|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
ABBREVIATION :
KRAGRA
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
KRGR
COMMON NAMES :
white ratany
chacate
crimson-beak
Gray's Krameria
Gray's ratany
ratany
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of white ratany is Krameria grayi
Rose & Painter [20]. The genus Krameria was named in honor of the
Austrian botanist Henry Kramer [29]. IT has been included in the
families Leguminosae (Fabaceae), Polygalaceae, and Krameriaceae [11].
Dhillon [6] concluded, based on the vascular anatomy of the flower of
range ratany (Krameria parvifolia), that the genus Krameria belongs in
the family Polygalaceae.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Randy Scott Griffith, July 1991.
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott. 1991. Krameria grayi. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
White ratany is found in the arid regions of the southwestern United
States and northern Mexico. It occurs from southern California east to
western Texas and from southern Nevada and Utah south to northern Mexico
[14,39].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA CO NV NM TX UT MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
AMIS BIBE CACA DEVA GRCA GUMO
JOTR LAME ORPI SAGU
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K033 Chaparral
K039 Blackbrush
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush - bursage
K043 Paloverde - cactus shrub
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K045 Ceniza shurb
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K086 Juniper - oak savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
White ratany is not currently listed as a dominant and/or indicator in
published plant association or habitat type classifications. It occurs
in the understory of ironwood (Olneya tesota), Joshua tree (Yucca
brevifolia), juniper (Juniperus spp.), and shrub live oak (Quercus
turbinella) [10,27]. In the shrub layer white ratany is associated with
creosote bush (Larrea spp.), bursage (Ambrosia spp.), and little-leaf
paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum) [9,13,23].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
White ratany is an important forage for all classes of livestock [27].
It is one of the most important browse species for mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in the
Sonoran Desert [18,23,25]. Black-tailed jack rabbits (Lepus
californicus) rely almost exclusively on white ratany during the winter
[12].
The seeds of white ratany comprises up to 5 percent of the diet of
scailed quail (Callipepla squamata) in southeastern New Mexico [5].
PALATABILITY :
White ratany is relished by all classes of livestock [27], mule deer,
and desert bighorn sheep [18,23]. The relish and degree of use shown by
livestock and wildlife species for white ratany in several western
states has been rated as follows [13,18,23,27]:
AZ NM NV TX UT
Cattle good good good good good
Sheep good good good good good
Burros good good good good good
Bighorn sheep good good good good good
Mule deer good good good good good
White-tailed deer fair fair fair fair fair
Upland game birds good good good good good
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Rautenstrauch and others [23] reported the bimonthly nutritional
composition of white ratany as follows:
Percent Composition
Dry Cell Hemi-
Matter Protein Lignin Soluble Cellulose cellulose
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 57.69 7.90 9.91 43.35 27.19 19.68
Mar. 56.49 7.79 9.27 46.16 26.98 17.27
May 59.65 10.54 10.18 46.22 26.61 17.06
July 61.91 8.38 10.46 45.59 25.17 18.55
Sept. 46.82 9.63 11.38 38.24 27.02 22.96
Nov. 59.38 8.19 11.86 37.11 37.03 16.30
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The Pima Indians used an infusion of the roots to treat skin irritations
and sores. The roots also provided them with a reddish-yellow dye [29].
The Seri Indians used an infusion of the flowers to treat an upset
stomach and diarrhea, and an infusion of the stems with the bark removed
was used to make "the blood very red". The stems, dried and ground,
were applied to sores [8].
White ratany's roots are commercially important in the production of
aniline stain [21].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
White ratany decreases in response to grazing [30]. Blydenstein and
others [2] found that after 50 years of protection from grazing on a
site in the Sonoran Desert white ratany showed the greatest increase in
density. Goldberg and Turner [10] confirmed these findings and added
that recovery from grazing is a slow process. Even when protected from
grazing white ratany will not increase in density until favorable
moisture regimes occur.
Under heavy grazing pressure white ratany produces phenolic acids
(cinnamic and salcyclic acids) to reduce herbivory by reducing the
palatability [31].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
White ratany is a native, perennial, densely branched, deciduous shrub
from 12 to 24 inches (30-60 cm) tall. The leaves are alternate and
simple. The fruit is one-seeded, globose, indehiscent, thick walled and
spiny [14,20].
The roots form grafts with members of the same or different species,
forming protocooperation or a parasitic relationship [29]. This
relationship may help explain white ratany's drought resistance.
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (nanophanerophyte).
Burned or Clipped State: Cryptophyte (geophyte).
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
White ratany reproduces sexually by seed. In years with high soil
moisture it will flower twice, in the spring and again in the fall [29].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
White ratany's habitat is the desert environs, where it occupies sandy
to rocky flats, bajadas, and washes [26].
Soil: White ratany occurs in Alfisol, Aridisol, and Entisol soil orders
[7,13].
Climate: White ratany inhabits the fringe between cool and warm
deserts. In the northern portion of its range the precipitation is
received primarily during the winter, whereas in the southern portion it
is received in the summer. The mean rainfall is 10.8 inches (27.4 cm),
with an evapotransporation rate of 85 inches (216 cm) [2,3].
