|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
ABBREVIATION :
RHACAL
SYNONYMS :
Frangula californica (Eschsch.) Gray [77]
SCS PLANT CODE :
FRCA12
FRCAC5
FRCAO4
COMMON NAMES :
California coffeeberry
California buckthorn
TAXONOMY :
This report uses the taxonomy of Hickman [76], who uses the name Rhamnus
californica Esch. (Rhamnaceae) for California coffeeberry. He
recognizes two subspecies:
R. c. ssp. californica
R. c. ssp. occidentalis (J. Howell) C. Wolf
Kartesz [77] recognizes six subspecies under the synonym Frangula
californica (Eschsch.) Gray:
F. c. ssp. californica
F. c. ssp. crassifolia (Jepson) Kartesz & Gandhi
F. c. ssp. cuspidata (Greene) Kartesz & Gandhi
F. c. ssp. occidentalis (J. Howell) Kartesz & Gandhi
F. c. ssp. tomentella (Benth.) Kartesz & Gandhi
F. c. ssp. ursina (Greene) Kartesz & Gandhi
Hickman [76] has placed the subspecies crassifolia, cuspidata,
tomentella, and ursina under the species Sierra coffeeberry (R. rubra E.
Greene.).
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
N. McMurray, March 1990
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
McMurray, Nancy E. 1990. Rhamnus californica. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
California coffeeberry ranges from extreme southwestern Oregon southward
along the coast and Coast Ranges to southwestern California 976]. It is
cultivated in Hawaii [82].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
STATES :
CA HI OR
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CHIS PORE REDW SAMO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
3 Southern Pacific Border
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K007 Red fir forest
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K033 Chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035
SAF COVER TYPES :
207 Red fir
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
231 Port-Orford-cedar
232 Redwood
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak - Digger pine
255 California coast live oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
201 Blue oak woodland
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
204 North coastal shrub
205 Coastal sage shrub
207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
California coffeeberry is a shrub component of chaparral, woodland, and
forest communities throughout its distribution [4,8,52,55,56]. It has
not been used as an indicator species in published classification
schemes for California. In the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern
Oregon and extreme northern California, Atzet and Wheeler [1] describe a
tanoak/California coffeeberry (Lithocarpus densiflorus/Rhamnus
californica) plant association on ultrabasic parent materials. Although
the tanoak series typically occurs on deep, fertile soils in the
Siskiyou Mountain province, this association is the ultrabasic version
of a tanoak climax. Dominance of coffeeberry apparently indicates a
soil imbalance [1].
In southern and central California, California coffeeberry is a frequent
member of coastal chaparral and sage scrub [13,18] and is most commonly
associated with relatively mesic scrub oak (Quercus spp.) chaparral
[30]. It also becomes locally abundant on cool, fog-dominated sites
along the central Coast Range where it occurs beneath mixed-hardwood
forests dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) [15,54,65,70].
Although never very abundant, California coffeeberry is often associated
with woodland and forest mosaics throughout southern and central
California. Within oak woodlands, knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata), and
coastal forests, it occurs both as a scattered understory shrub and as a
component of intermixed stands of "woodland chaparral" [35,30,67,68].
Some common associates are chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis),
toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata),
redberry (Rhamnus crocea), hollyleaf redberry (R. crocea var.
ilicifolia), and poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).
In northern California and southwestern Oregon, California coffeeberry
occurs in mixed evergreen, red fir (Abies magnifica var. shastensis),
and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forests [49,52,65]. On
mixed-evergreen sites with ultrabasic parent materials, the
sclerophyllous subcanopy is largely replaced by a shrub layer dominated
by California coffeeberry (ssp. occidentalis) and evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum) [1,64,65]. The open, conifer overstory is usually
composed of Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), knobcone pine,
sugar pine (Pinus lambertina), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiezii)
with a sparse subcanopy of tanoak, huckleberry oak (Quercus
vaccinifolia), and California laurel (Umbellularia californica)
[1,2,3,65].
