1Up Info - A Portal with a Difference

1Up Travel - A Travel Portal with a Difference.    
1Up Info
   

Earth & EnvironmentHistoryLiterature & ArtsHealth & MedicinePeoplePlacesPlants & Animals  • Philosophy & Religion  • Science & TechnologySocial Science & LawSports & Everyday Life Wildlife, Animals, & PlantsCountry Study Encyclopedia A -Z
North America Gazetteer


You are here >1Up Info > Wildlife, Animals, and Plants > Plant Species > Shrub > Species: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
 

Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 


Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 

Wildlife Species

  Amphibians

  Birds

  Mammals

  Reptiles

 

Kuchler

 

Plants

  Bryophyte

  Cactus

  Fern or Fern Ally

  Forb

  Graminoid

  Lichen

  Shrub

  Tree

  Vine


Introductory

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
ABBREVIATION : QUEHAV SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : QUHA3 QUHAH QUHAT COMMON NAMES : sand shinnery oak Havard's oak Tucker's oak shinnery oak shin oak sand shin oak TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of sand shinnery oak is Quercus havardii Rydb. [20]. It is a member of the white oak subgenus (Lepidobalanus), within the order Fagales [2,32]. Accepted varieties are [20]: Q. h. var. havardii Havard's oak Q. h. var. tuckeri Welsh Tucker's oak Sand shinnery oak hybridizes with several sympatric oaks including shin oak (Q. mohriana) and post oak (Q. stellata) [28]. Introgression and backcrossing between sand shinnery oak and post oak are widespread [28]. These species have distinct ecological requirements but may occur together on certain limestone ridges. Muller [28] notes that the separation of sand shinnery and post oak is maintained as a result of ecological differences which "are themselves sufficient basis for specific distinction." Sand shinnery oak may also hybridize with Gambel oak (Q. gambelii) in some locations [39]. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY COMPILED BY AND DATE : D. Tirmenstein, April 1991 LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : NO-ENTRY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991. Quercus havardii. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Sand shinnery oak grows from the Texas Panhandle and western Oklahoma to northeastern New Mexico and Arizona, northward to southeastern Utah [14]. It is a dominant plant throughout much of the southern Great Plains [51] and grows on more than 3.4 million acres (1.4 million ha) in north and west Texas [47]. Sand shinnery oak occurs as a dominant on an estimated 5.7 million acres (2.3 million ha) in the Southwest [47]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES15 Oak - hickory FRES31 Shinnery FRES32 Texas savanna FRES35 Pinyon - juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie STATES : AZ NM OK TX UT ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : LAMR BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 14 Great Plains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland K037 Mountain mahogany - oak scrub K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie K071 Shinnery K087 Mesquite - oak savanna SAF COVER TYPES : 66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper 67 Mohrs ("shin") oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Sand shinnery oak grows as a dominant in xeric, shrubby oak communities in Texas, Oklahoma, and the Southwest. It occurs in a variety of other communities including mesquite (Prosopis spp.)-buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) prairie [26], shortgrass prairie [53], and in parts of certain southwestern pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) woodlands east of the Continental Divide [48]. It also occurs as a codominant with sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) on many sandy sites throughout the southern Great Plains. It has been listed as a dominant in the following community type classification: Soil characteristics of two desert plant community types that occur in the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico [37] Plant associates: In the southern Great Plains, sand shinnery oak commonly grows with sand sagebrush, sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), buffalograss, skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) [26,35,50]. Little bluestem, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi var. gerardi), sand sagebrush, and sideoats grama are common where grazing has not been too severe [3]. Sand sagebrush, soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca), honey mesquite, and sand shinnery oak often dominate on severely grazed sites. In parts of west Texas and eastern New Mexico, sand bluestem (Andropogon gerardi var. paucipilus), little bluestem, sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), pricklypear (Opuntia spp.), soapweed yucca, honey mesquite, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and threeawn (Aristida spp.) are common associates [7,11,33,47].

