|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
ABBREVIATION :
MALLAU
SYNONYMS :
Rhus laurina Nutt. ex T. & G. [38]
SCS PLANT CODE :
RHLA4
COMMON NAMES :
laurel sumac
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of laurel sumac is Malosma
laurina (Nutt. ex T. & G.) Nutt. ex Abrams [68]. There are no
recognized subspecies, varieties, or forms.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet L. Howard, December 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Malosma laurina. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Laurel sumac is distributed along the Pacific Coast from the Point
Conception region of Santa Barbara County, California, south to La Paz,
Baja California Sur [35,40]. It also occurs on Santa Catalina, San
Clemente, Cedros, and Guadelupe islands [12].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
STATES :
CA MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CABR SAMO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
3 Southern Pacific Border
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K030 California oakwoods
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
SAF COVER TYPES :
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Laurel sumac occurs in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and hardwood
woodland formations [4,8]. It occasionally grows in nearly pure stands
in coastal sage scrub [18,40]. More commonly, it codominates with
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black, white, or purple
sage (Salvia mellifera, S. apiana, S. leucophylla), or is a less
important community memeber [28,59]. Other coastal sage scrub
associates are toyon (Hetermoles arbutifolia), sugar bush (Rhus ovata),
lemonadeberry (R. integrifolia), misson manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor),
needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perrenne), and
giant wildrye (Elymus condensatus) [29,34,35,49].
In mixed chaparral, it often codominates with bigpod ceanothus
(Ceanothus megacarpus) and spiny ceanothus (C. spinosus) [50]. It is
usually an associate in desert scrub and seral chamise (Ademostoma
fasciculatum) communities [10,19]. Desert scrub associates include
desert ceanothus (C. gregii), desert almond (Prunus fasciculata), bush
poppy (Denromecon rigida), and flannelbush (Fremontodendron
californicum) [18,21]. Besides chamise, common chamise chaparral
associates include hoaryleaf ceanothus (C. crassifolius), hairy
ceanothus (C. obliganthus), California scrub oak (Quercus dumosa),
Eastwood manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), and bigberry manzanita
(A. glauca) [11,21,22].
In woodlands, laurel sumac is an understory associate in Engelmann oak
(Quercus emgelmannii), valley oak (Q. lobata), coast live oak (Q.
agrifolia), and California black walnut (Juglans californica)
[33,42,52,62,66]. Riparian associates include California bay
(Umbellularia californica), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia),
poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and toyon [11,41]. It is also
found in riparian California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)-white alder
(Alnus rhombifolia) associations bordering chaparral [18].
Common fire-follower associates are deerweed (Lotus scparius), sticky
nama (Nama parryi), and bush lupine (Lupinus longifolius) [14].
Publications listing laurel sumac as a codominant species are as
follows:
The community composition of California coastal sage scrub [28]
A vegetation classification system applied to southern California [40]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Black-tailed deer lightly browse laurel sumac seedlings and fruits [14].
Other mammals and birds, including California quail, also eat the fruits
[5,55].
PALATABILITY :
Laurel sumac browse is rated as useless for all classes of livestock and
wildlife [48]. Even overpopulated feral goat and pig herds on Santa
Catalina Island do notuse it [17,34].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
Laurel sumac provides deep shade [48,55], which is presumably used by
animals during hot weather.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Laurel sumac seedlings were planted on an old field in the Sepulveda
Wildlife Refuge that was being restored to coastal sage scrub.
Seedlings showed greater than 75 percent survival in the first year
[41].
Brinkman [5] provides laurel sumac seed processing, storage, and
germination information. Plants may also be started from root cuttings.
Survival of young plants is greater when given microshading and summer
waterings [52].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Attractive evergreen leaves, reddish-brown branches, and relative
freedom from garden pests makes laurel sumac a desirable ornamental
within its range [9,48]. It is also a valued bee food [9,23].
The Chumash made flour from dried laurel sumac fruits. They used the
root bark to make a tea for treating dysentery [53].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Laurel sumac increases under heavy grazing. Populations on the Channel
islands have greatly expanded since livestock introduction [34].
The shrubs are not frost-hardy, probably because of active stem growth
during winter [67]. Major cold waves in the winters of 1949 and 1978
resulted in severe laurel sumac die-back. Poor frost tolerance is
probably why the species is limited to areas south of Point Conception
[35].
Citrus growers use laurel sumac presence as an indicator of frost-free
sites with the potential to support citrus orchards [18].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Laurel sumac is a fast-growing, native, sclerophyllous shrub from 6.6 to
16 feet (2-5 m) in height at maturity [7,46,56]. The evergreen leaves
are aromatic and somewhat glaucous. Flowers are borne on terminal
panicles. The fruit is a drupe containing a single, hard-coated seed
[5,7]. The lignotuber is large and massive, measuring as much as 2.6
feet (0.8 m) in diameter [11,52]. Laurel sumac roots are deep and
extensive; vertical root depth of one individual in the Santa Monica
Mountains exceeded 43.6 feet (13.2 m) [11]. The shrubs are at least
moderately long-lived. Ring counts of the branches of larger
individuals on the San Gabriel River floodplain reveiled ages of 35 to
47 years. The massive lignotubers and roots were undoubtedly much older
but could not be aged due to extensive rot [51]. Little information is
available on age distribution in a typical stand. Mixed laurel
sumac-lemonadeberry stands on Santa Catalina Island are uneven-aged
[34].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sexual: The honeybee is an important laurel sumac pollinator [7,9,23].
Seed production is low but consistent [62]; some seed is produced each
year. Seed falls beneath the parent plant or is disseminated by
frugivorous animals. Soil-stored seed is probably sound for many years
[5], but long-term viability studies are lacking. Scarification by
hydrochloric acid, heat, or mechanical means breaks dormancy.
Temperatures for optimal heat scarification are from 200 to 240 degrees
Fahrenheit (93-115 deg C) [6,47]. A study was conducted to test the
germination capacity of fresh seed of seven chaparral species after
exposure to elevated temperatures. It showed that laural sumac and the
taxonomically related sugarberry required higher temperatures for
germination than all other species tested. Germination capacity of
laurel sumac seed was 52 percent following five minute dry heat exposure
at 220 to 240 degrees (104-115 deg C) but lowered to 20 percent at the
140- to 160-degree (60-71 deg C) range [61].
Drought sensitivity is a major factor inhibiting recruitment. Laurel
sumac seedlings appear approximately 1 month later than most chaparral
shrub seedlings, and their taproots grow slowly [50,52]. Germination
and growth are favored on sites with summer microshade. Mortalilty is
usually greatest the first summer following germination [14]. Seedlings
are also sensitive to cold. They grow slowly at near-freezing
temperatures, and frost kills them [7]. The preponderance of laurel
sumac on southern aspects is probably due to the more rapid growth of
seedlings on these warmer sites during years of high precipitation [35].
Vegetative: Laurel sumac sprouts from the lignotuber following damage
to aboveground portions of the plant [11,55,60,61,62].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Laurel sumac occurs in maritime, Mediterranean, and semiarid climates
[37,39,58,65]. Insular populations, exposed to the maritime climate,
undergo little seasonal fluctuation in the mild temperatures. Summer
drought occurs, but the effects are moderated by frequent fog and low
clouds [65]. Populations in Mediterranean and semiarid climates receive
90 percent of annual rainfall from November to April. Precipitation in
the Santa Monica Mountains, where a Mediterranean climate predominates,
averages 30 inches per year (762 mm/yr) [2]. Hot, dry Santa Ana foehn
winds occur in coastal mountains during fall [35].
Soils supporting laurel sumac are acidic to neutral, well-drained, dry,
and often rocky or gravelly [2,18]. In riparian zones laurel sumac is
most common on gravelly outwash areas [18,51]. Soil textures in which
laurel sumac is found are sand or sandy loam [24,51]. Parent materials
include diorite, shale, sandstone, and sandstone with conglomerate.
Laurel sumac does not occur on unconsolidated sand, limestone-, or
serpentine-derived soils [24,32,58]. It is favored on soils with high
exchangable potassium levels. Peak abundance occurs on coastal sites
with heavy litter layers. Laurel sumac is less frequent inland [29,58].
