Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Halogeton glomeratus


Introductory

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Pavek, Diane S. 1992. Halogeton glomeratus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

ABBREVIATION : HALGLO SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : HAGL COMMON NAMES : halogeton barilla Aral barilla TAXONOMY : The currently accepted name of halogeton is Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.) C. A. Meyer; it is a member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae). One author relegates halogeton to synonymy with the European species, Halogeton sativus (L.) Moq. [98]. However, most authors recognize halogeton as a separate and distinct species [30,31,46,49,71,104]. There are no subspecies, varieties, or forms. LIFE FORM : Forb FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : See OTHER STATUS OTHER STATUS : Halogeton is a noxious weed in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain states, and California, Hawaii, and New Mexico [102].


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Halogeton is an introduced species from southeastern Russia and northwestern China [49,55,98]. In the United States, halogeton is found in the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions and in two disjunct infestations in Nebraska [30,31,46,71,77,104]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES40 Desert grasslands STATES : CA CO ID MT NE NV NM OR UT WY BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 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 14 Great Plains 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K038 Great Basin sagebrush K040 Saltbush - greasewood K055 Sagebrush steppe K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe SAF COVER TYPES : 238 Western juniper 239 Pinyon - juniper SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Halogeton is typical in disturbed sites in salt-desert shrubland and surrounding big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) steppe types, and in transition zones from shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) to big sagebrush [9,24,103]. Where halogeton is the dominant forb, shadscale is the dominant shrub in the salt-desert shrubland; halogeton may also occur in various associations with other shrubs, such as winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), bud sagebrush (Artemisia spinescens), greasewood (Sarcobatus baileyi), and spiney hopsage (Atriplex spinosa) [12,13,14]. Infrequently, halogeton is a dominant understory forb in western juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) communities. Halogeton occurs as a dominant or codominant with other annuals, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and tansymustards (Descurainia pinnata and D. sofia). Publications that list halogeton as a dominant forb in habitat types in Nevada are: Vegetation and soils of the Crane Springs watershed [12], Vegetation and soils of the Cow Creek watershed [13], Vegetation and soils of the Duckwater watershed [14].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Halogeton is high in oxalates and is a serious health threat to grazing animals, especially sheep [25,49,55,104,107]. A sheep will be killed by 12 to 18 ounces [0.3-0.5 kg] of halogeton [23]. Symptoms of halogeton poisoning have been described [70,102]. There is no treatment once an animal is poisoned [99]. The amount of soluble oxalates in halogeton varies by season, locality, and part of plant eaten [55]. As a halophyte, halogeton makes excessive amounts of oxalic acid in response to excessive uptake of sodium ions [41]. While halogeton is growing, oxalates are highly concentrated; 17 to 30 percent of dry plant weight is soluble oxalates [25,55]. Sheep can safely consume halogeton after the soluble oxalate concentrations are reduced through leaf loss or leaching by rain or snow [23,55,109]. Additionally, calcium-fortified pellets have been recommended as supplements to sheep feeding in halogeton range, to compensate for the calcium precipitation from the blood by oxalates [23,25,103]. Van Dyne [103] recommends against using halogeton as forage [103]. However, other studies indicate that halogeton is useable when it is mixed in small amounts with other forage [70,96]. Krueger and Sharp [57] reported that sheep can adapt to halogeton if it is fed to them in gradually increasing amounts. Adapted sheep can detoxify 75 percent more oxalate than nonadapted sheep [57]. PALATABILITY : Palatability is extremely low, and halogeton is seldom eaten by livestock [24,99]. The palatability