California coffeeberry is also a characteristic shrub within extensive,
evergreen brushfields in the Siskiyou Mountain province [21,24,25].
Common brushfield associates include whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos
viscida), greenleaf manzanita (A. patula), hoary manzanita (A.
canescens), wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus), and deerbrush (C.
integerrimus) [21,25].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
California coffeeberry is distributed throughout much of California and
is generally considered a staple browse of both big game and livestock
[12]. Browse is more greater important to sheep, goats, and deer than
to cattle [17,63,74]. Use typically occurs in the fall when more
palatable herbaceous plants are cured [50]. California coffeeberry is
an important mule deer browse on winter ranges in portions of California
[17].
The fruits of California coffeeberry are extensively utilized by
numerous wildlife species, particularly birds [12,17]. In many areas,
the berries are often the only abundant "juicy" fruit available in the
fall [75]. Berries are readily eaten by band-tailed pigeons,
black-tailed deer, and black bears [12,74]. Woodrats eat limited
quantities of the seeds [33].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of California coffeeberry browse depends upon stem age
and community associates [17,63]. Cattle utilization is usually
limited, particularly in communities where California coffeeberry has a
scattered distribution. However, where plants are locally abundant, the
current annual growth is often heavily utilized [63]. Postburn sprouts
are highly preferred by livestock and big game [17,27,63].
Browse ratings for California coffeeberry are presented below [63]:
sheep good - poor
goats good - poor
deer good - poor
cattle fair - poor
horses useless
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Nutritionally, California coffeeberry is a satisfactory food source for
livestock and big game [63]. Although foliar protein content is never
particularly high, California coffeeberry is important because it
remains succulent throughout the year [23]. Nutritional studies of the
foliage indicate that protein content of mature leaves is low (7.5
percent) from November through March. Maximum values are reached
between April and August when the protein content of newly developed
foliage reaches an average of 19 percent [63]. Nutritient content of
the leaves compares favorably with common shrub associates such as
wedgeleaf ceanothus and chaparral whitethorn [23]. Crude fiber values
show little seasonal variation, ranging from 13.5 percent in newly
initiated leaves to 15 percent in mature foliage [63].
COVER VALUE :
The cover value of California coffeeberry has not been documented.
Tanoak/coffeeberry associations in southern Oregon and northern
California are characterized by a diverse vertical structure, supplying
nesting cover and perching sites for numerous bird species [1].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
California coffeeberry is useful for erosion control on dry, steep
hillsides [19]. One- to two-year-old transplants produce substantial
seed crops and large numbers of volunteers occur on sites receiving
additional irrigation. On suitable sites, transplants may grow 8 to 12
feet (2.4-3.7 m) tall with comparable spreads within approximately 20
years [19]. Since the berries are highly preferred by a variety of bird
species, California coffeeberry is a good selection for wildlife
plantings [34].
Plants are easily propagated from seed sown in nursery beds using either
fresh, unstratified seed in the fall or stratified seed in the spring
[34,74]. Seed should be collected in the fall approximately 2 weeks
before it is fully ripe, and the pulp removed prior to sowing [34].
When stored in sealed containers at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C),
buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.) seed remains viable for several years [34].
Propagation from stem cuttings is difficult but can be achieved using
soft or hardwood cuttings made at the nodes [34,43,74].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
California coffeeberry is frequently cultivated for ornamental purposes
since the shiny, colorful berries contrast nicely with the light green
foliage [19,60,63]. The berries are sweet and edible and were gathered
historically by West Coast Indian tribes for culinary as well as
medicinal purposes [12]. Although the berries superficially resemble
the commercial coffee bean, attempts at using California coffeeberry as
a coffee substitute have not been successful. The bark was once
exported for use as a laxative [14].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Planting programs: Some species belonging to the buckthorn (Rhamnus)
genus serve as alternate hosts for the oat rust, Puccinia coronata [34].
California coffeeberry, however, is a secondary host for the rust of
velvet grass (Holcus spp.) and is not a concern when planted near fields
of cultivated oats [74].
Herbicides: California coffeeberry is sensitive to almost all
forestry-registered herbicides [11]. If sprouts are treated following
burning, plants are usually killed by retreatment [7,9,26,69].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
California coffeeberry is a native, broad-leaved, sclerophyllous shrub
[13,63,74]. Growth habit varies according to subspecies with plants
ranging from low, spreading shrubs to upright, arborescent individuals
[52]. On favorable sites along the coast, California coffeeberry
occasionally grows as a small tree, reaching heights of approximately 20
feet (6.1 m) [45]. More often, however, it grows as a 4 to 6 foot
(1.2-1.8 m) tall shrub [63]. Bark of young twigs is usually reddish;
older branches have gray, brown, or reddish bark [12,52]. The small,
pinnately veined, evergreen leaves are commonly dark green above and
paler beneath, and are arranged alternately on the stem [53]. Leaf
margins are typically inrolled [12,14]. When growing on xeric sites,
leaves tend to be small and thick; in moist situations they are
relatively large and thin [63]. The inconspicuous, bisexual flowers are
green and occur in small, axillary clusters [53]. The fruit is a juicy,
berrylike drupe approximately 0.25 inch (7-9 mm) in diameter and may be
either green, black, or red in color [34,52]. Berries contain two
smooth, nutlike seeds which closely resemble the commercial coffee bean
[12,14,34]. Although the root crown may become enlarged in response to
repeated postburn sprouting, this structure is not a lignotuber [38,40].
Longevity of California coffeeberry is estimated at 100 to 200 years
[39].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
California coffeeberry regenerates by both sexual and vegetative means.
On chaparral sites in southern California, California coffeeberry
maintains itself primarily through sprouting [41]. Seedling
establishment is never very abundant and is restricted to stands of
mature chaparral [39,40,41]. Little or no seedling establishment occurs
immediately following fire [38,40,41]. However, seemingly different
establishment patterns have been observed in other communities [63,66]
Vegetative regeneration: In the absence of fire, many long-lived
sprouters within stands of mature chaparral rejuvenate their canopies by
continually producing new sprouts from established rootcrowns [40,42].
Generalized information indicates that California coffeeberry may also
maintain itself in this manner [40]. Following disturbances such as
fire or cutting, California coffeeberry sprouts from surviving
adventitious buds on the rootcrown [36,62].
Seed reproduction: Onset of seed production occurs early in California
coffeeberry, usually by 2 to 3 years of age [19]. Seeds are dispersed
in the fall [41]. Significant, widespread dispersal of the pea-sized
berries occurs through animals, particularly birds [10,41]. Bird
harvest of the fruit crop is often so complete that relatively few seeds
fall beneath the parent plant. The seeds of California coffeeberry are
apparently quite short lived. When dried at room temperature, viability
is retained for no longer than 9 months. At the time of dispersal, each
seed exhibits a chlorophyllous cotyledon, indicating that germination is
imminent [41]. If kept too moist prior to germination, seeds are prone
to rot [19]. Germination occurs readily under favorable moisture and
temperature conditions [34,41]. Keeley [41] recently studied the
germination requirements of California coffeeberry using seed samples
collected in southern California. After a 1-month stratification at 41
degrees F (5 degrees C), 65 percent of California coffeeberry seeds
germinated when light incubated at 73 degrees F (23 degrees C) for 3
weeks. Rate of germination was rapid with more than 75 percent of
germination occurring during the first week. Addition of charate
(powdered charred wood) greatly reduced germination under similar
conditions (15% germination); in the dark, however, addition of charate
stimulated germination relative to the control (90% germination). In
this study, heat treatments generally decreased germination. Longer
heating at low temperatures was more detrimental than short bursts of
high temperature [41]. Sampson [62] found that heat treatments produced
a slight increase in germination.
Keeley [38,39,40,41] reported that buckthorns (Rhamnus spp.) are
obligate sprouters after fires in southern California chaparral and
included both California coffeeberry and redberry (Rhamnus crocea)
within this grouping. Obligate sprouting species are restricted to
sprouting following fire and do not establish seedlings in the initial
postburn environment. In fact, seedling establishment of obligate
sprouters is always quite limited and follows the generalized scenario
presented below [40,41,71,72]:
-- Seedlings are established primarily in mature chaparral
in gaps resulting from the death of senescing, shorter-lived
species.
-- Seedling establishment is often episodic and coincides with
periods of above normal rainfall .
-- Although initial establishment may occur in burned or
unburned stands during very wet years, continued survival is
favored beneath mature stands on sites that are relatively
mesic (north slopes) and which possess a well-developed litter
layer.
-- Long-term survival beneath mature chaparral is rare; seedlings
are stunted and are subjected to heavy browsing by small
mammals.
-- Seedlings are most common in very old stands (60 to 100+
years) where long fire free intervals allow for the build
up of seedling populations.
Redberry tends to follow the above pattern [28,29,31,32,42,57], but data
is scant concerning the seedling ecology of California coffeeberry. A
review of the literature found no data on California coffeeberry
seedling establishment within southern California chaparral. On Coast
Range sites in northern California, Sampson [62] did not observe any
California coffeeberry seedlings beneath stands of manzanita-ceanothus
(Arctostaphylos spp.-Ceanothus spp.) chaparral. Seedlings were present
on adjacent burns. Densities equalled 4,400 seedlings/acre (10,872
seedlings/ha) 1 year after fire; 4 years later, there were approximately
2,300 seedlings/acre (5,683 seedlings/ha). Precipitation was apparently
below normal during the first three postburn growing seasons [62].
Pelton [58] found occasional California coffeeberry seedlings beneath
mixed-hardwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Seedlings of var.
occidentalis apparently require some shade during the establishment
period [19].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
California coffeeberry exhibits a wide ecological amplitude. Sites
include dry flats, moist slopes, ravines, and rocky ridges, usually at
elevations below 5,500 feet (1,677 m) [52,63]. Soils are typically dry
and well drained [74]. Established plants tolerate full sun to moderate
shade [13,74].
In the Siskiyou Mountains, sites supporting tanoak/coffeeberry plant
associations occur on flat, lower slope positions at elevations ranging
from 1,040 to 3,460 feet (317 to 1,055 m) on southerly aspects;
ultrabasic soils reach depths of approximately 30 inches (76 cm).
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
California coffeeberry is a long-lived and moderately shade-tolerant
shrub that is highly persistent within chaparral, hardwood woodland, and
open conifer forests [13,39]. During extended fire free-intervals,
California coffeeberry is able to outlive, overtop, and shade out many
shorter-lived species [71]. As a component of relatively open canopied
stands, plants persist until the next fire occurs [36,66], at which time
resprouted individuals become part of the initial postburn vegetation
[66]. Griffin [75], however, observed many senescing plants of
California coffeeberry on mixed hardwood sites in the southern Coast
Range; according to Griffin, California coffeeberry had been the
dominant shrub on these sites for quite some time. Shrubs with
bird-dispersed seed, such as California coffeeberry, have apparently
increased in abundance on relic oak savanna sites in central California
[35].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
California coffeeberry typically flowers from April to June [34,52].
Fruit ripening commonly occurs from July through November with dispersal
taking place during the fall [34,41,74]. Immature fruits are green,
turning red or reddish-black when fully ripened [53,63]. Although an
evergreen species, California coffeeberry produces at least some new
leaves each year [23]. Observations on the phenological development of
California coffeeberry during 1936 for sites in Shasta County,
California, are presented below [62]:
Phenological stage Date
Leaves half developed April 11
Leaves fully developed May 16
Leaves fully developed & fruit forming June 24
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Following fires which kill aerial stems, California coffeeberry sprouts
vigorously from dormant buds located on the rootcrown [62]. The
rootcrown serves as a source of numerous perennating buds and stored
carbohydrates, enabling California coffeeberry to rapidly reoccupy the
initial postburn environment [41,48].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
California coffeeberry is quite resistant to fire mortality [62,66].
Although aerial portions may be top-killed, most plants survive fire
[66].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Vigorous sprouting is the primary means by which California coffeeberry
reestablishes itself in the postburn environment [38,40,41,62]. The
degree to which seedlings contribute to its postburn recovery seems to
vary with fire intensity, community type, and perhaps geographical
location [41,66].
Vegetative regeneration: California coffeeberry sprouts vigorously
following fires which kill the aerial stems [6,36,39,63]. Although
cover and basal area may be initially reduced following burning [26,47],
most plants rapidly regain their preburn size and biomass [59].
Seedling reproduction: California coffeeberry produces short-lived
seeds, the majority of which germinate readily under favorable
temperature and moisture conditions [34,41,62]. Consequently, postburn
establishment may occur through bird dispersal of off-site seed [41,42].
Seed production by residual plants may also be a factor on some sites.
Generalized information on obligate sprouters suggests that resprouted
plants begin to produce seed crops within 1 to 2 years of burning and
that postburn fruit crops are often substantial [40]. Although most
seeds are not well adapted to resist fire or for long-term survival in
the soil [41], germination in a portion of the seeds may be cued to the
postburn environment. Sampson [62] reported a slight increase in
germination when California coffeeberry seeds were exposed for 5 minutes
to heat treatments of 140 to 180 degrees F (60 to 82 degrees C). Heat
treated samples from both southern California (San Bernardino Co.) and
northern California (Mendicino Co.) showed an increase in germination
over controls; the greatest increase occurred in the northern California
sample [62]. Keeley [41] found that heat treatments generally decreased
germination; optimal germination occurred when charred wood was added to
dark incubated controls.
Limited information presents an unclear pattern of postburn seedling
establishment in California coffeeberry. In southern California
chaparral, it apparently behaves as an obligate spouter and rarely
establishes seedlings in the initial postburn environment [40,41].
Generalized information indicates that seedlings of obligate sprouting
species are rarely observed during the first postburn season except
during periods of above-normal precipitation [40,73]. Although
seedlings may initially establish in fire-created gaps in very wet
years, successful establishment seems restricted to mesic sites beneath
mature chaparral where litter layers are well developed [40,72].
On chaparral sites in northern California, however, Sampson [62] found
seedling densities of 4,400 /acre (10,872 seedlings/ha) on 1-year-old
burns. Although individual seedling survival was not followed, there
were 2,300 seedlings/acre (5,683 seedlings/ha) at the end of the fifth
postburn season. Prior to burning, seedlings were not observed beneath
adjacent unburned stands consisting of a cover of sprouting manzanita
and ceanothus (stand age not given) [62]. California coffeeberry
seedlings did not establish the first year after a wildfire burned a
summit sugar pine forest in the Santa Lucia Range of central California
despite its common occurrence in the preburn vegetation [66]. This
wildfire was described as intense and burned an extensive area.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Wildlife management: Burning initially increases the palatability of
California coffeeberry browse [27,62,63]. Plants on recently burned
sites are higher in crude protein and crude fiber values than plants in
unburned stands [62]. Sprouts are generally utilized for up to two
postburn growing seasons [7]. On small burns, use of California
coffeeberry may be so concentrated that plants are weakened to the point
that mortality ensues [27].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhamnus californica | California Coffeeberry
REFERENCES :
1. Atzet, Thomas; Wheeler, David L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of
the Siskiyou Mountain Province. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p. [9351]
2. Atzet, Tom; Wheeler, David; Smith, Brad; [and others]. 1984. The tanoak
series of the Siskiyou Region of southwest Oregon. Forestry Intensified
Research [Oregon State University]. 6(3): 6-7. [8593]
3. Atzet, Tom; Wheeler, David; Smith, Brad; [and others]. 1985. The tanoak
series of the Siskiyou region of southwest Oregon (Part 2). Forestry
Intensified Research. 6(4): 7-10. [8594]
4. Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. 1977. Terrestrial vegetation of
California. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1002 p. [388]
5. 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]
6. Biswell, H. H. 1959. Prescribed burning and other methods of deer range
improvement in ponderosa pine in California. In: Proceedings, Society of
American Foresters; 1959; San Francisco, CA. Bethesda, MD: Society of
American Foresters: 102-105. [5269]
7. Biswell, H. H. 1961. Manipulation of chamise brush for deer range
improvement. California Fish and Game. 47(2): 125-144. [6366]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Bullock, Stephen H. 1978. Fruit abundance and distribution in relation
to types of seed dispersal in chaparral. Madrono. 25: 104-105. [9792]
11. Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and
others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural
Communications. 276 p. [6235]
12. 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]
13. Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.
Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.
145 p. [6716]
14. 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]
15. Davis, Frank W.; Hickson, Diana E.; Odion, Dennis C. 1988. Composition
of maritime chaparral related to fire history and soil, Burton Mesa,
Santa Barbara County, California. Madrono. 35(3): 169-195. [6162]
16. Detling, LeRoy E. 1961. The chaparral formation of southwestern Oregon,
with considerations of its postglacial history. Ecology. 42(2): 348-357.
[6360]
17. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
18. Dunn, Paul H.; Barro, Susan C.; Wells, Wade G., II; [and others]. 1988.
The San Dimas Experimental Forest: 50 years of research. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-104. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 49 p. [8400]
19. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at
the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
20. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
21. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
22. 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]
23. Gordon, Aaron; Sampson, Arthur W. 1939. Composition of common California
foothill plants as a factor in range management. Bull. 627. Berkeley,
CA: University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 95 p. [3864]
24. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush seedlings after controlled burning of
brushlands in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 59(12): 885-888.
[3392]
25. Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush problems in southwestern Oregon. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 53 p. [8596]
26. Gratkowski, H. J.; Philbrick, J. R. 1965. Repeated aerial spraying and
burning to control sclerophyllous brush. Journal of Forestry. 63(12):
919-923. [8797]
27. Greenlee, Jason. 1977. Prescribed burning program for the coastal
redwoods and chaparral. 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: 397-403. [4869]
28. Hanes, Ted L. 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern
California. Ecological Monographs. 41(1): 27-52. [11405]
29. Hanes, Ted L. 1974. The vegetation called chaparral. In: Rosenthal,
Murray, ed. Symposium on living with the chaparral: Proceedings; 1973
March 30-31; Riverside, CA. San Francisco, CA: The Sierra Club: 1-5.
[3261]
30. 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]
31. Hanes, Ted L.; Jones, Harold W. 1967. Postfire chaparral succession in
southern California. Ecology. 48(2): 259-264. [9824]
32. Horton, J. S.; Kraebel, C. J. 1955. Development of vegetation after fire
in the chamise chaparral of southern California. Ecology. 36(2):
244-262. [3737]
33. Horton, Jerome S.; Wright, John T. 1944. The wood rat as an ecological
factor in southern California watersheds. Ecology. 25(3): 341-351.
[10682]
34. Hubbard, Richard L. 1974. Rhamnus L. Buckthorn. In: Schopmeyer, C. S.,
ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No.
450. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:
704-708. [7738]
35. Griffin, James R. 1977. Oak woodland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 383-415. [7217]
36. Griffin, James R. 1982. Pine seedlings, native ground cover, and Lolium
multiflorum on the Marble-Cone burn, Santa Lucia Range, California.
Madrono. 29(3): 177-188. [4935]
37. 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]
38. Keeley, Jon E. 1977. Fire-dependent reproductive strategies in
Arctostaphylos and Ceanothus. 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: 391-396. [4868]
39. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney,
H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical
coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the
conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277.
[4395]
40. Keeley, Jon E. 1986. Resilience of Mediterranean shrub communities to
fires. In: Dell, B.; Hopkins, A. J. N.; Lamont B. B., editors.
