| | |
 |
|
| 
| ||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants |
|
|||
|
INTRODUCTORY
ABBREVIATION:GUTSAR SYNONYMS:
Xanthocephalum sarothrae (Pursh) Shinners [38] NRCS PLANT CODE:
GUSA2 COMMON NAMES:
broom snakeweed TAXONOMY:
The fully documented scientific name of broom snakeweed is Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britt. & Rusby (Asteraceae) [103,102]. Several varieties are recognized [51,50]: LIFE FORM:Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:No special status OTHER STATUS:No entry AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:Tirmenstein, D. (1999, May). Gutierrezia sarothrae. In: Remainder of Citation DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:Broom snakeweed grows from Saskatchewan and Alberta through the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains [43]. It extends southward into California and central Mexico, and eastward to Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska [20,25,65]. It is widely distributed in the Mojave Desert and reaches northward into the Great Basin [11]. ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES15 Oak-hickory STATES:
AZ CA CO ID KS MT NE NV NM ND BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
4 Sierra Mountains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K016 Eastern ponderosa pine SAF COVER TYPES:
210 Interior Douglas-fir SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
210 Bitterbrush HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Broom snakeweed is a common constituent of many early seral sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-grassland, pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp.-Juniperus spp.), and desert shrub communities. It has been identified as an indicator in early to late seral communities of northern New Mexico. Codominants include one-seed juniper (J. monosperma), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), black sagebrush (A. nova), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), ovate saltbush (Atriplex obovata), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), black grama (B. eriopoda), galleta (Hilaria jamesii), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) [32].
Broom snakeweed occurs most commonly with creosote bush (Larrea spp.), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), yucca (Yucca spp.), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), big sagebrush, black sagebrush, shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), pinyon, juniper, oak (Quercus spp.), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), grama, and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) [62,97].
Broom snakeweed is listed as a dominant or indicator in the following classifications: VALUE AND USE
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:Broom snakeweed provides little browse for domestic livestock [90]. It is of minimal value to cattle and horses [71] but does provide fair quality winter browse for domestic sheep when green forage is scarce or lacking [62,71]. Utilization by domestic sheep on winter ranges of Utah and Nevada may reach 9.8% to 15% [41,47]. However, Green and others [40] report only light (less than 3%) use by domestic sheep in west-central Utah. Summer Angora goat use may be fairly heavy on burned-over Arizona chaparral [54]. Broom snakeweed can be toxic to domestic sheep, goats, and cattle particularly during winter or early spring when poor forage availability forces animals to consume large quantities [15,62,95]. Domestic goats are fairly resistant to broom snakeweed toxicity [68]. Saponins present in the foliage can cause illness, death, or abortion in livestock [95,100]. However, toxicity apparently varies with phenological stage and substrate. Higher toxicity levels are often associated with periods of rapid growth, such as early leaf development, and with growth on sandy rather than calcareous soils [76]. Broom snakeweed is also a secondary or facultative absorber of selenium which may cause illness or death when consumed in quantity [62]. Carpenter and others [15] report that production losses from snakeweed poisoning are not significant with only a light infestation." Broom snakeweed provides only poor quality browse for most large ungulates. It is however, important to pronghorn in some areas, particularly during spring and summer. In parts of Utah, pronghorn utilization may reach up to 28% [90]. Broom snakeweed is considered a preferred pronghorn food in Carter County, Montana from September through December and is eaten in March in northeastern Colorado [87,96]. Broom snakeweed is eaten by mule deer in some big sagebrush-grass communities of northern Utah and south-central New Mexico [4,59]. It receives moderate use by desert mule deer in parts of Texas and Arizona [55]. Broom snakeweed is a winter food source for bighorn sheep on the Cinnabar winter range of Montana [53]. In northeastern Colorado, bison consume broom snakeweed particularly during March and October [79,80]. Broom snakeweed is a major food source for black-tailed jackrabbits in Kansas and south-central New Mexico [22,27]. In a New Mexico study, use of broom snakeweed by the black-tailed jackrabbit was highest in summer and winter [31]. Broom snakeweed seeds are readily eaten by a wide variety of small birds and mammals. Seeds of broom snakeweed are an important winter scaled quail food in parts of southeastern New Mexico [23]. Broom snakeweed seed forms part of the spring and summer diets of the lesser prairie chicken in eastern New Mexico [24]. The banner-tailed kangaroo rat, Ords kangaroo rat and northern grasshopper mouse also eat broom snakeweed seed [7,70].
