| | |
 |
|
| 
| ||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants |
|
|||
|
INTRODUCTORY
ABBREVIATION:TETCAN SYNONYMS:Tetradymia canescens var. inermis (Nutt.) Gray [34] NRCS PLANT CODE [56]:TECA2 COMMON NAMES:gray horsebrush common horsebrush spineless horsebrush TAXONOMY:The currently accepted scientific name of gray horsebrush is Tetradymia canescens DC (Asteraceae) [11,20,25,26,54,61]. LIFE FORM:Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:No special status OTHER STATUS:No entry AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:Scher, Janette S. (2001, December). Tetradymia canescens. In: Remainder of citation DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:Gray horsebrush is native throughout most of the Great Basin and adjacent areas [35,37,56]. It is distributed from the mountains of southern California to south-central British Columbia and east to the Rocky Mountains in western Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico. Gray horsebrush is generally not abundant across its range [11,54]. The Plants database provides a distribution map of gray horsebrush. ECOSYSTEMS [30]:FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands STATES:
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [11]:3 Southern Pacific Border 4 Sierra Mountains 5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 8 Northern Rocky Mountains 9 Middle Rocky Mountains 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 15 Black Hills Uplift 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands KUCHLER [53] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:K005 Mixed conifer forest K010 Ponderosa shrub forest K011 Western ponderosa forest K012 Douglas-fir forest K016 Eastern ponderosa forest K017 Black Hills pine forest K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland K024 Juniper steppe woodland K032 Transition between K031 and K037 K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub K038 Great Basin sagebrush K039 Blackbrush K040 Saltbush-greasewood K050 Fescue-wheatgrass K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass K053 Grama-galleta steppe K055 Sagebrush steppe K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe, K063 Foothills prairie K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass SAF COVER TYPES [16]:210 Interior Douglas-fir 218 Lodgepole pine 219 Limber pine 220 Rocky Mountain juniper 237 Interior ponderosa pine 238 Western juniper 239 Pinyon-juniper 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer 247 Jeffrey pine SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [49]:104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 109 Ponderosa pine shrubland 210 Bitterbrush 212 Blackbush 302 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass 303 Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass 306 Idaho fescue-slender wheatgrass 314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue 316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue 317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue 319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue 320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue 322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass 324 Threetip sagebrush-Idaho fescue 401 Basin big sagebrush 402 Mountain big sagebrush 403 Wyoming big sagebrush 404 Threetip sagebrush 405 Black sagebrush 412 Juniper-pinyon woodland 413 Gambel oak 414 Salt desert shrub 415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany 416 True mountain-mahogany 421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose 501 Saltbush-greasewood 502 Grama-galleta 504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland 607 Wheatgrass-needlegrass 608 Wheatgrass-grama-needlegrass 612 Sagebrush-grass 615 Wheatgrass-saltgrass-grama 708 Bluestem-dropseed 735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:Gray horsebrush is most frequently associated with sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) [21,35,37,40,61] mountain brush, mixed conifer, and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities [61]. Green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) is a common associate of gray horsebrush in big sagebrush (A. tridentata) communities of Idaho, Montana, and Nevada [31,60,66]. Threetip sagebrush (A. tripartita), rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseous), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) are associates in Idaho and Montana [31,60], while needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) are associated in Montana and Nevada [60,66]. Other common associates of gray horsebrush include antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) in Idaho [31]; black sagebrush (A. nova) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) in Montana [60]; and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), desert peach (Prunus andersonii), green ephedra (Ephedra viridis), and Thurber needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum) in Nevada [66]. BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:Gray horsebrush is a spineless, many-branched native shrub [26,35,37,54,55]. This perennial grows up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall [35,37,54,69]. Leaves are 0.4-1.2 inches (1-3 cm) long and 0.04-0.16 inch (1-4 mm) wide [11,26,35,37,55]. Medium-sized flowerheads are borne on tips of numerous short branches in small, cymose clusters [11,26,35,37,55]. The plant produces light achenes that are 0.12-0.16 inch (3-4 mm) long [11,26,35,37,54,55]. Occasional dense stands of gray horsebrush occur in the sagebrush zone [37], but stands with more than a few hundred individuals are rare. A typical colony size is 25-50 plants [54]. RAUNKIAER [47] LIFE FORM:Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES:Breeding system: Gray horsebrush is a monoecious species with perfect flowers [35,54]. Pollination: Gray horsebrush is pollinated by generalists including moths, bees, flies, beetles, and other insects. Nearly all gray horsebrush shrubs within a given colony flower within several days of each other. Flowering occurs relatively early in comparison to associated plants, minimizing competition for pollinators. Pollen fertility is high [54]. Seed production: Seed production is high [56]. Seed dispersal: Seeds are light (120,000 seeds per pound) [56] and wind dispersed [69]. Seed banking: No information Germination: No information Seedling establishment/growth: Gray horsebrush seedlings are somewhat rare, indicating a long colony turnover rate. This may be due to the harsh environments in which gray horsebrush grows [35,54]. Though seedling vigor is rated low [56], numerous seedlings have been observed in recently burned areas [35]. Asexual regeneration: Gray horsebrush sprouts from the root crown after fire [15,24,28,59,66]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS:Gray horsebrush is found in dry, open places on hills, ridges, and plains [11,19,26,35,55] at elevations ranging from 1,300 to 10,800 feet (400-3,300 m) [15]. In the southern part of its range, gray horsebrush is found at higher elevations (5,800-9,700 feet, 1,800-3,000 m), while in the northern areas of its range, British Columbia and Washington, it is found at lower elevations (1,300-1,900 feet, 400-600 m) [54]. It is adapted to medium to coarse soils with a pH of 7 to 8 [56] and is most often found in gravelly or sandy loams [26,55] in semi-desert saline or alkali loam range sites [26]. However, 1 source characterizes gray horsebrush as salt intolerant. The annual moisture requirement of gray horsebrush is 5-12 inches (130-300 mm); it is considered highly drought tolerant [56]. The plant tends to occur least frequently on south-facing slopes but occurs equally on north, east, and west slopes [27]. Elevation ranges for gray horsebrush in some states in its range include:
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:Though gray horsebrush can be found in nearly all successional stages, it is primarily considered a seral species [54]. One study reported that the species comprised greater than 5% of the cover only in early-mid successional stages [27]. It is not shade tolerant [56]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:Gray horsebrush begins growth in spring and blooms in spring or summer [24]. It begins flowering in mid-June in the northern part of its range (British Columbia), while blooming begins in late July or early August in southern California and northern Arizona [35,37]. Blooming may continue until September in New Mexico [34] and as late as October in Arizona [26]. Leaf fall occurs in autumn [11]. Flowering dates in several states are as follows:
The following gray horsebrush phenology data are from a study in the Upper Snake River Plains of southern Idaho [6]:
FIRE ECOLOGYFIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:Fire adaptations: Gray horsebrush is a fire resistant shrub [59] that is only briefly harmed by burning [24,28]. After a fire the plant responds by rapid sprouting from adventitious buds on the root crown, well below the soil surface [15,24,28,59,66]. A single burned gray horsebrush shrub may produce as many as 5-7 sprouts [66], which may appear to be entirely new plants [15]. In addition, the plant reproduces abundantly from a heavy seed crop following fire [42,69]. These postfire responses often result in dense stands of gray horsebrush [15] and can result in dominance by gray horsebrush in sagebrush-grass communities that are burned with a frequency of 20-25 years [64]. Fire regimes: Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which gray horsebrush occurs are summarized below. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities and ecosystems where gray horsebrush is found, see the 'Fire Ecology and Adaptations' section of the FEIS species summary for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below.
**mean POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [52]:Tall shrub, adventitious bud/root crown Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community) Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources) FIRE EFFECTS
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:Gray horsebrush is top-killed by fire [33]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:No entry PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:Gray horsebrush rapidly establishes by sprouting from the root crown and profuse seed production after fire [5,8,33,42,55,64,65,69]. Though it is usually reduced the 1st postfire year, it quickly recovers and exceeds prefire herbage production [45]. Its coverage may double by the 3rd year after fire, and after 12 years, it may increase to 5 times its prefire coverage [7,38,42,46,64]. Gray horsebrush colonizes sagebrush communities after fire [65], sometimes establishing in thick stands [5]. Approximately 30 years after fire, gray horsebrush begins to decline [38,42,46,64], although its production may still be as much as 60% higher than in unburned areas [64]. A study of big sagebrush-grass communities in Wyoming reported that while individual gray horsebrush plants' production increased following a fire, an overall increase in density of the species was not observed by postfire year 2 [51]. Research in a big sagebrush community on the Upper Snake River Plains reported profuse sprouting by gray horsebrush after a prescribed burn in August. By postfire year 3, sprout height exceeded height of prefire stems, and sprouts were producing seeds. Fifteen years later, gray horsebrush production was significantly (p=0.05) higher on burned than on unburned plots, and highest yields tended to be associated with areas that burned more severely [5]. Results from a study of big sagebrush-Idaho fescue communities in Salmon National Forest, Idaho, suggest that "cool" burns may also enhance gray horsebrush [31]. Results from 1 postfire study in a big sagebrush-grass range on the Upper Snake River Plains, Idaho, are below. The table compares gray horsebrush annual herbage production (lb/acre, air-dry) on unburned and burned areas for selected years following a 1936 burn. Overall, it shows that higher yields of gray horsebrush were produced on burned plots than on unburned plots [18].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:No entry FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Treatment of declining gray horsebrush populations with fire is generally not recommended as it may result in the species becoming overwhelmingly dominant [8,42,45,64]. Repeated burning will likely produce thick stands of the shrub [5]. Therefore, consideration of resprouting and seedling establishment of gray horsebrush is recommended when planning prescribed fires, especially on sagebrush rangelands [8]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS, VALUE AND USE
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:Gray horsebrush has little value as domestic forage. It is toxic to domestic sheep and is generally considered undesirable on rangelands [24,44,63]. Poisoning by gray horsebrush has resulted in losses of as many as 1,000 domestic sheep at a time [12,54]. Stems and leaves equaling as little as 0.5% of the animal's body weight [37] can cause liver damage and related photosensitization, which lead to capillary breakage, edema, and swelling of the head known as bighead disease [7,22,37,53,54]. Other effects include a lowering of wool quality [12] and abortion [12,24]. Domestic cattle are not poisoned by gray horsebrush [7,24,37,54]. The specific chemical agent responsible for poisoning has not been isolated [24,37,54], but domestic sheep are apparently more susceptible to photosensitization if they consume gray horsebrush shortly after browsing black sagebrush or big sagebrush [22,24]. As a result, range sheep appear to be more susceptible to photosensitization from gray horsebrush than farm-reared sheep raised on alfalfa (Medicago sativa) or grass [23]. The entire gray horsebrush plant is toxic, but domestic sheep usually eat only buds, leaves, and fine stems; therefore, gray horsebrush is most dangerous to livestock in its bud stage. After flowering, its toxicity appears to decrease [53]. PALATABILITY:Though gray horsebrush is generally low in palatability, cattle graze the shrub heavily in some areas of Nevada [35]. Mule deer reportedly browse it moderately in winter and lightly in spring [30]. Pronghorn also browse the shrub sparingly [50]. Gray horsebrush's palatability increases during the bud stage, when young tissues - buds, shoots, and leaves - are frequently browsed by domestic sheep, domestic goats, pronghorn, mule deer, and cattle [35]. The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for gray horsebrush is rated as follows [13]:
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:Gray horsebrush is rated low in energy [13] and protein value [13,56]. See 'Value to Livestock and Wildlife' section for information about gray horsebrush toxicity. COVER VALUE:Gray horsebrush provides critically needed cover in dry, sparsely vegetated desert ranges [35]. The value of gray horsebrush as cover for domestic animals and wildlife is rated as follows [13]:
