|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
ABBREVIATION :
RHUMIC
SYNONYMS :
Schmaltzia microphylla
SCS PLANT CODE :
RHMI3
COMMON NAMES :
littleleaf sumac
desert sumac
scrub sumac
small-leaf sumac
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name is Rhus microphylla Engelm. ex
Gray [22].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
H. Harris, March 1990
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Harris, Holly T. 1990. Rhus microphylla. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Littleleaf sumac occurs in dry desert foothills from southwestern
Oklahoma and western Texas to southern Arizona and northern Mexico
[10,13,20,31].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CO NM TX OK MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
AMIS BIBE CACA CHIR FOBO GUMO
LAME
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K027 Mesquite bosque
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K044 Creosote bush - tarbush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K054 Grama - tobosa prairie
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
K061 Mesquite - acacia savanna
K062 Mesquite - live oak savanna
K058 Mesquite - buffalograss
SAF COVER TYPES :
68 Mesquite
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Littleleaf sumac is not a dominant species or indicator plant in any
published classification scheme. It commonly occurs in desert
grasslands with such species as black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) and
tobosa (Hilaria mutica), and in desert shrublands dominated by species
such as oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) and mesquite (Prosopis
spp.) [6,7]. Common plant associates of littleleaf sumac include
creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), catclaw (Acacia greggii), soaptree
yucca (Yucca elata), side-oats grama (B. curtipendula), and bush muhly
(Muhlenbergia porteri) [7,10,18].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Littleleaf sumac is eaten by cattle, sheep, and goats [1,17] but is
considered poor quality livestock browse [38]. Mule deer and pronghorn
browse littleleaf sumac leaves in Texas and New Mexico [8,9,38].
Various birds and small mammals eat the fruit [13,31].
PALATABILITY :
Littleleaf sumac palatability is considered low [13], although the
leaves are eaten to some extent by deer, pronghorn, and livestock
[1,9,17,31]. Ground squirrels, chipmunks, quail, and various other
birds and rodents eat the fruit [11,38].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Littleleaf sumac contains approximately 15 percent protein [17].
Considerable weight loss occurred when captive kangaroo rats were given
a restricted diet of littleleaf sumac seeds [11].
COVER VALUE :
Bottomland habitat containing littleleaf sumac had higher densities of
white-tailed deer than other community types in the Rolling Plains of
Texas [12]. Littleaf sumac was used for cover in both undisturbed and
chained areas, although more deer were seen in undisturbed areas.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Littleleaf sumac has some potential for use in soil stabilization
projects [37]. In New Mexico it increased in cover in the absence of
grazing, effectively reducing gully erosion [18].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The fruit of littleleaf sumac is edible but has a sour taste [38].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Littleleaf sumac is killed by tebuthiuron, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T [15].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Littleleaf sumac is a deciduous, perennial shrub reaching heights up to
15 feet (4.5 m) [38]. The branches are crooked, stiff, and intricately
branched; the twigs are spinescent. The bark is dark grey to black,
smooth when young but becoming scaly with age. Littleleaf sumac leaves
are 0.5 to 1.5 inches (1-4 cm) long and pinnately compound with five to
nine leaflets. The leaves are a dull green and hairy. Greenish-white
flowers occur in dense compound spikes; the hairy, red-orange fruit is a
0.25 inch (0.5 cm) long drupe [38].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Littleleaf sumac reproduces both sexually and vegetatively.
Seeds of all sumacs (Rhus spp.) have a hard seedcoat and germinate
poorly without pretreatment [3,38]. Sumac seed dispersal is almost
entirely by birds and other animals [3]. Dry seeds remain viable for 10
to 20 years in open storage [34].
Littleleaf sumac reproduces vegetatively by sprouting after disturbances
[42]. All sumacs can be propagated from root cuttings [38].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Littleleaf sumac occurs on sandstone, limestone, and granitic parent
materials [35]. It occurs in washes, canyons, and arroyos, and on
mesas, desert flats, and foothills in semidesert grasslands and desert
scrub [6,13,23,31]. Temperatures in these areas range from below
freezing to over 100 degrees F (0-40 degrees C), and precipitation
ranges from 3 to 16 inches (76-406 mm) annually [7,21,35]. The
elevational range of littleleaf sumac is generally 3,000 to 6,500 feet
(1,000-2,000 m), but it can range as low as 1,000 feet (300 m) in Texas
[5,7,23,31,35,38].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
The successional status of littleleaf sumac is not documented. It
occurs in semidesert grasslands that have been invaded by shrubs such as
mesquite and juniper. Littleleaf sumac apparently occurs in both seral
and climax communities [6]. Redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) may
create a microclimate conducive to the establishment of littleleaf sumac
seedlings [29].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Littleleaf sumac flowers between March and May [23]. The flowers appear
prior to leaf emergence [38]. The fruit ripens from July to August
[20].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Most species of sumac are very tolerant of fire due to a capacity for
sprouting [4,39]. Littleleaf sumac is considered tolerant of fire,
although no research has documented its sprouting ability [39,41].
Seeds of smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) have been shown to be fire adapted,
germinating at an increased rate after fire scarifies the seedcoat
[26]. Other sumacs are known to have seed stored in the soil for
decades, allowing regeneration after fire [30]. Littleleaf sumac may
have these same characteristics.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Sumacs are rarely killed by fire [4]. Fire top-kills littleleaf sumac,
but the plant persists by sprouting [4]. Seeds in the soil may be
scarified by fire, increasing germination rates [26,30].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Littleleaf sumac reportedly sprouts vigorously after fire [39,41],
although no research has documented this response. Skunkbush sumac
(Rhus trilobata) sprouts after fire and completely recovers in 10 to 15
years [40]. Many other sumacs sprout from the roots or rhizomes after
fire [4,26,39].
Littleleaf sumac may also have seeds stored in the soil which germinate
at an increased rate following fire, as is the case for other sumacs
[25,26].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhus microphylla | Littleleaf Sumac
REFERENCES :
1. Anderson, Dean M.; Holechek, Jerry L. 1983. Diets obtained from
esophageally fistulated heifers and steers simultaneously grazing
semidesert tobosa rangeland. In: Proceedings, annual meeting of the
American Society of Animal Science, Western Division. 34: 161-164.
[4589]
2. 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]
3. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. In: Schopmeyer, C. S.,
technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 715-719. [6921]
4. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire.
In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983
February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management:
61-68. [521]
5. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of
the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94.
[495]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Campbell, C. J.; Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1964. Comparison of phreatophyte
communities on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Ecology. 45(3): 492-502.
[7003]
11. Chew, Robert M.; Chew, Alice Eastlake. 1970. Energy relationships of the
mammals of a desert shrub (Larrea tridentata) community. Ecological
Monographs. 40(1): 1-21. [5055]
12. 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]
13. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
14. Dick-Peddie, William A.; Hubbard, John P. 1977. Classification of
riparian vegetation. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical
coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian
habitat: a symposium: Proceedings; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 85-90.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5338]
15. Emmerich, W. E.; Helmer, J. D.; Renard, K. G.; Lane, L. J. 1984. Fate
and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 13(3): 382-386. [3969]
16. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
17. Fraps, G. S.; Cory, V. L. 1940. Composition and utilization of range
vegetation of Sutton and Edwards Counties. Bulletin No. 58. College
Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p. [5746]
18. Gardner, J. L. 1951. Vegetation of the creosotebush area of the Rio
Grande Valley in New Mexico. Ecological Monographs. 21: 379-403. [4243]
19. 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]
20. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
21. Havard, V. 1885. Report on the flora of western and southern Texas.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 8(29): 449-533.
[5067]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Lovell, J. F. 1964. An ecological study of Rhus glabra L. Manhattan, KS:
Kansas State University. 84 p. Dissertation. [4963]
27. 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]
28. Martin, S. Clark. 1980. Mesquite. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover
types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of
American Foresters: 118. [9858]
29. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A.; Wester, David B. 1988. Patterns of
shrub invasion in semiarid Texas grasslands. American Midland
Naturalist. 120(2): 391-397. [7197]
30. Olmsted, Norwood W.; Curtis, James D. 1947. Seeds of the forest floor.
Ecology. 28(1): 49-52. [9904]
31. 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]
32. Rasmussen, G. Allen; McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1986.
Prescribed burning juniper communities in Texas. Management Note 10.
Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences. 5
p. [4043]
33. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
34. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In:
Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for
the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's
Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]
35. Shreve, Forrest. 1942. The desert vegetation of North America. Botanical
Review. 8(4): 195-246. [5051]
36. Shreve, Forrest. 1942. Grassland and related vegetation in northern
Mexico. Madrono. 6: 190-198. [5058]
37. Thornburg, Ashley A. 1982. Plant materials for use on surface-mined
lands. SCS-TP-157. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 88 p. [3769]
38. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
39. Wright, Henry A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. In: McKell, Cyrus M.;
Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology
and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 204-217.
[2611]
40. Wright, Henry A. 1980. The role and use of fire in the semidesert
grass-shrub type. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-85. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 24 p. [2616]
41. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
42. 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]
43. 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]
44. 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: Rhus microphylla
| Littleleaf Sumac
|
 |