PALATABILITY:Broom snakeweed browse is relatively unpalatable to most big game species and to domestic livestock. However, results of a Utah study indicate that it is preferred by pronghorn during spring and summer [90]. Broom snakeweed is described as "at least moderately palatable" to domestic sheep in Idaho [72]. Seeds are palatable to a variety of small birds and mammals. Palatability of broom snakeweed has been rated as follows [26]: CO MT ND UT WY Cattle poor poor poor poor poor Sheep fair poor poor fair poor Horses ---- poor ---- poor poor Pronghorn ---- poor poor fair ---- Elk ---- poor ---- poor ---- Mule deer ---- poor poor fair ---- White-tailed deer ---- ---- poor ---- ---- Small mammals ---- ---- ---- fair ---- Small nongame birds ---- ---- ---- fair ---- Upland game birds ---- ---- ---- poor ---- Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- poor ---- NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Broom snakeweed is rated poor in energy and protein value [26]. Nutritional content is documented as follows [41]: Protein Crude Ca Phosphorus
(%) Fiber (%) (%) (%)
Before grazing 6.62 24.0 1.13 .079
After grazing 6.53 24.8 1.13 .079
Seasonal differences in nutritional content have been reported as follows [73]:
Protein Ether Ash Ca P K Mg Mn
% Extract% % % % % mg/kg---
November 11.8 11.9 5.3 0.69 0.18 1.38 40 140
December 8.4 7.3 4.4 0.62 0.13 0.91 27 298
March 15.2 4.9 14.7 1.32 0.24 2.74 69 1427
Differences in crude protein level (%) according to plant part and season have also been reported [83]:
3/29 4/9 4/24 5/18 5/26 6/15 vegetative parts 7.9 7.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- flower ---- ---- 8.0 12.3 ---- ---- pod ---- ---- ---- ---- 9.0 9.0 COVER VALUE:Broom snakeweed provides cover for many small birds and mammals. Larger plants provide resting sites for black-tailed jackrabbits in New Mexico [14]. Broom snakeweed also provides black-tailed jackrabbits with protective cover against weather and predators such as coyotes on heavily grazed ranges of New Mexico [22]. In some areas, broom snakeweed serves as good cover for both Gambel's and scaled quail [37,107]. In Oregon, the Columbia Basin burrowing owl selected broom snakeweed habitat for nesting [39]. Cover value is rated as follows [26]: MT ND UT Pronghorn ---- ---- poor Elk poor ---- poor Mule deer ---- fair ---- White-tailed deer ---- poor ---- Small mammals poor ---- ---- Small nongame birds ---- ---- fair Upland game birds ---- ---- fair Waterfowl ---- ---- poor VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:Under natural conditions broom snakeweed quickly invades disturbed sites and can minimize soil erosion [97]. It reportedly stabilizes loose wind-blown soils in mesquite (Prosopis spp.) sand dunes [14]. Broom snakeweed is rated as low to moderate in both long- and short-term rehabilitation potential [26]. Plants may be transplanted or established through seed. Broom snakeweed is well adapted to planting in pinyon-juniper, big sagebrush, northern desert shrub, and southern desert shrub communities [82].
OTHER USES AND VALUES:Some Native American peoples traditionally used broom snakeweed to construct brooms and as a treatment for indigestion [95]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Increases in broom snakeweed may be due to livestock grazing, drought, weather, or fire suppression [44]. Broom snakeweed quickly invades overgrazed rangeland. Cattle sometimes leave broom snakeweed almost untouched while grazing grasses to within 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) of the soil surface [14]. An abundance of this shrub is considered by some authorities as an indicator of range deterioration [62]. Many researchers believe that broom snakeweed may be reduced and species such as blue grama increased by protection from grazing. Grass production increased from 976 lbs/acre to 2,024 lbs/acre during the first year after complete removal of broom snakeweed in Texas [68]. However, increases in broom snakeweed may be due to climatic fluctuations rather than overgrazing [15,49]. West and Tueller [104] maintain that climatic factors are more important than grazing in determining the extent of broom snakeweed populations. Broom snakeweed populations fluctuate in response to annual moisture patterns, with rapid increases commonly occurring after drought periods [25]. This plant apparently exhibits only a slight response to late-season irrigation [12]. The root system of broom snakeweed occurs at approximately the same soil depth as do the roots of many perennial grasses [60]. Competition for water and nutrients is suspected. Broom snakeweed competition can apparently cause decreases in big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and blue grama. However, bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) and black grama appear to be unaffected by the presence of broom snakeweed [49].
