Introductory
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



ABBREVIATION : 
LARTRI

SYNONYMS : 
   Larrea divaricata Cav. [110]


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   LATR2


COMMON NAMES : 
   creosotebush
   greasewood


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for creosotebush is Larrea
tridentata (D.C.) Cov.  It is a member of the caltrop family
(Zygophyllaceae).  There are no recognized infrataxa [52].


LIFE FORM : 
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Sara Lynn Korthuis, August 1988


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
K. Anna Marshall, January 1995


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Marshall, K. Anna. 1995. Korthuis, Sara Lynn. 1988. Larrea tridentata.
In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Creosotebush occurs throughout the Mojave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan
deserts [11].  Its distribution extends from southern California
northeast through southern Nevada to the southwest corner of Utah and
southeast through southern Arizona and New Mexico to western Texas and
north-central Mexico [67].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES30  Desert shrub
   FRES32  Texas savanna
   FRES33  Southwestern shrubsteppe
   FRES40  Desert grasslands


STATES : 
     AZ  CA  NV  NM  TX  UT  MEXICO


ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : 
     BIBE  CACA  CAGR  DEVA  FOBO  GRCA
     GUMO  JOTR  LAME  MOCA  ORPI  SAGU
     TONT  WHSA  ZION


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    7  Lower Basin and Range
   12  Colorado Plateau
   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K041  Creosotebush
   K042  Creosotebush - bursage
   K043  Paloverde - cactus shrub
   K044  Creosotebush - tarbush
   K045  Ceniza shrub
   K058  Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
   K059  Trans-Pecos shrub savanna


SAF COVER TYPES : 
    68  Mesquite
   242  Mesquite


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Creosotebush is a dominant or codominant member of most plant
communities in the Mojave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts.
Creosotebush occurs on 35 to 46 million acres (14-18.4 million ha) in
the Southwest [25].  Creosotebush usually occurs in open, species-poor
communities, sometimes in pure stands.  It also occurs as a transitional
species in desert grasslands [59], viscid acacia (Acacia
neovernicosa)-mariola (Parthenium incanum) chaparillo [60], mesquite
(Prosopis spp.)  woodlands [90], Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia)/big
galleta (Hilaria rigida) communities [57], and xeroriparian areas [14].

The creosotebush-white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) association covers
approximately 70 percent of the Mojave Desert [42,67,91].  Ackerman [3]
estimated the density of creosotebush at 959 plants per hectare on
Mojave Desert sites in Rock Valley, Nevada.  Relative abundance was 10.8
percent and relative plant cover was 19.6 percent.  Species associated
with creosotebush-white bursage communities in the Mojave Desert include
Shockley's goldenhead (Acamptopappus shockleyi), Anderson's wolfberry
(Lycium andersonii), range ratany (Krameria parvifolia), Mojave yucca
(Yucca schidigera), California jointfir (Ephedra funerea), spiny hopsage
(Grayia spinosa), and winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) [88].
Creosotebush also occurs in the Mojave Desert scrub association with
desertholly (Atriplex hymenelytra), shadscale (A. confertifolia), white
burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima),
Joshua tree, desertsenna (Cassia armata), and Nevada ephedra (Ephedra
nevadensis) [54,97].

In the Sonoran Desert, creosotebush commonly occurs in the
creosotebush-triangle bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea) [7],
creosotebush-white bursage [91], and Sonoran Desert scrub [54]
associations.  Other species associated with creosotebush in the Sonoran
Desert include yellow paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), tesota (Olneya
tesota), big galleta, prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), acacia (Acacia
paucipina), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), ocotillo (Fouquieria
splendens), western honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var.
torreyana), brittle bush (Encelia farinosa), and pachycereus
(Pachycereus schottii) [7, 26, 91].  The densities of creosotebush in
the subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert are 448 plants per hectare in the
Lower Colorado River Valley, 437.7 plants per hectare in the Arizona
Upland Subdivision, and 1.1 plants per hectare on the Central Gulf Coast
[67].

The creosotebush scrub phase covers 40 percent of the Chihuahuan Desert
[67].  Associated species include tarbush (Flourensia cernua), acacia
(Acacia spp.), leucophyllum (Leucophyllum spp.), mesquite, palma (Yucca
filifera), ocotillo, small-leaf geigertree (Cordia parviflora), and
anisacanthus (Anisacanthus spp.)  [49, 73].  Creosotebush also occurs in
the sand dune scrub phase in the Chihuahuan Desert [49].