Slope varies from 0 to 80 degrees; it is most common on southern
exposures [24,29]. Laurel sumac occurs at elevations below 3,000 feet
(914 m) [34.35.38]
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Laurel sumac is a moderately successful initial colonizer of disturbed
sites and a strong residual colonizer [47,55,62]. Sprouts and surviving
seedlings persist through climax in coastal sage scrub and mixed
chaparral communities [8,50,58]. In alluvial scrub communities, laurel
sumac usually establishes from seed from mid-seres through climax. When
seasonal floods do not excavate the roots, however, it quickly
establishes dominance in the initial community [51].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
New leaf growth is initiated in February, and leaves are retained for
about 12 months [20,56]. Maximum stem elongation occurs in June [11],
but stems continue to grow throughout the year [67]. Flora primordia
develop directly prior to flowering, which begins in May. Peak
flowering ends in July, but blooming sometimes continues into December
[5,26,56]. Fully ripened fruits first appear in September. The fruits
often remain on the parent plant until spring [5,55].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Fire Ecology: Historical documents show that prior to fire suppression,
southern California chaparral usually burned in summer. Fires typically
crept down slopes by means of falling brands and coals, and only
occasionally formed the hot runs on steep slopes that are typical of
today's fires. Large fuels often smoldered for months. This fire
behavior resulted in a mosaic of numerous small burns throughout the
landscape. This landscape pattern is still evident in northern Baja
California, where fire suppression is not practiced. In contrast, most
contemporary southern California fires occur in fall during Santa Ana
Winds, and consume large patches of chaparral. There is a sharp
increase in the size of individual burns north of the international
border. Fire suppression has reduced the number of fires, but because
of the increase in burn size, total acreage burned is approximately the
same on either side of the border [35].
Southern California chaparral fires typically crown out, burning all or
most of the aboveground portions of shrubs [1]. Natural fire frequency
varies from a few years to as long as 60, although shrubs cannot survive
many short-interval fires [35]. Chaparral stands become extremely
flammable within 30 to 60 postfire years, depending upon stand
productivity, climate, and topography [44]. Laurel sumac has several
botanical features which encourage fire. Aromatic compounds in the
leaves increase fire intensity [20]. Elapsed time before ignition of
partially dry laurel sumac foliage was 1.80 seconds at 1,382 degrees
Fahrenheit (750 deg C) under laboratory conditions [36]. The high
surface-to-volume ratio of leaves (126 cm sq/cu cm) transfers heat to
the plant's interior branches following ignition, resulting in more
rapid combustion of the shrub [46]. Also, mature laurel sumac stands
have deep litter layers. A study of litter accumulation in chaparral in
southern California and northern Baja California showed that laurel
sumac produced the deepest litter of the seven chaparral species
measured [58].
Plant Adaptations: Laurel sumac's adaptations to fire include the
ability to sprout from the lignotuber after aboveground portions are
burned and postfire seed germination [11,60,61,62,63]. Like most
chaparral shrubs, laurel sumac stores photosynthate reserves in the
extensive roots. These reserves are metabolized during postfire
sprouting. Laurel sumac also stores photosynthate reserves in its large
lignotuber. This extra store of reserves probably gives laurel sumac a
postfire competitive edge over many chaparral species [11].
The seedcoats of laurel sumac seeds in the seedbank are cracked by fire,
resulting in postfire seedling recruitment [62,62].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Laurel sumac is typically top-killed by fire, although hot fire may
result in some shrub mortality. A summer wildfire on Otay Mountain, San
Diego County, completely top-killed all laurel sumac [64]. Fall
wildfire in the Topanga-Tuna Canyon of the Santa Monica Mountains burned
100 percent of the plants. Most shrubs were top-killed by this fire,
but some were completely killed. Many laurel sumac snags were noted
when the burn site was inspected at postfire year 3 [49]. Westman and
O'Leary [59] reported that if fireline intensity is over 4,400 BTU/min/sq ft
(199 kcal/sec/sq m), laurel sumac lignotubers fail to sprout.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
The majority of the literature reports that laurel sumac is completely
top-killed by fire [1,27,43,49,52]; occasionally, however, a few stems
survive. An "intense" wildfire started on November 3, 1949, in the San
Gabriel Mountains; ambient temperature was 90 degress Fahrenheit (32 deg
C), humidity was 9 percent, and fuel moisture was 0.5 percent. Despite
these conditions, the largest branches of older laurel sumac leafed out
the next year [24].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Top-killed plants sprout quickly. Twenty-two percent of laurel sumac
top-killed by an October wildfire in mixed chaparral in the Santa Monica
Mountains sprouted within 15 days after fire. By April of the following
year, 100 percent of the lignotubers of burned shrubs had sprouted.
Sprout length at the end of the first postfire growing season was 4.3
feet (1.3 m) [52]. Plumb [43] reported a similar response following a
July wildfire on the San Dimas Experimental Forest of the San Gabriel
Mountains. One hundred percent of top-killed laurel sumac sprouted by
November, and 97 percent of sprouts were greater than 12 inches (30 cm)
in length by December. Seventy-four percent of lignotubers supported 12
or more sprouts. Postfire stem elongation through December is common
when fall rains are sufficient to support continued growth [57].
Chlorosis often occurs in the leaves of the rapidly growing sprouts
[11].
Postfire seed germination is moderate [63]. Density of seedlings
following a spring wildfire in the Santa Monica Mountains in mixed
chaparral was 0.6 plants per square yard (0.7 plants/sq m) [14].
Postfire seedling mortality is high unless rainfall is steady. The year
following this wildfire was a drought year, and only 0.6 percent of
seedlings survived through summer [14]. Seedlings that germinated
following the previously mentioned October fire in the Santa Monica
Mountains exhibited the same response. Seedling survival at the end of
the first postfire growing season was 51.5 percent with precipitation at
110 percent of normal. The next year, with precipitation at 53 percent
of normal, survival dropped to 1.6 percent [52].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Elements to consider when developing a fire prescription for southern
California chaparral are available in the literature [16].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Malosma laurina | Laurel Sumac
REFERENCES :
1. Barro, S. C.; Conard, S. G. 1991. Fire effects on California chaparral
systems: an overview. Environmental International. 17(2-3): 135-149.
[15760]
2. Bauer, Harry L. 1936. Moisture relations in the chaparral of the Santa
Monica Mountains, California. Ecological Monograph. 6(3): 409-454.
[10528]
3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
4. Bolsinger, Charles L. 1989. Shrubs of California's chaparral,
timberland, and woodland: area, ownership, and stand characteristics.
Res. Bull. PNW-RB-160. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station. 50 p. [7426]
5. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. 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: 715-719. [6921]
6. Burcham, L. T. 1974. Fire and chaparral before European settlement. In:
Rosenthal, Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral:
Proceedings; 1973 March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The
Sierra Club: 101-120. [4669]
7. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated
ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]
8. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.
Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.
145 p. [6716]
9. Dale, Nancy. 1986. Flowering plants: The Santa Monica Mountains, coastal
and chaparral regions of southern California. Santa Barbara, CA: Capra
Press. In coooperation with: The California Native Plant Society. 239 p.
[7605]
10. Davis, Frank W.; Keller, Edward A.; Parikh, Anuja; Florsheim, Joan.
1989. Recovery of the chaparral riparian zone after wildfire. In:
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: 194-203. [13883]
11. DeSouza, J.; Silka, P. A.; Davis, S. D. 1986. Comparative physiology of
burned and unburned Rhus laurina after chaparral wildfire. Oecologia.
71: 63-68. [4894]
12. Epling, Carl; Lewis, Harlan. 1942. The centers of distribution of the
chaparral and coastal sage associations. American Midland Naturalist.
27: 445-462. [9793]
13. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
14. Frazer, J. M.; Davis, S. D. 1988. Differential survival of chaparral
seedlings during the first summer drought after wildfire. Oecologia.
76(2): 215-221. [13054]
15. 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]
16. Green, Lisle R. 1982. Prescribed burning in the California Mediterranean
ecosystem. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical
coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of
Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 464-471.
