|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
ABBREVIATION :
NOLMIC
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
NOMI
COMMON NAMES :
sacahuista
sacahuiste
smallseed sacahuiste
bear grass
palmilla
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of sacahuista is Nolina
microcarpa S. Wats. [17].
Various authors have placed sacahuista either in the family Liliaceae or
Agauaceae [24]. Kearney and others [17] place it in the family
Liliaceae.
LIFE FORM :
Shrub, Forb
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Randy Scott Griffith, July 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott. 1991. Nolina microcarpa. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Sacahuista is found in the high desert environs of the southwestern
United States and northern Mexico [26]. It occurs from western Texas to
southeastern Nevada and from northern Arizona and New Mexico south to
northern Mexico [17].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ NV NM TX MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CHIR CORO FOBO GRCA GUMO LAME
ORPI SAGU
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K027 Mesquite bosque
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K041 Creosotebush
K043 Paloverde - cactus shrub
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K053 Grama - galleta steppe
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
68 Mesquite
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Sacahuista is commonly found in the understory of pinyon pine (Pinus
spp.), juniper (Juniperus spp.), scrub oak (Quercus spp.), and
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [7,12,22]. In the shrub layer,
sacahuista is associated with sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri), skunkbush
(Rhus trilobata), datil yucca (Yucca baccata), sandpaper bush (Mortonia
scabrella), and creosotebush (Larrea spp.) [5,21].
Sacahuista is listed as an indicator or dominant species in the
following community type (cts) and plant association (pas)
classifications:
Location Classification Authority
sw NM woodland cts Medina 1987
sw U.S. woodland pas Moir and Carleton 1987
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Sacahuista has little value for livestock. Cattle graze the foliage
only in times of drought. If they are forced to make extensive use of
the plant they may be poisoned [15]. Sacahuista is habituative and
extremely toxic to sheep and goats. Toxicosis results in loss of
appetite, depression, and death within 3 to 10 days from
photosensitization, hyperbilirubinemia (excess amounts of bile pigment
in the blood stream), and renal damage or renal failure [27].
Deer (Odocoileus spp.), however, can consume large portions of
sacahuista seasonally, with no apparent ill effect. The flower heads
and stalks comprise 12 percent and 10 percent of white-tailed deer (O.
virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) diets, respectively, from May
to June [2]. The foliage is used by both species in drought years [30],
but in moist years only mule deer browse the foliage, usually for a
brief time in the spring [1].
PALATABILITY :
Palatability of sacahuista is generally poor for wildlife and livestock.
The succulent new growth is the most palatable to cattle and mule deer
[24,30]. The palatability of sacahuista to livestock and wildlife
species in several western states has been rated as follows [1,2,15,30]:
AZ NV NM TX
Cattle Poor Poor Poor Poor
Mule deer Fair Fair Fair Fair
White-tailed deer Poor Poor Poor Poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Urness and McCulloch [30] compared the nutritional values of the forage
species common in Arizonia chaparral; their results showed sacahuista to
be of poor nutritional quality. Protein composition of sacahuista was
the lowest of the species sampled. Phosphorus:calcium ratio was 1:4,
which is indicative of a nutritionally poor forage species, due to the
supression of phosphorus uptake from excess calcium.
Catlin [8] reported the nutritional values for sacahuista in the spring
as follows:
N2-Free Crude Crude
Extract Ash Protein Fiber Fat
(percent composition)
44.98 3.15 4.68 44.96 2.23
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Native Americans used sacahuista foliage to weave baskets and mats [18]
and ate the flower stalks and caudex raw, boiled, or roasted [17].
During World War II, sacahuista was discovered to have commerical value
as a source of fiber. Since then, it has been harvested in Arizona, New
Mexico, and northern Mexico. The fiber is used as a substitute for
broomstraw in the production of corn brooms [18].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sacahuista can be used as an indicator of range condition. Darrow [9]
reported the following indicator values for Arizona rangeland:
Range Condition Indication
Good Flower stalks selectively browsed
and foliage exhibits no cropping
Fair No flower stalks, and foliage
shows signs of cropping
Poor Pure stands of sacahuista are
noticeably hedged
When planning grazing allotments the land manager should inform the
livestock owner of the presence of sacahuista and the danger of
toxicosis. Preliminary evidence suggests that an oral treatment with an
aqueaus zinc sulfate at 0.0235 ounces per pound (30 mg/kg) of body
weight may be an effective prophylactic as well as a therapy for
toxicosis in sheep [27].
The commerical harvest of wild sacahuista stands on public and private
lands every 18 to 22 months yields approximately 38,175 pounds per acre
(42,750 kg/ha) of foliage [18]. This harvest increases available forage
for cattle and deer by opening areas for more desirable forage species
and increasing the production of new, succulent sacahuista foliage
[18,24].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Sacahuista is a long-lived, perennial, evergreen, monocot half shrub
[14,17,25]. The plant has a basal rosette of long, narrow leaves from a
large, underground, woody caudex that sends up flower stalks 8.2 feet
(2.5 m) in height [24]. The flower head is a densely flowered, terminal
panicle; the fruit is a three-lobed capsule [17].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (microphanerophyte).
Burned or clipped state: Hemicryptophyte.
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Sacahuista reproduces sexually [17], and it resprouts from the woody
caudex [7].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Sacahuista achieves dominance on the more mesic slopes and flats above
5,000 feet (1,515 m) in the arid Southwest [14].