Publications listing creosotebush as a dominant or codominant species
include:

  The structure and distribution of Larrea communities [9]
  Sonoran Desert [24]
  Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert [49]
  Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
    California [54]
  The natural vegetation of Arizona [81]
  Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains: community types and
    dynamics [82]	
  Plant communities of Texas (Series level) [94]
  Vegetation and flora of Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona
    [103]

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : 



IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
Many animals bed in or under creosotebush.  Domestic sheep dig shallow
beds under creosotebush because it provides the only shade in the desert
scrub community [105].  Desert reptiles and amphibians use creosotebush
as a food source and perch site and hibernate or estivate in burrows
under creosotebush, avoiding predators and excessive daytime
temperatures.  Desert tortoises dig their shelters under creosotebush
where its roots stabilize the soil [12,30].  Seventy-one percent of
desert tortoise burrows studied near San Bernadino, California, were
associated with creosotebush [12].  Banner-tailed kangaroo rats
frequently use creosotebush for cover [76].  Merriam's kangaroo rats
often make their dens under creosotebush [76].  Some special status
subspecies of kit fox rest and den in creosotebush flats in the Sonoran
Desert [111].

Many small mammals browse creosotebush or consume its seeds.
Creosotebush comprised 14.6 percent of black-tailed jackrabbit diets on
Isla Carmen in the Gulf of California.  Terminal twigs of creosotebush
were consumed in proportion to their availability in black-tailed
jackrabbit habitat.  Ninety percent of creosotebush were browsed, and
52.5 percent of twigs on those plants were browsed [53].  Creosotebush
dominated the diet of desert woodrats in the Mojave Desert of
California; the desert woodrats strongly preferred creosotebush foliage
of relatively low resin content [74].  Boyd and Brum [19] found that
27.5 percent of creosotebush seed mericarps on a Mojave Desert site
showed signs of postdispersal rodent predation.



PALATABILITY : 
Creosotebush is unpalatable to livestock and most browsing wildlife
[8,55,70,95].  Consumption of creosotebush may be fatal to sheep [35].
A few researchers have treated creosotebush chemically to make it
palatable [95,36,4].  Such treatments can produce a feed that is
relatively palatable and nutritious.


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
Catlin [27] evaluated the nutritional content of creosotebush browse in
Arizona:

Water			4.79%
Ash			8.06%
Crude protein	       13.37%
Crude fiber	       11.21%
Fat			9.13%
Nitrogen-free extract  43.38%

Reichman [86] estimated that creosotebush seeds contain 4,966 calories
per gram or 11.37 calories per seed.


COVER VALUE : 
Creosotebush in Utah provides good cover for small mammals and nongame
birds, fair cover for pronghorn and upland game birds, and poor cover
for bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and waterfowl [113].


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
Creosotebush may be used to rehabilitate disturbed environments in
southwestern deserts.  Once established, creosotebush may improve sites
for annuals that grow under its canopy by trapping fine soil, organic
matter, and symbiont propagules.  It may also increase water
infiltration and storage [8].

Creosotebush should be transplanted rather than spot-seeded [47].
Miller and Holden [75] increased germination success by leaching seeds
in running water for 12 hours.  At Organ Pipe National Monument, the
survival rate for creosotebush was 78 percent when seeds were germinated
in grow tubes filled with nursery soil mix and allowed to harden-off
before being transplanted outside.  Creosotebush should be planted in
the spring or fall [31,96].  Bainbridge and Virginia [8] recommend
pruning seedlings heavily 1 month before transplanting.  Rodent
protectors are necessary [31].


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
Creosotebush has been highly valued for its medicinal properties by
desert peoples.  It has been used to treat at least 14 illnesses [80].
Twigs and leaves may be boiled as tea, steamed, pounded into a powder,
pressed into a poultice, or heated into an infusion.

Creosotebush is host to an insect, Tachardiella larreae, which produces
lac and deposits it on the stems of creosotebush [39].  Lac is plastic
when heated but hardens again on cooling, forming a strong bond like
commercial sealing wax.  Lac has been used by desert peoples to seal
lids on food jars [39,80].

Creosotebush contains phototoxins in its leaves that inhibit the growth
of Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae cultures [35].

Creosotebush is used as an ornamental throughout its range [42].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Creosotebush invades desert grasslands [6,17,22,56,58].  In 1904,
creosotebush was confined to about 950 acres (380 ha) at the Santa Rita
Experimental Range in Arizona [56].  By 1934, the number of acres
occupied by creosotebush had increased more than 12-fold to 11,900 acres
(4760 ha).  By 1954, creosotebush occupied an area 73 times as great as
it had 50 years before.  Humphrey and Mehrhoff [56] attribute
creosotebush expansion to a reduction in range fires.  Buffington and
Herbel [22] cite heavy grazing and periodic droughts as the major causes
of the rapid increase of creosotebush and other shrubs in desert
grasslands.

Controlling creosotebush can be difficult because it can sprout from the
root crown following disturbance [16].  A variety of herbicides may be
used to kill creosotebush [37,51,77,50], but Flores and others [40]
suggested that revegetation of former creosotebush sites with more
desirable species is very difficult.

Bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri) often grows under creosotebush
canopies where their ranges overlap.  Where creosotebush is 3.3 feet (1
m) or less tall, bush muhly shades the lower branches of creosotebush,
causing its leaves to fall.  In some instances, this competition may
kill creosotebush [106].

Creosotebush is susceptible to severe drought during short-term climate
changes like El Nino [102].  During dry years, creosotebush undergoes
severe moisture stress and subsequent defoliation.  Older branches do
not produce new foliage, but sprouting may occur.  The cumulative result
of El Nino can be a 60-80 percent stem dieback.  Dead stemwood remains
standing within the shrub biomass for several years.