of halogeton is listed as poor for ungulates in Montana, Utah, and Wyoming [28]. In Utah and Wyoming, halogeton palatability is fair for small mammals, good for game and nongame birds, and poor for waterfowl [28]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : Halogeton provides poor environmental protection for ungulates, game birds, and waterfowl in Utah and Wyoming [28]. In these states, it provides fair protection for small mammals and nongame birds [28]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Halogeton is a noxious weed that must be prevented from establishing on denuded or disturbed soils in the semiarid shrublands of the western United States. Halogeton makes an area less favorable for revegetation with other species; it is difficult to establish desirable plants where halogeton occurs [59]. At mine reclamation sites, several studies have measured changes in halogeton establishment or abundance over many years [2,7,68,75]. One study examined leachate from three levels of halogeton mulch. They found significant soil alteration: increases in pH, exchangeable sodium, potassium, magnesium, electrical conductivity, and decreases in water percolation [25,33]. High salts inhibit micro-organisms aiding nitrification, which depresses plant growth [33]. Halogeton does not form mycorrhizae and does well in mine spoils with diluted or eliminated vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhize [1,2,7]. Goodman [42] added nitrogen to enhance native plant production, and halogeton biomass doubled compared to unfertilized controls. OTHER USES AND VALUES : NO-ENTRY OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Halogeton readily invades and dominates rangeland depleted by persistent and continuous overgrazing [25,53,54,57,93]. Heavy sheep losses from halogeton poisoning have occurred since 1940 on ranges in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah [4,15,66,89,91,95]. The rapid spread of halogeton from 1935 through the 1940s, coupled with extensive livestock poisonings, resulted in the Federal Halogeton Control Act [63]. The best defense against halogeton is a vigorous stand of perennial range plants and variations in grazing patterns [4,15,47,77,101]. Moderate range use only after the growing season is the wisest halogeton strategy [54,105]. Efforts must be taken to prevent vegetation destruction by rodents and rabbits, road construction, surface mining, or the use of off-road vehicles [15]. Three methods are used to control halogeton [24]. (1) Cultural control: Introduced perennials, such as immigrant kochia (Kochia prostrata), were planted with successful decrease in halogeton cover [67,94]. Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum and A. desertorum) was seeded extensively in depleted winter rangeland to slow halogeton growth [65,111,113 but see 64,76]. Crested wheatgrass does not suffer from halogeton competition, but from the saline-alkaline site conditions where it occurs [20]. Some hybrids (for example, A. desertorum cv. Hycrest) can tolerate saline conditions. Asay and Johnson [3] found that a heavy halogeton infestation was essentially elimated by year 2 after seeding with Hycrest. (2) Biological control: A stem-boring moth (Coleophora porthenica) from Pakistan was released for halogeton control [77]. However, it failed to establish. The search for a biological control agent continues in Soviet central Asia [77]. A case-bearing moth (Coleophora atriplecivora) has been found on halogeton [69]. It is not currently known what effect it has on halogeton; however, Moore and Stevens [69] found that the case-bearing moth reduced seed production and foliage in fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). Altered grazing practices can slow halogeton spread. Studies showed that high intensity grazing in early spring (March and April) increased halogeton cover significantly in Utah [106]. Heavy spring grazing causes rapid rangeland deterioration [60]. Halogeton was reported to decrease in Nevada under early (mid-April to mid-June) grazing at moderate intensity [85]. (3) Chemical control: Halogeton is susceptible in the preflowering stage to 2,4-D at 2 pounds active ingredients per acre (2.2 kg ai/ha) [25,37,80]. Approximately 17 percent of the plants survive this rate [101]. Higher 2,4-D rates of six pounds active ingredient per acre (6.7 kg ai/ha) are recommended to kill all halogeton; however, native plants are severely impacted [23]. The application of 2,4-D must be repeated annually for 6 to 10 years after the final halogeton seed crop [99]. Herbicide control is too expensive to be used on low-production ranges on which halogeton occurs [77,78]. Widespread herbicide control of halogeton was stopped because land managers did not have desirable forage to replace halogeton, especially on saline-alkaline soils [21,66,101].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Halogeton is an exotic succulent annual forb [42,104]. It has a generalized type of root system; the taproot can penetrate as deep as 20 inches (51 cm), with a radial spread of 18 inches (46 cm) [32]. Many main stems branch from the base of the plant and are low spreading before becoming erect [107]. Halogeton can be a few inches high in dense stands to 2 feet [61 cm] high in widely spaced stands [103,107]. Leaves are small, fleshy, and spine tipped [26,49]. Flowers are inconspicuous in leaf axils and produce winged black and wingless brown seeds [26,101]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Therophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Halogeton can produce 75 seeds per inch (35 seeds per cm) of stem, which is 200 to 400 pounds of seeds per acre (222-449 kg/ha) [25]. It produces two types of seeds which are important to its spread and persistence. The production of brown seed is controlled by long photoperiods; black seeds are produced during short photoperiods [114]. Black seeds have no dormancy and are viable for 1 year [24,88,114]. Late germinating and maturing plants only make black seeds [25,114]. Brown seeds have a dormancy and can survive buried for up to 10 years [4,24,25,108]. This allows halogeton to survive during extended drought periods. Brown seeds readily germinated under moist conditions after a 3-month cold (35 degrees Fahrenheit [5.4 deg C]) treatment [24,88]. Halogeton has many agents of dissemination. Halogeton seeds have a high degree of viability after passing through the digestive tracts of sheep and rabbits [24]. Animals are capable of spreading large amounts of seed great distances; seeds pass with the feces [23,37,63,99]. Halogeton seeds are rapidly spread along roads by road equipment, especially road graders [24]. Local spread of halogeton is primarily by the wind [37,99]. Halogeton will break off at ground level when dry and tumble with the wind, scattering mature seeds [109]. Whirlwinds or dust-devils will transport dry stems with seeds up to 2 miles (3.2 km) [24]. Western harvester ants collect seeds [39]. Brown seeds recovered from anthills gave 5 to 20 percent germination [24]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Halogeton is adapted to alkaline soils and semiarid environments [47,107]. Halogeton is found from 2,526 to 7,218 feet (770-2,200 m) in elevation throughout its range [19,38,43,44]. It occurs on soils that are heavy clays, clay loams, sandy loams, and loamy sands [5,20,27,50]. Although halogeton can occur on many soil types, the sites usually are saline [63]. Halogeton does best in soils where sodium chloride levels are 5,800 p/m; increased salt does not increase the water requirements of halogeton [25]. Soils may or may not have a prominent hardpan; carbonates accumulate near the soil surface [16]. Soils are light colored because little humus is present [50,97]. The soil pH ranges from 8.0 to 9.0 [27,52]. Typically, there are large fluctuations in daily temperatures [61]. Mean annual temperature is 42 degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 deg C). The abundance of halogeton depends upon year to year precipitation, so outbreaks may sporadically appear [4,6,103]. Annual precipitation at most halogeton sites is from 5 to 13 inches (127-330 mm) [21,50]. Approximately, 60 to 70 percent of precipitation occurs as snow [21,50]. Halogeton has invaded open or disturbed ground such as dry lakebeds and rodent workings [4,99]. Halogeton infests domestic stock trails, overgrazed rangeland, and livestock congregation areas [46,49,71,82,86]. Halogeton invaded the disturbed areas left after dryland farms, townsites, and mining camps were abandoned in the 1930's [25,33,52,56, 109]. Halogeton occurs in railroad rights-of-way, along road shoulders, airstrips, and gravel pits [61,67,107]. Associated species, in addition to those previously mentioned (see Habitat Types), are clasping pepperweed (Lepidium perfoliatum), povertyweed (Iva axillaris), and bur buttercup (Ranunculus testiculatus) [38,87]. Common grass associates are Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) [44]. Halogeton occurs with Gardner saltbush (Atriplex gardneri) in Colorado and Wyoming [5]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Obligate Initial Community Species Halogeton is a ruderal species that readily invades