Broom snakeweed can be difficult to kill with herbicides, and opinions vary on the optimum time to spray. Clary and others [17] noted erratic results from herbicides such as tebuthiuron in the Intermountain region. Stands were often reduced by applications of pelleted tebuthiuron, but reestablishment sometimes compensated for the loss of the original plants. Detailed information on the chemical control of broom snakeweed is available [17,19,35,66,91]. In cases where application of herbicide is effective, broom snakeweed populations are controlled for up to 5 years, although grazing practices and fall and winter precipitation received after application can also influence results. In some cases, fire can be used in combination with herbicides to extend the longevity of chemical treatment to beyond 5-7 years [92]. Broom snakeweed is susceptible to severe damage by the round-headed borer (Crossidius pulchellus) and mealybugs (Chorizococcus spp.). These insects were believed to be the major factor causing a broom snakeweed die-off in Texas and New Mexico during a particularly dry summer. Eighty-two percent of the mortality was attributed to insects, while the other 18% was thought to be drought-induced [100]. Biological control agents may have potential for control of broom snakeweed [21,36]. BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Broom snakeweed is a bushy, short-lived, native, perennial shrub or subshrub that grows from 8 to 28 inches (20-70 cm) in height [1,43,62,95,71]. Slender, erect, herbaceous branches arise from a woody crown and stem base [63]. Brittle, herbaceous shoots die back during dormancy but can persist throughout the winter [91,97]. Broom snakeweed produces a deep, woody taproot during the first year of growth, and numerous, extensive lateral roots develop as the plant matures [14]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES:Flowers of broom snakeweed are pollinated by various insects [61]. Regeneration of broom snakeweed, a cool-season germinator, is primarily through light, wind-dispersed seed [60,111]. However, most ripe seeds fall beneath the parent plant, and seed dispersal is described as "inefficient.". Some seeds remain in the dried capitula for several months before dispersal [61]. Broom snakeweed produces sufficient viable seed to ensure the development of abundant seedlings during good years [14]. Studies indicate that a single plant is capable of producing more than 9,000 to 10,000 seeds annually. Most germination and seedling establishment takes place in winter and spring [92]. Under laboratory conditions seeds have remained viable for at least 2 years [61]. Osman and Pieper [75] report that seed can remain viable in the soil for "a considerable period of time." Seeds can remain viable in the soil for at least several years [65,85]. Broom snakeweed can mature and set seed within one to two years [77]. Most seed is dormant at maturity and requires a 4- to 6-month afterripening period before germination can proceed. After 6 months of afterripening, broom snakeweed germinated best at temperatures of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees C) and 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees C). Light enhances germination of afterripened seed, which suggests that germination may be favored at or near the soil surface [61]. Broom snakeweed sprouts weakly following fire or other disturbance [74,111]. Branches of mature plants occasionally produce adventitious roots when partially covered with sand [14].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:Broom snakeweed occurs on rocky plains, dry foothills, ridgetops, and mountain slopes, and in semi-desert valleys of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains [62]. It exhibits wide ecological amplitude [71] and occurs in a variety of communities including pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert shrublands, and sagebrush-grasslands. Broom snakeweed occurs on a wide range of soil types including dry, well-drained, sandy, gravelly, or clayey loams and heavy clays. Growth is reportedly best on moderately rich limestone, clay loams of broad alluvial slopes, and shallow, rocky, or sandy soil. Growth is generally poor on saline or alkaline soils [97]. Generalized elevational ranges of broom snakeweed are as follows [26]:
from 3,700-10,000 feet (1,129-3,050 m) in CO
2,400-5,700 feet (732-1,739 m) in MT
4,300-9,500 feet (1,312-2,898 m) in UT
3,700-8,300 feet (1,129-2,532 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:Broom snakeweed rapidly invades disturbed sites and can dominate early successional stages of many communities [62]. Broom snakeweed commonly colonizes burned big sagebrush communities in parts of the Great Basin [110]. It can compete successfully with many grasses, but is unable to out-compete other perennial shrubs and gradually declines as shrubs increase [60,62].
Neuenschwander [74] reports highest frequencies of broom snakeweed on 22-year old burns in west-central Utah. Although it persists
in some mid to late seral communities [32], it is generally poorly represented in climax stands. On west-central Utah, broom snakeweed populations declined gradually in the first 50 years after disturbance [5]. On 100 year-old burns, broom snakeweed was reduced to less than 10% frequency [5]. The following generalized successional pattern for mixed plains communities of northeastern Colorado includes broom snakeweed [18]:
In mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) communities of the Southwest, succession proceeds as follows [28]: In presettlement big sagebrush communities of southern Idaho, broom snakeweed replaced big sagebrush after fire along with rabbitbrush and horsebrush. After the introduction of exotic annuals, the pattern changed. Russian thistle now initially colonizes burned big sagebrush sites followed by mustard and cheatgrass [109].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:Four main phenological stages occur in broom snakeweed: perennating bud stage in November and December, vegetative growth stage from late January through August, flower bud development in August and November, and flowering stage [34]. Annual growth of broom snakeweed begins in early spring as green herbaceous shoots sprout from the base of the plant. Elongation of the stems and new leaves may begin as early as late January to March [67]. Most vegetative development occurs during the spring and early summer when moisture availability peaks in many locations [91]. In New Mexico, new branches and leaves develop rapidly in July and August [65]. Lower temperatures may limit growth after mid-October in many parts of the Southwest [14]. In south Texas, mature vegetative phenological state generally extends from June to September when maximum canopy dimension is reached [29,65]. Plants generally become dormant after completion of the annual growth cycle, but in some parts of the southwest, plants can remain green if soil water is adequate during the winter [92]. During winter dormancy, stems remain but become brown and die back to near the base of the plant [97]. Carbohydrate storage typically increases during the fall after flowering [91]. Flowering is strongly influenced by available soil moisture, and may be delayed or prolonged during wet years [19]. During dry years both flowering and carbohydrate accumulation may begin earlier [91]. Mature plants may bloom for up to 2 months in wet years. In dry years, or when plants are older, flowering periods may be as short as 2 to 3 weeks [92]. In New Mexico flowering begins in late August with seed set in early November [65]. General flowering dates are as follows [26]:
State Beginning of Flowering End of Flowering
CO July October
MT July September
ND July September
UT July September
WY May September
Specific details were reported in a North Dakota study from 1979 to 1984 [13]:
earliest first bloom 7/08/80
latest first bloom 8/15/79
median date of first 10 plants with flowers 7/26
median date of full flowering 8/05
median date when flowering 95% complete 9/05
length of flowering period 45 days
Seed matures in September and October [105]. Growth of perennating buds usually begins in November and December immediately after seed set. At this time leaves change color from green to pale yellow or brown and are shed [67].
FIRE ECOLOGYFIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:Broom snakeweed, a weak-sprouting perennial, is severely damaged by fire [9]. Plants sometimes sprout but are more typically killed by fire [45]. Reestablishment proceeds rapidly through light, wind-dispersed seed from adjacent unburned areas [111]. The density of broom snakeweed often increases after fire [16,71]. Gatewood [34] reports that seeds can remain viable in the soil, unharmed by fire, and can germinate immediately after fire or in subsequent years. The range of fire intervals reported for some species that dominate communities where broom snakeweed occurs are listed below. To learn more about the fire regimes in those communities and others listed below refer to the FEIS summary for those species, under Fire Ecology or Adaptations. ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) 2 to 42 years Mexican pinyon (P. cembroides) 20 to 70 years oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) galleta (Hilaria jamesii) blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:Slow, hot fires create a longer duration of heat release which results in greater broom snakeweed mortality. Following fire in New Mexico, McDaniels and others [64] observed that fires with duration of heat exceeding 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 oC) longer than 45 seconds reduced broom snakeweed by at least 70%; fires with durations less than 45 seconds gave highly variable results. In west-central Kansas, broom snakeweed is severely harmed by spring fires [107].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:Although usually killed by fire, plants occasionally sprout [45]. If the entire crown is not consumed, plants may produce shoots from undamaged primordial buds located on lower stems [64]. Reestablishment generally proceeds rapidly through large numbers of light, wind-dispersed seed [69,111].
Recovery time may vary with fire severity and with the season of burn but is generally rapid. In many parts of the Great Basin, broom snakeweed appears in abundance soon after severe fires in sagebrush communities [71]. After spring burns in northern mixed grass prairies, both increases and decreases in broom snakeweed have been reported [56]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:Burning in southern Arizona reduced broom snakeweed cover from 0.66 plants/m2 to 0.13 plants/m2 2 years after fire [34]. Following spring burns in New Mexico, most plants that survived burning (94%) produced shoots from the basal area at or near the surface [64]. After a southern Arizona burn at the beginning of the wet season, broom snakeweed was reduced by 95%. Following April and June burns on blue grama ranges of south-central New Mexico, the cover of broom snakeweed was reduced by 45% and 96% respectively [34]. In most of the Great Basin, broom snakeweed generally appears by the sixth year following fire if present in adjacent unburned areas [108]. Because of its ability to reestablish rapidly, broom snakeweed often assumes dominance on recently burned Utah sites with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) [81]. Some areas develop nearly pure stands of broom snakeweed within 5 to 10 years, although in other locations plants may not dominate the site for up to 25 years [106,108]. Increases in broom snakeweed cover can be dramatic. In a Utah cheatgrass-sand dropseed-red threeawn (Aristida purpurea) community, only minor amounts of broom snakeweed were present prior to a summer wildfire. However, within 5 years after fire, broom snakeweed accounted for 31 percent of the perennial cover. Changes in cover and composition were documented as follows [16]:
(area burned in 1956) Broom snakeweed was present in 8 of 9 burn age classes in Utah, with peak frequencies occurring on 22-year-old burns in big sagebrush or Utah juniper (J. osteosperma) communities. Broom snakeweed populations declined gradually for 50 years, with frequencies of less than 10 percent reported on burns of 100 years or older [5]. I FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
In some areas fire can be used to control broom snakeweed during wet weather cycles [107]. Everitt and others [29] report that broom snakeweed can be controlled by fire during certain phenological stages. In southern Arizona, plants were most vulnerable when burned in October, April, and June [46]. Even cool fires can be effective in controlling broom snakeweed [3] so long as fuel loadings are sufficient to carry fire [10]. Gatewood [34] observed that the primary limitation to burning in broom snakeweed communities is inadequate fine fuel. Often dense stands of broom snakeweed (with essentially no grass) do not carry a fire well except under hazardous burning conditions (high air temperatures, high winds, and low relative humidities). FIRE CASE STUDIES
1st CASE STUDY:
CASE NAME:Controlling broom snakeweed with fire in New Mexico REFERENCE:McDaniel, K.C.; Hart, C. R.; Carroll, D. B. 1997 [70] SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:Spring (March-April)/not specified Summer (June-July)/not specified STUDY LOCATION:Burns were located near Corona, in central New Mexico. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:The prefire plant community was a blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) grassland. Preburn associates included winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), cholla (Opuntia imbricata), wolftail (Lycurus phleoides), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), threeawns (Aristida spp.), scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), and verbena (Verbena bracteata). TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:
Spring - broom snakeweed was in bud stage with little green foliage. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Average annual precipitation - 397 mm FIRE DESCRIPTION:Burning conditions:
spring summer
Air temperature 4.4-24.8oC 20.6-35.3oC
Wind 3-10 m/s 3-8 m/s
Relative humidity 13-45% 9-39%
Fine fuel biomass 176-850 kg/ha 290-786 kg/ha
Broom snakeweed biomass 16-2,510 kg/ha 59-1,500 kg/ha
Fine fuel moisture 4-16% 9-12%
Soil moisture 2-11% 2-13%
Soil temp. at 10 cm 4-20oC 21-33oC
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:Mortality and crown destruction were unrelated to shrub size, vigor, or proximity to other broom snakeweed plants. Mortality of broom snakeweed was related to duration of heat > 60 degrees C. As relative humidity, windspeed, and fuel moisture increased, heat decreased and broom snakeweed mortality declined. Specific results were as follows:
spring summer
Crown consumption 8% 66%
Plant survival
Aerial regrowth 2% 7%
Basal regrowth 33% 1%
No regrowth 65% 92%
Spring burns produced less average crown destruction (8%) and shrub mortality (65%) than did summer burns (66% crown destruction and 92% mortality). Following spring burns, larger branches were often only charred and most shrubs (92%) were not burned completely to the ground. On plants that survived spring burning, most (94%) produced shoots from the basal area at or near the surface. Broom snakeweed mortality averaged 65% after spring burns with a range of 28 to 97%. Spring fires with average thermocouple readings of less than 300 C reduced broom snakeweed by 50%. Temperatures in excess of 350 degrees C reduced broom snakeweed by more than 80%.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
The study revealed that "ideal weather conditions must converge before, during, and after a prescribed burning event in order to maximize broom snakeweed control and forage growth on these grasslands." Attempts to carry out prescribed burns were often unsuccessful due to unsuitable weather and poor fuel conditions. Often prescribed burning in central New Mexico can be difficult except under extreme weather conditions. Fires will not carry if blue grama, the primary fuel source, is green. Overall success depends on quantity and uniformity of fuel and the degree of desiccation. Deferral of grazing for at least one season prior to burning is suggested.
2nd CASE STUDY:
CASE NAME:Spring and fall prescribed burning in basin big sagebrush REFERENCE:Sapsis, D. S. 1990 [86] SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
Fall (9/25/87)/not specified STUDY LOCATION:The study was located approximately 5 miles (10 km) west of Dayville in east-central Oregon. The site was located in John Day Fossil Bed National Monument in T 11 S R 26 E , sections 31 and 32. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY:Preburn vegetation was a basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata)/Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)-bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). Associated species included western yarrow (Achillea millefolium) and threadstalk milkvetch (Astragalus fillipes). TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE:Not specified. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Aspect - north FIRE DESCRIPTION:Both burns were ignited with drip torches using a strip-head firing pattern. Pretreatment fuel loads ranged from 5-12 Mg/ha. Fuel loads in fall treatment units averaged 10.5 Mg/ha and in spring treatment units, fuel loads averaged 6.2 Mg/ha. Large amounts of herbaceous fuels (> 3 Mg/ha) were present.