Resilience in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Dr. W. Junk Publishers: 95-112. [9826]
41. Keeley, Jon E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in
California chaparral. Ecology. 68(2): 434-443. [5403]
42. Keeley, J. E.; Brooks, A.; Bird, T.; [and others]. 1986. Demographic
structure of chaparral under extended fire-free conditions. In: DeVries,
Johannes J., ed. Proceedings of the chaparral ecosystems research
conference; 1985 May 16-17; Santa Barbara, CA. Report No. 2. Davis, CA:
University of California, California Water Resources Center: 133-137.
[4834]
43. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific
Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
44. 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]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. Martin, Bradford D. 1982. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning in
Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, 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: 617. [6088]
48. McDonald, Philip M. 1981. Adapatations of woody shrubs. In: Hobbs, S.
D.; Helgerson, O. T., eds. Reforestation of skeletal soils: Proceedings
of a workshop; 1981 November 17-19; Medford, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 21-29. [4979]
49. McBride, Joe R.; Jacobs, Diana F. 1980. Information gathering for
vegetation preservation management: a case study Muir Woods National
Monument. In: Proceedings, 2nd conference on scientific research in the
National Parks; 1979 November 26-30; San Francisco, CA. Volume 7:
Ecosystem Studies/Interdisciplinary Studies. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Park Service, and American Institute
of Biological Science: 464-477. [8780]
50. 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]
51. 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]
52. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
53. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
54. Parker, Virgil Thomas. 1984. Correlation of physiological divergence
with reproductive mode in chaparral shrubs. Madrono. 31(4): 231-242.
[5360]
55. Pase, Charles P. 1982. Sierran montane conifer forest. In: Brown, David
E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 49-51. [8884]
56. Pase, Charles P. 1982. Californian (coastal) chaparral. In: Brown, David
E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 91-94. [8891]
57. Patric, James H.; Hanes, Ted L. 1964. Chaparral succession in a San
Gabriel Mountain area of California. Ecology. 45(2): 353-360. [9825]
58. Pelton, John. 1962. Factors influencing survival and growth of a
seedling population of Arbutus menziesii in California. Modrono. 16(8):
237-256. [9048]
59. Reid, C.; Oechel, W. 1984. Effect of shrubland management on vegetation.
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: 25-41. [4999]
60. Roof, J. B. 1969. Some brief acquaintances with chinquapins. Four
Seasons. 3(1): 16-19. [7535]
61. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
62. 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]
63. 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]
64. Sawyer, J. O., Jr.; Andre, James M. 1990. An integrated approach to
enhancing rare plant populations through habitat restoration: I.
Populat. estimates for the Menzies' wallflower. In: Hughes, H. Glenn;
Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration `89: the new management
challange: 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:
469-477. [14716]
65. Sawyer, John O.; Thornburgh, Dale A.; Griffin, James R. 1977. Mixed
evergreen forest. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 359-381.
[7218]
66. Talley, Steven N.; Griffin, James R. 1980. Fire ecology of a montane
pine forest, Junipero Serra Peak, California. Madrono. 27: 49-60.
[4788]
67. Thorne, Robert F. 1977. Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse
and Peninsular ranges. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds.
Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons:
537-557. [7214]
68. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L.
1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 295-358. [7219]
69. Washington State Cooperative Extension Service. 1982. Herbicides in
forestry. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 13 p. [7873]
70. Wells, Philip V. 1962. Vegetation in relation to geological substratum
and fire in the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, California. Ecological
Monographs. 32(1): 79-103. [14183]
71. 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]
72. 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]
73. Zedler, Paul H. 1982. Plant demography and chaparral management in
southern 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: 123-127.
[6016]
74. 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]
75. Griffin, James R. 1974. Notes on environment, vegetation and flora:
Hastings Natural History Reservation. Memo Report. On file at: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 90 p. [10531]
76. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
77. 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]
78. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
79. 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]
80. 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]
81. 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]
82. St. John, Harold. 1973. List and summary of the flowering plants in the
Hawaiian islands. Hong Kong: Cathay Press Limited. 519 p. [25354]
Index
Related categories for Species: Rhamnus californica
| California Coffeeberry
|
 |