disturbed, saline-alkaline ground where other species offer no or little competition [37,47,74,77,105,107]. Halogeton does not establish in vigorous competing vegetation because it does not grow a large shoot or root system early in the growing season [32]. In the alkaline valley soils where halogeton occurs, shadscale vegetation is considered an edaphic climax [115]. Human use leads to permanent changes in the flora of disturbed arid environments [56]. After 70 years of grazing on some sites in the Great Basin, halogeton was dominant on moderately disturbed areas with cheatgrass and shadscale [56]. Halogeton may permanently change soil surfaces via salt pumping which impedes moisture infiltration and enhances evaporation [88,105]. In a comparison of plots on areas that were grazed or protected for 15 years, Branson [17] observed that no succession occurred or that it occurred very slowly. Cleared big sagebrush areas follow a succession pattern that currently climaxes in cheatgrass. Nelson and others [72] state that the succession through introduced annuals to a cheatgrass climax is maintained by fire. The order of appearance of vegetation changes are Russian thistle (Salsola kali), tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), pinnate tansymustard (Descurainia pinnata), and cheatgrass [112,116]. Young and others [116] added halogeton to this sequence as an initial invader. Halogeton is also a part of another seral continuum that climaxes with medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) [116]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Depending upon moisture, halogeton seedlings establish from February through August, with a peak in April [24,99,101]. Halogeton builds its root system during the cool weather, and topgrows during warmer weather [54]. Seedlings begin rapid vegetative growth in May [24,109]. Growth can continue through June; the best halogeton development occurs when soil temperatures are between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit (15-27 deg C) [32]. In Utah, halogeton biomass was 4.1 pounds per acre (4.7 kg/ha) over 5 years [6]. Near the first part of July, the plants cease vegetative growth and begin reproductive growth [24]. Plants flower during July and August. Seeds begin to mature late August to early September and are mature in October [24,25,96]. The frosts in October and November will kill any plants not yet dried [51]. The majority of black seeds are dropped by early November; however, brown seeds persist and may remain on the plant until January or February [24]. Black seeds may germinate after mid-December under favorable conditions [24]. Halogeton is a winter annual in the broad sense; plants may germinate in the fall, winter, or spring, depending upon soil moisture [92]. Two authors [96,103] state that halogeton is a warm-season plant; however, since vegetative growth usually ceases at the end of June and seedling establishment occurs predominantly in April, Parker [74] considers it a cool-season plant.

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : After halogeton dries, it does not readily decompose, which increases fuel loads [24]. Dried halogeton is capable of spreading fire; flaming, wind-thrown plants may enter unburned areas. Halogeton can tumble across burned areas, spreading seed [109]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community) Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Immediate effects of fire on halogeton were not found in the literature. Halogeton is probably killed by fire; any seeds remaining on the plants would also be killed. Seeds present in the soil before fire are probably destroyed. Halogeton seeds are killed at 158 degrees Fahrenheit (70 deg C), which is considerabley lower than soil surface temperatures that may occur in sagebrush fires [90]. Mack [63], however, reported that halogeton seed survives summer fires in steppe communities. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Halogeton seeds are probably transported from off-site into burned areas within 1 or 2 years postfire [43]. Two years after a fall burn in central Idaho where perennial plants were not damaged, halogeton appeared [36]. One year following an Idaho burn that destroyed all aboveground vegetation, halogeton increased in abundance, and by postfire year 2, it had significantly increased in biomass [45]. Halogeton increased in frequency each year for 3 years postfire in another study [90]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Prescribed burning will not control halogeton. It colonizes from off-site, readily invading bare or disturbed soils.