[6052]
17. Green, Lisle R.; Newell, Leonard A. 1982. Using goats to control brush
regrowth on fuelbreaks. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-59. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 13 p. [10681]
18. Hanes, Ted L. 1976. Vegetation types of the San Gabriel Mountians. In:
Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern
California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2.
Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 65-76. [4227]
19. Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.;
Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John
Wiley and Sons: 417-469. [7216]
20. Harrison, A. T.; Small, E.; Mooney, H. A. 1971. Drought relationships
and distribution of two Mediterranean-climate California plant
communities. Ecology. 52(5): 869-875. [6735]
21. Horton, J. S. 1951. Vegetation. In: Some aspects of watershed management
in southern California vegetation. Misc. Paper 1. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California [Pacific
Southwest] Forest and Range Experiment Station: 10-17. [10685]
22. Jacks, Paula Mary. 1984. The drought tolerance of Adenostoma
fasciculatum and Ceanothus crassifolius seedlings & vegetation change in
the San Gabriel chaparral. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. 89
p. Thesis. [10852]
23. Jepson, Willis Linn. 1925. A manual of the flowering plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1238. [19365]
24. Juhren, Gustaf; Pole, Rupert; O'Keefe, James. 1955. Conversion of brush
to grass on a burned chaparral area. Journal of Forestry. 53(5):
348-351. [4687]
25. 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]
26. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Seed production, seed populations in soil, &
seedling production after fire for 2 congeneric prs. of sprouting &
nonsprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology. 58: 820-829. [6220]
27. Kinucan, Edith Seyfert. 1965. Deer utilization of postfire chaparral
shrubs and fire history of the San Gabiel Mountians. Los Angeles, CA:
California State College, Los Angeles. 61 p. Thesis. [11163]
28. Kirkpatrick, J. B.; Hutchinson, C. F. 1977. The community composition of
Californian coastal sage scrub. Vegetatio. 35(1): 21-33. [5612]
29. Kirkpatrick, J. B.; Hutchinson, C. F. 1980. The environmental
relationships of Californian coastal sage scrub and some of its
component communities and species. Journal of Biogeography. 7: 23-38.
[5608]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Malanson, George P.; O'Leary, John F. 1982. Post-fire regeneration
strategies of Californian coastal sage shrubs. Oecologia. 53: 355-358.
[3490]
33. McDonald, Philip M. 1990. Pseudotsuga macrocarpa (Vasey) Mayr bigcone
Douglas-fir. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical
coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric.
Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service: 520-526. [13412]
34. Minnich, Richard A. 1982. Grazing, fire, and the management of
vegetation on Santa Catalina Island, California. In: Conrad, C. Eugene;
Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium
on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June
22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station: 444-449. [6051]
35. Minnich, R.; Howard, L. 1984. Biogeography and prehistory of shrublands.
In: DeVries, Johannes J., ed. Shrublands in California: literature
review and research needed for management. Contribution No. 191. Davis,
CA: University of California, Water Resources Center: 8-24. [4998]
36. Montgomery, Kenneth R.; Cheo, P. C. 1971. Effect of leaf thickness on
ignitibility. Forest Science. 17(4): 475-478. [19366]
37. Mooney, H. A.; Dunn, E. L.; Shropshire, Frances; Song, Leo. 1970.
Vegetation comparisons between the Mediterranean climatic areas of
California and Chile. Flora. 159: 480-496. [13591]
38. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
39. O'Malley, Penelope Grenoble. 1991. Large-scale restoration on Santa
Catalina Island, California. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 7-15.
[15763]
40. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others].
1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
33 p. [1849]
41. Parra-Szijj, Emilia A. 1990. Revegetation in the Sepulveda Wildlife
Reserve: a seven year summary. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas
M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st
annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January
16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum,
Society for Ecological Restoration: 139-151. [14693]
42. Perala, C.; Hoover, D. A. 1990. Hand-removal of exotics and planting of
natives key to restoration of riparian forest understory. Restoration &
Management Notes. 8(2): 118. [13791]
43. Plumb, T. R. 1961. Sprouting of chaparral by December after a wildfire
in July. Technical Paper 57. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 12 p. [9799]
44. Philpot, Charles W. 1977. Vegetative features as determinants of fire
frequency and intensity. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,
technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the
environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterreanean
ecosystems; 1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 12-16.
[17403]
45. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
46. Rundel, Philip W. 1977. Water balance in Mediterranean sclerophyll
ecosystems. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical
coordinators. Proc. of the symposium on the environmental consequences
of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems; 1977 August
1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 95-106. [4821]
47. Sampson, Arthur W. 1944. Plant succession on burned chaparral lands in
northern California. Bull. 65. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 144 p. [2050]
48. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range
brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment
Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]
49. Radosevich, S. R.; Conard, S. G.; Adams, D. R. 1977. Regrowth responses
of chamise. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical
coordinators. Symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and
fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems: Proceedings; 1977 August
1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 378-382. [4865]
50. Saruwatari, M. W.; Davis, S. D. 1989. Tissue water relations of three
chaparral shrub species after wildfire. Oecologia. 80: 303-308. [9359]
51. Smith, Robin Lee. 1980. Alluvial scrub vegetation of the San Gabriel
River floodplain, California. Madrono. 27(3): 126-138. [13585]
52. Thomas, C. M.; Davis, S. D. 1989. Recovery patterns of three chaparral
shrub species after wildfire. Oecologia. 80: 309-320. [9360]
53. Timbrook, Jan. 1990. Ethnobotany of Chumash Indians, California, based
on collections by John P. Harrington. Economic Botany. 44(2): 236-253.
[13777]
54. 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]
55. 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]
56. Watkins, V. M.; DeForest, H. 1941. Growth in some chaparral shrubs of
California. Ecology. 22(1): 79-83. [10526]
57. Went, F. W.; Juhren, G.; Juhren, M. C. 1952. Fire and biotic factors
affecting germination. Ecology. 33(3): 351-364. [4919]
58. Westman, Walter E. 1981. Factors influencing the distribution of species
of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology. 62(2): 439-455. [11032]
59. Westman, W. E.; O'Leary, J. F.; Malanson, G. P. 1981. The effects of
fire intensity, aspect and substrate on post-fire growth of Californian
coastal sage scrub. In: Margaris, N. S.; Mooney, H. A., eds. Components
of productivity of Mediterranean climate regions--basic and applied
aspects. The Hague, Netherlands: Dr W. Junk Pulishers: 151-179. [13593]
60. Wright, Ernest. 1931. The effect of high temperatures on seed
germination. Journal of Forestry. 29: 679-687. [97]
61. Callaway, Ragan M. 1992. Effect of shrubs on recruitment of Quercus
douglasii and Quercus lobata in California. Ecology. 73(6): 2118-2128.
[18431]
62. Zedler, Paul H. 1977. Life history attributes of plants and the fire
cycle: a case study in chaparral dominated by Cupressus forbesii. In:
Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical coordinators. Symposium
on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management on
Menditerranean ecosystems: Proceedings; 1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA.
Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 451-458. [4876]
63. Zedler, Paul H. 1981. Vegetation change in chaparral and desert
communities in San Diego County, California. In: West, D. C.; Shugart,
H. H.; Botkin, D. B., eds. Forest succession: Concepts and application.
New York: Springer-Verlag: 406-430. [4241]
64. Zedler, Paul H.; Gautier, Clayton R.; McMaster, Gregory S. 1983.
Vegetation change in response to extreme events: the effect of a short
interval between fires in California chaparral and coastal scrub.
Ecology. 64(4): 809-818. [4612]
65. Philbrick, Ralph N., Haller, J. R. 1977. The southern California
islands. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor, Jack, eds. Terrestrial
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 893-906.
[7210]
66. Griggs, F. Thomas. 1987. The ecological setting for the natural regen.
of Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii Greene) on the Santa Rosa Plateau,
Riverside County, Calif. In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H.,
technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on multiple-use
management of California's hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San
Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 71-75. [5530]
67. Mooney, Harold A. 1977. Southern coastal scrub. In: Barbour, Michael G.;
Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John
Wiley & Sons: 471-490. [4234]
68. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
Index
Related categories for Species: Malosma laurina
| Laurel Sumac
|
 |
