1Up Info - A Portal with a Difference

1Up Travel - A Travel Portal with a Difference.    
1Up Info
   

Earth & EnvironmentHistoryLiterature & ArtsHealth & MedicinePeoplePlacesPlants & Animals  • Philosophy & Religion  • Science & TechnologySocial Science & LawSports & Everyday Life Wildlife, Animals, & PlantsCountry Study Encyclopedia A -Z
North America Gazetteer


You are here >1Up Info > Wildlife, Animals, and Plants > Plant Species > Shrub > Species: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
 

Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 


Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 

Wildlife Species

  Amphibians

  Birds

  Mammals

  Reptiles

 

Kuchler

 

Plants

  Bryophyte

  Cactus

  Fern or Fern Ally

  Forb

  Graminoid

  Lichen

  Shrub

  Tree

  Vine


Introductory

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
ABBREVIATION : JUNPIN SYNONYMS : Juniperus monosperma var. pinchotii (Sudw.) Van Melle Juniperus texensis Van Melle Sabina pinchotii (Sudw.) Lewis SCS PLANT CODE : JUPI COMMON NAMES : Pinchot juniper redberry juniper Texas juniper Christmas berry juniper cedar TAXONOMY : The accepted scientific name for Pinchot juniper is Juniperus pinchotii Sudworth. There are no recognized subspecies, varieties, or forms [20,43,50,56]. Pinchot juniper is probably a stabilized hybrid between alligator juniper (J. deppeana) and oneseed juniper (J. monosperma) [16]. Reports of hybridization between Pinchot juniper and oneseed juniper were not substantiated by chemosystematic analysis [1,2,57]. Pinchot juniper does appear to hybridize with redberry juniper (J. erythrocarpa) in an area of sympatry in the Chisos Mountains Basin, Texas. It also appears to hybridize with Ashe juniper (J. ashei) [1,2,27]. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY COMPILED BY AND DATE : Janet Sullivan, February 1993 LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : NO-ENTRY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Sullivan, Janet. 1993. Juniperus pinchotii. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Pinchot juniper has a limited distribution in southwestern North America. It occurs in disjunct populations in west-central Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, eastern New Mexico, and Coahuila, Mexico [46,47,59,60,62] ECOSYSTEMS : FRES15 Oak - hickory FRES31 Shinnery FRES32 Texas savanna FRES38 Plains grasslands STATES : OK NM TX MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : BIBE CACA GUMO BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 14 Great Plains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K054 Grama - tobosa prairie K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna K060 Mesquite savanna K065 Grama - buffalograss K071 Shinnery K076 Blackland prairie K085 Mesquite - buffalograss K088 Fayette prairie SAF COVER TYPES : 66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper 67 Mohr ("shin") oak 68 Mesquite SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Pinchot juniper forms dense thickets that can largely or entirely exclude herbaceous understory vegetation [50]. It is often found with honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa), live oak (Quercus virginiana), Mohrs oak (Q. mohriana), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), Acacia spp., and with Ashe juniper where their ranges overlap [13]. Pinchot juniper was named as dominant in the following publication: Ecological survey and elevational gradient implications of the flora and vertebrate fauna in the northern Del Norte Mountains, Brewster Co., Texas [11].