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Halogeton glomeratus
REFERENCES : 1. Allen, Edith B.; Allen, Michael F. 1988. Facilitation of succession by the nonmycotrophic colonizer Salsola kali (Chenopodiaceae) on a harsh site: effects of mycorrhizal fungi. American Journal of Botany. 75(2): 257-266. [2921] 2. Allen, Michael F. 1989. Mycorrhizae and rehabilitation of disturbed arid soils: processes and practices. Arid Soil Research. 3: 229-241. [9198] 3. Asay, K. H.; Johnson, D. A. 1987. Breeding for improved seedling establishment in cool-season range grasses. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Proceedings of symposium: "Seed and seedbed ecology or rangeland plants; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 173-176. [2926] 4. Astroth, Kirk A.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--research on the Benmore Experimental Range, 1940-84. Gen. Tech, Rep. INT-175. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [361] 5. Baker, William L.; Kennedy, Susan C. 1985. Presettlement vegetation of part of northwestern Moffat County, Colorado, described from remnants. Great Basin Naturalist. 45(4): 747-783. [384] 6. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption, and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911] 7. Bernard, J. R.; Carter, R. P.; Cleaves, D. T.; [and others]. 1979. Land Reclamation Program annual report 1978. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory. 110 p. [433] 8. 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] 9. Billings, W. D. 1951. Vegetational zonation in the Great Basin of western North America. Union Intl. Sci. Biol. Ser. B. 9: 101-122. [443] 10. Billings, W. D. 1952. The environmental complex in relation to plant growth and distribution. Quarterly Review of Biology. 27(3): 251-265. [444] 11. Biswell, H. H. 1956. Ecology of California grasslands. Journal of Forestry. 9: 19-24. [11182] 12. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Crane Springs Watershed. R-55. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 65 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Burearu of Land Management. [456] 13. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Cow Creek Watershed. R-49. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 77 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [458] 14. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1968. Vegetation and soils of the Duckwater Watershed. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture. 81 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [7439] 15. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464] 16. Bleak, A. T.; Frischknecht, N. C.; Plummer, A. Perry; Eckert, R. E., Jr. 1965. Problems in artificial and natural revegetation of the arid shadscale vegetation zone of Utah and Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 18: 59-65. [3992] 17. Branson, Farrel A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western rangelands. Range Monograph No. 2. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 76 p. [5172] 18. Brotherson, Jack D.; Rasmussen, Lars L.; Black, Richard D. 1986. Comparative habitat and community relationships of Atriplex confertifolia and Sarcobatus vermiculatus in central Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 46(2): 348-357. [532] 19. Clark, William R.; Wagner, Frederic H. 1984. Role of livestock and black-tailed jackrabbits in changing abundance of Kochia americana. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 635-645. [634] 20. Cook, C. Wayne. 1961. Seeding response and soil characteristics on adjacent sagebrush and desert molly soils. Journal of Range Management. 14: 134-138. [674] 21. Cook, C. Wayne. 1965. Grass seedling response to halogeton competition. Journal of Range Management. 18: 317-321. [3203] 22. Cook, C. Wayne. 1973. Forage utilization, daily intake, and nutrient value of desert range. In: Proceedings, 3rd Workshop of the United States/ Australia Rangelands Panel; 1973 March 26-April 5; Tucson, AZ. Denver, CO: Society For Range Management; 1973: 47-50. [676] 23. Cook, C. Wayne; Stoddart, L. A. 1953. The halogeton problem in Utah. Bulletin 364. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 44 p. In cooperation with:U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [4597] 24. Cronin, Eugene H. 1965. Ecological and physiological factors influencing chemical control of Halogeton glomeratus. Technical Bulletin No. 1325. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 65 p. In cooperation with: Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. [4586] 25. Cronin, Eugene H.; Williams, M. Coburn. 1965. Principles for managing ranges infested with halogeton. Journal of Range Management. 19: 226-227. [4374] 26. Dayton, William A. 1960. Notes on western range forbs: Equisetaceae through Fumariaceae. Agric. Handb. 161. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 254 p. [767] 27. DeFlon, James G. 1986. The case for cheat grass. Rangelands. 8(1): 14-17. [775] 28. 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] 29. Dobrowolski, James P.; Ewing, Kern. 1990. Vegetation dynamics and environmental attributes of a Great Basin valley exhibiting widespread shrub dieback. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 103-114. [12842] 30. Ferguson, Robert B.; Medin, Dean E. 1983. Long-term changes in an ungrazed bitterbrush plant community in southwest Idaho. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Johnson, Kendall L., compilers. Proceedings--research and management of bitterbrush and cliffrose in western North America; 1982 April 13-15; Salt Lake City, UT. General Technical Report INT-152. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 107-116. [918] 31. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129] 32. Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1954. A study of competition between whitesage and halogeton in Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 7: 223-225. [4582] 33. Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Kinsinger, Floyd E. 1960. Effects of Halogeton glomeratus leachate on chemical and physical characteristics of soils. Ecology. 41(4): 764-772. [494] 34. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 35. Fisser, Herbert G.; Joyce, Linda A. 1984. Atriplex, grass, and forb relationships under no grazing, and shifting precipitation patterns in north-central Wyoming. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R., McArthur, E. Durant; Stutz, Howard C.; Stevens, Richard; Johnson, K.L, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6, Provo, UT. General Technical Report INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 87-96. [930] 36. Fraley, L., Jr. 1978. Revegetation following a 1974 fire at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site. In: Markham, O. D., ed. Ecological studies on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site: 1978 Progress Report. IDO-12087. Idaho Falls, ID: U.S.Dept. of Energy, Environ. Sciences Branch, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Lab: 194-199. [953] 37. Frischknecht, Neil C. 1967. How far will halogeton spread?. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 22: 135-139. [5490] 38. Frischknecht, Neil C. 1968. Factors influencing halogeton invasion of crested wheatgrass range. Journal of Range Management. 21: 8-12. [5319] 39. Frischknecht, Neil C.; Harris, Lorin E. 1968. Grazing intensities and systems on crested wheatgrass in central Utah: response of vegetation and cattle. Technical Bulletin No. 1388. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 47 p. [978] 40. 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] 41. Goodin, Joseph E. 1975. Salinity relations in shrubs. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings-- symposium and workshop; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, Utah. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University: 1-31. [1031] 42. Goodman, P. J. 1973. Physiological and ecotypic adaptations of plants to salt desert conditions in Utah. Journal of Ecology. 61: 473-494. [1032] 43. Groves, Craig R.; Steenhof, Karen. 1988. Responses of small mammals and vegetation to wildfire in shadscale communities of southwestern Idaho. Northwest Science. 62(5): 205-210. [6584] 44. Guyer, Craig; Linder; Allan D. 1985. Growth & pop structure of the short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi) & the sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science. 59(4): 294-303. [5176] 45. Halford, Douglas K. 1981. Repopulation and food habits of Peromyscus maniculatus on a burned sagebrush desert in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science. 55(1): 44-49. [1058] 46. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851] 47. Harris, Grant A. 1990. Cheat grass: invasion of potential and managerial implications. In: Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisted: Proceedings of a symposium: A 1989 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative Extension: 5-9. [14826] 48. Burzlaff, D. F. 1967. Seasonal variations of the in vitro dry-matter digestibility of three sandhill grasses. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 47: 539-548. [185] 49. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1964. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 597 p. [1166] 50. Holmgren, Ralph C.; Brewster, Sam F., Jr. 1972. Distribution of organic matter reserve in a desert shrub community. Research Paper INT-130. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 15 p. [1187] 51. Holmgren, Ralph C.; Hutchings, Selar S. 1972. Salt desert shrub response to grazing use. 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: 153-164. [1188] 52. Hutchings, Selar S.; Stewart, George. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. Circular No. 925. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 63 p. [1227] 53. Young, James A.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Evans, Raymond A. 1979. Historical perspectives regarding the sagebrush ecosystem. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 1-13. [2644] 54. Keller, Wesley. 1979. Species and methods for seeding in the sagebrush ecosystem. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources; 1979: 129-163. [1322] 55. Kingsbury, John M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 626 p. [122] 56. Knapp, Paul A. 1992. Secondary plant succession and vegetation recovery in two western Great Basin Desert ghost towns. Biological Conservation. 