VALUE AND USE

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : NO-ENTRY IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Browse: Sand shinnery oak browse is a valuable wildlife food [33]. It is readily eaten by deer throughout much of the Texas plains [4,6]. In some areas it is an important livestock forage [8], but in most it is primarily used as an emergency food during droughts [32]. Sand shinnery oak browse has caused some livestock poisoning [33]. It is generally most toxic during spring when new foliage is sprouting [21]. Browse is particularly poisonous to cattle and can cause damage to the kidneys and the digestive tract [32]. Sand shinnery oak browse is occasionally toxic to domestic sheep and goats, especially in drought years [21]. However, domestic goats can consume it with impunity where it grows interspersed with other forage [32], and in some areas it contributes significantly to overall goat nutrition [45]. In west Texas, goat consumption has reached 31 percent in June, 45 percent in July, and 51 percent in August [47]. Acorns: Sand shinnery acorns are readily eaten by many wildlife species, including prairie chickens, bobwhites, and the collared peccary, and by livestock[43]. Sites dominated by sand shinnery oak are prime summer foraging areas for the prairie chickens [29]. In New Mexico, small amounts of sand shinnery acorns are eaten by the scaled quail during the summer [7]. Acorns of many oaks are eaten by the wild turkey, grackle, starling, common crow, ruffed grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, northern flicker, brown thrasher, jays, woodpeckers, titmice, chickadees, and nuthatches [25,44]. The red squirrel, fox squirrel, gray squirrel, rock squirrel, eastern chipmunk, white-footed mouse, flying squirrels, and numerous other rodents feed on acorns [25,44]. The black bear, raccoon, opossum, deer, cottontails, and foxes also seek out acorns [25,44]. PALATABILITY : Sand shinnery oak browse is at least somewhat palatable to deer and to domestic goats. It is relatively unpalatable to cattle [47]. The high tannin levels present in oak browse presumably reduce palatability to many species. The large, sweet acorns are highly palatable to a variety of wildlife species [8] and to domestic livestock [43]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Browse: Crude protein values of sand shinnery oak browse are relatively low, averaging 8 to 9 percent [46,47]. Tannin levels remain relatively constant from June through September but vary throughout the rest of the year. Twigs typically exhibit slightly higher tannin levels than do leaves. In several studies, condensed tannin ranged from 34 to 38 milligrams per gram [47]. Percent seasonal tannin values were documented as follows in west Texas [47]: April May August October 15.1 8.7 7.7 4.2 In west Texas, the following nutritional values were recorded for current season growth [45]: crude protein 7.6% neutral detergent fiber 48.7% lignin 15% in-vitro organic matter digestibility 35.7% Acorns: Most acorns are nutritious [15] and relatively high in carbohydrates [16]. Acorns of the white oak group are relatively low in tannins (0.5 to 2.5 percent) and lipids (5 to 10 percent) [38]. Protein content of white oak acorns averages approximately 8 percent [56]. COVER VALUE : Sand shinnery oak provides valuable cover for many species of birds and mammals [33]. Thickets provide good summer thermal cover for mule deer on the hot, sunny Texas plains [4]. However, this short oak may have relatively poor concealment value for deer [6]. Sand shinnery oak provides shade for pronghorn, and prairie chickens and other birds [5,29]. The stems and foliage offer vertical screening and excellent nesting cover for prairie chickens [17]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Sand shinnery oak can grow on some harsh, sandy, erosion-prone sites. Potential value for rehabilitation has not been documented. It can be propagated by means of acorns or by separating rootstocks [42,43]. Methods of propagating oaks (Quercus spp.) have been described [2,31]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : The acorns of many oaks were traditionally an important staple of some Native American peoples [43]. Acorns of sand shinnery oak are large and sweet [8] and may have been utilized as a food source. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Competition: Sand shinnery oak has an extensive underground root system and competes vigorously with palatable grasses and other forage species [29,42]. Under dense stands of sand shinnery oak, forage production can be reduced by as much as 90 percent [35]. Sand shinnery oak contributes to increased brush development on some heavily grazed sites and is considered a management problem in parts of Texas [32,54]. Consequently, management objectives have often focused on reducing sand shinnery oak through the use of herbicides, fire, or mechanical treatment. Chemical control: Many herbicides have been used to control sand shinnery oak. Tebuthiuron, 2,4,5-T, and various phenoxy herbicides have proven effective when properly applied [18,32,35,42]. In southeastern New Mexico, best results have been obtained after spring applications [19]. A single application can kill 20 to 30 percent of the roots and 70 to 92 percent of the top growth. Multiple applications increase mortality. Up to 90 percent of the plants can be killed after two or three consecutive annual applications of 2,4,5-T [42]. Grass yields can be increased three to nine times within two growing seasons after treatment [35]. Despite the rapid increase in forage growth, managers recommend resting pastures for at least one growing season after treatment [32]. Mechanical treatment: Experiments suggest that it may be difficult to root-kill sand shinnery oak by mechanical shredding. Plants typically sprout from surviving portions of the stem base after treatment, thereby actually increasing stem density [32]. Biotic controls: In some areas, sand shinnery oak can be effectively controlled by 3 consecutive years of goat browsing [32]. Insects: Sand shinnery oak is susceptible to various insects, such as galls and grasshoppers [9]. Biomass: An estimated 90 percent of the total biomass of sand shinnery oak is located belowground [10]. Carbohydrate allocation to biomass varies seasonally and with chemical treatment. Biomass characteristics have been examined [35]. Wildlife: Sand shinnery oak thickets serve as important deer habitat in some areas. Where management aims include preserving wildlife habitat value, selected clumps or motts of oak should be left when treating sand shinnery oak range. Some brushy areas adjacent to treated oak range should also be left intact [6]. Removal of sand shinnery oak can prove detrimental to prairie chickens [17,29]. During a summer survey, Olawsky [29] reported an average density of 1.3 prairie chickens per acre (0.51/ha) on chemically treated plots and 1.0 per acre (0.41/ha) on untreated plots. During winter, an average density of 1.3 birds per acre (0.53/ha) was observed on chemically treated sites and 0.8 birds per acre (0.41/ha) on nearby untreated sites. Although there were slight increases in density on the treated sites, birds on the untreated sites were in better physical condition [29]. The distributional range of the lesser prairie chicken has decreased dramatically since 1800's due to destruction of habitat [17]. Lesser prairie chicken habitat value can often be maintained by interspersing treated and untreated blocks of sand shinnery oak. Herbel and others [19] reported that the lesser prairie chicken prefers a mosaic composed of grassland and sand shinnery oak motts. Populations of small songbirds, such as meadowlarks, may also be reduced by the elimination or reduction of sand shinnery oak. Olawsky and others [30] studied meadowlark densities in four areas in eastern New Mexico and west Texas; two plots previously treated with tebuthiuron were compared with adjacent untreated plots. Meadowlark densities were greater on the untreated sand shinnery oak plots than on the treated plots. Summer surveys revealed an average density of 0.22 meadowlarks per acre (0.08/ha) on untreated sites and 0.09 per acre (0.04/ha) on treated sites. In winter, densities were estimated at 0.10 per acre (0.04/ha) on untreated sites and only 0.05 per acre (0.02/ha) on treated sites. Grazing: Long-term goat browsing can produce a shift toward more grasses on sand shinnery oak range [45]. Because of the toxicity of new growth [see Importance to Livestock and Wildlife], cattle should be removed from sand shinnery oak range during leaf development [19].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Sand shinnery oak is a freely branched, clonal, thicket-forming shrub or small tree [23,27]. Plants generally grow from less than 3 feet to 6 feet (< 1-2 m) in height; they may occasionally reach heights of 13 feet (4 m) [33]. Individual stems rarely grow to more than 0.8 inch (2 cm) in diameter [27]. Clones may extend from 9 to more than 49 feet (3-> 15 m) in diameter [27]. Individual stems typically live for 11 to 15 years, although the age of the clone itself may be much older [32]. Clones are continually rejuvenated through new sprouting as aerial stems senesce [27]. The thick, leathery leaves have toothed or lobed margins [14,33]. Leaves vary in shape from oblong to elliptic, lanceolate to oblanceolate, or ovate to obovate [14]. The upper surface is lustrous, grayish or yellowish green, and the lower surface a felty lime green [32,33]. The fruit is an acorn which varies in size and shape [14]. The broad cup (up to to 1 inch [2.5 cm] in length) [33] encloses one-third to one-half of the nut [14]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Seed: Sand shinnery oak produces good acorn crops an average of 3 out of every 10 years [32]. Acorns are often damaged or destroyed by late season frost [32] or by insects. Seeds are dispersed by gravity, and birds and mammals. Seeds of most species within the white oak group germinate soon after falling to the ground [38]. Root elongation of sand shinnery oak is generally rapid [32]. Embryological development has been examined [2]. Seedling establishment: Seedling establishment of sand shinnery oak is rare [27,32]. Establishment is generally limited to disturbed sites that lack competing grasses [27]. Seeds will germinate and seedlings survive only in years when precipitation from late July to early August is abundant [32]. Vegetative regeneration: Sand shinnery oak spreads laterally through rhizome expansion [33,39]. Rhizomes range from 4 to 39 inches long (1-10 dm) and elongate vertically toward the soil surface [27]. More than 60 stems may arise from the same rhizome [32]. Rhizome expansion and growth is often rapid where competition is slight [28]. Rhizomes allow sand shinnery oak to expand in areas where conditions are too severe for seedling establishment [27]. Several sources have also reported that sand shinnery oak sprouts from roots [37] and underground stems [19,42]. It also spreads slow by tillers. In Oklahoma it spread 30 feet (9 m) in 50 years by tillering. Following disturbance, sand shinnery oak can sprout vigorously from the stem base [32]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Sand shinnery oak grows on sandy plains and sand dunes [14] where it commonly forms dense thickets or shinnery [35]. It grows as a dominant throughout much of the rolling sandhills of the Great Plains [27]. Sand shinnery oak is typically associated with dry, sunny sites [43]. Soil: Sand shinnery oak grows on shallow to deep sands and, more rarely, on gypsum [33]. Cover generally declines as soil clay content increases [32]. Sand shinnery oak forms clumps on sandy loam and dense stands on deep sand [32]. Climate: Sand shinnery oak grows under a climatic regime described as warm temperate and semiarid [47]. Semiarid portions of west Texas and eastern New Mexico dominated by sand shinnery oak receive an average of 16 inches (41 cm) of annual rainfall [11]. The growing season averages 200 days [11]. Elevation: Sand shinnery oak grows from 2,300 to 3,400 feet (701-1,036 m) in Trans-Pecos Texas [33] and from 3,634 to 6,896 feet (1,125-2,135 m) in Utah [57]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Sand shinnery oak is a constituent of "postclimax" bluestem communities in the high plains of Texas [35]. It sprouts readily after disturbance and can rapidly assume prominence in many early seral communities. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : In west Texas, vegetative buds of sandy shinnery oak begin to swell in mid-March [32]. Both male and female flowers begin to form after the buds develop. Flowering generally occurs during April in the Great Plains [14].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Wright and others [52] reported that the interaction of fire, climate, insects, rodents, and competition from grasses may have restricted shrub and tree growth in portions of the southern Great Plains. Thus, a fire every 15 to 30 years could significantly reduce distribution and density of shrubs in the southern mixed prairie [52]. Sand shinnery oak is well adapted to fire. Plants typically sprout vigorously from underground stems or rhizomes after aboveground vegetation is damaged or removed by fire. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker Geophyte, growing points deep in soil Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Sand shinnery oak is very fire tolerant [52,53]. Underground regenerative structures often survive after aboveground vegetation is consumed by fire [51]. Most acorns are characterized by a relatively high water content. When heated by fire, the moisture within the acorn causes the seed to expand and burst [55]. Thus, fire generally destroys acorns present on-site. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Sand shinnery oak generally sprouts vigorously after fire [51]. When the aboveground stem is killed, buds located near the soil surface on rhizomes or underground stems sprout and give rise to new plants [32]. After fire in southeastern New Mexico, stem densities increased more than 15 percent during the first postfire year. However, no acorns were produced during this year [52]. Limited seedling establishment may occur on good sites in unusually favorable years from seed transported on-site by various birds and mammals. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Fuels and flammability: Sand shinnery oak range is described as moderately volatile. Sufficient grasses are generally present so that fire can back through stands under cool conditions with relative humidity of 50 to 60 percent, air temperature of 60 degrees F (16 degrees C), and winds of 5 to 10 miles per hour (8-16 km/hr). However, fires may occasionally go out under these conditions as they back through sand shinnery oak. Oak leaves serve as effective firebrands but do not generally carry more than 50 feet (15 m) [50]. Prescribed fire: Prescribed fire has been used effectively in sand shinnery oak on sandy sites in eastern New Mexico, west Texas, and western Oklahoma [49]. Wright reported that a 200-foot (61 m) fireline is generally adequate for burning sand shinnery oak when relative humidity is between 25 and 40 percent, air temperatures are 70 to 75 degrees F (21-24 degrees C), and wind speed is 5 to 10 miles per hour (8-16 km/hr). Where fine fuels average 2,000 to 4,000 pounds per acre (367-735 kg/ha), satisfactory burns can be conducted under cooler conditions. Firelines should be burned when the relative humidity is less than 50 percent, wind speed is less than 8 miles per hour (13 km/hr), and temperature is 45 to 65 degrees F (7-18 degrees C). It is important to burn at relatively high humidity to minimize danger from oak leaf firebrands [50]. Wildlife considerations: Acorns are generally not produced during the first year after fire. Fire can thus adversely affect the lesser prairie chicken and wild turkey populations in the short-term [53]. For best manipulation of mule deer habitat, burned patches of sand shinnery oak should be widely distributed at distances more than 0.25 miles (0.4 km) apart. Patches to be burned should be less than 5 acres (2 ha) and allowed to grow for 10 to 12 years before being reburned. Good results have also been obtained by burning 50- to 100-acre (20-41 ha) patches during December. These patches should be reburned no oftener than every 4 years [4]. Forage production: Increases in total grass yields of 300 pounds per acre (55 kg/ha) have been reported on sand shinnery oak range after the first postfire growing season [51].

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak
REFERENCES : 1. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 2. Bonner, F. T.; Vozzo, J. A. 1987. Seed biology and technology of Quercus. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-66. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p. [3248] 3. Brown, David E. 1982. Plains and Great Basin grasslands. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 115-121. [536] 4. Bryant, Fred C.; Morrison, Bruce. 1985. Managing plains mule deer in Texas and eastern New Mexico. Management Note 7. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 5 p. [187] 5. Buechner, Helmut K. 1950. Life history, ecology, and range use of the pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos Texas. American Midland Naturalist. 43(2): 257-354. [4084] 6. 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] 7. Davis, Charles A.; Barkley, Robert C.; Haussamen, Walter C. 1975. Scaled quail foods in southeastern New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 496-502. [10491] 8. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768] 9. Dodson, Gary. 1987. Xanthoteras sp. (Hymenoptera: Cunipidae) gall abundance on shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) in New Mexico: an indicator of plant stress?. Southwestern Naturalist. 32(4): 463-468. [2971] 10. Engle, D. M.; Bonham, C. D.; Bartel, L. E. 1983. Ecological characteristics and control of Gambel oak. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 363-365. [3361] 11. Ethridge, D. E.; Pettit, R. D.; Suddeth, R. G.; Stoecker, A. L. 1987. Optimal economic timing of range improvement alternatives: Southern High Plains. Journal of Range Management. 40(6): 555-559. [3795] 12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 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. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603] 15. Hannah, Peter R. 1987. Regeneration methods for oaks. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4: 97-101. [3728] 16. Harlow, Richard F.; Whelan, James B.; Crawford, Hewlette S.; Skeen, John E. 1975. Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(2): 330-336. [10088] 17. Haukos, D. A.; Smith, L. M. 1989. Lesser prairie chicken nest site selection and vegetation characteristics in tebuthiuron-treated and untreated shinnery oak in TX. Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 624-626. [10509] 18. Herbel, Carlton H. 1979. Utilization of grass- and shrublands of the south-western United States. In: Walker, B. H., ed. Management of semi-arid ecosystems. Volume 7. Developments in agriculture and managed-forest ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: 161-203. [1134] 19. Herbel, C. H.; Steger, R.; Gould, W. L. 1974. Managing semidesert ranges of the Southwest. Circular 456. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 48 p. [4564] 20. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II--thesaurus. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 816 p. [23878] 21. Kingsbury, John M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 626 p. [122] 22. 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] 23. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952] 24. 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] 25. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021] 26. McKell, Cyrus M.; Garcia-Moya, Edmundo. 1989. North American shrublands. In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc: 3-23. [7194] 27. Muller, Cornelius H. 1951. The significance of vegetative reproduction in Quercus. Madrono. 2: 129-137. [1718] 28. Muller, Cornelius H. 1952. Ecological control of hybridization in Quercus: a factor in the mechanism of evolution. Evolution. 6(2): 147-161. [10666] 29. Olawsky, Craig Donald. 1987. Effects of shinnery oak control with tebuthiuron on lesser prairie-chicken populations. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech. University. 83 p. Thesis. [10409] 30. Olawsky, Craig D.; Smith, Loren M.; Pettit, Russell D. 1986. Effects of sand shinnery oak control on meadowlark densities. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton M., eds. Research highlights--1986 Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 17. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 37. [3670] 31. Olson, David F., Jr. 1974. Quercus L. oak. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 692-703. [7737] 32. Pettit, Russell D. 1986. Sand shinnery oak: control and management. Management Note 8. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 5 p. [2882] 33. 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] 34. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 35. Sears, W. E.; Britton, C. M.; Wester, D. B.; Pettit, R. D. 1986. Herbicide conversion of a sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) community: effects on biomass. Journal of Range Management. 39(5): 399-403. [10406] 36. Sears, W. E.; Britton, C. M.; Wester, D. B.; Pettit, R. D. 1986. Herbicide conversion of a sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) community effects on nitrogen. Journal of Range Management. 39(5): 403-407. [10405] 37. Secor, Jack B.; Shamash, Saied; Smeal, Daniel; Gennaro, Antonio L. 1983. Soil characteristics of two desert plant community types that occur in the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico. Soil Science. 136(3): 133-144. [2103] 38. Smallwood, Peter D.; Peters, W. David. 1986. Grey squirrel food preferences: the effects of tannin and fat concentration. Ecology. 67(1): 168-175. [10519] 39. Tucker, John M. 1961. Studies in the Quercus undulata complex. I. A preliminary statement. American Journal of Botany. 48(3): 202-208. [2361] 40. Tucker, John M. 1970. Studies in the Quercus undulata complex. IV. the contribution of Quercus havardii. American Journal of Botany. 57(1): 71-84. [2363] 41. 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] 42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior; Range Seeding Equipment Committee. 1959. Handbook: Chemical control of range weeds. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 93 p. [12129] 43. 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] 44. Van Dersal, William R. 1940. Utilization of oaks by birds and mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 4(4): 404-428. [11983] 45. Villena, Francis; Pfister, James A. 1990. Sand shinnery oak as forage for Angora and Spanish goats. Journal of Range Management. 43(2): 116-122. [10408] 46. Villena, Francis; Pfister, James A.; Villena, Carolina; [and others]. 1987. Diet quality and composition, forage intake, and palatability of sand shinnery oak for goats. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton M., eds. Research highlights--1987 noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife and management. Vol. 18. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 18-19. [6435] 47. Villena-Rodriguez, Francis. 1987. Nutrition of goats grazing sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) ranges in west Texas. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 102 p. Thesis. [11416] 48. Woodin, Howard E.; Lindsey, Alton A. 1954. Juniper-pinyon east of the Continental Divide, as analyzed by the line-strip method. Ecology. 35: 473-489. [285] 49. Wright, Henry A. 1978. Use of fire to manage grasslands of the Great Plains: central and southern Great Plains. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. Proceedings, 1st international rangelands congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 694-696. [2615] 50. Wright, Henry A. 1978. The effect of fire on vegetation in ponderosa pine forests: A state-of-the-art review. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 21 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. [4425] 51. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 52. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W.; Thompson, Rita P. 1978. The role and use of fire in the Great Plains: A-state-of-the-art-review. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter: VIII-1 to VIII-29. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [13614] 53. Wright, Henry A.; Thompson, Rita. 1978. Fire effects. In: Fire management: Prairie plant communities: Proceedings of a symposium and workshop; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: V-1 to V-12. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [3249] 54. Young, Vernon A.; Anderwald, Frank R.; McCully, Wayne G. 1948. Brush problems on Texas ranges. Miscellaneous Publication 21. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 19 p. [5996] 55. Rouse, Cary. 1986. Fire effects in northeastern forests: oak. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-105. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [3884] 56. Stapanian, Martin A.; Smith, Christopher C. 1984. Density-dependent survival of scatterhoarded nuts: an experimental approach. Ecology. 65(5): 1387-1396. [10380] 57. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944] 58. 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] 59. 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: Quercus havardii | Sand Shinnery Oak

Send this page to a friend
Print this Page

Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities.

Information Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System

About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory
Link to 1Up Info | Add 1Up Info Search to your site

1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution.