Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia



INTRODUCTORY


  Jim Johnson
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Tollefson, Jennifer E. 2007. Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia. 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:
SPHGRO

NRCS PLANT CODE [60]:
SPGR2

COMMON NAMES:
gooseberryleaf globemallow
currant-leaf globemallow

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of gooseberryleaf globemallow is Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. (Malvaceae) [18,19,20,25,26,27,63]. There are 2 subspecies [25,26]:

Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. subsp. grossulariifolia
Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. subsp. pedata (Torr. ex Gray) Kearney

SYNONYMS:
Malvastrum grossulariifolium (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. [19,63]

LIFE FORM:
Forb-shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
Information on state-level protected status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database.


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is native to the western United States. Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia subsp. grossulariifolia occurs from Washington and Idaho south to California and Arizona. Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia subsp. pedata occurs in Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico [25,60]. Plants Database provides a distributional map of gooseberryleaf globemallow and its infrataxa.

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is widely distributed in salt-desert shrub, pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp.-Juniperus spp.), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), mountain brush and some ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) communities [26,27,63]. It is a dominant forb in shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) communities in southwestern Utah, Nevada, and eastern California [1,7,59]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow is also commonly associated with mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), sagebrush, greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) [8,20,26].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia
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 (e.g., [18,19,20,25,26,27,63]).

Gooseberryleaf globemallow is a perennial forb with an ascending to erect growth form. Plants have few to many hairy stems that emerge from a woody caudex and reach a height of 4 to 43 inches (10-109 cm). Leaves are palmately 3- to 5-lobed, moderately pubescent and 0.5 to 2.6 inches (1.3-5 cm) long and wide. Flowers are solitary or clustered in compound racemes, and petals are 0.3 to 0.9 inch (0.8-2.2 cm) long [8,18,20,26,61,63]. The fruit is a schizocarp with 10 to 20 carpels. Carpels are 2.5 to 4.5 mm long and are dehiscent at the top and indehiscent at the base [5,18,20,63]. In Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia subsp. grossulariifolia carpels are generally 1-seeded while in subsp. pedata carpels are often 2-seeded [26,27]. Seeds are mostly pubescent [8]. A large proportion of the plant biomass in gooseberryleaf globemallow is concentrated below the soil surface in a deep, branched, woody taproot [20]. Plants also have a fibrous root system near the soil surface [53,61]. Plants are short-lived (2-3 years) [8,29].

RAUNKIAER [49] LIFE FORM:
Chamaephyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow reproduces by seed. Because plants are short-lived, successful establishment by seed every 2 to 3 years is necessary for perpetuation of gooseberryleaf globemallow [8]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow populations cycle in response to climatic conditions. Kitchen [29] observed that favorable growing conditions result in "explosive reproductive events" which are often followed by a period of die-off.

Pollination: Several genera of bees pollinate globemallows, including Diadasia, Apis, Agapostemon, Calliopsis, Halictus and Melissodes. Wasps from the genus Ammoplanus are also important pollinators. Self-pollination is rare [42].

Breeding system: No information is available on this topic.

Seed production: There is no quantitative information available on seed production in gooseberryleaf globemallow. Seed production is "moderate" [57]. There are approximately 510,000 seeds per pound [21,48].

Seed dispersal: In gooseberryleaf globemallow the dehiscent section of the carpel opens at maturity. The indehiscent section of the carpel holds the seed until the reticulate wall has disintegrated. This may be an adaptation to ensure that some seeds encounter favorable germination conditions [38,42]. There is no information available on the mechanisms of seed dispersal in gooseberryleaf globemallow.

Seed banking: Gooseberryleaf globemallow seed lies dormant in the soil until sufficient moisture and light stimulate germination [44]. There is no information available on how long seeds may persist under field conditions. In an open, unheated, uncooled warehouse, however, gooseberryleaf globemallow seed can be stored for ~15 years without notable loss of viability [23]. After 15 years germination percentage decreases [24,55]. Mean percentage germination of seed after 2 to 25 years of storage is summarized in the table below.

Germination (%) of gooseberryleaf globemallow seed after storage [24]
Years of storage 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 25
Percent germination 7 7 6 9 6 7 6 2

Germination: Gooseberryleaf globemallow has a hard seed coat and is difficult to germinate [23,38,61]. Average germination rates are between 50% and 60% [42]. Afterripening for 1 month or stratification for 1 to 3 months is necessary for successful germination [23]. Germination is enhanced by chemical or mechanical scarification [2,38,50,61]. As mechanical scarification time increases, however, the seed may be damaged and germination percentage may decrease. In a germination experiment, average germination was 47.4% after 5 seconds of mechanical scarification, 10.5% after 15 seconds and 8.0% after 25 seconds. If mechanical scarification is used, care is needed to prevent injury to the seed [38].

The optimum germination temperature for gooseberryleaf globemallow seed is 72 F (22 C) [2]. Exposing seed to alternating temperatures of 59 F (15 C) and 72 F (22 C) for 12 hour periods increases germination [38,61]. Seeds germinate equally well in light and in darkness [2,38].

Seedling establishment/growth: Gooseberryleaf globemallow generally produces strong and persistent seedlings [34,57]. Seedling survival is relatively low, however, on arid Utah rangeland [42]. Seedling growth rates in globemallows are "moderately high" [34]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow seedlings may mature by the second growing season [61].

Vegetative regeneration: As of this writing (2007) there are no accounts in the literature of vegetative regeneration in gooseberryleaf globemallow. However, it is likely that gooseberryleaf globemallow sprouts from the caudex after top-kill.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is found on dry plains, open deserts, washes, playas, hillsides, foothills, mesas and canyons [20,26,48]. It occasionally occurs along streams at lower elevations [27]. In salt-desert shrub habitat in the Southwest, it occurs in and along drainages and on alluvial fans [14]. It occurs in shoreline boulder areas and dry sand in canyons along the Colorado River [11]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow grows best in open or disturbed sites [44,46], including burned areas [4,42,57,61].

Elevation: Gooseberryleaf globemallow occurs between 2,600 and 7,500 feet (800-2,300 m) across its range [4,18,20,26,27,63].

Elevational range of gooseberryleaf globemallow by state or region
State Elevation
Arizona 3,000-6,000 feet (900-1,800 m) [27]
Nevada 3,100-7,500 feet (940-2,300 m) [4,26]
Utah 2,600-7,500 feet (800-2,300 m) [63]
Intermountain West 2,600-7,500 feet (800-2,300 m) [20]

Temperature: Gooseberryleaf globemallow is tolerant of cold winter temperatures [57].

Moisture: Gooseberryleaf globemallow is drought tolerant [13,21,29,57]. It is most common in areas that receive 8 to 12 inches (20-30 cm) of annual precipitation [3,14,21,48]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow relies more on summer precipitation than on groundwater [15]. Plants commonly remain green throughout the summer. Late-summer precipitation results in additional plant growth [3]. Flood tolerance is fair [57].

Soils: Gooseberryleaf globemallow grows in soil textures ranging from clay to gravel. It grows in alkaline soils and tolerates moderate salinity [4,42,61]. It is found on volcanic soils throughout its range [5,18,26].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is classified by Stephen and Monsen [56] as a pioneer, early-seral, and late-seral species. It is moderately shade tolerant but thrives in full sun in open areas [42,46,48,57,61]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow grows well on disturbed sites [44,46]. In a pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp.-Juniperus utahensis) forest in Utah, gooseberryleaf globemallow showed "remarkable" growth in the second year after tree removal and chaining [44]. Frequency of gooseberryleaf globemallow was also greater on chained than on unchained sites following a 1996 wildfire in west-central Utah [36].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Growth begins in gooseberryleaf globemallow in early spring. Plants mature between June and August and green up again in the fall [61]. Seed matures unevenly between June and August [42,57]. Flowering times vary and are summarized in the table below.

Gooseberryleaf globemallow flowering date by state/region
Location Flowering date
Arizona April to October [27]
Nevada April to October [26]
Utah May to July [42]
Great Basin May to July [61]
Intermountain West mid-March to early October [20,57]

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Little is known about fire tolerance in gooseberryleaf globemallow. It has been described as "resistant to burning" [57]. Certain morphological characteristics of gooseberryleaf globemallow support this statement. Although aboveground tissue may be killed by fire, the caudex and the deep, woody taproot are likely to survive low- to moderate-severity fire. Carbohydrates stored in the taproot likely aid in the production of new aboveground tissue after fire. After fire and other disturbances, globemallows are thought to regenerate from seeds stored in the soil [61]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow readily invades disturbed areas [44,46] and is a likely postfire colonizer [42,57].

Fire regimes: Fire regimes in communities where gooseberryleaf globemallow occurs vary with location and associated vegetation. Presented below is information on fire regimes in several plant communities where gooseberryleaf globemallow is common.

Sagebrush: Presettlement fire regimes in sagebrush ecosystems varied among sagebrush types and locations. Historic fire return intervals in sagebrush ecosystems were variable, ranging from approximately 20 to 100 years. Most fires were mixed-severity and of small extent, although more widespread fires occurred on some sites [67,68]. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), nonnative annual grasses, have altered fire regimes and successional patterns in many sagebrush communities. Fine fuel loads from dry cheatgrass and/or medusahead can support fire return intervals as short as 3 to 6 years [43,66].

Pinyon-juniper woodlands: Fire return intervals in pinyon-juniper woodlands vary greatly, depending upon fine fuel loads and stand density. Livestock grazing in pinyon-juniper tends to increase fire return intervals by reducing fine fuels and increasing woody fuel density (review by [68]). Cheatgrass invasion in some pinyon-juniper communities has greatly decreased fire return intervals [30]. Historical fire return interval for western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) woodlands is estimated at 10 to 30 years (review by [68]).

Salt-desert shrubland: Historically, a lack of continuous fuels made fire rare to nonexistent in salt-desert shrublands except under unusual circumstances [64,69]. Increased presence of nonnative annual grasses in salt-desert ecosystems has shortened fire return intervals [6,65,69]. Wet years such as those brought by El Nio encourage growth of fine fuels in salt-desert communities. In particular, annual grasses such as cheatgrass and red brome (Bromus rubens) develop enough fine fuel biomass to support wildfires [10,41]. Once fire occurs, cover of annuals and probability of subsequent fire increase [10]. Harper [17] found little to no cheatgrass on saltbush and other desert shrub sites on the Desert Experimental Range of west-central Utah in 1959, a dry year. In 1990, a wet year, Sparks and others [54] found the same sites had converted to cheatgrass and other annual weeds "on a massive scale" and fuels were continuous enough to carry fire. Long recovery periods are needed when large-acreage fires occur in salt-desert shrub [9,10].

Blackbrush: The blackbrush association is composed of dense to scattered low-stature shrubs and dense to open grasses. It maintains the highest plant cover of any desert shrub community. Blackbrush experiences a stand-replacement fire regime, though historical documentation of blackbrush fire cycles is limited. Frequent large fires have eliminated blackbrush from some areas. Blackbrush occurs in areas with approximately 7 inches (180 mm) of annual precipitation. Cyclic desert precipitation above 10 to 14 inches (250-360 mm) may increase biomass and fuel continuity enough to increase fire potential [40].

The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to gooseberryleaf globemallow.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which gooseberryleaf globemallow may occur. For each community, fire regime characteristics are taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [32]. These vegetation models were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion as documented in the PDF file linked from the name of each Potential Natural Vegetation Group listed below. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest California Southwest Great Basin Northern 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 Shrubland
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
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
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 Shrubland
Saltbush Replacement 70% 100 60 200
Mixed 30% 235 10  
California Woodland
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
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 Grassland
Desert grassland Replacement 85% 12    
Surface or low 15% 67    
Desert grassland with shrubs and trees Replacement 85% 12    
Mixed 15% 70    
Plains mesa grassland Replacement 81% 20 3 30
Mixed 19% 85 3 150
Plains mesa grassland with shrubs or trees Replacement 76% 20    
Mixed 24% 65    
Southwest Shrubland
Salt desert scrubland Replacement 13% 200 100 300
Mixed 87% 31 20 100
Desert shrubland without grass Replacement 52% 150    
Mixed 48% 165    
Southwestern shrub steppe Replacement 72% 14 8 15
Mixed 13% 75 70 80
Surface or low 15% 69 60 100
Southwestern shrub steppe with trees Replacement 52% 17 10 25
Mixed 22% 40 25 50
Surface or low 25% 35 25 100
Low sagebrush shrubland Replacement 100% 125 60 150
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) Replacement 75% 100    
Mixed 25% 300    
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    
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  
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    
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
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    
Northern 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 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
*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 [16,31].

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [58]:
Caudex or an herbaceous root crown, growing points in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is likely top-killed by fire [61]. It has a deep, woody taproot [20] and caudex, however, that are likely to survive low- to moderate-severity fire. Sprouting from the caudex after top-kill by fire is likely, though not documented in the available literature.

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

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is common in disturbed sites [44,46], including burned areas [4,42,57,61]. Seed may be stored in the soil [44] or come from off-site sources [57]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow often establishes in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp.-Juniperus spp.) communities after fire [35,42]. In sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation in west-central Utah, gooseberryleaf globemallow frequency was greater in burned than in unburned sites as shown in the table below. Preburn data were not provided [37].

Frequency (number of plots in which species was present) by treatment and year of gooseberryleaf globemallow following a 1996 wildfire [37]
  Postfire year 1 Postfire year 2 Postfire year 3
Unburned 2 2 2
Burned 4 3 5

Gooseberryleaf globemallow increased after burning in a chaparral community on the Tonto National Forest in central Arizona [39]. Abundance of gooseberryleaf globemallow before and after burning is given in the table below.

Abundance (lbs/acre) of gooseberryleaf globemallow before and after burning in Arizona chaparral [39]
  Preburn Postfire year 1
North slopes 9 30
South slopes 10 18

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

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow has been shown to persist or increase following prescribed burning [39]. Because gooseberryleaf globemallow establishes well on disturbed, arid sites [4,42,46,57,61] and can persist or increase after fire [37,39,42], it may be valuable in natural revegetation or seeding on burned areas.


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is a desirable forage species for some livestock and wildlife, in part because it is drought resistant and commonly remains green throughout the summer [3,8,21]. It is a principal forage plant for domestic sheep in the Intermountain West [51,61]. In a 1953 study, average utilization of gooseberryleaf globemallow by domestic sheep on moderately grazed winter range was 80% [22].

Pronghorn eat gooseberryleaf globemallow in western Utah. Gooseberryleaf globemallow comprised, on average, 4.6% of the forage contained in pronghorn rumen samples collected in western Utah over 7 years. It is eaten by pronghorn into late summer and fall when few other forbs are available [3]. Deer, elk and bighorn sheep use of globemallows varies with location and condition of plants [42]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow is also eaten by jackrabbits, rodents, grasshoppers and Mormon crickets [61]. Globemallow seeds are eaten by various species of birds and rabbits [42].

Palatability/nutritional value: Gooseberryleaf globemallow is moderately palatable to livestock and wildlife [21,47,57]. Palatability ratings for gooseberryleaf globemallow forage are none to fair for cattle and fair to excellent for domestic sheep, pronghorn, elk and deer [42,57,61]. It is most palatable to pronghorn when in flower. Crude protein content in gooseberryleaf globemallow plants is relatively high (up to 22% of dry matter) [42]. In-vitro digestibility is 69.7% [62]. Additional nutritional information is provided by Rumbaugh and others [52].

Cover value: In Utah, the cover value of gooseberryleaf globemallow is poor for upland game birds and waterfowl, fair for small non-game birds, and good for small mammals [12].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is one of very few native forbs suitable for seeding on disturbed, exposed and eroded sites in harsh environments in the Intermountain West [21,57,61]. It is adapted for seeding in blackbrush, shadscale, pinyon-juniper, saltbush, greasewood, Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata subsp. wyomingensis), threetip sagebrush (A. tripartita) and basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata subsp. tridentata) communities. Fall seeding is recommended [21,45,56,61]. Its soil stabilization value is fair [53]. Gooseberryleaf globemallow is particularly suited for seeding in basic soils and can be used to suppress cheatgrass and other annuals [57]. Information on seeding methods for gooseberryleaf globemallow is provided by Monsen and Stevens [34], McArthur and Young [33], Jorgensen and Stevens [23], and Kitchen [29].

OTHER USES:
Because of its drought tolerance, continuous flowering, and ease of establishment, gooseberryleaf globemallow is recommended for use in landscaping in arid climates [57].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Gooseberryleaf globemallow is tolerant of grazing [28], although plants can be damaged by close grazing in late spring [57].

Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia: REFERENCES


1. Alzerreca-Angelo, Humberto; Schupp, Eugene W.; Kitchen, Stanley G. 1998. Sheep grazing and plant cover dynamics of a shadscale community. Journal of Range Management. 51(2): 214-222. [28454]
2. Baskin, Carol C.; Baskin, Jerry M. 2001. Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 666 p. [60775]
3. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption, and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
4. Beatley, Janice C. 1976. Vascular plants of the Nevada Test Site and central-southern Nevada: ecologic and geographic distributions. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research. 308 p. Available from ERDA, Springfield, VA. TID-26881/DAS. [63152]
5. Belcher, Earl. 1985. Handbook on seeds of browse-shrubs and forbs. Tech. Publ. R8-TP8. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 246 p. In cooperation with: Association of Official Seed Analysts. [43463]
6. Billings, W. D. 1994. Ecological impacts of cheatgrass and resultant fire on ecosystems in the western Great Basin. 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: 22-30. [24248]
7. Billings, W. E. 1949. The shadscale vegetation zone of Nevada and eastern California in relation to climate and soils. The American Midland Naturalist. 42(1): 87-109. [36960]
8. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464]
9. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [36581]
10. Bunting, Stephen C.; Kingery, James L.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Schroeder, Michael A.; Gravenmier, Rebecca A.; Hann, Wendel J. 2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-553. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project: scientific assessment). [43462]
11. Clover, Elzada U.; Jotter, Lois. 1944. Floristic studies in the Canyon of the Colorado and tributaries. The American Midland Naturalist. 32(3): 591-642. [62472]
12. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The Plant Information Network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
13. Dixon, Helen. 1935. Ecological studies on the high plateaus of Utah. Botanical Gazette. 97: 272-320. [15672]
14. Donart, Gary B. 1994. SRM 501: Saltbush-greasewood. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 61-62. [67041]
15. Flanagan, Lawrence B.; Ehleringer, James R.; Dawson, Todd E. 1992. Water sources of plants growing in woodland, desert, and riparian communities: evidence from stable isotope analysis. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., comps. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 43-47. [19093]
16. 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]
17. Harper, Kimball T. 1959. Vegetational changes in a shadscale-winterfat plant association during twenty-three years of controlled grazing. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 68 p. Thesis. [45366]
18. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
19. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
20. Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K.; Cronquist, Arthur. 2005. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 2, Part B: Subclass Dilleniidae. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 488 p. [63251]
21. 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]
22. Hutchings, Selar S.; Stewart, George. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. Circular No. 925. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 63 p. [1227]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
27. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
28. Kitchen, Stanely G.; Hall, Derek B. 1996. Community stability in a salt-desert shrubland grazed by sheep: the Desert Experimental Range story. In: Barrow, Jerry R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Tausch, Robin J., compilers. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment; 1995 May 23-25; Las Cruces, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-338. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 102-107. [27035]
29. Kitchen, Stanley G. 1994. Perennial forb life-history strategies on semiarid rangelands: implications for revegetation. 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: 342-346. [24307]
30. Knapp, Paul A. 1995. Intermountain West lightning-caused fires: climatic predictors of area burned. Journal of Range Management. 48(1): 85-91. [24426]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. McArthur, E. Durant; Young, Stanford A. 1999. Development of native seed supplies to support restoration of pinyon-juniper sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 327-330. [30591]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Ott, Jeffrey E.; McArthur, E. Durant; Roundy, Bruce A. 2003. Vegetation of chained and non-chained seedings after wildfire in Utah. Journal of Range Management. 56(1): 81-91. [47161]
37. 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]
38. Page, R. J.; Goodwin, D. L.; West, N. E. 1966. Germination requirements of scarlet globemallow. Journal of Range Management. 19: 145-146. [68271]
39. Pase, Charles P.; Knipe, O. D. 1977. Effect of winter burning on herbaceous cover on a converted chaparral watershed. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 346-348. [1828]
40. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
41. Pellant, Mike; Reichert, Linda. 1984. Management and rehabilitation of a burned winterfat community in southwestern Idaho. 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: 281-285. [1869]
42. Pendery, B. M.; Rumbaugh, M. D. 1986. Globemallows: forbs for Utah rangelands. Utah Science. 47(2): 41-45. [68303]
43. Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. 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: 31-36. [24249]
44. Plummer, A. Perry. 1959. Restoration of juniper-pinyon ranges in Utah. In: Meyer, Arthur B.; Eyre, F. H., eds. Proceedings, Society of American Foresters meeting: multiple-use forestry in the changing West; 1958 September 28-October 2; Salt Lake City, UT. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 207-211. [36383]
45. Plummer, A. Perry. 1966. Experience in improving salt desert shrub range by artificial planting. In: Salt desert shrub symposium: Proceedings; 1966 August 1-4; Cedar City, UT. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 130-146. [37241]
46. 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]
47. 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]
48. Rainier Seeds, Inc. 2003. Catalog, [Online]. Davenport, WA: Rainer Seeds, Inc., (Producer). Available: http://www.rainerseeds.com [2003, February 14]. [27624]
49. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
50. Roth, Timothy E.; Holechek, J. L.; Hussain, Mohammed Y. 1987. Germination response of three globemallow species to chemical treatment. Journal of Range Management. 40(2): 173-175. [4643]
51. Rumbaugh, M. D.; Mayland, H. F.; Pendery, B. M.; Shewmaker, G. E. 1993. Utilization of globemallow (Sphaeralcea) taxa by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 46(2): 103-109. [20947]
52. Rumbaugh, Melvin D.; Mayland, Henry F.; Pendery, Bryce M.; Shewmaker, Glenn E. 1993. Element concentrations in globemallow herbage. Journal of Range Management. 46(2): 114-117. [60484]
53. 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]
54. Sparks, Steven R.; West, Neil E.; Allen, Edith B. 1990. Changes in vegetation and land use at two townships in Skull Valley, western 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: 26-36. [12732]
55. 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]
56. 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]
57. Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy; Howard, Charles G. 1985. Important nonleguminous forbs for Intermountain ranges. In: Range plant improvement in western North America: Proceedings, annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985 February 14; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 102-112. [2248]
58. 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]
59. Suring, Lowell H.; Rowland, Mary M.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Schueck, Linda; Meinke, Cara W. 2005. Chapter 3: vegetation communities. In: Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H., eds. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group: 94-113. [67402]
60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
61. 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]
62. Welch, Bruce L. 2005. Big sagebrush chemistry and water relations. In: Welch, Bruce L., ed. Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-144. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 107-148. [55362]
63. 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]
64. West, Neil E. 1983. Intermountain salt-desert shrubland. In: West, Neil E., ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: 375-397. (Goodall, David W., ed. in chief; Ecosystems of the world; vol. 5). [2507]
65. West, Neil E. 1994. Effects of fire on salt-desert shrub rangelands. 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: 71-74. [24256]
66. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., comps. 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: 4-10. [12729]
67. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
68. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]
69. Young, James A.; Tipton, Frosty. 1990. Invasion of cheatgrass into arid environments of the Lahontan Basin. 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: 37-40. [12733]

FEIS Home Page