|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
ABBREVIATION :
MAHTRI
SYNONYMS :
Berberis trifoliata Moric.
SCS PLANT CODE :
MATR3
COMMON NAMES :
agarito
algerita
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of this taxon is Mahonia
trifoliolata (Moric.) Fedde (Berberidae) [1,24].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein November, 1990
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. A. 1990. Mahonia trifoliolata. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Agarito grows throughout most of Texas except for the eastern and
southeastern portions of the state. It extends westward into New Mexico
and Arizona and southward into Mexico [52]. The variety trifoliolata
grows only in Texas, south of Austin to Corpus Christi. The variety
glauca occurs from west Texas through New Mexico into Arizona and Mexico
[1].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ NM TX MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
AMIS BIBE CACA GUMO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
7 Lower Basin and Range
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K041 Creosotebush
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K054 Grama - tobosa prairie
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
K071 Shinnery
K084 Cross Timbers
K085 Mesquite - buffalograss
K086 Juniper - oak savanna
K087 Mesquite - oak savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
239 Pinyon - juniper
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Agarito grows as a dominant or codominant in a number of desert shrub
and grassland communities. It is on lands that have changed from mixed
prairie to open scrub oak-juniper (Quercus-Juniperus spp.) woodlands
[42] and where honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)) is expanding its
range in Texas savannas [2]. It is also a component of south Texas and
Arizona chaparral, semiarid Texas grasslands, and pinyon (Pinus
spp.)-juniper woodlands [9,29,39]. Common codominants include
creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), tarbush (Flourensia cernua),
lecheguilla (Agave lechuguilla), juniper, sotol (Dasylirion spp.), yucca
(Yucca spp.), and black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda).
Agarito has been listed as a dominant in the following community
type classification:
Natural terrestrial communites of Brewster County, Texas [21]
Plant associates: Common associates of agarito in bottomland
communities include little walnut (Juglans microcarpa), netleaf
hackberry (Celtis reticulata), oneseed juniper (J. monosperma),
littleleaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), and lotebush condalia (Condalia
obovata) [20]. Pungent oak (Quercus pungens), live oak (Q. virginiana),
mesquite, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Texas persimmon (Diospyros
texana), spiny hackberry (Celtis pallida), curly mesquite (Hilaria
belangeri), Texas needlegrass (Stipa leucotricha), grama (Bouteloua
spp.), and lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia) occur with agarito in scrub
oak-juniper woodlands and Texas savannas [2,6,42]. Ashe juniper (J.
ashei) and redberry juniper are common overstory dominants [39,42]. In
chaparral communities, honey mesquite, curly mesquite, acacia (Acacia
spp.), threeawn (Aristida spp.) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides)
are common associates [8].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Browse: Agarito reportedly has no forage value for cattle, horses, or
domestic sheep, and has little value for domestic goats [29]. Less than
1 percent of the tender new sprouts were browsed by Spanish goats
following fire on the Edwards Plateau of Texas [49]. Agarito is browsed
by deer in some areas [35] but is generally considered an "undesirable
deer food" [5]. In some locations, twigs, bark, and leaves of
grape-hollies (Mahonia spp.) are eaten by the ringtail, and various
species of hares and rabbits [37].
Fruit: Agarito berries are readily eaten by many species of small birds
[52] and mammals.
PALATABILITY :
Leaves of agarito are spiny and unpalatable [29] and toughen with age
[53]. Mature leaves may remain palatable to some insects, such as
foraging ants, but often become too tough for the ants to cut [53].
Increasing toughness may deter large herbivores as well.
Berries are highly palatable to many species of small birds and mammals.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Nutrient value of agarito varies by plant part [30] and phenological
development. The chemical composition of mature foliage has
been documented as follows [26]:
percent
protein ether crude N-free H20 ash potash lime magnesia phosphoric
extract fiber extract acid
10.32 2.38 30.59 46.61 6.13 2.97 0.91 0.88 0.24 0.34
Nutrient content by plant part and date is listed below [30]:
plant part date water (%) ash (%) P (%) protein (%)
shoots 3/27 69 4 0.27 16
shoots 4/13 48 3 0.25 13
shoots 10/25 71 4 0.27 16
leaves+stems 3/28 71 4 0.29 15
COVER VALUE :
Agarito provides valuable cover for many wildlife species [43]. Clumps
or thickets serve as important hiding cover for white-tailed deer on the
rolling Texas plains [20]. Agarito forms good hiding, nesting, and
resting cover for a variety of small birds and mammals [35]. In parts
of Texas, wild turkeys occasionally nest beneath agarito [17].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Rehabilitation value of agarito is unknown. However, plants can be
easily propagated from seed [24]. Seed can be planted in the fall, or
stratified and planted in the spring [43]. Agarito can also be
propagated by suckers, cuttings, and layering. Properly treated
cuttings taken in early summer will usually root by fall [24].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Roots of agarito contain berberine and other alkaloids and were
traditionally used to make preparations for treating toothaches and
stomach ailments [40,52]. However, these alkaloids are poisonous in
high concentrations [40]. Yellow dyes were made from the roots and wood
[52].