VALUE AND USE

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Pinchot juniper wood is reddish brown to white, soft, and moderately durable in soil [55]. The wood is used locally for fenceposts and fuel but is not commercially important [55]. Pinchot juniper wood was used for bows and arrow shafts by the Kiowa, Commanche, Cheyenne, and Apache [18]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Pinchot juniper berries are eaten by many species of birds and small mammals. Foliage and twigs are consumed by white-tailed deer, but Pinchot juniper is a low preference browse. Pinchot juniper is browsed more in poor growing seasons than in productive years [24,54]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Nutritional values of Pinchot juniper leaves are as follows [21]: % of dry weight ash 4-6 cell wall components 34-37 phosphorus 0.08-0.17 crude protein 6-9 digestible organic matter 57-66 COVER VALUE : Pinchot juniper has high escape and thermal cover value for white-tailed deer [9]. Many species of birds use Pinchot juniper for nesting and roosting cover [54,55]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : Pinchot juniper has been used as parental stock for breeding ornamental junipers [17]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : The range of Pinchot juniper has grown since the late nineteenth century, largely through encroachment onto adjacent grasslands. It was estimated to occupy about 6 million acres (2.4 million ha) in western and central Texas in 1972 [1,12]. Dense stands of Pinchot juniper suppress the growth of forage plants and create difficulty in the handling of livestock, and thus are detrimental to rangeland productivity [51]. Pinchot juniper cover negatively influences grass production on both grazed and ungrazed sites [34]. Where Pinchot juniper is controlled or eradicated, forage production increases [17]. On some range sites Pinchot juniper serves as a soil stabilizer and furnishes cover for wildlife. Rangeland managers must take these factors into account when determining on which sites Pinchot juniper should be controlled [45]. The amount of Pinchot juniper encroachment differs between grazed and ungrazed sites, and with the amount of grazing. As range conditions improve and grass cover increases, Pinchot juniper germination and seedling survival decrease [38]. Control: Ueckert and Whisenant [52] conducted a study to determine the efficacy of a number of herbicides and compared the costs of chemical control and hand or mechanical control of Pinchot juniper seedlings (average 13 inches [34 cm] tall, up to 964 seedlings per acre [2,409/ha]). They determined that the least expensive-most effective treatment was hand grubbing/ground level cutting of seedlings, costing $9.26 per acre ($23.14/ha) based on a 1979 labor cost of $3.00 per hour. This method resulted in complete control of seedlings. Complete control within 3 months was also achieved with the least expensive chemical control: a foliar spray of dicamba at 1.1 pounds active ingredient per acre (0.5 kg ai/ha). Control of mature juniper is more difficult and expensive. The most effective chemical controls are wetting sprays of picloram in an oil/water carrier, achieving 74 to 99 percent canopy reduction, and wetting sprays of picloram plus 2,4,5-T (1:1) in an oil/water carrier, achieving 82 to 100 percent canopy reduction. Spring or fall treatments are more effective than midsummer treatments [46]. Soil-applied herbicides are relatively ineffective [44]. Mechanical methods for removing or controlling Pinchot juniper include hand grubbing, chaining, tree-dozing or the use of a Jacques-saw [7]. The most effective treatments uproot trees so that they cannot sprout. These methods can lower the Pinchot juniper canopy and increase grass production, but residual stems, sprouts, and debris will build up over time, and new Pinchot juniper seedlings can become established [51]. These methods are usually fairly costly. In the past, some managers recouped some control costs by harvesting fenceposts and fuelwood [7]. Sites on which Pinchot juniper is mechanically killed (by chaining or tree-dozing) will be infested with Pinchot juniper seedlings rapidly. These sites should be burned by prescription 3 to 5 years after the mechanical treatment. Grazed sites, because of the increased frequency of Pinchot juniper establishment, need to be burned every 7 to 10 years to maintain high grass production and kill Pinchot juniper seedlings before the basal bud zone is protected by soil [33]. In areas where Pinchot juniper is considered a problem, ranchers estimated that they achieved a 40 to 50 percent increase in stocking capacity and a 50 percent reduction in labor costs where they controlled Pinchot juniper (any means of control) [12].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Pinchot juniper is a native, evergreen large shrub or small tree, not usually over 25 feet (8 m) tall, more often not over 18 feet (5.5 m) tall [20,47,55]. It usually has lengthy lateral stems and spreads considerably, with a broad, flattened to dish-shaped crown [20]. The bark is gray to reddish brown and peels off in shaggy strips [55]. Pinchot juniper forms a berrylike "fruit" that contains one or rarely two seeds [55]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Sexual reproduction: Pinchot juniper is typically dioecious, though most populations have a small percentage of monoecious individuals [47,55]. Pinchot juniper reproductive maturity is correlated more strongly with tree height (r = 0.59) than with age (r = 0.35 or r = 0.50 site dependent) [35]. Average height at reproductive maturity is 3 to 4 feet (1-1.2 m); average age at maturity is 25 years. Height and age were found to be highly correlated (r = 0.93); however, a few individuals produce strobili as young as 12 years if they are tall enough [35]. Seeds are dispersed by mammals and birds. Rabbits can carry seed up to one mile. Some seed is carried by rainfall runoff [17]. Pinchot juniper requires 2 years of above average precipitation for good seedling establishment; the first year for good seed production and the second for good germination [48]. Germination of Pinchot juniper seeds declines with a decrease in moisture availability. Optimal soil temperature for germination is 64 degrees Fahrenheit (18 deg C), with no emergence at 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 deg C) and limited emergence at 81 degrees Fahrenheit (27 deg C) [48]. Seedling densities of more than 800 per acre (2,000/ha) were found on sites where mature Pinchot juniper had been tree-dozed. Seedling densities can also be high beneath canopies of live oak and honey mesquite trees, due to dispersal of seed by birds [39,52]. Asexual reproduction: Pinchot juniper sprouts from meristematic tissue at the base of the stem following injury or top removal [48]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Pinchot juniper occurs on open flats, on dry hillsides, in canyons, caprock regions, and talus slopes. It is usually found on limestone or gypsiferous soils [18,47,55]. Pinchot juniper-mixed grass habitats are most widely developed on rough breaks and shallow range sites along the high plains escarpment and adjacent rolling plains of western Texas [51]. On the redbed soils of the Permian formation, Pinchot juniper forms dense clumped stands 15 to 20 feet (4.6-6 m) in height. On gypsum soils it can form thickets of very low (3 feet [0.9 m] tall) shrubs that cover hundreds of acres [47]. Pinchot juniper is drought resistant; its range extends into the Chihuahuan Desert region, and it is associated there with xeric shrubs such as creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), lecheguilla (Agave lecheguilla), sotol (Dasylirion leiophyllum), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and mariola (Parthenuim incanum) [56,57]. Overstory or shrub associates not previously mentioned include Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), catclaw mimosa (Mimosa biuncifera), yucca (Yucca spp.), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), algerita (Mahonia trifoliolata), littleleaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), skunkbush (R. aromatica), feather dalea (Dalea formosa), and elbowbush (Forestiera pubescens) [33,36,39,51]. Understory/herbaceous associates not previously mentioned include common curlymesquite (Hilaria belangeri), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), perennial threeawn (Aristida wrightii, A. purpurea, A. longiseta), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), red grama (B. trifida), hairy grama (B. hirsuta), hairy tridens (Erioneuron pilosum), slim tridens (Tridens muticus), Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), sedges (Carex spp.), Arizona cottontop (Trichachne californica), chloris (Chloris spp.), tumblegrass (Schedonnardus paniculatus), and fall witchgrass (Leptoloma cognatum) [33,36,51]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Facultative Seral Species Following top removal, Pinchot juniper sprouts are only slightly affected by competition from herbaceous species in terms of reproductive succcess, growth rate, and survival. Competition from neighboring herbaceous plants has a greater effect on the growth and survival of seedlings, and may delay reproductive maturity [35,36]. Shrub density and cover, however, have no effect on reproductive maturity [35]. The encroachment of Pinchot juniper onto adjacent grasslands is attributed to disturbances such as grazing, reduced fire frequency, and climatic changes over the last 50 to 300 years [6]. Grazing thins or removes the grass cover, providing Pinchot juniper seeds a "safe spot" to become established. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) will suppress Pinchot juniper seedling growth [48]. Johnsen [63], however, found that in years of above normal moisture, Pinchot juniper seedlings may become established in even the best stands of grass. The maintenance of continuous Pinchot juniper stands depends on at least 2 consecutive years of cooler and wetter than average weather occurring during the lifespan of the trees in a stand. This is not usually an obstacle, since Pinchot juniper can live more than 100 years [38]. In closed-canopy stands, Pinchot juniper can exclude essentially all herbaceous vegetation [37]. The litter and foliage extracts of some juniper species have allelopathic effects on some associated grasses and browse [22]. Some woody species were present only in the shade of large Pinchot juniper plants; shrub densities may increase as Pinchot juniper approaches reproductive maturity [35]. Pinchot juniper significantly (p < 0.01) affected total production and grass production on both grazed and ungrazed sites, with a linear inverse relationship on ungrazed sites and a inverse logarithmic relationship on grazed sites [37]. McPherson and Wright [37] determined that herbaceous composition and productivity are altered for at least 5 years following cessation of grazing, from which they inferred that succession following grazing will proceed slowly or be unpredictable. Pinchot juniper is apparently tolerant of some shade, as it can establish under the canopies of live oak and honey mesquite [39,51]. The relationship is not reciprocal; honey mesquite does not establish under Pinchot juniper canopies. Pinchot juniper does, however, facilitate the establishment of algerita, littleleaf sumac, and catclaw mimosa [39]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Pollination occurs in September and October, and the fruiting cones mature the following fall [4].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Pinchot juniper was historically restricted to "cedar brakes"--upland areas of dissected limestone or gypsiferous soils that were protected from fire and in which juniper species formed dense thickets. The estimated natural fire regime for the adjacent grasslands is 20 to 30 years [59]. Such frequent fires kill most young Pinchot juniper seedlings and saplings, and, coupled with a slow rate of seed germination in vigorous stands of grass, would be sufficient to restrict Pinchot juniper establishment. As a result of reduced vigor of grass stands due to grazing and suppression of fire, Pinchot juniper is encroaching onto adjacent grasslands [12,59]. The ability to sprout after fire coupled with the reduction of understory vegetation makes mature Pinchot juniper stands somewhat resistant to fire [48,59]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/root sucker Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community) Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Moderate- and low-severity fires can kill Pinchot juniper seedlings and saplings if the basal bud zone is unprotected by soil. Mature Pinchot juniper with a soil-protected basal bud zone is top-killed by fire [49,50]. Considerable heat is required for ignition, but once ignited, the plant burns so vigorously that usually all the branches are killed [5]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Pinchot juniper will sprout from a basal bud zone when top-killed by fire [5,25]. Ahlstrand [5] reported that 50 percent of the mature height was regained during a 3- to 7-year recovery period after a fire. Kittams [25] reported that 25 to 50 years may be required for attainment of mature height, which agrees with Ahlstrand's estimate for attaining the mature height of the original stand. Pinchot juniper sprouts were not producing seed after 3 years of postfire growth [51]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Prescribed fire can be used to eradicate Pinchot juniper seedlings on grasslands not already infested with mature Pinchot juniper. Established or mature Pinchot juniper can be controlled by a combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire [41,42]. Pinchot juniper is difficult to kill with fire unless the basal bud zones are above the soil, which is usually only true for seedlings and saplings (not sprouts). If the bud zones are exposed, prescribed fire can result in 70 to 75 percent mortality [41,50]. Percent mortality increases in dry years: 90 percent of Pinchot juniper plants less than 20 inches tall were killed by a prescribed fire when precipitation was 32 percent below normal. Pinchot juniper fire mortality decreases with increased precipitation, and plots would need to be burned again sooner than if originally burned in a dry year [50]. Pinchot juniper sprouts do not produce seed right away, which decreases the amount of seedling recruitment on the site [51]. Prescribed fires should be limited to gently to moderately sloping sites (3 to 12 percent grade) to minimize potential soil loss [50,51]. Areas burned to remove Pinchot juniper are usually not invaded by other woody species following fire [41]. Herbaceous plant recovery after prescribed fire depends on the season of burn and postburn moisture availability [50]. The benefit of increased mortality of Pinchot juniper from burning in a dry year is offset by the loss of forage; productivity can be decreased by 50 percent after prescribed burning in a dry year. Most Pinchot juniper-invaded pastures recover to noninvaded productivity levels within 3 years of a prescribed fire (after earlier mechanical treatment) [50]. After early spring fires, managers are advised to wait until mid-June before stocking [41]. A 10- to 20-year burning cycle can keep pasture in a productive state for both wildlife and livestock, reducing the need for chemical or mechanical control [41,50]. Rangeland sites with shallow loamy soils over limestone will respond differently than sites with deep or clay soils. On deep, heavy soil sites, tobosa grass (Hilaria mutica) may be the dominant grass. Following burning, sites with deep soil tend to be more stable with regard to production and species composition [41]. Pinchot juniper may become more fire resistant earlier (i.e. the basal bud zone buried sooner) on sites with deep soil. On deep-soil sites, a shorter fire interval (7 to 10 years) may be needed to maintain control of Pinchot juniper [41,49,50]. Control methods: Mechanical treatment kills large plants and concentrates fuels. Prescribed fire following such treatment removes woody debris (cover reduction from 25 percent to less than 2 percent) and kills Pinchot juniper seedlings and plants that escaped mechanical treatment [51]. Treatment of mature juniper involves chaining or using bulldozers to push over and pile large trees to concentrate Pinchot juniper fuels and allow an increase of fine fuels (pastures should be rested or undergo light grazing only). The prescribed fire should be conducted 3 to 5 years after the chaining treatment to allow fuels to dry and to allow Pinchot juniper seeds to germinate so that the seedlings can be killed. Managers can expect reductions in woody debris cover to below 2 percent [51]. Follow-up treatments should not be necessary, except that the area should be burned again before any Pinchot juniper plants are 4 feet (1.2 m) tall [41,50]. The ignition time needed to burn green Pinchot juniper foliage is most closely related to foliage moisture content and average mean daily temperature (r = 0.73 and r=0.48 respectively). During dry periods, the most significant factors are moisture content (r = 0.83) and relative humidity (r = 0.77). During wetter than average periods, no significant correlations occur, making fire behavior less predictable [10]. Chained, dead juniper is a highly volatile fuel [41,55]. The prepared sites can be burned with a headfire into 400 to 500 foot (120-150 m) firelines prepared earlier in the spring [41,50,59]. The green juniper seedlings can be burned with a foliage moisture content of between 60 and 80 percent [58]. It is recommended that there be 2,000 pounds per acre (2,250 kg/ha) of fine fuels present to carry the fire into juniper piles and to completely burn over the surrounding grasses and Pinchot juniper seedlings. It should be noted that if the area is populated by widely separated bunchgrasses, the fire may achieve only 50 percent coverage, even with 2,500 pounds per acre (2,800 kg/ha) fine fuels. If the area is covered with a sod-type grass, such as buffalograss, 1,000 pounds per acre (1,125 kg/ha) of fine fuels may be sufficient to achieve 70 percent burn coverage [41]. Wright and others [60] have developed an "expert system" for burning large pastures of dozed Pinchot juniper, with inputs of windspeed, time of day, air temperature, topography, green juniper moisture content, fuel type, and nearness of cold front. Large, mature Pinchot juniper with little understory is difficult and expensive to control with fire. It is hazardous to burn because extreme conditions are needed to achieve moderately complete burns. There has been limited success with windrowing techniques; conditions for success are particular and there is a risk of spot fires. Cover has to be at least 35 percent to form a relatively continuous fuel bed. Crown fires tend to stop when the distance between trees is greater than 26 feet [41]. Prescribed fire for control of Pinchot juniper can be conducted with ground ignition for small, easily traversed areas. Ground ignition can be difficult on large, rough and dissected areas because of increased fuel breaks. Aerial ignition, with a helitorch can be safer and give more control over the ignition pattern [32,58]. When compared for cost and efficiency, the helitorch method was found to have an economy of size, that is, as the size of units to be burned increases or the number of smaller units to be burned increases, the cost per acre decreases. Such economy does not occur with ground ignition, the cost per acre decreases only to a limit of approximately 2,500 acres (1,000 ha), above which the cost per acre remains the same. Therefore, it is recommended that aerial ignition be employed for large units (approximately over 5,000 acres [2,000 ha]) or for the equivalent area of smaller units [42].

FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
CASE NAME : Fire-induced mortality of redberry juniper [Juniperus pinchotii Sudw.] 2. Wright, H. A.; Bunting, S. C. Neuenschwander 1976 [2622] SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : Spring, 1979 Spring, 1980 Spring, 1981 STUDY LOCATION : Masterson Ranch, King County, Texas; Potts Ranch, Motley County, Texas PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : The preburn community was a Pinchot juniper-mixed grass type. Pinchot juniper was the dominant woody species. Associated shrubs included skunkbush (Rhus aromatica), littleleaf sumac (R. microphylla), algerita (Mahonia trifoliolata), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), feather dalea (Dalea formosa), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa), catclaw mimosa (Mimosa biuncifera), and elbowbush (Forestiera pubescens). Dominant grasses were sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), perennial threeawn (Aristida wrightii, A. purpurea, A. longiseta, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), tall dropseed (Sporobolus asper var. asper), slim tridens (Tridens muticus), hairy tridens (Erioneuron pilosum), and fall witchgrass (Leptoloma cognatum). TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : NO-ENTRY SITE DESCRIPTION : Long-term mean annual precipitation is 23 inches (590 mm), of which 90 percent occurs during the growing season. Soils on the King County area are shallow, rock Mollisols of the Talpa series, while those on the Motley County area are deep Alfisols of the Miles series. FIRE DESCRIPTION : 1979 broadcast burn on 2,000 acres (800 ha) in mid-March 1980 broadcast burn on 700 acres (280 ha) in mid-March. Relative humidity: 25 percent Air temperature: 68 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit (20 to 26 deg C) Wind speed: 7 to 14 miles per hour (12-24 km/h) Fine fuel load: 1,607 to 3,125 pounds per acre (1,800-3,500 kg/ha) The separate 1981 study involved burning Pinchot juniper plants with an individual plant burner. Plants in three size classes were randomly assigned to one of four treatments consisting of a control, light, moderate, and heavy fine fuel simulated fires. The burner was calibrated using time/temperature curves developed for mixed grass fuels by Wright and others [1976]. Treatments were applied in early April with air temperatures from 68 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit (20 to 26 deg C) and relative humidity from 60 to 75 percent. Pinchot juniper plants on the two broadcast burns (1979,1980) were seedlings from 3 to 32 inches tall (7-80 cm), residual live stems that escaped the chaining treatment, and 5- to 6-year-old basal sprouts from plants that were top-killed by chaining. FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : Mortality was assessed 6, 18, and 30 months after the prescribed fires in 1979 and 1980. Mortality of young Pinchot juniper was 42 percent 6 months after the 1979 fire, 49 percent 18 months after the fire, and 50 percent 30 months after the fire. This indicates that disease, insects, and rodents do not interact with fire injury to increase mortality. Postfire growing conditions appear to affect mortality following a prescribed fire. Following the 1979 fire, precipitation was 18 percent above the long-term average during the growing season. In 1980, precipitation was 32 percent below average and summer temperatures were higher than normal in the growing season following fire treatments. Mortality following the 1980 fire was higher; there was some effect of a higher fine fuel load, but this did not appear to have as great an effect as the drought conditions. In the 1981 simulated fire study Pinchot juniper mortality increased across size classes with increased heat treatment. Location of the bud zone relative to the soil surface was the dominant variable associated with mortality of Pinchot juniper plants. Only 1 of 100 marked mature plants (with buried bud zones) was killed by broadcast burning in 1979, and the bud zone of this plant had been mostly exposed by the chaining operation 4 years earlier. In the drought year of 1980, burning killed approximately 5 percent of the mature plants. The plants that were killed typically had a large amount of woody debris from the caining operation lodged around the base, increasing fire intensity. FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : Pinchot juniper can be killed by fire if it is burned before the majority of young plants have their bud zones covered by soil. On shallow rocky sites, mortality of Pinchot juniper plants less than 13 years old and 20 inches (50 cm) tall ranged from 33 to 100 percent, depending on the size of the plants and the conditions of the following growing season. Continuing control of Pinchot juniper can be achieved with a prescribed fire treatment only; chaining is needed only if the Pinchot juniper on the site is allowed to reach mature heights. Intervals between prescribed fire treatments should be approximately 7 to 20 years, or when Pinchot juniper on the site reaches 20 inches (50 cm) in height and the bud zone is still exposed. The age at which the bud zone is covered with soil varies with site. On deep soil sites with gentle slopes the bud zones are protected earlier. On such sites, the interval between fires should be shorter to obtain satisfactory control of Pinchot juniper. Development of fine fuel loads of 2,680 pounds per acre (3,000 kg/ha) will improve fire control of Pinchot juniper. Fires conducted in dry years will also achieve higher mortality rates, but these conditions negatively affect herbaceous plant yield. Good soil moisture reserves at the time of the fire are recommended to minimize herbaceous plant yield loss.

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper
REFERENCES : 1. Adams, R. P. 1972. Chemosystematic and numerical studies of natural populations of Juniperus pinchotii Sudw. Taxon. 21(4): 407-427. [20001] 2. Adams, Robert P. 1975. Numerical-chemosystematic studies of infraspecific variation in Juniperus pinchotii. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 3: 71-74. [19990] 3. Adams, Robert P.; Kistler, J. R. 1991. Hybridization between Juniperus erythrocarpa Cory and Juniperus pinchotii Sudworth in the Chisos Mountains, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 36(3): 295-301. [17084] 4. Adams, Robert P.; Zanoni, Thomas A. 1979. The distribution, synonomy, and taxonomy of three junipers of southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 24(2): 323-329. [19989] 5. Ahlstrand, Gary M. 1982. Response of Chihuahuan Desert mountain shrub vegetation to burning. Journal of Range Management. 35(1): 62-65. [296] 6. Archer, Steve; Scifres, Charles; Bassham, C. R.; Maggio, Robert. 1988. Autogenic succession in a subtropical savanna: conversion of grassland to thorn woodland. Ecological Monographs. 58(2): 111-127. [10070] 7. Bell, H. M.; Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1943. Fighting the mesquite and cedar invasion on Texas ranges... Soil Conservation. 9: 111-114. [19992] 8. 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] 9. Bryant, Fred C.; Demarais, Steve. 1991. Habitat management guidelines for whte-tailed deer in south and west Texas. In: Lutz, R. Scott; Wester, David B., editors. Research highlights--1991: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 22. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 9-13. [18350] 10. Bunting, Stephen C.; Wright, Henry A.; Wallace, Walter H. 1983. Seasonal variation in the ignition time of redberry juniper in west Texas. Journal of Range Management. 36(2): 169-171. [13773] 11. Carignan, Jeanette M. 1988. Ecological survey and elevational gradient implications of the flora and vertebrate fauna in the northern Del Norte Mountains, Brewster Co., Tx. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University. 181 p. Thesis. [12255] 12. Ellis, Dalton; Schuster, Joseph L. 1968. Juniper age and distribution on an isolated butte in Garza County, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 13(3): 343-348. [20419] 13. Ethridge, Don; Weddle, Jon; Bowman, Kenneth; Wright, Henry. 1991. Labor savings from controlling brush in the Texas rolling plains. Rangelands. 13(1): 9-12. [14123] 14. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 15. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p. (Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny Series; vol. 2). [14935] 16. 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] 17. Graves, Robbie G. 1971. Effects of redberry juniper control on understory vegetation. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Univeristy. 86 p. Thesis. [19988] 18. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603] 19. Hall, Marion T. 1961. Notes on cultivated junipers. Butler University Botanical Studies. 14: 73-90. [19796] 20. Hall, Marion T.; Carr, Claudia J. 1968. Variability in Juniperus in the Palo Duro Canyon of western Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 13(1): 75-98. [4538] 21. Huston, J. E.; Rector, B. S.; Merrill, L. B.; Engdahl, B. S. 1981. Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas. Report B-1375. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University System, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [4565] 22. Jameson, Donald A. 1966. Juniper control by individual tree burning. Research Note RM-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [1249] 23. Johnsen, Thomas N., Jr.; Alexander, Robert A. 1974. Juniperus L. juniper. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., tech. coord. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 460-469. [1268] 24. 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] 25. Kittams, Walter H. 1973. Effect of fire on vegetation of the Chihuahuan Desert region. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, Texas. No. 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 427-444. [6271] 26. Kittams, Walter H.; Evans, Stanley L.; Cooke, Derrick C. 1979. Food habits of mule deer on foothills of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. In: Genoways, Hugh H.; Baker, Robert J., eds. Biological investigations in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park: Proceedings of a symposium; 1975 April 4-5; Lubbock, TX. Proceedings and Transactions Series No. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 403-426. [16023] 27. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384] 28. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952] 29. Ahlgren, Isabel F.; Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1965. Effects of prescribed burning on soil microorganisms in a Minnesota jack pine forest. Ecology. 46(3): 304-310. [18691] 30. 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] 31. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021] 32. Masters, Robert A.; Rasmussen, G. Allen; McPherson, Guy R. 1986. Prescribed burning with a helitorch on the Texas rolling plains. Rangelands. 8(4): 173-176. [18618] 33. McGinty, A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Merrill, Leo B. 1983. Influence of spring burning on cattle diets and performance on the Edwards Plateau. Journal of Range Management. 36(2): 175-178. [13782] 34. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1986. Juniper canopy cover reduces grass production. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton M., eds. Research highlights--1986 Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 17. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 20. [3666] 35. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1987. Factors affecting reproductive maturity of redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii). Forest Ecology and Management. 21: 191-196. [2996] 36. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1989. Direct effects of competition on individual juniper plants: a field study. Journal of Applied Ecology. 26(3): 979-988. [13032] 37. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1990. Effects of cattle grazing and Juniperus pinchotii canopy cover on herb cover and production in western Texas. American Midland Naturalist. 123: 144-151. [11148] 38. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1990. Establishment of Juniperus pinchotii in western Texas: environmental effects. Journal of Arid Environments. 19(3): 283-287. [14105] 39. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A.; Wester, David B. 1988. Patterns of shrub invasion in semiarid Texas grasslands. American Midland Naturalist. 120(2): 391-397. [7197] 40. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130] 41. Rasmussen, G. Allen; McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1986. Prescribed burning juniper communities in Texas. Management Note 10. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences. 5 p. [4043] 42. Rasmussen, G. Allen; McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1988. Economic comparison of aerial and ground ignition for rangeland prescribed fires. Journal of Range Management. 41(5): 413-415. [451] 43. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 44. Scifres, C. J. 1972. Redberry juniper control with soil-applied herbicides. Journal of Range Management. 25: 308-310. [19994] 45. Scifres, Charles J. 1980. Brush management: Principles and practices for Texas and the Southwest. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. 360 p. [20002] 46. Schuster, Joseph L. 1976. Redberry juniper control with picloram. Journal of Range Management. 29(6): 490-491. [19995] 47. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708] 48. Smith, Michael A.; Wright, Henry A.; Schuster, Joseph L. 1975. Reproductive characteristics of redberry juniper. Journal of Range Management. 28(2): 126-128. [19993] 49. Steuter, Allen A.; Britton, Carlton M. 1983. Fire-induced mortality of redberry juniper [Juniperus pinchotii Sudw.]. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 343-345. [2238] 50. Steuter, Allen A.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Spring burning to manage redberry juniper rangelands-- Texas Rolling Plains. Rangelands. 5(6): 249-251. [2239] 51. Steuter, Allen A.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Spring burning effects on redberry juniper-mixed grass habitats. Journal of Range Management. 36(2): 161-164. [18716] 52. Ueckert, D. N.; Whisenant, S. G. 1982. Individual plant treatments for controlling redberry juniper seedlings. Journal of Range Management. 35(4): 419-423. [19996] 53. 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] 54. 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] 55. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707] 56. Wells, Philip V. 1965. Scarp woodlands, transported grassland soils, and concept of grassland climate in the Great Plains region. Science. 148: 246-249. [14097] 57. Wester, David B.; Wright, Henry A. 1987. Ordination of vegetation change Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, USA. Vegetatio. 72: 27-33. [11167] 58. Wright, Henry A. 1991. Aerial ignition technology and expert systems. In: Rangeland Technology Equipment Council, 1991 annual report. 9222-2808-MTDC. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program: 8-9. [17079] 59. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 60. Wright, Henry A.; Burns, James R.; Chang, Hwalsik. 1990. Expert system to burn blacklines. 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: 3. [14665] 61. Zanoni, T. A. 1978. The American junipers of the section Sabina (Juniperus, Cupressaceae) -- a century later. Phytologia. 38(6): 433-454. [4954] 62. Zanoni, Thomas A.; Adams, Robert P. 1976. The genus Juniperus in Mexico and Guatemala: numerical and chemosystematic analysis. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 4: 147-158. [19991] 63. Johnsen, Thomas N., Jr. 1962. One-seeded juniper invasion of northern Arizona grasslands. Ecological Monographs. 32(3): 187-207. [1267]

Index

Related categories for Species: Juniperus pinchotii | Pinchot Juniper

Send this page to a friend
Print this Page

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.

Information Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System

About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory
Link to 1Up Info | Add 1Up Info Search to your site

1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution.