Sanguisorba minor



INTRODUCTORY


  © J. R.Crellin 2004
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Fryer, Janet L. 2008. Sanguisorba minor. 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/ [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
SANMIN

NRCS PLANT CODE [143]:
SAMI3
SAMIM3
SAMIM

COMMON NAMES:
small burnet
salad burnet
burnet-bloodwort

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of small burnet is Sanguisorba minor Scop. (Rosaceae) [18,42,49,57,60,101,112,149,153,155]. Subspecies in North America are:

Sanguisorba minor subsp. magnolii (Spach) Briq. [112,143]
Sanguisorba minor subsp. minor [85,112]
Sanguisorba minor Scop. subsp. muricata (Spach ex Bonnier & Layens) Nordborg [49,57,60,112]

The subspecies can hybridize [29,87].

SYNONYMS:
Species
for Sanguisorba minor Scop. [18,42,49,57,60,101,112,149,153,155]:
Sanguisorba minor L. [64]

Subspecies
for Sanguisorba minor Scop. subsp. muricata [49,57,60,112]:
Poterium polygamum Waldst. & Kit.
Poterium sanguisorba auct. non L. [56]
Sanguisorba minor subsp. balearica (Bourg. ex Nyman) M. Garm. & C. Navarro [143]
Sanguisorba muricata Gremli [56]

LIFE FORM:
Forb

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
None

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Small burnet is native to Europe, western Asia and Siberia, and northern Africa [41,109,112]. It is nonnative in North America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Most North American small burnet populations originated in Europe [49,50,89,132,155]. A few small burnet accessions came from the Middle East [127]. Small burnet was deliberately introduced as a pasture and rehabilitation forb. It is very rarely invasive [7,78,119,156], typically occurring in small populations in only a few counties of the states in which it grows (for example, see [74,78,101,132]). In western North America, small burnet occurs sporadically from British Columbia east to Montana and south to California, New Mexico, and Nebraska [18,60,64]. It is also sporadically distributed to the east [42,110] from Ontario east to Nova Scotia and south to Tennessee and North Carolina [60,110]. Plants Database provides a distributional map of small burnet.

Subspecies: Nearly all small burnet populations in North America are Sanguisorba minor subsp. muricata. The North American distribution of Sanguisorba minor subsp. muricata overlaps that of the species, given above [109,143]. Sanguisorba minor subsp. minor occurs in northwestern Washington and southwestern British Columbia, with very small, widely scattered populations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario [85]. Sanguisorba minor subsp. magnolii is native to the Mediterranean region [112] and was introduced in North America from Spain and Portugal in the 2000s. It is grown experimentally and is rare in North America [41].

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Small burnet grows in grasslands and shrublands in Europe. It is most common on chalk grasslands in England [44,72,76,118,141,147]. In France, it occurs on alluvial meadows [147] and chaparral-like, Kermes oak (Quercus coccifera) maquis (sclerophyllous shrubland on siliceous soil) and garrigue (sclerophyllous shrubland on calcareous soil) in the southern part of the country [139,141,142].

Small burnet is most common on western rangelands in North America. It is usually planted in pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) woodlands [21,31,127,128], ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) forests [128], relatively dry quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands [19,127], mountain grasslands [95], chaparral [9,135], mountain brushlands [98,127,128], desert shrublands [116,127,128], and sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppes [98,127,128]. In sagebrush ecosystems, it is most abundant in the relatively mesic types such as Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata subsp. wyomingensis) and mountain big sagebrush (A. t. subsp. vaseyana) [10,127,128], although it persists in some basin big sagebrush (A. t. subsp. tridentata) communities [127].

Seed mixes applied on western rangelands contain a fairly consistent blend of recommended species. The mix often contains both nonnative and native species, selected to help ensure no one species interferes greatly with development of the other species [54,75,80,89]. Because they are regenerated artificially and establish together, the seeded species are often associated across a broad array of plant communities. Nonnative species most often included in seed mixes with small burnet include dryland alfalfa (Medicago sativa), forage kochia (Kochia prostrata), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), Russian wildrye (Psathyrostachys juncea), Siberian wheatgrass (Agropyron fragile), crested wheatgrass (A. cristatum), and desert wheatgrass (A. desertorum). Native species often included in the mix are Lewis flax (Linum lewisii), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) [17,48,81,94,108,121].

In the East, small burnet is associated more closely with disturbance than with particular plant communities (see Site Characteristics).

Predicting distribution of nonnative species is often difficult due to gaps in understanding of nonnative species' biological and ecological characteristics, and because nonnative species may still be expanding their North American range. Therefore, small burnet may occur in plant communities other than those discussed here and in Fire Ecology.

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor

 

© 2007 Luigi Rignanese

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (for example, [42,49,64,101]).

Small burnet is a perennial forb. Stems are erect [49], ranging from 0.8 inch (2 cm) in height on droughty sites to 28 inches (70 cm) on moist sites [49,64,119]. There are 12 to 17 pinnately compound basal leaves that are 2 to 8 inches (4-20 cm) long, egg-shaped, and sharply toothed. Cauline leaves become few and much reduced up the stem. The inflorescence is a terminal spike with dense, mostly imperfect, sessile flowers. Lower flowers are often staminate, with upper flowers pistillate or perfect. Flowers have 4 broad, petal-like sepals; true petals are lacking. The fruits are achenes, paired in a persistent, usually winged, 3- to 5-mm-long hypanthium [18,42,49,64,101,117,119,155]. Hypanthia are sometimes wingless [101]. The seeds are small, with about 50,000 seeds/lb [58,106,117]. The stem base ends in a usually branched caudex, with a long, stout taproot beneath [18,42,89,119,120,127]. Roots of plants in southern England were estimated at more than 16 inches (40 cm) in length [11], while small burnet roots in New Zealand were traced to 3-foot (1 m) depths [117]. Small burnet sometimes has short rhizomes [42,64,115,116,119].

Small burnet is drought tolerant [11,157]. Drought resistance is partially attributable to its long, stout taproots, which have high water-storing capacity [38,133]. Small burnet can also adjust its water-use efficiency as environmental conditions change [37,38].

Age classes: Small burnet may live as long as 20 years on western rangelands, although life spans of 7 to 12 years are typical [89,99]. On chalk grasslands in southern England, 7 of 21 small burnet rosettes that emerged from plots in spring survived to flower. An additional 5 plants died after flowering, so total mortality rate from spring through summer averaged 57% [77].

RAUNKIAER [104] LIFE FORM:
Hemicryptophyte
Geophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Small burnet establishes from seed [127,156] and by sprouting from the caudex [79,117]. Some plants may sprout from rhizomes [115,116].

Pollination: Small burnet is pollinated by bees [97].

Breeding system: Small burnet populations in North America are mostly derived from European stock selected for rapid seedling establishment and growth, high seed production, cold tolerance, and high forage value for wildlife and livestock [58,81,89,146]. Because of founder effects and subsequent breedings in the United States to enhance only these traits, overall genetic diversity of North American populations is probably low compared to native European populations.

Small burnet is monoecious [109]. Rarely, it is also apomictic [87,109].

Flower and seed production: Small burnet first flowers and sets seed at 2 years of age [124].

Small burnet produces seed prolifically on mesic sites [120]. In dryland pastures on the San Juan Basin Research Center, Colorado, small burnet was the highest seed producer among 11 species tested. Across 3 years, mean small burnet seed production ranged from 623 to 1,307 seeds/3 m² [39]. Small burnet generally does not reproduce in the most xeric areas of the Great Basin [128].

Herbivorous animals can reduce small burnet's ability to reproduce from seed [152]. Ungulates, lagomorphs, granivorous rodents, and grasshoppers sometimes consume small burnet seeds so heavily that there is little net seed production [127,152]. Small burnet usually produces seed on such sites when rodent and lagomorph populations are low and/or when livestock grazing is controlled. Dense grass stands also impair small burnet's ability to set seed and persist in wildlands [127].

Seed dispersal: Small burnet seed remains in the hypanthium when dispersed. Hypanthia are dispersed by animals, and possibly by wind and water. In the Great Basin, small burnet has established from unretreived seed in rodent caches [127]. The wings on most small burnet hypanthia may facilitate wind and/or water dispersal; speculation on the function of the wings was not found in the literature. In a study of flooded meadow communities in France, small burnet was present in soil seed banks on riverbanks subjected to periodic, short-term floods [147]. Small burnet is reported mostly from shorelines in Michigan [149]. These studies raise the possibility that water disperses small burnet hypanthia.

Seed banking: Small burnet has a persistent soil seed bank [67,99,141,147,147]. Studies in northwestern Europe found viable small burnet seed persisted for at least 30 years in the soil. Mean small burnet seed density was 24 seeds/m²; mean burial depth was 4 inches (10 cm) (review by [136]). In greenhouse studies in Italy, small burnet germinants showed 63% frequency in soil samples collected from grassland. In soil samples collected on former grassland sites converted to cedar (Cedrus deodora, C. atlantica) plantations 26 years before the study, small burnet germinants had 20% and 40% frequency in soils collected from plantations with respectively "sparse" and "dense" cedar plantings [72].

Small burnet seed stored in a warehouse for 25 years showed no appreciable drop in germinability, raising the possibility of a long-lived seedbank on some sites. Mean seed viability after 2 years was 88%; viability was still 88% after 15 years and 83% after 25 years of storage [125,126]. Humid conditions reduce the viability of soil-stored small burnet seed [29].

Germination and emergence: Germination rate of commercial small burnet seed is "excellent" [58]. Germination rates of 90% to 95% have consistently been obtained in Great Basin wildlands [58,82,120]. Small burnet seed from a commercial mixture showed 90% germination in field trials near Silver Lake, Oregon. Study plots were in a western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) community (review by [69]).

Seeds require an afterripening period before germinating [58,106]. In the laboratory, 80% of small burnet seed germinated within 21 days of sowing, and 91% of the seed had germinated 35 days after sowing [59]. Warehouse-stored seed showed improved germination rates each year through 3 years of dry storage [125]. Information on small burnet seed viability and emergence rates for naturally-reproducing North American populations were not available as of 2008. Naturally reproducing small burnet populations in Spain showed 50% emergence in the field (Salmeron 1966, cited in [29]).

The paired seeds in small burnet's hypanthium emerge within 1 to 4 days of one another, with the earliest emergent usually dominating [29]. In the greenhouse, commercial small burnet seed from Oregon showed 54% emergence. Plants germinating from large seeds had higher mean stem and root lengths, more massive roots, and larger leaf areas than plants from small seeds (P<0.05) [25]. Highest seedling emergence occurs when small burnet hypanthia are lightly covered with soil no more than 0.25 inch (6 cm) deep [127]. Soil texture may affect emergence rate. In field studies in New Zealand, small burnet seed from Oregon showed 62.2% emergence in sand and 26.5% emergence in silty loam [27].

Seedling establishment/growth: North American populations of small burnet grow well on arid rangelands [127]. Because of deliberate selection and breeding, North American populations often have greater seedling survivorship and "vigor" and are more productive than small burnet populations in the Old World [25,81,117]. Small burnet establishes easily from commercial seed, usually providing "good ground cover" within 1 or 2 years of seeding [127]. Small burnet seedlings grow taproots "rapidly" [157], providing access to moist, lower soils layers early in development. Its overall growth is rated as "rapid" and "good to excellent" in sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and mountain brushland zones [83,120,156].

Small burnet stands may be self-sustaining in the Great Basin, provided they are protected from grazing enough to set seed every 3 or 4 years [127]. Small burnet in New Zealand reseeded naturally after domestic sheep and rabbits were excluded [30].

Vegetative regeneration: Small burnet sprouts from the caudex [79,117]. Some plants also sprout from rhizomes [109,115,116,119], but rhizomes are short [116,119], so clonal expansion of small burnet is limited [119].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Small burnet is frost, cold, and drought tolerant [11,157]. In the Great Basin small burnet is most common on relatively mesic sites [71]. It does not establish well on xeric sites in either the Great Basin [10] or the Mojave Desert [71]. Small burnet establishes best in areas receiving 18 or more inches (>457 mm) of mean annual precipitation [120], although it can establish in areas receiving as little as 10 inches (255 mm) of annual precipitation [127]. It does not generally persist with less than 12 inches (305 mm) of mean annual precipitation [10,51,119,127]. Small burnet occurs mostly on moist slopes and in moist woodlands in New Mexico [74].

In the East, small burnet is reported mostly on disturbed sites [101,110,132,149] and "waste places" [101]. It grows on cliffs in the Carolinas [101].

Soils: Small burnet accessions in North America are adapted to relatively infertile, well-drained soils [120,157]. Small burnet is most productive on slightly acidic to mildly alkaline soils [119,156], although small burnet tolerates soils up to 8.0 in pH [51]. It also tolerates mildly saline soils [89]. 'Delar' small burnet, a cultivar widely seeded in the Intermountain West, does not grow on sites that are poorly drained, flooded, or have a high water table [119,152].

Parent materials and soil textures: Small burnet is restricted mostly to calcareous soils in Europe [76,113], growing, for example, on limestone- and chalk-derived soils in Great Britain grasslands [76,118,141,147]. It also grows on siliceous soils in Spain (Salmeron 1966, cited in [117]), [142]. Small burnet grows on calcareous soils in North America but is not restricted to them. Soil types supporting small burnet in Michigan, for example, include rocky, calcareous streambanks and lakeshores, but small burnet also grows on gravels and sands in Michigan [149]. Small burnet is most productive on silty or loamy soil textures, although it grows on sandy and clayey soils [117,152]. It is reported on sands in eastern New Jersey [137]. Small burnet's near-restriction to calcareous soils in Europe may help explain its inability to spread on most North American sites. Further studies on soil preferences of small burnet in North America are needed.

Elevation: Small burnet grows on mid- and low-elevation sites in the Intermountain West. It does not establish well on low-elevation, xeric sites in the Great Basin. The mountain big sagebrush zone, which is higher in elevation than the basin big sagebrush zone, favors small burnet growth there [10]. Small burnet does not establish well in high-elevation Sierra Nevada locations [71].

Small burnet elevational ranges in the western United States

California 100-5,200 feet (30-1,600 m) [49]
Nevada 6,500-7,500 feet (2,000-2,300 m) [61]
Utah 5,000-7,005 feet (1,525-2,135 m) [155]
New Mexico 6,000-7,500 feet (1,800-2,300 m) [74]
Intermountain West 5,200-8,900 feet (1,600-2,700 m) [18]

Elevational ranges in Eurasia

Europe sea level-4,600 feet (0-1,400 m)
Iran and Afghanistan 5,900-6,600 feet (1,800-2,000 m) (review by [29])


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Small burnet is commonly found on disturbed sites [49,101,110,132,149,156]. It often grows on roadsides in the eastern United States [42,132,149]. It is infrequent in eastern Colorado, occurring on disturbed mountain meadows [153]. An Australian study found small burnet biomass was greater on highly disturbed plots (hand or rotary tilled) compared to undisturbed plots (P<0.002). Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization reduced small burnet cover compared to cover on unfertilized plots (P<0.001) [14].

Small burnet usually occurs in open areas but tolerates light shade [89,129], (review by [117]). It is reported, for example, on open sites in Michigan [149]. Small burnet established well in a partially shaded Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) rangeland near Corvallis, Oregon. The site was thinned to an open canopy, underburned, and seeded to small burnet and other forage plants for domestic sheep [46].

Small burnet usually declines quickly on sites where it is seeded in. Plummer [156] rates small burnet's ability to spread on wildlands of the Intermountain West as "poor" from seed and nonexistent vegetatively. Small burnet was part of a seed mix used on skid trails the autumn following the May 1972 Rattle Fire on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. In postfire year 2, it had not spread from the skid trails into the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) community [7,90]. Small burnet may spread into native communities under "ideal climatic and environmental conditions", however. As of 2008, it had been reported as invasive on only one site, in Wyoming [119].

Small burnet presence in early succession may facilitate establishment of later-successional native species [43], although field studies are needed to test this effect.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Small burnet is a cool-season plant [152]. It establishes from seed or sprouts from the caudex and/or rhizomes in early spring [51,89,117,127]. It first emerges as a rosette, bolting in late spring or summer [77,137]. The flowering period ranges from late May through June in the United States [89]. Small burnet is nearly evergreen. Even in the Great Basin, it stays green into late summer [120]. It may remain green almost year-round in more mesic areas [127]. Seed ripens from August to early September in the United States [58,119,127]. Small burnet goes dormant after seed dispersal under very arid conditions [29]. Small burnet may show a flush of new autumn growth on mesic sites [117]. In lowland areas of Spain, which have a climate similar to that of California's valley and southern regions, small burnet shows fall regrowth and keeps growing slowly though winter before rapid spring growth commences (Salmeron 1966, cited in [117]).

Small burnet phenology

Area Event and season

United States

California flowers May-July [84]
North and South Carolina flowers June-July [101]
Illinois flowers May-July [78]
Nevada flowers June-Aug. [61]
New Mexico flowers June-Aug. [74]
Utah seed ripens from early Aug.-late Sept. [99]
West Virginia flowers May-June [132]
Intermountain West flowers May-June [18,127]
seed ripens from Aug.-Sept. (review by [106])
Northeast flowers May-June [42]

Europe

England flowers June-July; aboveground biomass peaks in August [133]

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Although small burnet is native to fire-adapted ecosystems such as Kermes oak maquis [139,141], little is known regarding small burnet's adaptations to fire. It is anecdotally noted as fire resistant because its foliage remains green through the fire season [89,116,129]. Little fire research has been conducted on small burnet where it is native. Research in North America has focused on postfire establishment of small burnet from seed mixes sown soon after fires have passed, not postfire self-regeneration of small burnet. Further research is needed on the fire ecology of small burnet in both its native lands and in areas where it is nonnative.

Fire regimes: It is difficult to predict how small burnet may respond to various fire regimes because its response to fire is not well documented. Since small burnet seed accessioned for North America came mostly from northern and western Europe, fire histories there best reflect the fire regimes under which North American small burnet plants evolved. The grasslands of Europe have been managed for so long that their natural fire regime is unknown. In the historical period of Europe (750 BC on), most grassland fires were set for pastoral and agricultural purposes (review by [138]). The chaparral-like maquis of Europe experiences a fire regime similar to that of chaparral in southwestern Oregon and California: moderate (10-50 years) to long (>50 years) fire-return interval, stand-replacement fires that are difficult to suppress (review by [138]), [63]. This literature review found only 1 study on small burnet's response to fire in Europe (see Plant Response to Fire), so discussions of small burnet's fire ecology in this review are largely speculative.

The fire regime in the Intermountain West, where small burnet is most commonly seeded, is probably unlike fire regimes under which small burnet evolved in Europe because the climates are so different. Intermountain West plant communities in which small burnet is commonly seeded include pinyon-juniper woodlands, big sagebrush steppes, and mountain grasslands. Fire regimes for those communities range from mixed-severity and long return interval, stand-replacement fires in pinyon-juniper [40,62], moderate return interval, mixed-severity fires in big sagebrush [4,161], and frequent fires in mountain grasslands [2,3]. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) population expansions have dramatically changed fire regimes and plant communities in the Intermountain West by creating flammable, continuous fuels that ignite easily and produce fires that spread rapidly, cover large areas, and occur frequently [130,158,159,160].

Since small burnet is seeded in after fire and is noninvasive, its response under various fire regimes of the Intermountain West may be less important than its rate of seedling establishment in postfire seedings, which is discussed in Plant Response to Fire. Some of the other nonnative species in seed mixes with small burnet may become invasive, however, particularly crested wheatgrass and desert wheatgrass [33].

For further information on fire regimes of plant communities where small burnet is often seeded in after fire, see the small burnet Fire Regime Table. The expanded version of the Fire Regime Table provides information on fire regimes of plant communities in which small burnet is less common.

Fuels: Small burnet leaves stay green and maintain a relatively high moisture content in the fire season [119]. Monsen [79] rates small burnet foliage as moderately flammable and its litter as low in flammability. Because of its high moisture content, small burnet is often seeded onto greenstrip fuelbreaks [79,93,94] (see Greenstrips for further information).

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [131]:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Caudex, growing points in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Fire's effect on small burnet is not documented in English-language literature. Since it has a thick caudex protected by soil [18,42,89,119,120,127], most fires probably only top-kill small burnet.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No additional information is available on this topic.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Small burnet response to fire is not well documented. Since it is known to sprout from a thick caudex [79,117] that is attached to a large, storage taproot [18,42,89,119,120,127], sprouting is likely important to small burnet's postfire recovery. Rhizomatous plants may also sprout from the rhizomes after fire. Monsen [79] rates small burnet's sprouting ability as "good". Barnes [144] collected a small burnet plant that had sprouted from the caudex and produced a single flowerhead the year following fire in a pinyon-juniper community in the Beaver Dam Mountains of Utah. The specimen can be viewed online at Utah Valley State College's Virtual Herbarium.

As the flowering herbarium specimen suggests, small burnet can establish from seed after fire [139]. Top-killed plants that sprout and produce seed after fire provide on-site seed sources for small burnet regeneration. Since small burnet has long-lived seed that is stored in soil [67,141,147,147], the seed bank is another likely source of postfire establishment for small burnet.

Excluding sites seeded after fire, only one study was found for this literature review that documented small burnet presence after fire in North America. Small burnet was present in small numbers after prescribed fires in blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) communities of southwestern Utah [12]. Method of regeneration (from seed or by sprouting) was not noted in the study.

Mean small burnet cover across 8 burned blackbrush communities in Utah. Values are means (SD) [12].
Postfire year Cover (%)
1 0.0 (0.0)
2 0.7 (0.9)
6 0.0 (0.0)
12 1.9 (0.4)
17 0.0 (0.0)
19.5  0.0 (0.0)
37 0.0 (0.0)
unburned plots 0.0 (0.0)

A single study was found of small burnet response to fire in Europe. A study in a Kermes oak community near Montpellier, France, found small burnet established only from seed after single or repeated prescribed fires. Trabaud [140] noted that small burnet was present in trace amounts before summer or fall prescribed burning. In postfire year 4, small burnet frequency was low on all plots, but was higher on burned than on unburned plots [139,140,142]. Repeat-burn sites were burned every other spring or fall, with a total of 5 fires in 9 years. Small burnet established in low numbers in some years and failed to establish in others on repeat-burn plots [139]. Small burnet flower production was similar on burned and unburned plots [141].

Small burnet seedling frequency (%) after spring or fall prescribed burning in southern France [139]
Year Spring fires Fall fires
1969* 0 1
1970 0 1
1971* 0 0
1972 3 0
1973* 1 0
1974 2 0
1975* 0 0
1976 0 0
1977* 0 1
1978 0 1
*Burn year.

Postfire seedings: Small burnet usually establishes the year after seeding, then declines rapidly [43,98]. Quantitative studies documenting small burnet presence after postfire seedings are few. In Wyoming big sagebrush and Utah juniper-Colorado pinyon (Juniperus osteosperma-Pinus edulis) communities of central Utah, small burnet was mixed with other nonnative herbs and native fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and seeded on burned sites the fall after an August wildfire. Small burnet's mean frequency 1 and 2 years after the wildfire was 25%; its frequency dropped to 19% in postfire year 3. Small burnet was not present on unburned plots [91,92]. It was also included in a nonnative seed mix used after wildfire in a threetip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita)-basin big sagebrush-mountain big sagebrush community near Pocatello, Idaho. In postfire year 2, small burnet had 0.20% cover on seeded plots and 0% cover on unseeded plots [103]. In central Utah, a nonnative-native mix was seeded in the fall after July wildfires on pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush communities. In postfire year 3, small burnet was present in only trace amounts in both communities [15].

Small burnet was used in a mostly nonnative seed mix that included mountain big sagebrush after a prescribed fall fire in Daggett County, Utah, shrublands. Colorado pinyon and junipers (Juniperus spp.) were encroaching onto 2 shrub communities: a north-slope alderleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus var. montanus)/bluebunch wheatgrass community and a south-slope rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus)-mountain big sagebrush community. The fire was used to remove the conifers, and both communities were seeded soon after the fire. Moisture the year after fire was "favorable for establishment and growth of plants". Small burnet frequencies on south-slope sites were 23% in postfire year 6 and 0% in postfire year 11. Small burnet did not establish on north-slope sites [43].

Small burnet may not establish on harsh, high-elevation burned sites. It was included in a seed mix sown on a burned lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) site on the Colville National Forest, Washington. The site experienced a stand-replacement wildfire in the summer of 1929, was burned under prescription in the fall of 1949 to prepare the site as a lodgepole pine plantation, then seeded with a grass-forb mix that fall. The effect of the double burning was to remove all standing live vegetation and much organic material from the soil. Four years later, small burnet showed no establishment on southwest-facing slopes. It had "good vigor" and a density of 0.2 plant/foot² on the moister, northeast-facing slopes [35].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
No additional information is available on this topic.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Native species recovery after seeding: Reestablishment of native species is critical in maintaining and restoring genetic and ecological function in native systems of the Intermountain West [108]. The rapid growth, broad adaptability, and longevity of many of the nonnative species used in seed mixes have made it difficult for native species to establish on some rehabilitation sites in the Intermountain West [81,150]. Although postfire rehabilitation is mandated [91,108], few studies compare postfire plant community composition on seeded vs. unseeded plots, so it is difficult to assess the cost- and ecological effectiveness of postfire seedings [91]. Nonnative seedings may reduce plant community diversity in the long term. For example, a 20-year study of rehabilitation projects in big sagebrush communities of northwestern Colorado found total plant species richness was greater on plots seeded with either native or combination native-nonnative mixes than on plots seeded with nonnative species alone (P=0.05) [86].

Two other studies [20,34] found seeding made little difference in native species recovery on seeded plots compared to native species recovery on unseeded plots. After wildfires on Wyoming big sagebrush communities in the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho, there was no significant difference in species composition on seeded vs. unseeded plots. Thirty-four burns, all seeded during postfire year 1, were inventoried. Time-since-seeding ranged from 2 to 17 years across the burned sites. The seed mixes contained small burnet, other nonnative species, and native species including Wyoming big sagebrush. Across sites, native plants were establishing or recovering as well on unseeded as seeded plots. Coverage of nonnative species was similar on seeded and unseeded plots [20].

A study in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah, had similar findings. Three Buckskin Mountain sites burned by summer wildfires—1 in 1966 and 2 in 1997—were studied. The burned plant community was primarily Utah juniper woodland, with patches of big sagebrush-Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia mexicana var. stansburiana) steppe. Burned areas were seeded with native-nonnative mixes the fall or spring after the fires. Small burnet was included in the seed mix used on 1 of the burned sites. The study found that whether seeded or not, burned plots had significantly higher diversity and cover of nonnative species and lower diversity and cover of native species compared to unburned plots (P<0.001). Coverage of small burnet alone was not provided. Cheatgrass dominated both burned and unburned plots. Comparing the two 1997 burns, which were on west and east slopes, the east-slope burn had significantly higher coverage of native plants than the west-slope burn (P<0.01). The authors concluded that site factors were at least as important in determining postfire recovery of the native species as rehabilitation seedings [34]. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation seedings that include small burnet and the ecological impacts of such seedings on native species.

Postfire rehabilitation: Despite the potential interference of nonnative species with native species' establishment and growth, seed mixes with small burnet and other nonnative, noninvasive plants are widely used in the Intermountain West to prevent postfire erosion and slow postfire spread of invasive nonnative plants [108,128]. Stevens and Monsen [128] recommend against using nonnative species to restore native communities when possible. However, nonnative seedings will likely continue until native plant materials become more widely available [128]. Seed mixes that include nonnative species can be effective where rapid plant establishment and coverage are desired. Nonnative species in commercial seed mixes usually grow quickly and have wide ecological amplitudes. Compared to native seed mixes, nonnative seed mixes are less expensive, and species in nonnative seed mixes selected for the Intermountain West may establish more easily than species native to the area [6,128]. Further, seeds of many native species may be unavailable [96,102,128]. Small burnet, dryland alfalfa, Siberian wheatgrass, and desert wheatgrass were among the most frequently seeded species in a study of 50 burned-area rehabilitation sites on the Battle Mountain, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca Districts of the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management in Nevada. In contrast, most species sown on mine reclamation sites were native grasses [108]. Small burnet provides only spotty cover when planted alone, but shows good establishment when included in seed mixes [79].

Postfire control of invasive species: Seed mixes with nonnative species can help control spread of invasive species on some sites [128]. Small burnet is often included in seed mixes used to reduce postfire establishment of cheatgrass in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems [13,17]. Species selected for cheatgrass control show rapid seedling establishment and growth, have broad adaptability and high forage value, and are resistant to grazing. Small burnet is usually blended with Lewis flax, dryland alfalfa, forage kochia, Russian wildrye, and/or nonnative wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.) in mixes formulated for cheatgrass control. Native grasses are often included in the mix [81,94,121,128]. See Cultural control for further information on this subject.

Greenstrips are long, narrow bands of vegetation that maintains relatively high moisture contents during the fire season. They are used to disrupt fuel flammability, accumulation, and continuity [23,79,93,94]. Seed mixes used on greenstrips usually include nonnative and native species. Small burnet, forage kochia, dryland alfalfa, and Lewis flax are forbs commonly used in greenstrip seedings; crested or desert wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and bluebunch wheatgrass are commonly used grasses [48]. Small burnet's long, stout taproot enables it to store water and maintain high moisture levels under drought, so small burnet is well suited for greenstrip seedings. During an extreme drought in southern England, small burnet maintained a higher relative water content than 30 associated species [11].

Interference with conifers: Small burnet and other seeded species may interfere with postfire conifer seedling growth. On the Fort Valley Experiment Station near Flagstaff, Arizona, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum) seedlings on seeded plots gained significantly less height and stem diameter growth than ponderosa pine seedlings on plots where other vegetation was hand-pulled (P<0.05 for all study measures). The study site had been severely burned by a wildfire that removed all aboveground vegetation. Burned areas were planted in postfire year 1 with 2-year-old ponderosa pine seedlings and herbaceous species including small burnet, yellow sweetclover, crested wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass, orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), bottlebrush squirreltail, and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Soils on burned sites had significantly higher nitrogen levels compared to unburned plots. The authors suggested that small burnet and ponderosa pine were competing for nitrogen and water on burned plots [32].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor
IMPORTANCE TO WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK:
Wildlife: Small burnet provides good wildlife forage. Elk, deer, pronghorn, eastern cottontails, and birds utilize the foliage and/or seeds [89,123,137], (McLain 1959, cited in [137]). On Utah juniper-Colorado pinyon sites near Ephram, Utah, mule deer use increased from pretreatment levels after chaining to reduce tree density, then seeding with a nonnative-native mix of small burnet, other forbs, and grasses [22]. Deer use of small burnet may be slight when many other green plant species are available. Mule deer on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, grazed small burnet only lightly in summer (0.33% of total summer diet) [55]. White-tailed deer in New Jersey fed heavily on small burnet rosettes in May and June but grazed small burnet moderately in other times of the year [137]. Greater sage-grouse also graze small burnet. Pellant and Lysne [95] recommend planting small burnet on crested wheatgrass-dominated sites to provide forage for greater sage-grouse and break up crested wheatgrass stands.

Northern bobwhite and mourning doves eat small burnet seeds (McLain 1959, cited in [137]).

Livestock: Small burnet is planted in pastures and rangelands [49,120]. It provides high-value forage for livestock in general [157] and is especially valuable as domestic sheep forage [24,26]. Livestock use is generally highest in early spring, late fall, and winter, when other forage is sparse [127].

Small burnet's utility as a honeybee food in New Zealand is rated moderate [157].

Palatability/nutritional value: Small burnet has good to excellent forage value for wildlife and livestock in all seasons. It generally stays green and palatable throughout the growing season and into winter until heavy snows [26,119]. Small burnet is often added to rangeland seed mixes because it is so palatable to grazing wildlife [9]. Domestic sheep and mule deer prefer it, and small burnet is "very palatable" to ungulates in general [120].

Small burnet seed is palatable to granivorous rodents, lagomorphs, and upland game birds. Ungulates graze small burnet seedheads [127]. Deer mice preferentially selected small burnet seeds in 2 cafeteria trials. In 1 trial, small burnet seeds were their primary food choice, forming 20.5% of the total deer mouse diet. Deer mice selected small burnet 3rd in the other trial, comprising 14.3% of their total diet [36].

Small burnet is high in protein and carotene [97,117,120]. Its in vitro digestibility is ranked just below that of alfalfa [117]. Welch [154] found protein content of small burnet on western rangelands dropped from 17.4% in spring to 9.8% in summer and 6.6% in winter. For nutritional analyses of small burnet in Europe and the Middle East, see these sources: [1,5,117,145,148].

Grazing tolerance: Small burnet tolerates moderate grazing [152], showing good compensatory growth in response to moderate utilization. Small burnet regrowth after domestic sheep grazing in New Zealand was termed "splendid" (review by [29]). In a New Zealand pasture, small burnet showed mean regrowth rates of 46 kg dm/ha/day after 3 repeated domestic sheep defoliations down to 2.8- to 3.2-inch (7-8 cm) heights [26]. Small burnet typically tolerates severe grazing as long as grazing is not continuous [29]. In the greenhouse, repeated severe defoliation (80-100% topgrowth removal) slowed 3- and 4-month-old small burnet seedling growth greatly [28]. Well established small burnet in New Zealand tolerated "depleting and severe" domestic sheep grazing for 5 years [30]. After 2 years of rest, Small burnet in Oregon made a "remarkable" recovery from 10 years of moderate to intense domestic sheep grazing [145]. When repeated over many years, early spring, late summer, and/or late winter grazing may reduce small burnet abundance [129]. Livestock often graze small burnet heavily in spring and early summer, and that use is often followed by heavy wildlife grazing in late fall and winter. Livestock utilization may need to be controlled to avoid overgrazing of small burnet in areas where small burnet is desired as a forage species [127].

Cover value: Small burnet provides cover for small birds [89].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Small burnet is often used in seed mixes for postfire rehabilitation [49,120], postfire weed control, greenstripping [48,79,93,108], posttreatment rehabilitation after chaining for juniper control [15,16,22,89,111], erosion control [89,117], and other rehabilitation projects [108,155].

Small burnet is usually started from seed grown in commercial seed orchards [98,119,146]. Bareroot or container stock is sometimes used [98,121,122]. Small burnet's rate of seedling establishment depends in part upon its relative composition in the seed mix. At recommended seeding rates, its ability to establish on disturbed sites in the Intermountain West is well documented [21,22,69,88]. Small burnet showed densities of over 14,000 plants/acre, for example, 3 years after it was seeded onto a Colorado pinyon-Utah juniper site near Ephram, Utah. The site had been chained to reduce tree density, then seeded with a native-nonnative grass and forb mix. Small burnet and dryland alfalfa were the 2 most common forbs on the rehabilitation site, with small burnet comprising 62% of total density of seeded plants. Small burnet density was greater than that of any other seeded herb, although nonnative cheatgrass and bur buttercup (Ceratocephala testiculata) established in greater numbers than small burnet [21,22].

Small burnet sometimes fails to establish or establishes in only small numbers [134]. On some sites, litter and/or litter toxins may reduce establishment rates. A greenhouse study found Utah juniper litter reduced small burnet establishment 25% compared to controls [53]. In a related field study in Utah County, Utah, small burnet failed to establish after seedings under Utah juniper with litter, under Utah juniper with litter removed, or in tree interspaces. Other seeded species established successfully on the study site [52]. The authors did not speculate on possible reasons for small burnet's failure to establish in the field.

Site preparation and seeding techniques can greatly affect restoration results. For information on seeding techniques and rates, see these sources: [15,54,83,86,98,119].

OTHER USES:
Culinary: As the alternative common names garden burnet and salad burnet imply, small burnet is used in the kitchen, more often in Europe than in North America. The cucumber-flavored leaves are used in iced drinks, salads, and other foods [97,119].

Medical: Small burnet extracts have shown positive physiological effects in laboratory studies. A Spanish study found small burnet extracts exhibited anti-HIV activity in vitro [8]. In Germany, small burnet extracts significantly lowered blood sugar levels of laboratory mice treated with the extracts compared to control mice [107]. In a Turkish study, small burnet extracts gave significant protection against gastric ulcers in laboratory mice (P<0.001) [45]. In an Iranian study, crude extracts from small burnet collected in Iran and Canada showed fungicidal activity [114]. Small burnet is used as a folk medicine in Europe and the Middle East. The roots and leaves are astringent and are used to stop bleeding. An infusion of the plant is used to treat gout and rheumatism [97].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Cultural control: Small burnet may provide cultivation control of invasive nonnative herbs. When grown with rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) in a greenhouse pot study, small burnet was rated "most competitive" against rush skeletonweed among 5 herbaceous species tested. Compared to other herbs tested, small burnet showed highest productivity rates when grown with rush skeletonweed [100]. Small burnet is rated moderate in ability to control nonnative hawkweed (Hieracium spp.) in New Zealand [157].

A mix of small burnet, other forbs, and bunchgrasses is often planted for control of cheatgrass, red brome (Bromus rubens), and/or medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) [128]. Stevens and Monsen [127] report that small burnet competes "fairly well" with cheatgrass once small burnet has established. Seed mixes with small burnet do not always effectively control cheatgrass, however. On burned sites where a seed mix was drilled in near Pocatello, Idaho, cheatgrass mean cover was greater on seeded than unseeded sites (P<0.35). Small burnet seed comprised 16% of the mix by weight [103].

Few long-term studies were available on the effects of introduced herbs on establishment of native plant species (as of 2008). A study in a Utah juniper-Colorado pinyon community in Sanpete County, Utah, found introduced, seeded species were somewhat more competitive (had higher mean coverages) than native species 23 years after seeding. Sites had been chained to reduce tree density, then seeded with a mix of nonnative and native grasses and forbs, including small burnet, and native big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush. Twenty-three years after seeding, nonnative grasses had significantly greater densities than native grasses on ungrazed sites (P<0.05 for all treatments). Grazing pressure from cattle, mule deer, and black-tailed jackrabbits lowered the ratio of nonnative:native grass species, however. On grazed plots, nonnative grasses had lower mean densities (x=11,459 plants/ha) compared to native species (x=14,887 plants/ha), with a significant increase in mean native grass density over 23 years [151]. See Fire Management Considerations for further information on the effects of nonnative seedings on native species.

Response to competition: Small burnet may be relatively insensitive to small-scale competition where it is native. On calcareous soils in England, small burnet did not increase mean leaf length or flower production in response to small increases in space and light. Competing plants were removed in 0- to 50-mm gaps [76]. In a similar study in Switzerland, removal of neighboring plants increased small burnet seedling survival slightly but insignificantly compared to small burnet plants with neighbors left in place [113]. Competition studies using small burnet and its associated North American species were not found for this literature review.

APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE

SPECIES: Sanguisorba minor
The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to small burnet habitats. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which small burnet may be important. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [66], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest California Southwest Great Basin Northern and Central Rockies
Pacific Northwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northwest Grassland
Bluebunch wheatgrass Replacement 47% 18 5 20
Mixed 53% 16 5 20
Idaho fescue grasslands Replacement 76% 40    
Mixed 24% 125    
Northwest Shrubland
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert Replacement 86% 200 30 200
Mixed 9% >1,000 20  
Surface or low 5% >1,000 20  
Wyoming sagebrush steppe Replacement 89% 92 30 120
Mixed 11% 714 120  
Low sagebrush Replacement 41% 180    
Mixed 59% 125    
Mountain big sagebrush (cool sagebrush) Replacement 100% 20 10 40
Northwest Woodland
Western juniper (pumice) Replacement 33% >1,000    
Mixed 67% 500    
Oregon white oak-ponderosa pine Replacement 16% 125 100 300
Mixed 2% 900 50  
Surface or low 81% 25 5 30
Pine savannah (ultramafic) Replacement 7% 200 100 300
Surface or low 93% 15 10 20
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Northwest Forested
Ponderosa pine (xeric) Replacement 37% 130    
Mixed 48% 100    
Surface or low 16% 300    
Dry ponderosa pine (mesic) Replacement 5% 125    
Mixed 13% 50    
Surface or low 82% 8    
California
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
California Grassland
California grassland Replacement 100% 2 1 3
California Shrubland
Coastal sage scrub Replacement 100% 50 20 150
Coastal sage scrub-coastal prairie Replacement 8% 40 8 900
Mixed 31% 10 1 900
Surface or low 62% 5 1 6
Saltbush Replacement 70% 100 60 200
Mixed 30% 235 10  
Chaparral Replacement 100% 50 30 125
Montane chaparral Replacement 34% 95    
Mixed 66% 50    
California Woodland
California oak woodlands Replacement 8% 120    
Mixed 2% 500    
Surface or low 91% 10    
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
California Forested
Aspen with conifer Replacement 24% 155 50 300
Mixed 15% 240    
Surface or low 61% 60    
Jeffrey pine Replacement 9% 250    
Mixed 17% 130    
Surface or low 74% 30    
Southwest
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Southwest Shrubland
Low sagebrush shrubland Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Interior Arizona chaparral Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Mountain-mahogany shrubland Replacement 73% 75    
Mixed 27% 200    
Southwest Woodland
Pinyon-juniper (mixed fire regime) Replacement 29% 430    
Mixed 65% 192    
Surface or low 6% >1,000    
Pinyon-juniper (rare replacement fire regime) Replacement 76% 526    
Mixed 20% >1,000    
Surface or low 4% >1,000    
Ponderosa pine/grassland (Southwest) Replacement 3% 300    
Surface or low 97% 10    
Southwest Forested
Ponderosa pine-Gambel oak (southern Rockies and Southwest) Replacement 8% 300    
Surface or low 92% 25 10 30
Southwest mixed conifer (cool, moist with aspen) Replacement 29% 200 80 200
Mixed 35% 165 35  
Surface or low 36% 160 10  
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Stable aspen without conifers Replacement 81% 150 50 300
Surface or low 19% 650 600 >1,000
Great Basin
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Great Basin Grassland
Great Basin grassland Replacement 33% 75 40 110
Mixed 67% 37 20 54
Great Basin Shrubland
Blackbrush Replacement 100% 833 100 >1,000
Salt desert scrubland Replacement 13% 200 100 300
Mixed 87% 31 20 100
Salt desert shrub Replacement 50% >1,000 500 >1,000
Mixed 50% >1,000 500 >1,000
Basin big sagebrush Replacement 80% 50 10 100
Mixed 20% 200 50 300
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert Replacement 86% 200 30 200
Mixed 9% >1,000 20 >1,000
Surface or low 5% >1,000 20 >1,000
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert with trees Replacement 84% 137 30 200
Mixed 11% >1,000 20 >1,000
Surface or low 5% >1,000 20 >1,000
Wyoming sagebrush steppe Replacement 89% 92 30 120
Mixed 11% 714 120  
Interior Arizona chaparral Replacement 88% 46 25 100
Mixed 12% 350    
Mountain big sagebrush Replacement 100% 48 15 100
Mountain big sagebrush with conifers Replacement 100% 49 15 100
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
Montane chaparral Replacement 37% 93    
Mixed 63% 54    
Gambel oak Replacement 75% 50    
Mixed 25% 150    
Mountain shrubland with trees Replacement 22% 105 100 200
Mixed 78% 29 25 100
Black and low sagebrushes Replacement 33% 243 100  
Mixed 67% 119 75 140
Black and low sagebrushes with trees Replacement 37% 227 150 290
Mixed 63% 136 50 190
Curlleaf mountain-mahogany Replacement 31% 250 100 500
Mixed 37% 212 50  
Surface or low 31% 250 50  
Great Basin Woodland
Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodland Replacement 20% 333 100 >1,000
Mixed 31% 217 100 >1,000
Surface or low 49% 135 100  
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Great Basin Forested
Interior ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 161   800
Mixed 10% 80 50 80
Surface or low 86% 9 8 10
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
Aspen with conifer (low to midelevation) Replacement 53% 61 20  
Mixed 24% 137 10  
Surface or low 23% 143 10  
Aspen with conifer (high elevation) Replacement 47% 76 40  
Mixed 18% 196 10  
Surface or low 35% 100 10  
Stable aspen-cottonwood, no conifers Replacement 31% 96 50 300
Surface or low 69% 44 20 60
Aspen with spruce-fir Replacement 38% 75 40 90
Mixed 38% 75 40  
Surface or low 23% 125 30 250
Stable aspen without conifers Replacement 81% 150 50 300
Surface or low 19% 650 600 >1,000
Northern and Central Rockies
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Northern and Central Rockies Grassland
Mountain grassland Replacement 60% 20 10  
Mixed 40% 30    
Northern and Central Rockies Shrubland
Salt desert shrub Replacement 50% >1,000 500 >1,000
Mixed 50% >1,000 500 >1,000
Wyoming big sagebrush Replacement 63% 145 80 240
Mixed 37% 250    
Basin big sagebrush Replacement 60% 100 10 150
Mixed 40% 150    
Low sagebrush shrubland Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Mountain shrub, nonsagebrush Replacement 80% 100 20 150
Mixed 20% 400    
Mountain big sagebrush steppe and shrubland Replacement 100% 70 30 200
Northern and Central Rockies Woodland
Ancient juniper Replacement 100% 750 200 >1,000
Northern and Central Rockies Forested
Ponderosa pine (Northern Great Plains) Replacement 5% 300    
Mixed 20% 75    
Surface or low 75% 20 10 40
Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies) Replacement 4% 300 100 >1,000
Mixed 19% 60 50 200
Surface or low 77% 15 3 30
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, low elevation) Replacement 7% 300 200 400
Mixed 21% 100 50 400
Surface or low 71% 30 5 50
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, high elevation) Replacement 12% 300    
Mixed 18% 200    
Surface or low 71% 50    
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Replacement 10% 250   >1,000
Mixed 51% 50 50 130
Surface or low 39% 65 15  
*Fire Severities
Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.
Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects.
Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [47,65].

Sanguisorba minor: REFERENCES


1. Acheampong-Boateng, Owoahene. 1991. The nutritive value of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia), sheeps' burnet (Sanguisorba minor) and lucerne (Medicago sativa). Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria. 197 p. Thesis. [69080]
2. Antos, Joseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire on an ungrazed western Montana grassland. The American Midland Naturalist. 110(2): 354-364. [337]
3. Arno, Stephen F. 1976. The historical role of fire on the Bitterroot National Forest. Res. Pap. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. [15225]
4. 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]
5. Arzani, H.; Basiri, M.; Khatibi, F.; Ghorbani, G. 2006. Nutritive value of some Zagros Mountain rangeland species. Small Ruminant Research. 65(1-2): 128-135. [66769]
6. Asay, K. H.; Horton, W. H.; Jensen, K. B.; Palazzo, A. J. 2001. Merits of native and introduced Triticeae grasses on semiarid rangelands. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 81(1): 45-52. [43354]
7. Beaulieu, Jean Thomas. 1975. Effects of fire on understory plant populations in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 38 p. Thesis. [29095]
8. Bedoya, L. M.; Sanchez-Palomino, S.; Abad, M. J.; Barmejo, P.; Alcami, J. 2001. Anti-HIV activity of medicinal plant extracts. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 77(1): 113-116. [68975]
9. Biswell, H. H.; Taber, R. D.; Hedrick, D. W.; Schultz, A. M. 1952. Management of chamise brushlands for game in the north coast region of California. California Fish and Game. 38(4): 453-484. [13673]
10. Blaisdell, James P.; Murray, Robert B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1982. Managing Intermountain rangelands--sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [467]
11. Buckland, S. M.; Grime, J. P.; Hodgson, J. G.; Thompson, K. 1997. A comparison of plant responses to the extreme drought of 1995 in northern England. Journal of Ecology. 85(6): 875-882. [69662]
12. Callison, Jim; Brotherson, Jack D.; Bowns, James E. 1985. The effects of fire on the blackbrush [Coleogyne ramosissima] community of southwestern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 38(6): 535-538. [593]
13. Chadwick, James H.; Nelson, Deanna R.; Nunn, Carol R.; Tatman, Debra A. 1999. Thinning versus chaining: which costs more? In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 290-292. [30569]
14. Chalmers, A.; McIntyre, S.; Whalley, R. D. B.; Reid, N. 2005. Grassland species response to soil disturbance and nutrient enrichment on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Botany. 53(6): 485-499. [68926]
15. Clary, Warren P. 1988. Plant density and cover response to several seeding techniques following wildfire. Res. Note INT-384. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 p. [5609]
16. Clary, Warren P. 1989. Test of RPA production coefficients and local assumptions for the pinyon-juniper ecosystem in central Utah. Res. Pap. INT-403. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. [9292]
17. Clary, Warren P.; Wagstaff, Fred J. 1987. Biological and economic effectiveness of several revegetation techniques in the pinyon-juniper-sagebrush zone. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 305-312. [29490]
18. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]
19. Crowther, Evan G.; Harper, K. T. 1965. Vegetational and edaphic characteristics associated with aspen "strips" in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Utah Academy Proceedings. 42(2): 222-230. [15663]
20. Dalzell, Cynthia R. 2004. Post-fire establishment of vegetation communities following reseeding on southern Idaho's Snake River Plain. Boise, ID: Boise State University. 112 p. Thesis. [62175]
21. Davis, James N.; Harper, Kimball T. 1990. Weedy annuals and establishment of seeded species on a chained juniper-pinyon woodland 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: 72-79. [12872]
22. Davis, James Newton. 1987. Seedling establishment biology and patterns of interspecific association among established seeded and nonseeded species on a chained juniper-pinyon woodland in central Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Department of Botany and Range Science. 80 p. Dissertation. [68927]
23. Davison, Jason; Smith, Ed. 2008. Greenstrips: another tool to manage wildfire. In: Living with fire. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Available: http://www.livingwithfire.info/pdf/WEB-Greenstrips.pdf [2008, March 24]. [69828]
24. Douglas, G. B.; Foote, A. G. 1993. Growth of sheep's burnet and two dryland legumes under periodic mob-stocking with sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 36(4): 393-397. [68929]
25. Douglas, G. B.; Gordon, I. L.; Chu, A. C. P.; Robertson, A. G. 1993. Effect of genotype and seed size on early vegetative growth of sheep's burnet. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 36(1): 109-116. [68977]
26. Douglas, G. B.; Robertson, A. G.; Chu, A. C. P. 1991. Autumn regrowth of established field-grown sheep's burnet. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 34(2): 161-166. [68931]
27. Douglas, G. B.; Robertson, A. G.; Chu, A. C. P.; Gordon, I. L. 1990. Establishment and growth of sheep's burnet in the lower North Island of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 33(3): 385-394. [68932]
28. Douglas, G. B.; Robertson, A. G.; Chu, A. C. P.; Gordon, I. L. 1994. Effect of plant age and severity of defoliation on regrowth of sheep's burnet during substrate moisture depletion. Grass and Forage Science. 49(3): 334-342. [68930]
29. Douglas, Grant Brodie. 1991. Establishment and early regrowth of sheep's burnet (Sanguisorba minor ssp. muricata (Spach) Briq.) examined multivariately. Palmerson North, New Zealand: Massey University. 357 p. Dissertation. [69083]
30. Douglas, J. A. 1970. The Cockayne plots of Central Otago. Proceedings of the New Zealand Ecological Society. 17: 18-24. [69720]
31. Eddleman, Lee E.; Miller, Patricia M.; Miller, Richard F.; Dysart, Patricia L. 1994. Western juniper woodlands (of the Pacific Northwest): Science assessment. Walla Walla, WA: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 131 p. [27969]
32. Elliott, Katherine J.; White, Alan S. 1987. Competitive effects of various grasses and forbs on ponderosa pine seedlings. Forest Science. 33(2): 356-366. [860]
33. Erdman, James A. 1970. Pinyon-juniper succession after natural fires on residual soils of Mesa Verde, Colorado. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11(2): 1-26. [11987]
34. Evangelista, Paul; Stohlgren, Thomas J.; Guenther, Debra; Stewart, Sean. 2004. Vegetation response to fire and postburn seeding treatments in juniper woodlands of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah. Western North American Naturalist. 64(3): 293-305. [61033]
35. Evanko, Anthony B. 1953. Performance of several forage species on newly burned lodgepole pine sites. Res. Note. 133. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [7905]
36. Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Stevens, Richard. 1978. Deer mouse preference for seed of commonly planted species, indigenous weed seed, and sacrifice foods. Journal of Range Management. 31(1): 70-73. [896]
37. Ferris, Rachel; Taylor, Gail. 1994. Elevated CO2, water relations and biophysics of leaf extension in four chalk grassland herbs. New Phytologist. 127(2): 297-307. [68937]
38. Ferris, Rachel; Taylor, Gail. 1995. Contrasting effects of elevated CO2 and water deficit on two native herbs. New Phytologist. 131(4): 491-501. [68935]
39. Fisher, A. G.; Brick, M. A.; Riley, R. H.; Christensen, D. K. 1987. Dryland stand establishment and seed production of revegetation species. Crop Science. 27(6): 1303-1305. [42300]
40. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590]
41. Germplasm Resources Information Network. 2007. National plant germplasm system, [Online]. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Germplasm Resources Information Network (Producer). Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/aboutgrin.html [2008, February 26]. [69523]
42. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
43. Goodrich, Sherel; Huber, Allen. 1999. Response of a seed mix and development of ground cover on northerly and southerly exposures in the 1985 Jarvies Canyon Burn, Daggett County, Utah. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 346-351. [30580]
44. Graham, David J.; Hutchings, Michael J. 1988. A field investigation of germination from the seed bank of a chalk grassland ley on former arable land. Journal of Applied Ecology. 25(1): 253-263. [69666]
45. Gurbuz, Ilhan; Ozkan, Ayse Mine; Yesilada, Erdem; Kutsal, Osman. 2005. Anti-ulcerogenic activity of some plants used in folk medicine of Pinarbasi (Kayseri, Turkey). Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 101(1-3): 313-318. [68953]
46. Hall, F. C.; Hedrick, D. W.; Keniston, R. F. 1959. Grazing and Douglas-fir establishment in the Oregon white oak type. Journal of Forestry. 57(2): 98-103. [65427]
47. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2005. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.2, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). Variously paginated [+ appendices]. Available: http://www.frcc.gov/docs/1.2.2.2/Complete_Guidebook_V1.2.pdf [2007, May 23]. [66734]
48. Harrison, R. Deane; Waldron, Blair L.; Jensen, Kevin B.; Page, Richard; Monaco, Thomas A.; Horton, Howard; Palazzo, Antonio J. 2002. Forage kochia greenstrips have a successful reputation in retarding western rangeland wildfires. Rangelands. 24(5): 3-7. [51924]
49. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
50. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
51. Hoag, J. Chris; Young, Gary L. 1994. 'Delar' small burnet: an outstanding range forb. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 379. [24313]
52. Horman, Chad S.; Anderson, Val Jo. 1999. Utah juniper herbaceous understory distribution patterns in response to tree canopy and litter removal. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 105-112. [30543]
53. Horman, Chad S.; Anderson, Val Jo. 2003. Understory species response to Utah juniper litter. Journal of Range Management. 56(1): 68-71. [43610]
54. Horton, Howard, ed./comp. 1989. Interagency forage and conservation planting guide for Utah. Extension Circular 433. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 67 p. [12231]
55. Hungerford, C. R. 1970. Response of Kaibab mule deer to management of summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(40): 852-862. [1219]
56. ITIS Database. 2008. Integrated taxonomic information system, [Online]. Available: http://www.itis.gov/index.html. [51763]
57. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]
58. Jorgensen, Kent R.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Seed collection, cleaning, and storage. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 699-716. [42398]
59. Jorgensen, Kent R.; Wilson, G. Richard. 2004. Seed germination. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 723-732. [41906]
60. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
61. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
62. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. [4395]
63. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C. 1977. Energy allocation patterns of a sprouting and a nonsprouting species of Arctostaphylos in the California chaparral. The American Midland Naturalist. 98(1): 1-10. [13729]
64. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
65. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
66. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [66533]
67. Lavorel, Sandra; Debussche, Max; Lebreton, Jean-Dominique; Lepart, Jacques. 1993. Seasonal patterns in the seed bank of Mediterranean old-fields. Oikos. 67(1): 114-128. [69664]
68. Leadley, Paul W.; Niklaus, Pascal A.; Stocker, Reto; Korner, Christian. 1999. A field study of the effects of elevated CO2 on plant biomass and community structure in a calcareous grassland. Oecologia. 118(1): 39-49. [68954]
69. Leckenby, Donavin A.; Toweill, Dale E. 1983. Response of forage species seeded for mule deer in western juniper types of southcentral Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 36(1): 98-103. [8098]
70. Lesica, Peter; DeLuca, Thomas H. 1996. Long-term harmful effects of crested wheatgrass on Great Plains grassland ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 51(5): 408-409. [27722]
71. Love, R. Merton; Jones, Burle J. 1952. Improving California brush ranges. Circular 371. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Agriculture Experiment Station. 13 p. [16664]
72. Maccherini, Simona; De Dominicis, Vincenzo. 2003. Germinable soil seed-banks of former grassland converted to coniferous plantation. Ecological Research. 18(6): 739-752. [48314]
73. Mandecka, Maria; Mirek, Zbigniew. 1996. The distribution and habitats of Sanguisorba minor and S. muricata (Rosaceae) in Poland. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 41(2): 953-966. [68955]
74. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
75. McArthur, E. Durant; Monsen, Stephen B.; Welch, Bruce L. 1987. Shrubs and forbs for revegetation plantings 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: 28-39. [3331]
76. McLellan, A. J.; Law, R.; Fitter, A. H. 1997. Response of calcareous grassland plant species to diffuse competition: results from a removal experiment. Journal of Ecology. 85(4): 479-490. [69659]
77. Mitchley, J. 1988. Control of relative abundance of perennials in the chalk grassland in southern England. III. Shoot phenology. Journal of Ecology. 76(3): 607-616. [69660]
78. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]
79. Monsen, Stephen B. 1994. Selection of plants for fire suppression on semiarid sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 363-373. [24310]
80. Monsen, Stephen B. 2004. Controlling plant competition. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 57-64. [52823]
81. Monsen, Stephen B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1995. Implications of early Intermountain range and watershed restoration practices. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Haley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K., compilers. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 16-25. [24819]
82. Monsen, Stephen B.; Richardson, Bland Z. 1984. Seeding shrubs with herbs on a semiarid mine site with and without topsoil. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Stutz, Howard C.; Stevens, Richard; Johnson, Kendall L., comps. 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]
83. Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Seedbed preparation and seeding practices. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-154. [52825]
84. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
85. Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Canada's plant hardiness site - going beyond the zones, [Online]. Natural Resources Canada (Producer). Available: http://www.planthardiness.gc.ca/ph_spp_intro.pl?lang=en [2008, February 27]. [69550]
86. Newman, Gregory J.; Redente, Edward F. 2001. Long-term plant community development as influenced by revegetation techniques. Journal of Range Management. 54(6): 717-724. [42296]
87. Nordborg, Gertrud. 1967. Embryological studies in the Sanguisorba minor complex (Rosaceae). Botaniska Notiser. 120: 109-119. [69081]
88. Northam, F. E.; Callihan, R. H. 1990. Evaluation of soil conservation plant materials for herbicide tolerance and revegetating semi-arid land infested with yellow starthistle. Western Society of Weed Science. Research Progress Report: 75-78. [40392]
89. Ogle, Daniel G. 2002. Small burnet--Sanguisorba minor Scop., [Online]. In: Plant fact sheet. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer). Available: http://plants.usda.gov/java/factSheet [2008, March 6]. [69667]
90. Oswald, Brian P.; Covington, W. Wallace. 1983. Changes in understory production following a wildfire in Southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Range Management. 36(4): 507-509. [5663]
91. Ott, Jeffrey E. 2001. Vegetation of chained and non-chained rangelands following wildfire and rehabilitation in west-central Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 79 p. Thesis. [46563]
92. Ott, Jeffrey E.; McArthur, E. Durant; Sanderson, Stewart C. 2001. Plant community dynamics of burned and unburned sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation in west-central Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Fairbanks, Daniel J., compilers. Shrubland ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: proceedings; 2000 June 13-15; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 177-191. [41971]
93. Pellant, Mike. 1990. The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle--are there any solutions? 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: 11-18. [12730]
94. Pellant, Mike. 1994. History and applications of the Intermountain greenstripping program. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 63-68. [24254]
95. Pellant, Mike; Lysne, Cindy R. 2005. Strategies to enhance plant structure and diversity in crested wheatgrass seedings. In: Shaw, Nancy L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., eds. Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4-7; Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 81-92. [63187]
96. Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B. 1993. Rehabilitation on public rangelands in Idaho, USA: a change in emphasis from grass monocultures. In: Proceedings of the 17th international grassland congress; 1993 February 8-21; Palmerston North, New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: SIR Publishing: 778-779. [25665]
97. Plants for a Future. 2004. Sanguisorba minor, [Online]. In: Plants for a Future - species database. Cornwall, UK: Plants for a Future (Producer). Available: http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Sanguisorba+minor [2008, March 5]. [69676]
98. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [27411]
99. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968. Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
100. Prather, Timothy S. 1993. Combined effects of biological control and plant competition on rush skeletonweed. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 63 p. Dissertation. [46350]
101. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
102. Rainier Seeds, Inc. 2008. Seed catalog and reference guide, [Online]. Davenport, WA: Rainier Seeds, Inc. 31 p. Available: http://waspserver.com/accounts/seed-rainier/data_documents/8/files/oldrainier_catalog_2002_web.pdf [31 March 2008]. [69912]
103. Ratzlaff, Teresa D.; Anderson, Jay E. 1995. Vegetal recovery following wildfire in seeded and unseeded sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management. 48(5): 386-391. [26539]
104. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
105. Redente, E. F.; McLendon, T.; Agnew, W. 1997. Influence of topsoil depth on plant community dynamics of a seeded site in northwest Colorado. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 11: 139-149. [27751]
106. Redente, Edward F.; Ogle, Phillip R.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume III: forbs. FWS/OBS-82/30. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 117 p. [36609]
107. Reher, G.; Slijepcevic, M.; Kraus, Lj. 1991. Hypoglycemic activity of triterpenes and tannins from Sarcopoterium spinosum and two Sanguisorba species. Planta Medica. 57(8), Supplement Issue 2: A57-A58. [68957]
108. Richards, Rebecca T.; Chambers, Jeanne C.; Ross, Christopher. 1998. Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management. 51(6): 625-632. [30307]
109. Robertson, Kenneth R. 1974. The genera of Rosaceae in the southwestern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 55: 344-401. [69721]
110. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]
111. Rosenstock, Steven S.; Stevens, Richard. 1989. Herbivore effects on seeded alfalfa at four pinyon-juniper sites in central Utah. Journal of Range Management. 42(6): 483-489. [9772]
112. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. 2008. Flora Europaea, [Online]. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (Producer). Available: http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html [2008, March 17]. [41088]
113. Ryser, Peter. 1993. Influences of neighbouring plants on seedling establishment in limestone grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science. 4(2): 195-202. [68959]
114. Sardari, Soroush; Amin, Gholamreza; Micetich, Ronald G.; Daneshtalab, Mohsen. 1998. Phytopharmaceuticals. Part 1. Antifungal activity of selected Iranian and Canadian plants. Pharmaceutical Biology. 36(3): 180-188. [68961]
115. Shaw, Nancy L. 2004. Production and use of planting stock. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 745-768. [42197]
116. Shaw, Nancy L.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1983. Nonleguminous forbs for rangeland sites. 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: 123-131. [2121]
117. Sheppard, J. S.; Wills, B. J. 1985. Sheep's burnet - a forage herb for soil conservation in New Zealand. New Zealand Agricultural Science. 19(3): 115-118. [68960]
118. Silvertown, Jonathan W.; Dickie, John B. 1981. Seedling survivorship in natural populations of nine perennial chalk grassland plants. New Phytologist. 88(3): 555-558. [69663]
119. St. John, L.; Tilley, D. J.; Ogle, D. G. 2006. Plants for solving resource problems: 'Delar' small burnet, [Online]. Aberdeen, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center (Producer). 2 p. Available: http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcbr6973.pdf [2008, March 6]. [69668]
120. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation. Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 90 p. [2221]
121. Stevens, Richard. 1994. Interseeding and transplanting to enhance species composition. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 300-306. [24301]
122. Stevens, Richard. 2004. Establishing plants by transplanting and interseeding. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 739-744. [42460]
123. Stevens, Richard. 2004. Incorporating wildlife habitat needs into restoration and rehabilitation projects. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 155-174. [52826]
124. Stevens, Richard. 2004. Management of restored and revegetated sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 193-198. [52828]
125. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R. 1994. Rangeland species germination through 25 and up to 40 years of warehouse storage. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., comps. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 257-265. [24292]
126. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Davis, James N. 1981. Viability of seed from thirty-two shrub and forb species through fifteen years of warehouse storage. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 274-277. [2244]
127. Stevens, Richard; Monsen, Stephen B. 2004. Forbs for seeding range and wildlife habitats. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 425-466. [52842]
128. Stevens, Richard; Monsen, Stephen B. 2004. Guidelines for restoration and rehabilitation of principal plant communities. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 199-294. [52829]
129. Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy; Howard, Charles G. 1985. Important nonleguminous forbs for Intermountain ranges. In: Range plant improvement in western North America: Proceedings of a symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985 February 14; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 102-112. [2248]
130. Stewart, George; Hull, A. C. 1949. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.)--an ecologic intruder in southern Idaho. Ecology. 30(1): 58-74. [2252]
131. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
132. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]
133. Sydes, C. L.; Grime, J. P. 1984. A comparative study of root development using a simulated rock crevice. Journal of Ecology. 72(3): 937-946. [68962]
134. Tadmor, N. H.; Evenari, M.; Katznelson, J. 1968. Seeding annuals and perennials in natural desert range. Journal of Range Management. 21(5): 330-331. [69661]
135. Talbot, M. W.; Biswell, H. H. 1942. The forage crop and its management. In: Hutchison, C. B.; Koto, K. The San Joaquin Experimental Range. Bulletin 663. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station: 13-49. [12315]
136. Thompson, Ken; Bakker, Jan P.; Bekker, Renee M. 1997. The soil seed banks of north west Europe: methodology, density and longevity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 276 p. [65467]
137. Toth, S. J.; McLain, P.; MacNamara, L. G. 1964. Fertilization of burnet for game food on Lakewood sand soils. Journal of Wildlife Management. 28(4): 840-845. [69665]
138. Trabaud, L. V.; Christensen, N. L.; Gill, A. M. 1993. Historical biogeography of fire in temperate and mediterranean ecosystems. In: Crutzen, P. J.; Goldammer, J. G., eds. Fire in the environment: the ecological, atmospheric, and climatic importance of vegetation fires. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 277-295. [64921]
139. Trabaud, L. 1984. Fire adaptation strategies of plants in the French Mediterranean area. In: Margaris, N. S.; Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki, Margarita; Oechel, W. C., eds. Being alive on land: proceedings of the international symposium on adaptations to the terrestrial environment; 1982; Halkidiki, Greece. The Hague; Boston, MA: W. Junk: 63-69. [66790]
140. Trabaud, L. 1991. Is fire an agent favouring plant invasions? In: Groves, R. H.; Di Castri, F., eds. Biogeography of mediterranean invasions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 179-190. [43839]
141. Trabaud, L.; de Chanterac, B. 1985. The influence of fire on the phenological behaviour of Mediterranean plant species in Bas-Languedoc (southern France). Vegetatio. 60: 119-130. [19777]
142. Trabaud, Louis. 1974. Experimental study on the effects of prescribed burning on a Quercus coccifera L. Garrigue: early results. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1973 March 22-23; Tallahassee, FL. No. 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 97-129. [18972]
143. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
144. Utah Valley State College Herbarium. 2006. Utah Valley State College virtual herbarium--Sanguisorba minor Scopoli, [Online]. Orem, UT: Utah Valley State College Herbarium (Producer). Available: http://herbarium.uvsc.edu/virtual/viewer.asp?file=10182s1.jpg&title=Sanguisorba%20minor [2008, March 17]. [69736]
145. Valassis, V.; Hedrick, D. W.; Hill, D. D. 1957. The performance of several improved forage species on Laughlin-like soils in western Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 10(2): 94-98. [69723]
146. Van Epps, Gordon A.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Shrub and forb seed production. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stephens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 717-722. [38755]
147. Vecrin, M. P.; Grevilliot, F.; Muller, S. 2007. The contribution of persistent soil seed banks and flooding to the restoration of alluvial meadows. Journal for Nature Conservation. 15(1): 59-69. [67387]
148. Viano, Josy; Masotti, Veronique; Gaydou, Emile M. 1999. Nutritional value of Mediterranean sheep's burnet (Sanguisorba minor ssp. muricata). Journal of Range Management. 47(11): 4645-4648. [66771]
149. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]
150. Walker, Scott C. 1999. Species compatibility and successional processes affecting seeding of pinyon-juniper types. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 331-337. [30578]
151. Walker, Scott C.; Stevens, Richard; Monsen, Stephen B.; Jorgensen, Kent R. 1995. Interaction between native and seeded introduced grasses for 23 years following chaining of juniper-pinyon woodlands. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Haley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K., compilers. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 372-380. [24870]
152. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023. [2458]
153. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]
154. Welch, Bruce L. 2004. Nutritive principles in restoration and management. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 175-186. [52827]
155. 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]
156. Wieneke, Silvia; Prati, Daniel; Brandl, Roland; Stocklin, Jurg; Auge, Harald. 2004. Genetic variation in Sanguisorba minor after 6 years in situ selection under elevated CO2. Global Change Biology. 10(8): 1389-1401. [68964]
157. Wills, B. J. 1984. Alternative plant species for revegetation and soil conservation in the tussock grasslands of New Zealand. Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute Review. 42: 49-58. [68971]
158. Young, James A. 1989. Intermountain shrubsteppe plant communities--pristine and grazed. In: Western raptor management symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific Technical Series No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 3-14. [25377]
159. Young, James A. 1991. Cheatgrass. In: James, Lynn F.; Evans, John O., eds. Noxious range weeds. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc: 408-418. [30594]
160. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283-289. [2657]
161. Young, James A; Evans, Raymond A.; Major, Jack. 1977. Sagebrush steppe. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc.: 763-796. [2680]

FEIS Home Page