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) and longleaf snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) plant associations in northeastern Nevada. The Great Basin Naturalist. 47(1): 117-131. [3015]

83. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]

84. Urness, Philip Joel. 1966. Influence of range improvement practices on composition, production, and utilization of Artemisia deer winter range in central Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 182 p. Dissertation. [3060]

85. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

86. Webb, Robert H.; Steiger, John W.; Turner, Raymond M. 1987. Dynamics of Mojave Desert shrub assemblages in the Panamint Mountains, California. Ecology. 68(3): 478-490; 1987. [2473]

87. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Nowot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]

88. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

89. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]

90. Whisenant, Steven G. 1986. Herbicide use in Artemisia and Chrysothamnus communities: reducing damage to nontarget species. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Intrmtn. Res. Stn.; 1986: 115-121. [2527]

91. Willard, E. Earl. 1971. Some factors involved in activation of sprouting in little rabbitbrush and snowberry on summer range. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 116 p. Dissertation. [2565]

92. William, Ray D.; Ball, Dan; Miller, Terry L; [and others], compilers. 1997. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Services; Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension; Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Agriculture. 373 p. [27982]

93. Winward, Alma H. 1970. Taxonomic and ecological relationships of the big sagebrush complex in Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 79 p. Ph.D. dissertation. [2583]

94. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]

95. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]

96. Yoakum, Jim. 1980. Habitat management guides for the American pronghorn antelope. Tech. Note 347. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center. 77 p. [23170]

97. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1974. Phenology of Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus subspecies viscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt. Weed Science. 22(5): 469-475. [2653]

98. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1974. Population dynamics of green rabbitbrush in disturbed big sagebrush communities. Journal of Range Management. 27(2): 127-132. [2652]

99. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283-289. [2657]

100. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Major, J. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 25: 194-201. [2674]

101. Zschaechner, Greg A. 1985. Studying rangeland fire effects: a case study in Nevada. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment, Idaho State Office: 66-84. [2692]

Related categories for SPECIES: Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus | Green Rabbitbrush