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:Gray horsebrush may be effective at establishing cover on severely depleted soils such as mine spoils [35]. The plant can be propagated by cuttings or seeds [56]. UTILIZATION:Native Americans have used gray horsebrush as a physic, a treatment for sexually transmitted diseases [37], and a tonic for uterine disorders [26]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Although gray horsebrush is not favored browse, domestic sheep are more likely to consume the plant during stormy weather or otherwise stressful periods when animals' grazing habits often change. Also, since gray horsebrush may be abundant near watering holes, it is frequently browsed shortly after trailing sheep are watered. During stressful situations or after watering, it is best to avoid trailing sheep through overgrazed trails or rangelands where gray horsebrush is abundant [21,24,53]. See the 'Importance to Livestock and Wildlife' section above for more information on gray horsebrush toxicity. Control: Root cutting, bulldozing [44,62], and tebuthiuron application, can reduce gray horsebrush density [10,41]. Application of 2,4-D in spring when plants are actively growing can help control gray horsebrush; however, retreatment is necessary to control sprouts [62]. In rangelands where big sagebrush control is desired, care should be exercised with selection of methods. Unless gray horsebrush is also controlled, it may increase in density [32,42,44,45,64]. Some control treatments may actually increase gray horsebrush density. Single applications of atrazine [14] or 2,4-D do not effectively control gray horsebrush [14,15,44]. In a big sagebrush community near Reno, Nevada, May application of 2,4-D the spring after a July wildfire did not significantly (p=0.05) reduce gray horsebrush sprouting (plots were remeasured at posttreatment year 4). Livestock grazing significantly increased gray horsebrush density on both sprayed and unsprayed plots. Seeding with the perennial bunchgrasses desert wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) and intermediate wheatgrass (Elytrigia intermedia) significantly reduced gray horsebrush density on grazed and ungrazed plots [15]. Desert wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass are exotic species [20]: native bunchgrasses may be more desirable rehabilitation alternatives. The following control methods are also generally ineffective at controlling gray horsebrush: prescribed burning, cutting, beating, shredding, harrowing, railing, and rolling brush cutting [44]. In 1 Utah study, prescribed burning, rotobeating, application of 2,4-D, or railing each resulted in at least a 2-fold increase in gray horsebrush density compared with untreated plots [39].Tetradymia canescens: References1. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990] 2. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984] 3. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342] 4. 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] 5. Blaisdell, James P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. Tech. Bull. 1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 39 p. [462] 6. Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climatic factors. Tech. Bull. 1190. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 68 p. [463] 7. Britton, Carlton M. 1979. Fire on the range. Western Wildlands. 5(4): 32-33. [514] 8. Bunting, Stephen C.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 33 p. [5281] 9. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565] 10. Clary, Warren P.; Goodrich, Sherel; Smith, Benton M. 1985. Response to tebuthiuron by Utah juniper and mountain big sagebrush communities. Journal of Range Management. 38(1): 56-60. [37925] 11. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. [28653] 12. DiTomaso, Joseph M. 1985. Poisonous plants: their impact on livestock and man. In: Proceedings, 37th annual California weed conference; [Conference date unknown]; Anaheim, CA. El Macero, CA: California Weed Conference Office: 29-37. [38031] 13. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806] 14. Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 1977. Weed control-revegetation systems for big sagebrush-downy brome rangelands. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 331-336. [879] 15. Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 1978. Effectiveness of rehabilitation practices following wildfire in a degraded big sagebrush-downy brome community. Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 185-188. [880] 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. 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] 18. Harniss, Roy O.; Murray, Robert B. 1973. 30 years of vegetal change following burning of sagebrush-grass range. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 322-325. [1086] 19. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851] 20. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992] 21. James, L. F.; Keeler, R. F.; Johnson, A. E.; [and others]. 1980. Plants poisonous to livestock in the western states. Agriculture Information Bulletin 415. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration. 90 p. [1243] 22. Johnson, A. Earl. 1974. Predisposing influence of range plants on Tetradymia-related photosensitization in sheep: work of Drs. A.B. Clawson & W.T. Huffman. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 35(12): 1583-1585. [1269] 23. Johnson, A. Earl. 1978. Tetradymia toxicity - a new look at an old problem. In: Effects of poisonous plants on livestock: Joint U.S.-Australia symposium: 209-215. [7800] 24. Johnson, A. Earl. 1987. The relationship of Tetradymia species and Artemisia nova to photosensitization in sheep. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant- herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 113-117. [1270] 25. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715] 26. 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] 27. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371] 28. Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. 1974. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press. 542 p. [1374] 29. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455] 30. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [1387] 31. Kuntz, David Edward. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/ Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 73 p. Thesis. [1388] 32. Lancaster, Donald L., Young, James A., Evans, Raymond A. 1987. Weed and brush control tactics in the sagebrush ecosystem. In: Onsager, Jerome A., ed. Integrated pest management on rangeland: state-of-the-art in the sagebrush ecosystem. ARS-50. [Washington, DC]: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 11-14. [2838] 33. Martin, Robert E.; Dell, John D. 1978. Planning for prescribed burning in the Inland Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-76. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 67 p. [18621] 34. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176] 35. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens, Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571] 36. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [26637] 37. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702] 38. Mueggler, Walter F. 1976. Ecological role of fire in western woodland and range ecosystems. In: Use of prescribed burning in western woodland and range ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1976 March 18-19; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station: 1-9. [1709] 39. Mueggler, Walter F.; Blaisdell, James P. 1958. Effects on associated species of burning, rotobeating, spraying, and railing sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 11: 61-66. [1712] 40. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924] 41. Murray, Robert B. 1988. Response of three shrub communities in southeastern Idaho to spring applied tebuthiuron. Journal of Range Management. 41(1): 16-22. [3066] 42. Neuenschwander, L. F. 1978. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art review. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 31 p. [1747] 43. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978] 44. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Plummer, A. Perry; Robertson, Joseph H.; Hull, A. C., Jr. 1965. Sagebrush control on rangelands. Agriculture Handbook No. 277. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 40 p. [1858] 45. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Blaisdell, James P. 1954. Sagebrush burning good and bad. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [1859] 46. Raper, Bob; Clark, Bob; Matthews, Marion; Aldrich, Ann. 1985. Early effects of a fall burn on a western Wyoming mountain big sagebrush-grass community. In: Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: Proceedings of a symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office: 88-92. [1938] 47. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 48. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579] 49. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362] 50. Smith, Arthur D.; Beale, Donald M. 1980. Pronghorn antelope in Utah: some research and observations. Publication No. 80-13. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 88 p. [5305] 51. Smith, Michael A.; Dodd, Jerrold L.; Rodgers, J. Daniel. 1985. Prescribed burning on Wyoming rangeland. Bull.-810. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Extension Service. 25 p. [2176] 52. 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. 10 p. [20090] 53. Stoddart, L. A.; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Cook, C. Wayne. 1949. Important poisonous plants of Utah. Special Report No. 2. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 21 p. [30406] 54. Strother, John L. 1974. Taxonomy of Tetradymia (Compositae: Senecioneae). Brittonia. 26: 177-202. [2268] 55. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162] 56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2000. PLANTS database (1999), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262] 57. 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] 58. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698] 59. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Managment/Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [29753] 60. Wambolt, Carl L.; Hoffman, Trista L.; Mehus, Chris A. 1999. Response of shrubs in big sagebrush habitats to fire on the northern Yellowstone winter range. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings: shrub ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 238-242. [36093] 61. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944] 62. William, Ray D.; Ball, Dan; Miller, Terry L.; [and others], compilers. 2001. Pacific Northwest weed management handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 408 p. [38715] 63. Wright, Henry A. 1974. Range burning. Journal of Range Management. 27(1): 5-11. [2613] 64. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625] 65. Young, J. A.; Evans, R. A.; Tueller, P. T. 1976. Great Basin plant communities--pristine and grazed. In: Elston, Robert, ed. Holocene environmental change in the Great Basin. Res. Pap. No. 6. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Nevada Archeological Society: 187-216. [2676] 66. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283-289. [2657] 67. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659] 68. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Major, J. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 25: 194-201. [2674] 69. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681] Tetradymia canescens Index
Related categories for SPECIES: Tetradymia canescens | Gray Horsebrush |
 |
 | |
| |
| |
| 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. | |
| |
|
About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory |
| 1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution. |