Fruit of agarito is edible [51] and can be used to make wine and jelly
[52]. However, Durand [24] cautions that when collecting the fruit of
Texas mahonias, "it is always a good precaution to poke around the bush
with a stick before threshing to make sure there are no rattlesnakes."
Seeds of agarito can be roasted and used as a coffee substitute [52].
Flowers provide nectar for honeybees, and consequently agarito is
considered to be a good honey plant [51,52].
The attractive leaves and flowers make agarito well-suited for use as an
ornamental [45]. It can be planted as a hedge or used singly [24,45].
When mixed with Amur privit, it forms an excellent and attractive
combination hedge [24]. The variety glauca has been cultivated in
England [1]. Agarito is relatively intolerant of cold temperatures and
in North America is not hardy north of zone 6 [46].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Brushfield expansion: During the past century, shrubs such as mesquite
(Prosopis spp.) and agarito have been increasing on Texas rangelands
[2,3,10,39]. An estimated 736,744 acres (1.82 million ha) of Texas
rangeland is now "infested" with agarito. The situation is particularly
pronounced on the Edwards Plateau where agarito density can reach up to
121 plants per acre (300/ha) [19]. Possible causes of this shrub
expansion include fire suppression, overgrazing, and/or climatic change
[2,10].
Grazing: In semiarid grasslands of Texas, heavy grazing apparently
favors the spread of redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) which in
turn facilitates the establishment of agarito. Frequency of agarito is
typically highest on grazed sites occupied by redberry juniper, as
illustrated below [39]:
high plains rolling plains
grazed sites ungrazed sites redberry redberry
present absent present absent j. present j. absent
(percent frequency)
29 0 63 20 25 0
Mechanical removal: Ranchers commonly view agarito as a nuisance [24],
and numerous studies have focused on various means of mechanical removal
[19,22,23]. Soil penetration to a depth of 4 to 6 inches (10-15 cm) is
generally necessary to sever the taproot from the crown and to uproot
all lateral roots capable of resprouting. Resprouting often occurs
where blade penetration is insufficient. Small plants with shallow
roots are most readily killed by mechanical means [19].
On the Edwards Plateau of Texas, various types of mechanical grubbing
have produced erratic mortality [19]. Grubbing, using a modified blade
with fins on top, killed up to 93 percent of the plants where
pretreatment densities had ranged from 17 to 79 plants per acre
(42-195/ha). Consequently, this method of control was judged both
effective and economical [19]. On rocky outcrops with shallow soil, the
blade was prevented from eliminating all of the lateral roots. An
estimated 88 percent of agarito was killed on these sites. Root plowing
is also effective, although often prohibitively expensive.
Posttreatment burning, when used in combination with mechanical removal,
can also aid in reducing agarito density [see Fire Management
Considerations].
Chemical control: Agarito is resistant to many herbicides including
2,4,5-T and picloram [14,19,22]. Although canopies were reduced by 24
to 30 percent 13 months after large amounts of picloram were applied to
the soil, plants recovered within 24 months [33]. No plants were
actually killed by the herbicide. Details on response to various rates
of herbicide application are available [14,29,22].
Damage/disease: Agarito is susceptible to black stem rust [52].
However, roots contain large amounts of the alkaloid berberine, a
substance known to inhibit some root fungi. Roots may, therefore, be
relatively resistant to a number of pathogens [24].
Biomass: Models have been developed for predicting biomass estimates of
agarito. Current growth is primarily leaves and includes little twig
elongation. Studies indicate that new growth on young plants is greater
per unit volume than is growth on older plants [16].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Agarito is a dense, thicket-forming evergreen shrub which grows 3 to 10
feet (1-3 m) in height [1,46,51,52]. Twigs are smooth and reddish-green
when young but turn gray to reddish-brown with age [52]. Bark is gray
to reddish-brown and often exfoliating [28,52].
The alternate, trifoliolate leaves are stiff, spiny, and hollylike
[1,35,52]. Leaflets are thick and coriaceous, lanceolate-oblong to
elliptic, and have coarsely serrate or spinose margins [1,28,52].
Leaflets are pale green to glaucous [28].
Yellowish, perfect flowers are borne in few-flowered racemes at the
upper axils or terminally on short shoots [28,52]. Fruit is a
subglobose to globose berry, 0.3 to 0.5 inch (8-12 mm) in diameter
[1,28]. Berries are lustrous, and red or black to pruinose blue
[1,28,35]. The pulpy fruit is acidic and aromatic [52]. Fruit is borne
on short pedicels which are tightly appressed to the stem axis [24].
Each fruit contains one to several seeds [52].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Agarito reproduces through seed and sprouts vigorously following most
types of disturbance.
Seed: Agarito produces an abundance of seed nearly every year [43]. In
related species of mahonia, annual fruit production is sometimes reduced
by poor pollination and adverse weather conditions. The specific
genetic composition of individual plants can also influence fruit
production [24]. Seed of agarito is dispersed during the summer by a
variety of birds and mammals. Under natural conditions, seed germinates
the following spring [43].
Vegetative regeneration: Agarito typically sprouts vigorously from the
roots or root crown after aboveground vegetation is removed or damaged
[11,19]. Box and others [11] reported that agarito sprouts from or near
ground level after fire. After mechanical removal, Cross and Wiedemann
[19] observed sprouting from lateral roots and from crown tissue
attached to the taproot. The majority of regrowth (56 percent) was
attributed to lateral root sprouting, whereas 13 percent was derived
from crown tissue. No sprouts were observed on the taproot itself.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Agarito grows in a variety of habitats including flat pastureland, lower
alluvial flats, in ephemeral drainage channels, on mesa sides, and on
dry, stony hills [3,18,35,40,52]. Agarito grows well on sunny sites
[51]. It is often well represented in riparian areas and in bottomland
communities of the rolling Texas plains [18,20].
Soils: Agarito grows on a variety of soil textures including loam,
clay, shallow clay-loam, and gravelly soil [19,22,39,51]. Soils are
commonly dry and well drained [51]. Agarito often occurs on soils
derived from limestone parent material [15,50].
Climate: Agarito grows in semiarid climates with average annual
precipitation estimated at 22 to 30 inches (55-76 cm) [19,22]. Winters
are typically short and mild, with as many as 283 frost-free days per
year [9].
Elevation: Agarito grows at approximately 3,000 feet (914 m) in Arizona
[32].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Grasslands: Agarito is a common woody invader in semiarid grasslands of
Texas [19,22]. On the Edwards Plateau, mixed prairie has given rise to
a scrub oak-juniper disclimax in which agarito occurs as a prominent
woody species [42]. In many semiarid grasslands of Texas, redberry
juniper is a common invader on overgrazed sites. The presence of large
junipers consequently facilitates the establishment and spread of
agarito [39].
Texas savannas: In south Texas savannas which have been gradually
invaded by honey mesquite, species such as Texas pricklypear (Opuntia
lindheimeri) and prickly ash (Zanthoxylum fagara) assume dominance
during years 12 to 26. Sugarberry, Texas persimmon, and lotebush
condalia commonly dominate 29- to 39-year-old stands, while agarito,
desert yaupon (Schaefferia cuneifolia), and lotebush dominate 36- to
45-year-old stands [2]. Agarito may eventually be lost from climax
stands [3].
Desert shrub communities: Agarito invades disturbed desert shrub
communities including those in the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico.
It commonly appears in the "last stages of community degradation" [54].
Once vegetation has reached this level of degradation, recovery may be
unlikely.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Fruit ripens from April through July [51,52], but reportedly reaches
peak ripeness on approximately May 1 [24]. Generalized flowering and
fruiting dates by geographic location are as follows:
Location Flowering Fruiting Authority
Southwest ---- July Vines 1960
Great Plains March-April June Great Plains Flora
Association 1986
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Relatively frequent fires in western Texas rangeland tend to favor
climax grass species [10]. Fire suppression and vegetative changes
brought about by overgrazing have contributed to the invasion of woody
species such as agarito [12]. Fine fuels have been reduced by both
grazing and fire suppression and competition from grasses has decreased.
Agarito generally sprouts from the roots or root crown after a single
fire [11,19]. Growth in large mottes affords some protection from fire.
Although the outer portion is commonly destroyed, centers of large
mottes are often undamaged. Seed from adjacent unburned areas may be
dispersed onto burned sites by birds and mammals. Some postfire
seedling establishment is possible.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Small shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Agarito is described as "very resistant to fire" [49]. It is readily
top-killed by fire [5,49], but underground regenerative structures such
as roots often survive [49]. In south Texas chaparral, mortality is
typically greatest on the windward side of large mottes, and least on
the leeward side. Centers of large mottes are often undamaged [11].
Few plants were root-killed by a prescribed burn conducted in Tom Green
County, Texas [49]. However, 33 percent of individual agarito plants
were killed after a fall burn in south Texas chaparral [11]. Burned
plants generally exhibit damage such as split stems and shredding bark
[11].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Agarito commonly sprouts from the roots or root crown after aboveground
vegetation is consumed by fire [5,11,19]. Lateral sprouting is most
common where the motte growth pattern existed prior to fire. Centers of
large mottes often survive and subsequently increase in size in the
postfire community [11]. Individual plants and small mottes are
generally less likely to sprout.
Fire can cause reductions in canopy cover and relative abundance of
agarito [10,12]. A single burn reduced cover by as much as 58 percent
in south Texas chaparral [10]. Following fire, many of the sprouts were
of poor vigor and some plants produced only a single sprout.
Approximately 40 percent of the plants that eventually died produced new
sprouts during the first spring [11]. However, many sprouts died during
the summer. Some postfire establishment from seed may occur as birds
and mammals disperse seed from adjacent unburned sites.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed fire: On west Texas rangeland, fires tend to favor climax
grass species and, when used in combination with other methods, can help
to reduce the cover of woody colonizers such as mesquite and agarito
[10].
Fire is most effective in reducing agarito when large mottes are first
mechanically treated [11]. In southern Texas grasslands, density of
agarito was reduced by 28 percent on plots which had been roller
chopped, shredded and burned, or roller-chopped, treated with
herbicides, shredded, and burned. Density was unchanged on plots which
had been roller-chopped and shredded but not burned [22,23]. Without
pretreatment, burns are often patchy and uneven and leave many large
mottes intact [12]. Best results can often be obtained by waiting up to
3 years after the brush is chopped or shredded and allowing grass and
forbs to grow vigorously among the drying woody fuels. The herbaceous
growth and chopped portions of old brush tops can provide fuel for a
relatively hot fire [11,12], which is presumably more effective in
reducing agarito. The following canopy cover of agarito was reported 1
year after a fall burn in south Texas chaparral [11]:
unburned burned
control 5.6 1.1
shredded 1.2 .9
chopped .7 .7
scalped .3 .4
Evidence suggests that both fall and winter burns can reduce agarito.
However, winter burns tend to favor forbs, whereas fall burns often
decrease forb production and increase grass production[12]. In experiments
in south Texas chaparral, a fall fire with a winter reburn was more
effective in reducing agarito than either a single fall or winter fire
[12]. Response by season of burn was as follows on the Welder Wildlife
Refuge of Texas [12]:
control fall winter fall and winter
(percent composition)
4.1 2.8 1.6 2.2
Wildlife: Agarito is often replaced by more desirable browse species
such as honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) and hackberry (Celtis spp.) after
fire in Texas shinoak rangeland [44].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Mahonia trifoliolata | Agarito
REFERENCES :
1. Ahrendt, Leslie Walter Allan. 1961. Berberis and Mahonia. A taxonomic
revision. Journal of the Linnean Society of London. 57(369): 1-410.
[9098]
2. Archer, Steve. 1989. Have southern Texas savannas been converted to
woodlands in recent history?. American Naturalist. 134(4): 545-561.
[10069]
3. 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]
4. Ueckert, D. N.; Whisenant, S. G. 1980. Chainging/prescribed burning
system for improvement of rangeland infested with mesquite and other
undesirable plants. In: Rangeland Resources Research. PR-3665. College
Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station: 25. [10178]
5. Armstrong, W. E. 1980. Impact of prescribed burning on wildlife. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 22-26. [11430]
6. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
7. Best, Troy L.; Skupski, Marian P.; Smartt, Richard A. 1993. Food habits
of sympatric rodents in the shinnery oak-mesquite grasslands of
southeastern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 38(3): 224-235.
[22136]
8. Box, Thadis W. 1960. Herbage production in four range plant communities
in south Texas. Journal of Range Management. 13: 72-76. [3939]
9. Box, Thadis W. 1961. Relationships between plants and soils of four
range plant communities in south Texas. Ecology. 42: 794-810. [10494]
10. Box, Thadis W. 1967. Brush, fire, and west Texas rangeland. In:
Proceedings, 6th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967 March
6-7; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:
7-19. [3323]
11. Box, Thadis W.; Powell, Jeff; Drawe, D. Lynn. 1967. Influence of fire on
south Texas chaparral communities. Ecology. 48(6): 955-961. [499]
12. Box, Thadis W.; White, Richard S. 1969. Fall and winter burning of south
Texas brush ranges. Journal of Range Management. 22(6): 373-376.
[11438]
13. Bovey, Rodney W. 1977. Response of selected woody plants in the United
States to herbicides. Agric. Handb. 493. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 101 p. [8899]
14. Bovey, R. W.; Baur, J. R.; Morton, H. L. 1970. Control of huisache and
associated woody species in south Texas. Journal of Range Management.
23(1): 47-50. [10289]
15. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of
the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94.
[495]
16. Bryant, F. C.; Kothmann, M. M. 1979. Variability in predicting edible
browse from crown volume. Journal of Range Management. 32(2): 144-146.
[10292]
17. Butts, Gregory L. 1977. Aerial pursuit of red-tailed hawks
(Accipitridae) by turkey (Meleagrididae) hens. Southwestern Naturalist.
22(3): 404-405. [10482]
18. 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]
19. Cross, B. T.; Wiedemann, H. T. 1983. Low-energy grubbing with special
blade to control algerita. Journal of Range Management. 36(5): 601-603.
[10288]
20. Darr, Gene W.; Klebenow, Donald A. 1975. Deer, brush control, and
livestock on the Texas Rolling Plains. Journal of Range Management.
28(2): 115-119. [10071]
21. Denyes, H. Arliss. 1956. Natural terrestrial communities of Brewster
County, Texas, with special reference to the distribution of the
mammals. American Midland Naturalist. 55(2): 289-320. [10862]
22. Dodd, J. D.; Holtz, S. T. 1972. Integration of burning with mechanical
manipulation of south Texas grassland. Journal of Range Management.
25(2): 130-136. [10732]
23. Dodd, J. D.; Holtz, S. T. 1975. Integration of burning with mechanical
manipulation of south Texas grassland. Rangeland Resources Research:
Consolidated Progress Report 1971-1974 (PR-3341): 17-18. [10358]
24. Durand, Herbert K. 1972. Texas mahonia - a neglected economic plant.
Economic Botany. 26(4): 319-325. [10483]
25. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
26. Fraps, G. S.; Cory, V. L. 1940. Composition and utilization of range
vegetation of Sutton and Edwards Counties. Bulletin No. 58. College
Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p. [5746]
27. 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]
28. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. Kitchen, Lynn M.; Scifres, C. J.; Mutz, J. L. 1980. Susceptibility of
selected woody plants to pelleted picloram. Journal of Range Management.
33(5): 349-353. [10287]
34. 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]
35. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to
wildlife. Bull. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish. 80 p. [9818]
36. 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]
37. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
38. McCain, John W., Hennen, Joe F. 1982. Is the taxonomy of Berberis and
Mahonia (Berberidaceae) supported by their rust pathogens Cumminsiella
santa sp. nov. and other Cumminsiella. Systematic Botany. 7(1): 48-59.
[10286]
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. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
42. Rollins, Dale; Bryant, Fred C. 1986. Floral changes following mechanical
brush removal in central Texas. Journal of Range Management. 39(3):
237-240. [10415]
43. Rudolf, Paul O. 1974. Berberis L. barberry, mahonia. In: Schopmeyer, C.
S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 247-251. [7423]
44. Schmidt, Harold. 1980. Improving shinoak range with prescribed fire. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 45-47. [11432]
45. Steger, Robert E.; Beck, Reldon F. 1973. Range plants as ornamentals.
Journal of Range Management. 26: 72-74. [12038]
46. Steffey, Jane. 1985. Strange relatives: the barberry family. American
Horticulturalist. 64(4): 4-9. [10354]
47. Taylor, N. P. 1981. Mahonia trifolia, Berberidaceae. Curtis's Botanical
Magazine New Series. 183(4): 157-160. [10355]
48. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
49. Ueckert, Darrell N. 1980. Manipulating range vegetation with prescribed
fire. In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards
Plateau of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction,
TX. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas
A&M University System: 27-44. [11431]
50. Van Auken, O. W.; Ford, A. L.; Stein, A.; Stein, A. G. 1980. Woody
vegetation of upland plant communities in the southern Edwards Plateau.
Texas Journal of Science. 32: 23-35. [10859]
51. 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]
52. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
53. Waller, D. A. 1982. Leaf-cutting ants and avoided plants: defences
against Atta texana attack. Oecologia. 52(3): 400-403. [12160]
54. Wester, David B.; Wright, Henry A. 1987. Ordination of vegetation change
Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, USA. Vegetatio. 72: 27-33. [11167]
55. 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. 7 p. [20090]
56. 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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Mahonia trifoliolata
| Agarito
|
 |