60: 81-89. [19273] 57. Krueger, William C.; Sharp, Lee A. 1978. Management approaches to reduce livestock losses from poisonous plants on rangelands. Journal of Range Management. 31(5): 347-350. [1379] 58. 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] 59. 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. [Place of publication unknown]: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 11-14. [2838] 60. Laycock, W. A. 1987. Grazing management systems and 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 40-48. [3332] 61. Loope, Lloyd L.; Sanchez, Peter G.; Tarr, Peter W.; [and others]. 1988. Biological invasions of arid land nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 44: 95-118. [3263] 62. 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] 63. Mack, R. N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the Intermountain West: A case study. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Drake, James A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies 58. New York: Springer-Verlag: 191-213. [17516] 64. Major, J.; Pyott, W. T. 1966. Buried, viable seeds in two California bunchgrass sites and their bearing on the definition of a flora. Vegetatio. 13: 254-282. [6343] 65. Reid, Elbert H. 1965. Forage production in ponderosa pine forests. In: Proceedings: Society of American Foresters meeting; 1964 September 27 - October 1; Denver, CO. Washington D. C.: Society of American Foresters: 61-64. [11526] 66. Mathews, William L. 1986. Early use of crested wheatgrass seedings in halogeton control. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Crested wheatgrass: Its values, problems and myths: Symposium proceedings; 1983 Oct. 3-7; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University: 27-28. [1551] 67. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Stevens, Richard. 1990. Forage kochia competition with cheatgrass in central Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 56-65. [12736] 68. Monsen, Stephen B.; Richardson, Bland Z. 1984. Seeding shrubs with herbs on a semiarid mine site with and without topsoil. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R. [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 298-305. [1683] 69. Moore, T. Blaine; Stevens, Richard. 1984. Distribution and importance of the atriplex case-bearing moth,Coleophora atriplicivora cockerel, on some chenopod shrubs, esp. Atriplex canescen. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Stutz, Howard C.; [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 220-225. [8024] 70. Mueggler, W. F. 1970. Objectionable characteristics of range plants. In: Range and wildlife habitat evaluation--a research symposium: Proceedings; 1968 May; Flagstaff; Tempe, AZ. Misc. Publ. 1147. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 63-70. [12986] 71. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155] 72. Nelson, David L.; Harper, Kimball T.; Boyer, Kenneth C.; [and others]. 1989. Wildland shrub dieoffs in Utah: an approach to understanding the cause. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 119-135. [5942] 73. Nydegger, Nicholas C.; Smith, Graham W. 1986. Prey populations in relation to Artemisia vegetation types in southwestern Idaho. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 152-156. [1787] 74. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878] 75. Parmenter, Robert R.; MacMahon, James A.; Waaland, Marco E.; [and others]. 1985. Reclamation of surface coal mines in western Wyoming for wildlife habitat: a preliminary analysis. Reclamation and Revegetation Research. 4: 93-115. [1818] 76. 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] 77. Pemberton, Robert W. 1986. The distribution of halogeton in North America. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 281-282. [1870] 78. Platt, Kenneth B. 1959. Plant control--some possibilities and limitations. I. The challenge to management. Journal of Range Management. 12: 64-68. [4596] 79. Pyke, D. A.; Dobrowolski, J. P. 1989. Shrub dieback in the Great Basin. Utah Science. 50(2): 66-71. [9309] 80. Ralphs, M. H.; Whitson, T. D.; Ueckert, D. N. 1991. Herbicide control of poisonous plants. Rangelands. 13(3): 73-77. [14776] 81. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 82. Reynolds, Timothy D.; Trost, Charles H. 1981. Grazing, crested wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science. 55(3): 225-234. [1963] 83. Robertson, J. H. 1971. Changes on a sagebrush-grass range in Nevada ungrazed for 30 years. Journal of Range Management. 24: 397-400. [2009] 84. Robertson, Joseph H.; Kennedy, P. B. 1954. Half-century changes on northern Nevada ranges. Journal of Range Management. 7: 117-121; 1954. [2011] 85. Robertson, J. H.; Neal, D. L.; McAdams, K. R.; Tueller, P. T. 1970. Changes in crested wheatgrass ranges under different grazing treatments. Journal of Range Management. 23: 27-34. [2005] 86. Roche, Cindy Talbott; Roche, Ben F., Jr. 1989. Introductory notes on squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata Lam. ssp. squarrosa Gugl.). Northwest Science. 63(5): 246-252. [10572] 87. Rogers, Garry F. 1982. Then and now: a photographic history of vegetation change in the central Great Basin Desert. Salt Lake, UT: University of Utah Press. 152 p. [9932] 88. Roundy, Bruce A. 1987. Seedbed salinity and the establishment of range plants. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Proceedings of symposium: "Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants"; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 68-81. [4062] 89. Sharp, Lee A.; Sanders, Ken; Rimbey, Neil. 1990. Forty years of change in a shadscale stand in Idaho. Rangelands. 12(6): 313-328. [15527] 90. Sheeter, Guy Richard. 1968. Secondary succession and range improvements after wildfire in northeastern Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 203 p. Thesis. [41] 91. Sherman, Howard. 1987. Less poison in "home on the range". USDA News. 46(2): 6. [6123] 92. Sosebee, Ronald E. 1983. Physiological, phenological, and environmental considerations in brush and weed control. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 27-43. [2199] 93. Stevens, Richard; Giunta, Bruce C.; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Winterfat (Ceratoides lanata). Publ. No. 77-2. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources. 41 p. [2242] 94. Stevens, Richard; McArthur, E. Durant. 1990. `Immigrant' forage kochia competition with halogeton following various seeding techniques. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 175-180. [12849] 95. Stoddart, L. A.; Holmgren, A. H.; Cook, C. W. 1949. Important poisonous plants of Utah. Special Report No. 2. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 21 p. [2259] 96. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 465 p. [2270] 97. Taye, Alan C. 1983. Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 43(4): 619-646. [14669] 98. Tutin, T. G.; Heywood, V. H.; Burfes, N. A.; [and others]. 1964. Flora Europaea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 6 vols. [19272] 99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1968. 22 plants poisonous to livestock in the Western states. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 327. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Animal Disease and Parasite Research Division & Crops Reserch Div. 64 p. [4275] 100. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573] 101. 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] 102. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 1985. Final Northwest Area noxious weed control program environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. 295 p. [12796] 103. Van Dyne, George M. 1958. Ranges and range plants. 290 p. [7310] 104. 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] 105. West, Neil E. 1983. Intermountain salt-desert shrubland. In: West, Neil E., ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company; 1983: 375-397. (Goodall, David W., ed. in chief.; Ecosystems of the world; vol. 5). [2507] 106. Whisenant, S. G.; Wagstaff, F. J. 1991. Successional trajectories of a grazed salt desert shrubland. Vegetatio. 94(2): 133-140. [16879] 107. Whitson, Tom D., ed. 1987. Weeds and poisonous plants of Wyoming and Utah. Res. Rep. 116-USU. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 281 p. [2939] 108. Whitson, Thomas D. 1987. Weeds in Wyoming causing livestock poisoning. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management: 55-57. [13922] 109. Yensen, Dana. 1980. A grazing history of southwestern Idaho with emphasis on the Birds of Prey Study Area. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, Snake River Birds of Prey Research Project, Boise District. 82 p. [4148] 110. Young, James A. 1983. Principles of weed control and plant manipulation. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comp. Managing Intermountain rangelands-- improving range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 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 Forestand Range Experiment Station: 6-10. [2641] 111. Young, James A. 1986. Snake River country--a rangeland heritage. Rangelands. 8(5): 199-202. [2643] 112. Young, James A.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Evans, Raymond A. 1979. Historical perspectives regarding the sagebrush ecosystem. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 1-13. [2644] 113. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1986. History of crested wheatgrass in the Intermountain Area. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Crested wheatgrass: Its values, problems and myths: Symposium proceedings; 1983 Oct. 3-7; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University: 21-25. [2663] 114. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Roundy, Bruce A.; Cluff, Greg J. 1984. Ecology of seed germination in representative Chenopodiaceae. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R. [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 159-165. [2675] 115. 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] 116. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Major, J. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 25: 194-201. [2674]


FEIS Home Page