Elevation: White ratany generally grows at elevations ranging from
1,000 to 4,000 feet (303-1,212 m) [29].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
White ratany is a climax component of the creosotebush-tarbush
(Flourensia cernua) plant association. This plant association has been
termed a "super climax". After a disturbance, the site is recolonized
by same species present in the predisturbance vegetative community.
These species then persist until the next disturbance [19].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
White ratany begins active growth in early April; flowering may start in
late April to early May; and fruiting may begin in late May to early
August, depending on latitude and elevation [14,20,29].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
White ratany resprouts from the root crown after fire [16,24].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
White ratany is partially or completely top-killed by fire [16,24].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
White ratany's well-developed root system allows the plant to exploit
the decreased albedo, and increased water and nutrient availability
after a fire to recover density quite rapidly. However, cover values
remain lower in the open shrub microhabitat than in the more mesic tree
microhabitat. Revovery is moisture dependent. With high soil moisture
or in a more mesic microhabitat, postfire cover can be greater than
prefire cover [16].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Loftin [16] found that white ratany resprouted rapidly after a fire in
an Arizona Uplands desert scrub site in the Sonoran Desert and returned
to prefire levels within 35 months. He reported the following preburn
and postburn density levels and cover values in an open shrub and a tree
microhabitat [16]:
Density (number of plants per hectare)
Micro- Time (months postburn)
habitat Preburn Postburn 5 11 12 29 35
Open shrub 138 63 52 63 104 108 139
Tree 141 109 16 63 125 125 167
Cover (square meters per hectare)
Micro- Time (months postburn)
habitat Preburn Postburn 5 11 12 29 35
Open shrub 100 75 44 60 29 63 56
Tree 39 21 6 31 63 60 107
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
When prescribing a fire treatment, soil moisture must be considered as one
of the crucial aspects of white ratany's recovery [10,16,24].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Krameria grayi | White Ratany
REFERENCES :
1. 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]
2. Blydenstein, John; Hungerford, C. Roger; Day, Gerald I.; Humphrey, R.
1957. Effect of domestic livestock exclusion on vegetation in the
Sonoran Desert. Ecology. 38(3): 522-526. [4570]
3. Brown, David E. 1982. Chihuahuan desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed.
Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 169-179. [3607]
4. 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]
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. Dhillon, M. 1976. Vascular anatomy of the flower of Krameria parvifolia
var. glandulosa Macbr. and its bearing on its taxonomic status. Journal
of Research. 13(2): 197-201. [14009]
7. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
8. Felger, Richard S.; Moser, Mary Beck. 1974. Seri Indian pharmacopoeia.
Economic Botany. 28: 414-436. [2767]
9. 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]
10. Goldberg, Deborah E.; Turner, Raymond M. 1986. Vegetation change and
plant demography in permanent plots in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology.
67(3): 695-712. [4410]
11. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
12. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions
toward a flora of Nevada No. 49. Beltsville, MD: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops
Research Division. 170 p. [6729]
13. Hanley, Thomas A.; Brady, Ward W. 1977. Feral burro impact on a Sonoran
Desert range. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 374-377. [4337]
14. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
15. 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]
16. Loftin, Samuel Robert. 1987. Postfire dynamics of a Sonoran Desert
ecosystem. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 97 p. Thesis. [12296]
17. 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]
18. Miller, Gary D.; Gaud, William S. 1989. Composition and variability of
desert bighorn sheep diets. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3):
597-606. [14429]
19. Muller, Cornelius H. 1940. Plant succession in the Larrea-Flourensia
climax. Ecology. 21: 206-212. [4244]
20. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
21. 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]
22. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
23. Rautenstrauch, Kurt R.; Krausman, Paul R.; Whiting, Frank M.; Brown,
William H. 1988. Nutritional quality of desert mule deer forage in King
Valley, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(4): 172-174. [2768]
24. Thomas, Renee L.; Anderson, Roger C. 1993. Influence of topography on
stand composition in a midwestern ravine forest. American Midland
Naturalist. 130(1): 1-12. [1742]
25. Seegmiller, Rick F.; Krausman, Paul R.; Brown, William H.; Whiting,
Frank M. 1990. Nutritional composition of desert bighorn sheep forage in
the Harquahala Mountains, Arizona. Desert Plants. 10(2): 87-90. [11943]
26. Thorne, Robert F.; Prigge, Barry A.; Henrickson, James. 1981. A flora of
the higher ranges and the Kelso Dunes of the eastern Mojave Desert in
California. Aliso. 10(1): 71-186. [3767]
27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
28. 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]
29. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
30. Webb, Robert H.; Stielstra, Steven S. 1979. Sheep grazing effects on
Mojave Desert vegetation and soils. Environmental Management. 3(6):
517-529. [4164]
31. Wisdom, Charles S.; Gonzalez-Coloma, Azucena; Rundel, Philip W. 1987.
Phytochemical constituents in a Sonoran Desert plant community. 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: 84-87. [7401]
Index
Related categories for Species: Krameria grayi
| White Ratany
|
 |