Burning Conditions:
Fall Spring
Time of burn 9:35-13:45 12:35-15:26
Temperature (oC) 15-18 23-25
Relative humidity 41-48 21-24
Windspeed (k/h) 0-15 0-17
Soil M.C. (moisture content,%) 2.90 3.21
Dead grass/herb. M.C.* 8.88 7.36
10-hr Timelag M.C. 4.59 4.99
Sagebrush foliage M.C.* 97.19 186.02
Live grass M.C. N/A 142.60
Fire Behavior:
Fall Spring
Flame length (m)* 4.14 1.74
Fireline intensity (kW/m)* 6,441 883
Reaction intensity (heat release rate,
kW/m2) 591 346
Flame height (m)* 2.17 1.12
Rate of spread (m/s)* 1.57 0.23
Heat/area in flaming front
(kJ/m sq) 3,253 3,935
Total energy (flaming & smoldering,
kJ/m sq)* 18,119 9,267
Residence time (s) 6.92 11.66
Fuel consumption (Mg/ha)* 9.80 5.23
N/A = not available
* = significant at p <0.05
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES:Fall burns completely eliminated broom snakeweed. Broom snakeweed numbers on spring burns were reduced from 400/ha prior to burning to 112/ha the first postfire year. This represents a decrease of 72%. Results were as follows: Treatment 1987 1988 1989
(fall prefire) (spring prefire) (postfire yr 1)
Fall burn 500 0 0
Spring burn ND* 400 112
Control 889 1121 946
*ND = no data
Gutierrezia sarothrae: References1. Albertson, F. W. 1937. Ecology of mixed prairie in west central Kansas. Ecological Monographs. 7: 483-547. [5057] 2. Aldon, Earl F.; Scholl, David G.; Fresquez, P. R.; Francis, Richard E. 1988. Natural production potential of some Rio Puerco soils in New Mexico. Res. Note RM-481. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [3042] 3. Allen, Dale D.; Johnson, Rhell H. 1983. Prescribed burning is a fast-growing practice in Texas. Soil and Water Conservation News. 4(3): 9-10. [20968] 4. Austin, D. D.; Urness, P. J. 1983. Overwinter forage selection by mule deer on seeded big sagebrush-grass range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(4): 1203-1207. [28448] 5. 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] 6. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 7. Best, Troy L.; Skupski, Marian P.; Smartt, Richard A. 1993. Food habits of sympatric rodents in the shinnery oak - mesquite grasslands of southeastern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 38(3): 224-235. [22136] 8. Bowers, Janice E.; Webb, Robert H.; Pierson, Elizabeth A. 1997. Succession of desert plants on debris flow terraces, Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments. 36(1): 67-86. [27546] 9. Britton, Carlton M.; Ralphs, Michael H. 1979. Use of fire as a management tool in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources. 101-109. [518] 10. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 61-68. [521] 11. Brotherson, Jack D.; Masslich, William J. 1985. Vegetation patterns in relation to slope position in the Castle Cliffs area of southern Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 535-541. [528] 12. Caldwell, Martyn M. 1979. Physiology of sagebrush. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 74-85. [583] 13. Callow, J. Michael; Kantrud, Harold A.; Higgins, Kenneth F. 1992. First flowering dates and flowering periods of prairie plants at Woodworth, North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist. 24(2): 57-64. [20450] 14. Campbell, R. S.; Bomberger, E. H. 1934. The occurrence of Gutierrezia sarothrae on Bouteloua eriopoda ranges in southern New Mexico. Ecology. 15(1): 49-61. [596] 15. Carpenter, Brent D.; Ethridge, Don E.; Sosebee, R. E. 1990. Economic losses from broom snakeweed poisoning in cattle. Rangelands. 12(4): 206-208. [12323] 16. Christensen, Earl M. 1964. Changes in composition of a Bromus tectorum-Sporobolus cryptandrus-Aristida longiseta community following fire. Utah Academy Proceedings. 41(Part I): 53-57. [626] 17. Clary, Warren P.; Goodrich, Sherel; Smith, Benton M. 1985. Response of broom snakeweed to application of tebuthiuron. Res. Note INT-350. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [235] 18. Costello, David F. 1944. Natural revegetation of abandoned plowed land in the mixed prairie association of northeastern Colorado. Ecology. 25(3): 312-326. [25703] 19. Courtney, Ronald W.; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Cash, Vance. 1983. Carbohydrate reserve patterns in broom snakeweed. In: Research highlights--1983: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 14. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 19-20. [703] 20. Cronquist, Arthur. 1955. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest: Part 5: Compositae. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 343 p. [716] 21. Cuda, J. P. 1988. Viewpoint: comments on the proposed use of native insects for control of snakeweeds. Rangelands. 10(6): 262-264. [5820] 22. Daniel, Alipayou; Holechek, Jerry L.; Valdez, Raul; [and others]. 1993. Range condition influences on Chihuahuan Desert cattle and jackrabbit diets. Journal of Range Management. 46(4): 296-301. [25012] 23. Davis, Charles A.; Barkley, Robert C.; Haussamen, Walter C. 1975. Scaled quail foods in southeastern New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 496-502. [10491] 24. Davis, Charles A.; Riley, Terry Z.; Smith, Randall A.; Wisdom, Michael J. 1980. Spring-summer foods of lesser prairie chickens in New Mexico. In: Proceedings, prairie grouse symposium; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University: 75-80. [18419] 25. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768] 26. 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] 27. Dunn, John P.; Chapman, Joseph A.; Marsh, Rex E. 1982. Jackrabbits: Lepus californicus and allies. In: Chapman, J. A.; Feldhamer, G. A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press: 124-145. [25016] 28. Ellison, Lincoln. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession of rangelands. Botanical Review. 26(1): 1-78. [862] 29. Everitt, James H.; Pettit, Russ D.; Alaniz, Mario A. 1987. Remote sensing of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) and spiny aster (Aster spinosus). Weed Science. 35: 295-302. [903] 30. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 31. Fatehi, Mohammad; Pieper, Rex D.; Beck, Reldon E. 1988. Seasonal food habits of blacktailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) in southern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 33(3): 367-370. [6156] 32. Francis, Richard E. 1986. Phyto-edaphic communities of the Upper Rio Puerco Watershed, New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p. [954] 33. 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] 34. Gatewood, Richard G. 1992. Threshold requirements for burning broom snakeweed/grass communities. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 54 p. Thesis. [23800] 35. Gesink, R. W.; Alley, H. P.; Lee, G. A. 1973. Vegetative response to chemical control of broom snakeweed on a blue grama range. Journal of Range Management. 26(2): 139-143. [1011] 36. Gonzales, G. J. 1987. The potential of two insects for controlling broom snakeweed. Rangelands. 9(2): 59-61. [1030] 37. Goodwin, John G., Jr.; Hungerford, C. Roger. 1977. Habitat use by native Gambel's and scaled quail and released masked bobwhite quail in southern Arizona. Res. Pap. RM-197. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. [14970] 38. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603] 39. Green, Gregory A.; Anthony, Robert G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor. 91: 347-354. [21840] 40. Green, Lisle R.; Sharp, Lee A.; Cook, C. Wayne; Harris, Lorin E. 1951. Utilization of winter range forage by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 4: 233-241. [7891] 41. Harris, Loren E. 1972. Physiological problems in animal use of shrubs as forage. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium: Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 319-330. [1098] 42. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992] 43. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168] 44. Holechek, Jerry L.; Tembo, Ackim; Daniel, Alipayou; [and others]. 1994. Long-term grazing influences on Chihauhuan Desert rangeland. The Southwestern Naturalist. 39(4): 342-349. [25504] 45. Humphrey, L. David. 1984. Patterns and mechanisms of plant succession after fire on Artemisia-grass sites in southeastern Idaho. Vegetatio. 57: 91-101. [1214] 46. Humphrey, R. R. 1949. Fire as a means of controlling velvet mesquite, burroweed, and cholla on southern Arizona ranges. Journal of Range Management. 2: 175-182. [5050] 47. Hutchings, Selar S.; Stewart, George. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. Circular No. 925. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 63 p. [1227] 48. Jameson, Donald A. 1966. Competition in a blue grama-broom snakeweed-actinea community and responses to selective herbicides. Journal of Range Management. 19: 121-124. [1250] 49. Jameson, Donald A. 1970. Value of broom snakeweed as a range condition indicator. Journal of Range Management. 23: 302-304. [1252] 50. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762] 51. 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] 52. 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] 53. Keating, Kimberly A.; Irby, Lynn R.; Kasworm, Wayne F. 1985. Mountain sheep winter food habits in the upper Yellowstone Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(1): 156-161. [15521] 54. Knipe, Oren D. 1983. Effects of Angora goat browsing on burned over Arizona chaparral. Rangelands. 5(6): 252-255. [1363] 55. Krausman, Paul R.; Kuenzi, Amy J.; Etchberger, Richard C.; [and others]. 1997. Diets of mule deer. Journal of Range Management. 50(5): 513-522. [27845] 56. Kruse, Arnold D.; Higgins, Kenneth F. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire upon wildlife habitat in northern mixed-grass prairie. In: Alexander, M. E.; Bisgrove, G. F., technical coordinators. The art and science of fire management: Proceedings, 1st Interior West Fire Council annual meeting and workshop; 1988 October 24-27; Kananaskis Village, AB. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-309. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre: 182-193. [14146] 57. 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] 58. 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] 59. Mahgoub, El Fatih; Pieper, Rex D.; Holechek, Jerry L.; [and others]. 1987. Botanical content of mule deer diets in south-central New Mexico. New Mexico Journal of Science. 27(1): 21-27. [3259] 60. Martin, S. Clark. 1975. Ecology and management of Southwestern semidesert grass-shrub ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-156. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p. [1538] 61. Mayeux, H. S., Jr.; Leotta, Laura. 1981. Germination of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) and threadleaf snakeweed (G. microcephalum) seed. Weed Science. 29: 530-534. [1555] 62. 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] 63. 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] 64. McDaniel, K. C.; Hart, C. R.; Carroll, D. B. 1997. Broom snakeweed control with fire on New Mexico blue grama rangeland. Journal of Range Management. 50(6): 652-659. [28611] 65. McDaniel, Kirk C. 1984. Snakeweed control with herbicides. Bulletin 706. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 34 p. [4492] 66. McDaniel, Kirk C.; Duncan, Keith W. 1987. Broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) control with picloram and metsulfuron. Weed Science. 35: 837-841. [4497] 67. McDaniel, Kirk C.; Pieper, Rex D.; Loomis, Lyn E.; Osman, Abdelgader A. 1984. Taxonomy and ecology of perennial snakeweeds in New Mexico. Bulletin 711. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 34 p. [4455] 68. McGinty, Allan; Welch, Tommy G. 1987. Perennial broomweed and Texas ranching. Rangelands. 9(6): 246-249. [2994] 69. Mitchell, Jerry M. 1984. Fire management action plan: Zion National Park, Utah. Record of Decision. 73 p. Report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17278] 70. Monson, Gale; Kessler, Wayne. 1940. Life history notes on the banner-tailed kangaroo rat, Merriam's kangaroo rat, and white-throated wood rat in Arizona and New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management. 4(1): 37-43. [12166] 71. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702] 72. Mueggler, Walter F. 1950. Effects of spring and fall grazing by sheep on vegetation of the upper Snake River plains. Journal of Range Management. 3: 308-315. [1703] 73. Nelson, A. B.; Herbel, H. M.; Jackson, H. M. 1970. Chemical composition of forage species grazed by cattle on an arid New Mexico range. Bulletin 561. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 33 p. [4034] 74. 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] 75. Osman, Abdelgader; Pieper, Rex D. 1988. Growth of Gutierrezia sarothrae seedlings in the field. Journal of Range Management. 41(1): 92-93. [2982] 76. Panter, Kip E.; James, Lynn F. 1987. A review of pine needle and broom snakeweed abortion in cattle. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 125-130. [7407] 77. 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 Committee]. 15 p. [1827] 78. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Blaisdell, James P. 1954. Sagebrush burning good and bad. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [1859] 79. Peden, D. G.; Van Dyne, G. M.; Rice, R. W.; Hansen, R. M. 1974. The trophic ecology of Bison bison L. on shortgrass plains. Journal of Applied Ecology. 11: 489-497. [1861] 80. Peden, Donald G. 1976. Botanical composition of bison diets on shortgrass plains. The American Midland Naturalist. 96(1): 225-229. [24596] 81. Pickford, G. D. 1932. The influence of continued heavy grazing and of promiscuous burning on spring-fall ranges in Utah. Ecology. 13(2): 159-171. [1886] 82. Plummer, A. Perry. 1970. Plants for revegetation of roadcuts and other disturbed or eroded areas. Range Improvement Notes. 15(1): 1-10. [1897] 83. Ralphs, Michael H.; Graham, David; Molyneux, Russell J.; James, Lynn F. 1993. Seasonal grazing of locoweeds by cattle in northeastern New Mexico. Journal of Range Management. 46: 416-420. [22292] 84. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 85. Roundy, Bruce A.; Jordan, Gilbert L. 1988. Vegetation changes in relation to livestock exclusion and rootplowing in southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 33(4): 425-436. [6105] 86. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579] 87. Schwartz, Charles C.; Nagy, Julius G. 1976. Pronghorn diets relative to forage availability in northeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(3): 469-478. [4937] 88. Shiflet, Thomas N. 1973. Range sites and soils in the United States. In: Hyder, D. N., ed. Arid shrublands--proceedings of the 3rd workshop of the United States/Australia rangelands panel; 1973 March 26-April 5; Tuscon, AZ. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 26-32. [2133] 89. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362] 90. 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] 91. Sosebee, Ronald E. 1983. Physiological, phenological, and environmental considerations in brush and weed control. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 27-43. [2199] 92. Sosebee, Ronald E. 1990. Broom snakeweed--ecology and management. In: Webster, David B.; Schramm, Harold L., Jr., eds. Research highlights: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Vol. 21. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 1-3. [14452] 93. 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] 94. Streets, R. B.; Stanley, E. B. 1938. Control of mesquite and noxious shrubs on southern Arizona grassland ranges. Technical Bulletin No. 74. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 469-497. [4463] 95. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 465 p. [2270] 96. Sundstrom, Charles; Hepworth, William G.; Diem, Kenneth L. 1973. Abundance, distribution and food habits of the pronghorn: A partial characterization of the optimum pronghorn habitat. Bulletin No. 12. Boise, ID: U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of River Basin Studies. 59 p. [5906] 97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387] 98. 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] 99. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [23119] 100. Ueckert, Darrell N. 1974. Insects and drought kill perennial broomweed over large area. In: Research highlights: Noxious brush and weed control. Vol. 5. Lubbock, TX. Texas Tech University: 32-33. [2396] 101. Wan, Changgu; Sosebee, Ronald E.; McMichael, Bobby L. 1993. Broom snakeweed responses to drought. I. Photosynthesis, conductance, and water-use efficiency. Journal of Range Management. 46(4): 355-359. [29784] 102. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706] 103. 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] 104. West, Neil E.; Tueller, Paul T. 1972. Special approaches to studies of competition and succession in shrub communities. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-171. [2524] 105. Whitson, Thomas D. 1987. Leafy spurge: a rangeland invader. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 58-59. [13923] 106. Wright, Henry A. 1980. The role and use of fire in the semidesert grass-shrub type. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-85. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [2616] 107. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 108. 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] 109. Yensen, Dana. 1980. A grazing history of southwestern Idaho with emphasis on the Birds of Prey Study Area. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, Snake River Birds of Prey Research Project, Boise District. 82 p. [4148] 110. Young, J. A.; Evans, R. A.; Tueller, P. T. 1976. Great Basin plant communities--pristine and grazed. In: Elston, Robert, ed. Holocene environmental change in the Great Basin. Res. Pap. No. 6. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Nevada Archeological Society: 187-216. [2676] 111. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681] Gutierrezia sarothrae Index
Related categories for SPECIES: Gutierrezia sarothrae | Broom Snakeweed |
 |
 | |
| |
| |
| Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities. | |
| |
|
About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory |
| 1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution. |