Soils: Sacahuista occurs in the Alfisol, Aridisol, Entisol, and
Mollisol soil orders [13].
Climate: Sacahuista inhabits areas where the winters are short and mild
and the summers are long and hot. The annual precipitation is 12 to 18
inches (25-45 cm) per year, with the majority of it falling in the
summer [3,4,5].
Elevation: Sacahuista grows at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 6,500
feet (900-1,970 m) [17].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Sacahuista is a member of the climax vegetation of the pinyon-juniper
woodland but also has qualities of an invader. It increases in response
to grazing and increases under a regime of fire suppression [31].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Sacahuista flowers fom May to June depending on latitude and elevation
[17].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Sacahuista resprouts from the woody, underground caudex after a fire
[7].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The immediate effect of fire on sacahuista is partial or complete crown
removal, depending on fire severity [32]. A cool fire will remove part
of the crown and result in little or no mortality of mature plants, and
a minor loss of young plants. A moderate to hot fire results in a high
loss of young plants, and greater than 10 percent mortality of mature
plants [16].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Mature plants have large amounts of cured foliage which burns hot. The
heat influx or burning of the caudex can severely damage or kill the
plant [16].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
After a moderate fire in an oak/juniper woodland, sacahuista was much
reduced. Ten percent of the mature plants died immediately after the
fire, and another 10 percent succumbed after a feeble attempt to
resprout. Another 15 percent were in such a weakened condition that
survival after the study was doubtful. Two years after the fire, only
13 percent had fully recovered [16].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Fire can be an effective tool for improving range quality by deterring
the spread of sacahuista [16]. Fire would open up the range for the
growth of more desirable forage plants for livestock and wildlife [32].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Nolina microcarpa | Sacahuista
REFERENCES :
1. Anthony, Robert G. 1976. Influence of drought on diets and numbers of
desert deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(1): 140-144. [11558]
2. Anthony, Robert G.; Smith, Norman S. 1977. Ecological relationships
between mule deer and white-tailed deer in southeastern Arizona.
Ecological Monographs. 47: 255-277. [9890]
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. Brown, David E. 1982. Semidesert grassland. In: Brown, David E., ed.
Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 123-131. [3603]
5. 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]
6. Brown, David E. 1982. Madrean evergreen woodland. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 59-65. [8886]
7. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona
chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
8. Catlin, C. N. 1925. Composition of Arizona forages, with comparative
data. Bull. 113. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural
Experiment Station: 155-171. [4525]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. Fitzhugh, E. Lee; Moir, William H.; Ludwig, John A.; Ronco, Frank, Jr.
1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and part of the Cibola
National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 116 p. [4206]
13. 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]
14. Gehlbach, Frederick R. 1967. Vegetation of the Guadalupe Escarpment, New
Mexico-Texas. Ecology. 48(3): 404-419. [5149]
15. 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]
16. Johnson, Donald E.; Mukhtar, Hashim A. M.; Mapston, Raymond; Humphrey,
R. R. 1962. The mortality of oak-juniper woodland species following a
wild fire. Journal of Range Management. 15: 201-205. [129]
17. 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]
18. Krochmal, A.; Paur, S.; Duisberg, P. 1954. Useful native plants in the
American Southwestern deserts. Economic Botany. 8: 3-20. [2766]
19. 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]
20. Lyon, L. Jack. 1966. Initial vegetal development following prescribed
burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-29. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [1494]
21. Mahgoub, El Fatih; Pieper, Rex D.; Ortiz, Melchor. 1988. Use of leader
lengths and diameters to estimate production and utilization of
Cercocarpus breviflorus. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 153-155.
[348]
22. Medina, Alvin L. 1987. Woodland communities and soils of Fort Bayard,
southwestern New Mexico. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of
Science. 21: 99-112. [3978]
23. Moir, W. H.; Carleton, J. O. 1987. Classification of pinyon-juniper
(p-j) sites on National Forests in the Southwest. In: Everett, Richard
L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January
13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 216-226.
[6852]
24. Nabhan, G. P.; Burns, B. T. 1985. Palmilla (Nolina) fiber: a native
plant industry in arid and semi-arid U.S./Mexico borderlands. Journal of
Arid Environments. 9: 97-103. [14227]
25. Pond, Floyd W. 1971. Chaparral: 47 years later. Res. Pap. RM-69. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [1905]
26. 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]
27. Rankins, D. L., Jr.; Smith, G. S.; Ross, T. T.; [and others]. 1988.
Nolina microcarpa toxicosis in sheep. Proceedings, annual
meeting--western section, American Society of Animal Science. 39:
218-221. [14233]
28. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
29. 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]
30. Urness, P. J.; McCulloch, C. Y. 1973. Part III: Nutritional value of
seasonal deer diets. In: Special Report 3. Deer nutrition in Arizona
chaparral and desert habitats. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish
Department: 53-68. [12223]
31. Van Dyne, George M.; Payne, Gene F., compilers. 1964. Grazing responses
of western range plants. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Department
of Animal and Range Sciences. 69 p. [2418]
32. Wagle, R. F. 1981. Fire: its effects on plant succession and wildlife in
the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 82 p. [4031]
Index
Related categories for Species: Nolina microcarpa
| Sacahuista
|
 |
