|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
ABBREVIATION :
HOLDUM
SYNONYMS :
Holodiscus microphyllus Rydb.
Holodiscus discolor var. microphyllus (Rydb.) Jepson
Holodiscus discolor var. dumosa (Nutt.) Dippel
Sericotheca dumosa (Nutt.) Rydb.
SCS PLANT CODE :
HODU
COMMON NAMES :
bush oceanspray
mountain spray
rock spray spirea
bush rockspirea
mountain-spray
gland oceanspray
TAXONOMY :
The fully documented scientific name of bush oceanspray is Holodiscus
dumosus (Nutt.) Heller. The taxonomy presented here follows that of
Welsh and others [36]. These authors take a conservative approach to
recognizing infraspecific taxa within this complex, indicating that most
variation appears to reflect ecological rather than genetic differences.
Holodiscus microphyllus, an entity occurring in montane habitats from
Oregon to California [21,25], has been included within Holodiscus
dumosus [14,15,36].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
N. McMurray/ October 1987
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
McMurray, Nancy E. 1987. Holodiscus dumosus. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Bush oceanspray occurs from north-central Oregon east to Wyoming and
southward throughout much of the Great Basin to California, Nevada,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Chihuahua, Mexico [14,36]. Along the western
edge of its range, this species occurs essentially east of the Cascade
Range, extending southward to northwestern California and the central
Sierra Nevada [14,25].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA CO ID NV NM OR UT WY Mexico
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
BAND BLCA BRCA CANY CARE CACA
CHIR COLM CRMO DINO FOBU GRCA
GRBA GRSA GUMO MEVE NABR ROMO
SAGU SUCR TICA YOSE ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K034 Montane chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe
SAF COVER TYPES :
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
209 Bristlecone pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
216 Blue spruce
219 Limber pine
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
256 California mixed subalpine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Bush oceanspray has been used as an indicator of climax conditions on
rocky sites in both nonforested and forested communities throughout its
range. A bush oceanspray shrubland series has been described for steep,
talus slopes in Colorado; habitat types include bush oceanspray/Thurber
fescue (Festuca thurberi) and bush oceanspray/wax current (Ribes cereum)
[17]. In the Pacific Northwest, Erhard [7] has described a curlleaf
mountain-mahogany/bush oceanspray (Cercocarpus ledifolius/Holodiscus
microphyllus var. glabrescens) habitat type associated with basalt lava
flows. Along the east slope of the Cascades in Oregon, Hopkins and
Kovalchik [16] have described a western juniper/big sagebrush-bush
oceanspray/bluebunch wheatgrass-arrowleaf (Juniperus occidentalis/
Artemisia tridentata-Holodiscus dumosa/Pseudoroegneria spicata-
Balsamorhiza sagittata) community type.
On high-elevation sites in the southern Rocky Mountains, bush oceanspray
is listed as the understory dominant in forested scree habitat types
within the white fir (Abies concolor), alpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), and
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii) series; it is also utilized as a
phase indicator in the following Southwestern forested habitat types
[1]:
white fir/big tooth maple (Acer grandidentatum)
white fir/Rocky mountain maple (A. glabrum)
white fir/Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii)
Douglas-fir/Gambel oak
white fir-Douglas-fir/Rocky Mountain maple
Published classifications listing bush oceanspray as a climax indicator
are listed below.
A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado. [4]
A classification of forest habitat types of the Lincoln National Forest,
New Mexico. [1]
A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of
Arizona and New Mexico. [23]
Forest vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre National
Forests: a preliminary habitat type classification. [19]
Plant associations of the Crooked River National Grassland, Ochoco
National Forest. [16]
Plant associations of Region Two. [17]
Plant communities and habitat types in the Lava Beds National Monument,
California. [7]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Bush oceanspray is generally unpalatable to the majority of livestock
and big game [32]. It increases in response to grazing on western
juniper/big sagebrush habitat types in eastern Oregon [16]. Since this
species is typically distributed on the summer ranges of most animals,
Ferguson [10] suggests that bush oceanspray is not an extensively
utilized browse plant. In southern Colorado, however, bush oceanspray
comprises a portion of the summer diet of bighorn sheep [31].
PALATABILITY :
Bush oceanspray is generally unpalatable to both livestock and big game
[32]. However, it comprised an average relative density of 10 percent
of the summer diet of bighorn sheep populations in southern Colorado.
Plants are utilized by a variety of small bird species [30], and also by
rabbits in California [34]. The palatability of bush oceanspray to
livestock and wildlife species in several western states has been rated
as follows [5]:
CO UT WY
Cattle Poor Poor ----
Sheep Poor Fair ----
Horses Poor Poor ----
Pronghorn ---- Poor Poor
Elk Poor Poor Poor
Mule deer Poor Fair Fair
White-tailed deer ---- ---- Fair
Small mammals ---- Fair ----
Small nongame birds ---- Fair Fair
Upland game birds ---- Fair ----
Waterfowl ---- Poor ----
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Bush oceanspray has been rated as fair in both energy and protein value
[5].
COVER VALUE :
The degree to which bush oceanspray provides environmental protection
during one or more seasons for wildlife species has been rated as
follows [5]:
CO UT WY
Pronghorn ---- Poor Poor
Elk ---- Fair Fair
Mule deer Poor Fair Good
White-tailed deer ---- ---- Good
Small mammals Fair Fair Good
Small nongame birds Fair Fair Good
Upland game birds ---- Fair Good
Waterfowl ---- Poor Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Bush oceanspray appears to be an excellent candidate for use in the
reclamation of disturbed sites within its range. Plants are naturally
capable of establishing and persisting on rather severe, rocky sites
[6,7] and are also extremely drought tolerant [28]. In additon, this
species is adapted to sites with unstable, shifting surface materials;
it is often the dominant species on sites characterized by moving screes
in both nonforested [17,18] and forested [4] communities. Despite such
attributes, bush oceanspray has not been widely used in rehabilitation
projects, primarily due to a scarcity of commercially available seed
[10,26,28]. Other factors contributing to problems in the culture of
the Holodiscus genus include: (1) a pronounced seed dormancy and (2)
low production of viable seed [29,35]. Stickney [29] reported that
germination of oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) is enhanced following
stratification at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (15 deg C) for 18 weeks.
Although plants can be successfully established via fall broadcast
seeding, nursery culture from fall-sown seed appears to be a more
reliable means of propagation; fall-planted bareroot stock is generally
quite hardy [28]. Propagating Holodiscus accessions via stem cuttings
has been unsuccessful in Nevada [8].
The adaptability of bush oceanspray to high-elevation mountain sites has
been rated as follows [26]:
Adaptational attribute Rating (1-5)
---------------------- --------------
Established by seed medium (3)
Established by transplant medium (3)
Seed production & handling medium (3)
Natural spread (seed) good (4)
Natural spread (vegetative) medium (3)
Growth rate good (4)
Soil stablility good (4)
Adaptation to disturbance good (4)
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
East of the Cascade Range, bush oceanspray is planted as a showy
ornamental shrub [28,30]; plants are often preferred to oceanspray due
to their more compact growth form [14]. Indigenous peoples used the
extremely hard wood of this shrub to make arrows and digging sticks;
pioneers used it to make nails [16]. The "berries" were once gathered
as food by Indian tribes inhabiting the Great Basin [2].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Bush oceanspray is a moderately long-lived, native, deciduous,
drought-tolerant shrub that typically ranges from 20 to 60 inches
(25-150 cm) in height [14,25,28,36]. Plants are densely to intricately
branched from the base. The majority of the foliage originates on spur
branches with leaves in fasicles of six or seven [14]. The root system
is fibrous and spreading [28]. This species is characteristically found
in large clumps [34].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Information on the regenerative processes of bush oceanspray is scant.
Plummer [26] reported that this species possessed an above average
capacity to spread naturally via wind-dispersed seed on disturbed sites
in Utah; however, seedling establishment is rated as only average. Bush
oceanspray has a high resistance to disturbance, but modes of vegetative
regeneration have not been widely documented or described. For a
description of the regeneration processes of a morphologically and
ecologically similar ally, see the FEIS write-up for oceanspray
(Holodiscus discolor).
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Bush oceanspray is most often associated with dry, rocky habitats [32].
In the Great Basin this shrub is ubiquitous in numerous plant
communities from desert valleys to areas well up in the mountains [14];
it is most abundant at elevations between 4,500 and 11,000 feet (1,372
and 3,354 m) [24]. Typical sites include rocky outcrops, slickrock
plateau margins, bases of cliffs, talus slopes, and steep, canyon walls
[36]. Soils are dry to moderately dry, and well drained; textures range
from sand to clay [28]. Plants appear somewhat tolerant of alkaine
soils.
Elevational ranges vary as follows [5,16,25]:
from 6,800 to 10,000 feet (2,073-3,049 m) in AZ
5,500 to 11,000 feet (1,677-3,354 m) in CA
5,500 to 10,000 feet (1,677-3,049 m) in CO
7,200 to 8,500 feet (2,195-2,591 m) in NM
2,500 to 3,000 feet (726-915 m) in OR
4,198 to 12,000 feet (1,280-3,659 m) in UT
6,500 to 8,200 feet (1,982-2,500 m) in WY
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Self-perpetuating stands of bush oceanspray are indicative of climax
conditions on rocky sites in both nonforested and forested communities
[4,16]. This species is a pioneer on young lavas in southern Idaho.
Plants establish during early seral stages and coexist with later
arriving species that are also adapted to such severe site conditions
[6]. Bush oceanspray is a component of seral brushfields that develop
following fire on white fir/Rocky Mountain maple/bush oceanspray sites
in New Mexico [1,13]. However, it is unclear whether postburn coverages
are derived via residual plant survival or from seedling establishment.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Bush oceanspray generally begins blooming in June at lower elevations in
the Great Basin, but on sites at the upper limits of its elevational
range, plants may not flower until August [24]. Anthesis data for
several western states are as follows [5,25,36]:
State Earliest flowering Latest Flowering
date date
------------------ ----------------
CA June August
CO June August
UT June August
WY July September
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
The fire ecology and fire adaptations of bush oceanspray are poorly
documented. Fire is reported to be the principal factor initiating
succession on many of the high-elevation sites occupied by this shrub in
the Southwest [12], and bush oceanspray is apparently able to maintain
itself into late successional stage on many of these rocky, forested
sites [1].
It is currently unknown whether postfire reestablishment is from
sprouting from surviving plants, or from on-site or off-site seed
sources, or both. In the White Mountains of New Mexico, bush oceanspray
was a conspicuous componenet of the shrub layer 2 to 3 years after fire
[13].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The effect of fire on bush oceanspray is poorly documented. The
intricately branched nature of this shrub suggests that most plants are
readily top-killed by relatively low-intensity fires.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fire response of bush oceanspray is poorly documented. A similar
species, oceanspray (H. discolor), increases by prolific sprouting.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Holodiscus dumosus | Bush Oceanspray
REFERENCES :
1. Alexander, Billy G., Jr.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.; Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Ludwig,
John A. 1984. A classification of forest habitat types of the Lincoln
National Forest, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-104. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [300]
2. Andersen, Berniece A.; Holmgren, Arthur H. [n.d.]. Mountain plants of
northeastern Utah. Circular 319. Logan, UT: Utah State University,
Extension Services. 148 p. [312]
3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
4. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank,
Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New
Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [781]
5. 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]
6. Eggler, Willis A. 1941. Primary succession on volcanic deposits in
southern Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 11: 277-298. [852]
7. Erhard, Dean H. 1979. Plant communities and habitat types in the Lava
Beds National Monument, California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University. 173 p. Thesis. [869]
8. Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Robertson, Joseph H. 1978.
Propagation of Nevada shrubs by stem cutting. Journal of Range
Management. 31(6): 426-429. [894]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings
in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy,
compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and
wildlife habitats; Proceedings of symposia; 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: 136-149. [915]
11. 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]
12. Hanks, Jess Paul. 1966. Vegetation of the mixed conifer zone; White
Mountains, New Mexico. University Park, NM: New Mexico State University.
39 p. Thesis. [4632]
13. Hanks, Jess P.; Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1974. Vegetation patterns of the
White Mountians, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 18(4): 371-382.
[4635]
14. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1961. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]
15. Holmgren, Arthur H.; Reveal, James L. 1966. Checklist of the vascular
plants of the Intermountain Region. Res. Pap. INT-32. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 160 p. [1184]
16. Hopkins, William E.; Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1983. Plant associations of
the Crooked River National Grassland. R6 Ecol 133-1983. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region. 98 p. [1193]
17. Johnston, Barry C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential
plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and
Kansas. 4th ed. R2-ECOL-87-2. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 429 p. [3519]
18. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison
and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final Report Contract No. 28-K2-234.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]
19. Komarkova, Vera; Alexander, Robert R.; Johnston, Barry C. 1988. Forest
vegetation of the Gunnison and parts of the Uncompahgre National
Forests: a preliminary habitat type classification. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-163. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 65 p.
[5798]
20. 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]
21. Ley, Arline. 1943. A taxonomic revision of the genus Holodiscus
(Rosaceae). Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 70(3): 275-288.
[142]
22. 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]
23. Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir
and mixed conifer habitat types of Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap.
RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p.
[1677]
24. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history.
Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
25. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
26. Plummer, A. Perry. 1976. Shrubs for the subalpine zone of the Wasatch
Plateau. In: Zuck, R. H.; Brown, L. F., eds. High altitude revegetation
workshop: No. 2: Proceedings; 1976; Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University: 33-40. [1899]
27. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
28. Stark, N. 1966. Review of highway planting information appropriate to
Nevada. Bull. No. B-7. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of
Agriculture, Desert Research Institute. 209 p. In cooperation with:
Nevada State Highway Department. [47]
29. Stickney, Peter F. 1974. Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. creambush
rockspiraea. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the
United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 448-449. [7682]
30. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's
mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative
Extension Service. 135 p. [49]
31. Todd, J. W. 1975. Foods of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in southern
Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(1): 108-111. [6218]
32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
33. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
34. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
35. Vories, Kimery C. 1981. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of
the art. Volume I. Shrubs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-103. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 80 p. [3426]
36. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
37. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
Index
Related categories for Species: Holodiscus dumosus
| Bush Oceanspray
|
 |