Pollution from electric power generating facilities may adversely affect
creosotebush.  Creosotebush showed sensitivity to sulphur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide fumigation [112].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Creosotebush is a native, drought-tolerant, evergreen shrub growing up
to 13.2 feet (4 m) tall [79].  Its numerous branches are brittle and
densely leafy at the tips [41,79].  Because of leaf and stem alignment,
creosotebush provides little shade during the full desert sunshine [70].

The leaves of creosotebush are thick, resinous, and strongly scented
[8,61] .  Flowers are solitary and axillary [61].  Fruits are globose,
consisting of five united, indehiscent, one-seeded carpels which may or
may not break apart after maturing [13,68,79].  Each carpel is densely
covered by long trichomes [68].

The root system of creosotebush consists of a shallow taproot and
several lateral secondary roots, each about 10 feet (3 m) in length and
8 to 14 inches (20-35 cm) deep.  The taproot extends to a depth of about
32 inches (80 cm); further penetration is usually inhibited by caliche
[41,114].  Barbour [10] found that root growth decreased as pH increased
above 8.0.  Optimum root growth occurred at acid pH; however, only one
of the topsoils from which seeds were gathered exhibited acid pH.  Root
growth was inhibited by high concentrations of salt (>10,000 ppm).
Creosotebush roots require relatively large amounts of oxygen for growth
[66].

Creosotebush is known to attain ages of several thousand years; some
creosotebush clones may be the earth's oldest living organisms.  The age
of the largest clone in Johnson Valley, California, is estimated at
9,400 years [101].  McAuliffe [71] estimated the average longevity of
creosotebush to be 1,250 years at a study site in Dateland, California,
and 625 years at a San Luis site.


RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Phanerophyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Creosotebush reproduces both vegetatively and sexually.

Vegetative reproduction:  Creosotebush achieves its status as one of the
most stable members of desert communities by cloning.  When drought is
extreme, old branches and roots of creosotebush die back.  When rains
return, branches are replaced by sprouts originating near the outside of
the root crown.  Creosotebush clones gradually expand to form rings many
meters in diameter [32,63].  Creosotebush may occasionally sprout from
its root crown after disturbance.  New sprouts were produced by
creosotebush on a Mojave Desert site that had been denuded by grading
[89].

Sexual reproduction:  Age distribution in many stands of creosotebush
indicates that germination and survival under natural conditions are
rare [11,66].  Sexual reproduction may be especially rare at the upper
elevational limits of creosotebush [104].

Creosotebush requires summer rains for successful sexual reproduction.
The flowering success of creosotebush is greatest with moderate
rainfall.  In years of high rainfall, a high proportion of flowers is
diseased [13].

Creosotebush seeds are primarily adapted for tumbling rather than for
animal dispersal or lofting [68].  The stiff trichomes radiate equally
in all directions so that little wind is required to send the seeds
tumbling.  The trichomes are not stiff enough to penetrate animal skin,
and the seeds are too heavy for lofting.  However, Chew and Chew [29]
suggested that the shucking and burial of creosotebush seeds by rodents
may facilitate the germination and survival of creosotebush.  Shreve
[91] noted poor creosotebush reproduction on level plains.  More
seedlings established if the soil surface was broken or scarred.
Leitner [116] found creosotebush more abundant on southern or northern
slopes of a pediment in Sonora, Mexico, than in washes.  Rock crevices
and irregularities of the pediment may provide protection and footholds
for wind-tumbled seeds.

Germination of creosotebush is related to rainfall.  A minimum of about
1 inch of rainfall seems necessary to induce germination.  A 1971 rain
of 1 to 1.96 inches (25-49 mm) in the Mojave Desert was sufficient, but
neither an August 1972 rain of 0.68 inch (17 mm) nor a July rain of 0.84
inch (21 mm) promoted germination of creosotebush seeds [2].  If less
than 2 to 3 inches (50-80 mm) or more than 6 inches (150 mm) of rain
fall during the summer, germinability of seeds is usually less than 20
percent.  If 3 to 6 inches (80-150 mm) fall, germination is 20 to 60
percent.

Germination experiments have been conducted on creosotebush seeds from
all three southwestern deserts.  Barbour [10] found that the average
creosotebush mericarp contained one seed, and viability ranged from 15
to 76 percent.  The presence or absence of mericarp about the seed had
no effect on germination.  Germination was two times higher in darkness
than under light, and optimal germination temperature was 73.4 degrees
Fahrenheit (23 deg C).  Optimum salinity was 500 parts per million of
sodium chloride.  Germination was not affected by pH.  Creosotebush
seeds may lose viability if they remain in topsoils during the summer;
seeds from the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts showed decreased
germination as storage temperature increased.


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Creosotebush commonly grows on bajadas, gentle slopes, valley floors,
sand dunes, and in arroyos [23,34,107] at elevations up to 5,000 feet
(1,515 m) [61,79] throughout the Sonoran, Mojave, and Chihuahuan
deserts.  It occurs on calcareous, sandy, and alluvial soils that are
often underlain by a caliche hardpan [21,43,45,48,67].

Temperatures in the southwestern deserts are variable and extreme.  Near
the southern boundary of creosotebush distribution, at Puerto Libertad,
Sonora, the mean annual temperature is 68.37 degrees Fahrenheit (20.2
degrees C).  Daytime temperatures in the summer often reach 117 degrees
Fahrenheit (47 deg C) [26].  In Rock Valley, Nevada, near the northern
boundary of creosotebush distribution, temperatures range from 5 degrees
Fahrenheit (-15 deg C) in winter to 117 degrees Fahrenheit (47 deg C) in
summer [3].

Phenological events in the southwestern deserts are triggered by rain.
In the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall averages 4 to 12 inches (100-300
mm) and is distributed bimodally [67].  The Mojave Desert gets more
winter than summer rain [67]; in Rock Valley, Nevada, rainfall averages
5.524 inches (138.1 mm), with 60 percent falling between September and
February [18].  The Chihuahuan Desert is slightly less dry; in the Rio
Grande Valley, New Mexico, rainfall averages from 8.5 inches at San
Marcial to slightly more than 10 inches at Socorro.  Two-thirds to
three-fourths of the precipitation falls between April 1 and September
30 [43].

Low soil oxygen may be a controlling factor in the distribution of
desert species.  Creosotebush is less tolerant of low soil oxygen than
white bursage [46].  Lunt [66] attributes the exclusion of creosotebush
from fine-textured and poorly drained soils to its high oxygen
requirement.


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Creosotebush density and cover are generally decreased by disturbance.
In a comparison between vegetation on disturbed and undisturbed Mojave
Desert sites, creosotebush was dominant on all control sites and
subdominant to white bursage on disturbed sites [84].  Webb [104] noted
that desert succession can be described using life-history strategies:
Species with high recruitment and mortality rates, such as white
bursage, are dominant in the colonizing stage and species with low
recruitment and mortality, such as creosotebush, eventually dominate the
landscape, although colonizing species usually remain present.

Creosotebush uses white bursage as a nurse plant.  McAuliffe [71] found
that 85.5 percent of all young creosotebush were rooted beneath the
canopies of live white bursage or positioned next to dead ones.  The
smallest creosotebush plants in McAuliffe's [71] study were all
associated with live white bursage.  Most creosotebush establishment
apparently occurs near live white bursage.

Recruitment of creosotebush is infrequent.  Despite the abundance of
potentially suitable areas beneath white bursage, McAuliffe [71] found
young creosotebush beneath only 1 percent of all white bursage.  Total
densities of young creosotebush were between 12 and 15 plants per
hectare.  The density of white bursage plants was ten times that of
creosotebush.  Although large-scale creosotebush seedling establishment
does not occur after disturbance, relict creosotebush usually increases
in size by cloning [100,101,104].  Creosotebush canopies may grow to
exceed the coverage of white bursage by more than six times [71].

Creosotebush exhibits root-mediated allelopathy.  In a laboratory study,
creosotebush test roots grew freely through soil occupied by white
bursage roots, but white bursage test roots grew at reduced rates into
soil occupied by creosotebush [69].  Mature creosotebush may be
allelopathic to their own seedlings, encouraging an open community
structure [71].


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
Creosotebush leafs out in response to spring, summer, or fall rains [1].
Creosotebush usually flowers in May [1] in the Mojave Desert, but it can
flower anytime during the summer if it receives enough rain [1,3,9].  In
the Sonoran Desert, most creosotebush seeds are shed in the summer, but
creosotebush in the Chihuahuan Desert does not shed its seeds until fall
[10].  Creosotebush seeds germinate after rains from mid-June to
mid-September in the Mojave Desert [2].

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
Creosotebush is poorly adapted to fire because of its limited sprouting
ability [59,115].  Creosotebush survives some fires that burn patchily
or are of low severity [87,115].  Historically, infrequent fires may
have limited the invasion of desert grasslands by creosotebush [59].

Most fires in the desert are infrequent and of low severity because
production of annual and perennial herbs seldom provides a fuel load
capable of sustaining fire.  Humphrey [59] stated that the
creosotebush-white bursage community is "essentially nonflammable"
because the shrubs are too sparse to carry fire.  The resinous foliage
of creosotebush, however, is very flammable.


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
   Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush 



IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Fire kills many creosotebush.  During a low-severity California fire,
many creosotebush were scorched and few burned, but overall mortality
was still 97 percent [115].  Dalton [33] reported mortality rates of 69
and 63 percent for moderately and lightly burned plants, respectively.
A low-severity fire near Florence, Arizona, top-killed 97 percent of all
creosotebush; however, 37 percent of those sprouted.  Overall
creosotebush mortality was 61 percent [72].



DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
Creosotebush may sprout if its root crown is not killed by fire [64].
In a southern California brushfire, creosotebush successfully sprouted
and regained its estimated former cover within 5 years [83].  In a
low-severity Arizona fire, 37 percent of top-killed creosotebush
sprouted [72].  However, Brown and Minnich [115] reported that
creosotebush rarely sprouted even though most shrubs were incompletely
burned in a low-severity fire near Palm Springs, California.

Dalton [33] reported good creosotebush seedling establishment on a
burned site in Arizona, possibly due to reduced competition for soil
moisture.  No seedling establishment occurred on unburned sites.
Seedling establishment also occured after a low-severity fire in
Arizona.  Prefire density of creosotebush was 45 plants per hectare, and
creosotebush cover was 1.3 percent [72].  In postfire year 1, the
density of creosotebush was 125 plants per hectare and creosotebush
cover was 0.3 percent.  In postfire year 2, the density of creosotebush
was 95 plants per hectare and creosotebush cover was 0.6 percent.


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
Season of burning, fuel quantity, fire temperature, and age of existing
creosotebush may affect the ability of creosotebush to sprout.  White
[108] noted that burning creosotebush during different seasons at the
Sant Rita Experimental Range near Tucson, Arizona, resulted in
significant differences in sprout production.  The most sprouts were
produced following February and August fires.  The least sprouts were
produced following June and July fires.  The seasonal pattern of sprout
production closely followed trends in growth of terminal shoots.
Sprouting in creosotebush decreased with increasing fuel quantity and
decreased as soil temperature and duration of heating increased
[108,109].  Young plants produced fewer sprouts after burning than
mature plants [108].


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Fire can be used to control creosotebush and promote the growth of
grasses in desert grasslands and shrublands.  Prescribed burning should
be conducted in spring or early fall following 2 years of above average
plant growth.  Britton and Wright [20] describe specific procedures for
burning shrub-invaded grasslands.

Soils under some creosotebush are water repellant because of associated
soil microorganisms.  The hydrophobic characteristic of such soils
precludes the establishment of annuals normally occurring under
creosotebush.  The degree to which the soils are hydrophobic may be
intensified by fire [5].

Standing biomass, deadwood, and leaf litter from creosotebush can fuel
desert fires.  Dead fuels are increased by drought, and live fuels are
increased after rainy seasons.  The shoot volume, dry weight, and
biomass production of creosotebush all increase in sigmoid fashion with
age.  The period of most rapid increase is from 20 to 50 years of age.
From 20 years onward, leaves average 53 percent of total shoot
cumulative production, stems with leaves average 13 percent, and the
stem trunk averages 4 percent [28].  Woody remains of creosotebush take
about 60 years to decay beyond the point of recognition [71].

References for species: Larrea tridentata

1. Ackerman, T. L.; Romney, E. M.; Wallace, A.; Kinnear, J. E. 1980. Phenology of desert shrubs in southern Nye County, Nevada. In: The Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 4. Nevada desert ecology. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University: 4-23. [3197]

2. Ackerman, Thomas L. 1979. Germination and survival of perennial plant species in the Mojave Desert. The Southwestern Naturalist. 24(3): 399-408. [12219]

3. Ackerman, Thomas L.; Bamberg, Sam A. 1974. Phenological studies in the Mojave Desert at Rock Valley (Nevada Test Site). In: Lieth, Helmut, ed. Phenology and seasonality modeling. New York: Springer-Verlag: 215-226. (Ecological studies; Analysis and synthesis, volume 8). [21506]

4. Adams, David W. 1970. A study of the possibilities of treating creosotebush with NaOH to make a good livestock feed. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University. 51 p. Thesis. [5066]

5. Adams, Susan; Strain, B. R.; Adams, M. S. 1970. Water-repellent soils, fire, and annual plant cover in a desert scrub community of southeastern California. Ecology. 51(4): 696-700. [5407]

6. Ahlstrand, Gary M. 1979. Preliminary report on the ecology of fire study, Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns National Parks. 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: 31-44. [16015]

7. Albert, Steven K.; Krausman, Paul R. 1993. Desert mule deer and forage resources in southwest Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 38(3): 198-205. [22140]

8. Bainbridge, David A.; Virginia, Ross A. 1990. Restoration in the Sonoran Desert of California. Restoration and Management Notes. 8(1): 3-14. [14975]

9. Barbour, M. G.; MacMahon, J. A.; Bamberg, S. A.; Ludwig, J. A. 1977. The structure and distribution of Larrea communities. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.: 227-251. [7172]

10. Barbour, Michael G. 1968. Germination requirements of the desert shrub Larrea divaricata. Ecology. 49: 915-923. [4212]

11. Barbour, Michael G. 1969. Age and space distribution of the desert shrub Larrea divaricata. Ecology. 50(4): 679-685. [3989]

12. Baxter, Ronald J. 1988. Spatial distribution of desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) at Twentynine Palms, California: implications for relocations. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 180-189. [7112]

13. Beatley, Janice C. 1974. Effects of rainfall and temperature on the distribution and behavior of Larrea tridentata (creosote-bush) in the Mojave Desert of Nevada. Ecology. 55: 245-261. [197]

14. Bennett, Peter S.; Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1989. Relative nature of wetlands: riparian and vegetational considerations. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's: Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 140-142. [13516]

15. 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]

16. Blackburn, W. H. 1983. Influence of brush control on hydrologic characteristics. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management; 1983: 73-88. [452]

17. 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]

18. Bowers, Michael A. 1987. Precipitation and the relative abundances of desert winter annuals: a 6-year study in the northern Mohave Desert. Journal of Arid Environments. 12: 141-149. [4850]

19. Boyd, Robert S.; Brum, Gilbert D. 1983. Predispersal reproductive attrition in a Mojave Desert population of Larrea tridentata (Zygophyllaceae). The American Midland Naturalist. 110(1): 4-24. [3968]

20. 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]

21. 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]

22. Buffington, Lee C.; Herbel, Carlton H. 1965. Vegetational changes on a semidesert grassland range from 1858 to 1963. Ecological Monographs. 35: 139-164. [3383]

23. Burgess, Tony L.; Northington, David K. 1974. Desert vegetation in the Guadalupe Mountains region. In: Wauer, Roland H.; Riskind, David H., eds. Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico; 1974 October 17-18; Alpine, TX. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 229-242. [16061]

24. Burk, Jack H. 1977. Sonoran Desert. In: Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 869-899. [3731]

25. Cable, Dwight R. 1973. Fire effects in southwestern semidesert grass-shrub communities. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. Number 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 109-127. [4338]

26. Castellanos, A. E.; Molina, F. E. 1990. Differential survivorship and establishment in Simmondsia chinensis (jojoba). Journal of Arid Environments. 19: 65-76. [14982]

27. Catlin, C. N. 1925. Composition of Arizona forages, with comparative data. Bull. 113. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 155-171. [4525]

28. Chew, Robert M.; Chew, Alice Eastlake. 1965. The primary productivity of a desert-shrub (Larrea tridentata) community. Ecological Monographs. 35: 355-375. [4254]

29. Chew, Robert M.; Chew, Alice Eastlake. 1970. Energy relationships of the mammals of a desert shrub (Larrea tridentata) community. Ecological Monographs. 40(1): 1-21. [5055]

30. Christensen, Jon. 1992. Sin City's luck tortoise. Nature Conservancy. 42(4): 8-13. [19291]

31. Clary, Raimond F., Jr.; Slayback, Robert D. 1985. Revegetation in the Mojave Desert using native woody plants. In: Rieger, John P.; Steele, Bobbie A., eds. Proceedings of the native plant revegetation symposium; 1984 November 15; San Diego, CA. San Diego, CA: California Native Plant Society: 42-47. [3343]

32. Cody, M. L. 1986. Spacing patterns in Mojave Desert plant communities: near-neighbor analyses. Journal of Arid Environments. 11: 199-217. [4411]

33. Dalton, Patrick Daly, Jr. 1962. Ecology of the creosotebush Larrea tridentata (DC.) Cov.. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 170 p. In: Dissertation Abstracts International: 2556. [Abstract]. [5061]

34. Darrow, Robert A. 1944. Arizona range resources and their utilization: 1. Cochise County. Tech. Bull. 103. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 311-364. [4521]

35. Downum, Kelsey R.; Villegas, Sergio; Rodriguez, Eloy; Keil, David J. 1989. Plant photosensitizers: a survey of their occurrence in arid and semiarid plants from North America. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 15(1): 345-355. [7658]

36. Duisberg, Peter C. 1952. Development of a feed from the creosote bush and the determination of its nutritive value. Journal of Animal Science. 11: 174-180. [4573]

37. Emmerich, W. E.; Helmer, J. D.; Renard, K. G.; Lane, L. J. 1984. Fate and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality. 13(3): 382-386. [3969]

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

39. Felger, R. S. 1977. Mesquite in Indian cultures of southwestern North America. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 150-176. [5195]

40. Flores, Ernesto; Conoly, Marty; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Hartmann, Steve. 1990. Reclamation of creosotebush-infested rangeland. 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: 10. [14565]

41. Fonteyn, P. J.; Mahall, B. E. 1981. An experimental analysis of structure in a desert plant community. Journal of Ecology. 69: 883-896. [4249]

42. Fonteyn, Paul J.; Mahall, Bruce E. 1978. Competition among desert perennials. Nature. 275: 544-545. [3618]

43. Gardner, J. L. 1951. Vegetation of the creosotebush area of the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. Ecological Monographs. 21: 379-403. [4243]

44. 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]

45. Gehlbach, Frederick R. 1967. Vegetation of the Guadalupe Escarpment, New Mexico-Texas. Ecology. 48(3): 404-419. [5149]

46. 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]

47. Graves, Walter L.; Kay, Burgess L.; Williams, William A. 1975. Seed treatment of Mojave Desert shrubs. Agronomy Journal. 67(6): 773-777. [4192]

48. Haase, Edward F. 1972. Survey of floodplain vegetation along the lower Gila River in southwestern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. 7: 75-81. [10860]

49. Henrickson, James; Johnston, Marshall C. 1986. Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert. In: Barlow, J. C.; [and others], eds. Chihuahuan Desert--U.S. and Mexico, II. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University: 20-39. [12979]

50. Herbel, Carlton H.; Gould, Walter L. 1970. Control of mesquite, creosote bush, and tarbush on arid rangelands of the southwestern United States. In: Proceedings, 11th international grasslands congress; [Date of conference unknown]; Queensland, Australia. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]: 38-41. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [4246]

51. Herbel, Carlton H.; Morton, Howard L.; Gibbens, Robert P. 1985. Controlling shrubs in the arid Southwest with tebuthiuron. Journal of Range Management. 38(5): 391-394. [10080]

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

53. Hoagland, Donald B. 1992. Feeding ecology of an insular population of the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) in the Gulf of California. The Southwestern Naturalist. 37(3): 280-286. [19693]

54. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

55. Humphrey, R. R. 1950. Arizona range resources. II. Yavapai County. Bull. 229. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 55 p. [5088]

56. Humphrey, R. R.; Mehrhoff, L. A. 1958. Vegetation changes on a southern Arizona grassland range. Ecology. 39(4): 720-726. [4215]

57. Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Forage production on Arizona ranges. III. Mohave County: A study in range condition. Bulletin 244. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 79 p. [4440]

58. Humphrey, Robert R. 1960. Forage production on Arizona ranges. V. Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz Counties. Bulletin 502. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 137 p. [4520]

59. Humphrey, Robert R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 365-400. [14064]

60. Johnston, Marshall C. 1974. Brief resume of botanical, including vegetational, features of the Chihuahuan Desert region with special emphasis on their uniqueness. In: Wauer, Roland H.; Riskind, David H., eds. Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico; 1974 October 17-18; Alpine, TX. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 335-359. [16064]

61. 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]

62. 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]

63. Levin, Geoffrey A. 1988. How plants survive in the desert. Environment Southwest. Summer: 20-25. [9239]

64. Loftin, Samuel Robert. 1987. Postfire dynamics of a Sonoran Desert ecosystem. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 97 p. Thesis. [12296]

65. Losher, Lee. 1993. Propagation, revegetation program underway Organ Pipe National Monument. Restoration & Management Notes. 11(2): 166-167. [22790]

66. Lunt, O. R.; Letey, J.; Clark, S. B. 1973. Oxygen requirements for root growth in three species of desert shrubs. Ecology. 54(6): 1356-1362. [1489]

67. MacMahon, James A. 1988. Warm deserts. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 231-264. [19547]

68. Maddox, Jay C.; Carlquist, Sherwin. 1985. Wind dispersal in Californian desert plants: experimental studies and conceptual considerations. Aliso. 11(1): 77-96. [3256]

69. Mahall, Bruce E.; Callaway, Ragan M. 1991. Root communication among desert shrubs. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences, USA. 88: 874-876. [22248]

70. Mares, M. A.; Enders, F. A.; Kingsolver, J. M.; [and others]. 1977. Prosopis as a niche component. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 123-149. [5194]

71. McAuliffe, Joseph R. 1988. Markovian dynamics of simple and complex desert plant communities. The American Naturalist. 131(4): 459-490. [6744]

72. McLaughlin, Steven P.; Bowers, Janice E. 1982. Effects of wildfire on a Sonoran Desert plant community. Ecology. 63(1): 246-248. [1619]

73. Medina T., Jorge Galo; Garza C., Hector. 1987. Range seeding research in northern Mexico. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Proceedings of symposium: "Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants"; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 246-259. [3900]

74. Meyer, Edward R. 1974. A reconnaissance survey of pollen rain in Big Bend National Park, Texas: modern control for a paleoenvironmental study. In: Wauer, Roland H.; Riskind, David H., eds. Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico; 1974 October 17-18; Alpine, TX. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 115-123. [16058]

75. Miller, Carol; Holden, Mark. 1993. Propagating desert plants. In: Landis, Thomas D., ed. Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery Association; 1992 September 14-18; Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 68-71. [22075]

76. 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]

77. Morton, Howard L.; Ibarra-F., Fernando A.; Martin-R., Martha H.; Cox, Jerry R. 1990. Creosotebush control and forage production in the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts. Journal of Range Management. 43(1): 43-48. [12228]

78. Muller, Cornelius H. 1940. Plant succession in the Larrea-Flourensia climax. Ecology. 21: 206-212. [4244]

79. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1959. A California flora. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1104 p. [4592]

80. Nabhan, Gary Paul. 1985. Gathering the desert. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. 209 p. [2848]

81. Nichol, A. A. [revisions by Phillips, W. S.]. 1952. The natural vegetation of Arizona. Tech. Bull. 68 [revision]. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 189-230. [3928]

82. Niering, William A.; Lowe, Charles H. 1984. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains: community types and dynamics. Vegetatio. 58: 3-28. [12037]

83. O'Leary, John F.; Minnich, Richard A. 1981. Postfire recovery of creosote bush scrub vegetation in the western Colorado Desert. Madrono. 28(2): 61-66. [3973]

84. Prose, D. V.; Metzger, Susan K.; Wilshire, H. G. 1987. Effects of substrate disturbance on secondary plant succession; Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Applied Ecology. 24: 305-313. [4590]

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

86. Reichman, O. J. 1976. Relationships between dimensions, weights, volumes, and calories of some Sonoran Desert seeds. The Southwestern Naturalist. 20(4): 573-574. [12326]

87. Rogers, Garry F.; Steele, Jeff. 1980. Sonoran Desert fire ecology. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 15-19. [16036]

88. Romney, E. M.; Wallace, A. 1980. Ecotonal distribution of salt-tolerant shrubs in the northern Mojave Desert. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 0(4): 134-139. [4247]

89. Romney, E. M.; Wallace, A.; Hunter, B. 1989. Pulse establishment of woody shrubs of denuded Mojave Desert land. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 54-57. [5923]

90. Sharifi, M. Rasoul; Nilsen, Erik T.; Rundel, Philip W. 1982. Biomass and net primary production of Prosopis glandulosa (Fabaceae) in the Sonoran Desert of California. American Journal of Botany. 69(5): 760-767. [5469]

91. Shreve, Forrest. 1942. The desert vegetation of North America. Botanical Review. 8(4): 195-246. [5051]

92. Steger, Robert E.; Beck, Reldon F. 1973. Range plants as ornamentals. Journal of Range Management. 26: 72-74. [12038]

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. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1992. Plant communities of Texas (Series level): February 1992. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Natural Heritage Program. 38 p. [20509]

95. Timmermann, B. N. 1977. Practical uses of Larrea. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 252-256. [7173]

96. Tipton, J. L.; Taylor, R. M. 1984. Transplanting success with creosotebush (Larrea tridentata (D.C.) Cav.) from native stands. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 2(3): 83-85. [5627]

97. Turner, Raymond M. 1982. Mohave desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 157-168. [2374]

98. 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]

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. Vasek, Frank C. 1979. Early successional stages in Mojave Desert scrub vegetation. Israel Journal of Botany. 28: 133-148. [4579]

101. Vasek, Frank C. 1980. Creosote bush: long-lived clones in the Mojave Desert. American Journal of Botany. 67(2): 246-255. [2761]

102. Wallace, Arthur; Nelson, David L. 1990. Wildland shrub dieoffs following excessively wet periods: a synthesis. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 81-83. [12839]

103. Warren, Peter L.; Hoy, Marina S.; Hoy, Wilton E. 1992. Vegetation and flora of Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona. Tech. Rep. NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/43. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 78 p. [19871]

104. Webb, Robert H.; Steiger, John W.; Newman, Evelyn B. 1988. The response of vegetation to disturbance in Death Valley National Monument, California. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1793. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 69 p. [8915]

105. Webb, Robert H.; Stielstra, Steven S. 1979. Sheep grazing effects on Mojave Desert vegetation and soils. Environmental Management. 3(6): 517-529. [4164]

106. Welsh, Richard G.; Beck, Reldon F. 1976. Some ecological relationships between creosotebush and bush muhly. Journal of Range Management. 29(6): 472-475. [3970]

107. Went, F. W.; Westergaard, M. 1949. Ecology of desert plants. III. Development of plants in the Death Valley National Monument, California. Ecology. 30(1): 26-38. [11102]

108. White, Larry D. 1968. Factors affecting susceptibility of creosotebush (Larrea tridentata (D.C.) Cov.) to burning. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 96 p. Ph.D. dissertation. [1785]

109. White, Larry D. 1980. Principles, requirements, and techniques for prescribed range burning. In: Hanselka, C. Wayne, ed. Prescribed range burning in the coastal prairie and eastern Rio Grande Plains of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 16; Kingsville, TX. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System, Texas Agricultural Extension Service: 30-64. [11450]

110. Hunziker, J. H.; Palacios, R. A.; Poggio, L.; [and others]. 1977. Geographic distribution, morphology, hybridization, cytogenetics, and evolution. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 10-47. [7154]

111. Zoellick, Bruce W.; Smith, Norman S.; Henry, Robert S. 1989. Habitat use and movements of desert kit foxes in western Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(4): 955-961. [24012]

112. Thompson, C. Ray; Kats, Gerrit; Lennox; R. W. 1980. Effects of SO2 and/or NO2 on native plants of the Mojave Desert and eastern Mojave-Colorado Desert. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. 30(12): 1304-1309. [4191]

113. 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]

114. Singh, Surendra Pratap. 1964. Cover, biomass, and root-shoot habit of Larrea divaricata on a selected site in southern New Mexico. University Park, NM: New Mexico State University. 36 p. Thesis. [24013]

115. Brown, David E.; Minnich, Richard A. 1986. Fire and changes in creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran Desert, California. The American Midland Naturalist. 116(2): 411-422. [537]

116. Leitner, Lawrence A. 1987. Plant communities of a large arroyo at Punta Cirio, Sonora. The Southwestern Naturalist. 32(1): 21-28. [1439]

Related categories for Species: Larrea tridentata | Creosotebush