Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Arctostaphylos viscida


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Howard, Janet L. 1992. Arctostaphylos viscida. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: [].
ABBREVIATION : ARCVIS SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : ARVI4 ARVIM ARVIP ARVIV COMMON NAMES : sticky whiteleaf manzanita TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of sticky whiteleaf manzanita is Arctostaphylos viscida Parry (Ericaceae) [34,35]. There are three recognized subspecies [14,47]: A. viscida ssp. mariposa (Dudley) Wells A. viscida ssp. pulchella (Howell) Wells A. viscida ssp. viscida Sticky whiteleaf manzanita hybridizes with hoary manzanita (A. canescens) [18] and greenleaf manzanita (A. patula) [2,14]. LIFE FORM : Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita occurs in California and Oregon.  It is found in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada from Kern County north to Butte County, California, and in the North Coast Ranges, Klamath Ranges, and Siskiyou Mountains from Lake County, California north to Josephine County, Oregon [13,36,37]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES20  Douglas-fir    FRES21  Ponderosa pine    FRES27  Redwood    FRES28  Western hardwoods    FRES34  Chaparral - mountain shrub STATES :      CA  OR BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :    1  Northern Pacific Border    3  Southern Pacific Border    4  Sierra Mountains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    KOO5  Mixed Conifer forest    KOO6  Redwood forest    KO10  Ponderosa shrub forest    KO29  California mixed evergreen forest    KO30  California oakwoods    KO33  Chaparral    KO34  Montane chaparral    K037  Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub SAF COVER TYPES :    299  Pacific Douglas-fir    232  Redwood    233  Oregon white oak    234  Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone    244  Sierra Nevada mixed conifer    245  Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir    246  California black oak    249  Canyon live oak    250  Blue oak - Digger pine    255  California coast live oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita is a dominant or codominant chaparral species. Common codominants include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), Ceanothus spp., hoary manzanita (Arctostaphylos canescens), greenleaf manzanita (A. patula), and Eastwood manzanita (A. glandulosa) [14,18,23]. Other associated species include birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa californica), and Sierra mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliolosa) [9,28,38]. The following published classification schemes list sticky whiteleaf manzanita as a climax or indicator species: California chaparral [22] Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of   California [23] Forest plants of the Eastern Siskiyous: their environment and vegetational distribution [48]


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita is useless as livestock browse but is a valuable source of food for wildlife.  Various chaparral animals including black bear, coyote, dusky-footed woodrat, and brush rabbit eat manzanita fruits.  Birds such as Merriam's turkey, dusky grouse, and band-tailed pigeon also consume the fruits [45].  Black-tailed deer sometimes browse older leaves in the winter, but they prefer sprouts or seedlings [5]. PALATABILITY : The palatability of sticky whiteleaf manzanita leaves is rated as poor for goats, sheep, cattle, and black-tailed deer [43]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita provides poor quality browse [43,45].  The protein content of manzanita leaves ranges from 6 percent in December and January, when deer are most likely to consume them, to 8 percent in August and September.  Black-tailed deer need a minimum of 7 percent protein in their diet for normal maintenance [6].  COVER VALUE : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita often forms dense stands that provide good cover and nesting sites for small birds and mammals [44]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : The fruits of sticky whiteleaf manzanita can be used to make jelly [2].  Native Americans used the fruits to make cider [13]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Timber:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita may allelopathically inhibit growth of conifer seedlings [1,30,34].  Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) production can be increased, however, if planted in cleared sticky whiteleaf manzanita brushfields.  Some of the fungi (Azospirillum spp.) which form ectomycorrhizal associations with sticky whiteleaf manzanita will infect Douglas-fir roots once sticky whiteleaf manzanita hosts are removed. Douglas-fir seedling survival rates have increased by 50 percent when planted in cleared sticky whiteleaf manzanita brushfields, as opposed to other types of chaparral brushfields. [1]. Control:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita can be controlled by aerial applications of 2,4-D, glyphosate, or picloram in May or June [8,32].  It can also be controlled by prescribed burning (see Fire Management Considerations).


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita is an erect, long-lived, native evergreen shrub.  It ranges from 3 to 13 feet (1-4 m) high, with spreading branches covering an average area of 16 square feet (1.5 sq m).  Its bark is continually shed [36].  The leaves, pedicels, and fruits are often glandular-viscid. Its fruit is a drupe containing hardcoated seeds [2,13,35].  The laterally spreading, shallow roots usually penetrate less than 8 inches belowground (20 cm) [10,39]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Sexual:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita reproduces by seed [13].  Seeds are dispersed by animals and can remain dormant in seed banks for decades [3,22,33].  Seeds require scarification prior to germination.  This may occur by heat, mechanically, or chemically [3,15,26].  Seeds require overwinter stratification after scarification has occurred [26].  Seeds are produced annually, although production slows during drought years [39].  Seedling mortality is low [33]. Vegetative:  All manzanita species can regenerate by layering [2]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita is typically found on dry, sunny slopes [37].  Climate:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita occurs in a mediterranean climate, with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers [22,23]. Elevation:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita occurs at elevations of 500 to 5,000 feet (152-1,524 m) [37]. Soil:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita grows in shallow, rocky, sandy soil [31]. Some populations have adapted to serpentine soil [33]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita is shade intolerant [7,11].  It is both a residual colonizer and a survivor in disturbed communities [22,30].  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita communities are sometimes seral to coniferous forest or oak woodland [30].  Manzanita chaparral, however, is considered a temporally and spatially stable community, and is often described as climax or pyric climax [22,23]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Sticky whiteleaf manzanita flowers from February to April [36].  Fruits appear in early summer and ripen in late summer or early fall.  Seeds are dispersed from late summer until the following spring [2].  Growth begins in February and ceases in June with the onset of summer drought [24].


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Plant adaptations:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita establishes after fire by fire-stimulated germination of dormant seeds stored in the soil [13,22,23]. Fire ecology:  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita has various morphological adaptations which encourage fire.  During drought, the plant undergoes branch die-back, which contributes to fuel loading.  Continuous shedding of bark adds additional fuel [36].  The surface-to-volume ratio of leaves and twigs are perfectly shaped for maximum air circulation, resulting in more complete burning of the plant and adding to fire intensity [20]. Additionally, leaves and twigs contain flammable oils and terpenes [40]. Philpot [40] has reported the heat value of sticky whiteleaf manzanita leaves and twigs at 8,942 Btu per pound (4,973 cal/kg). POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Intense fire kills sticky whiteleaf manzanita [13]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Fire-activated seeds germinate during the first postfire growing season [13,22,23].  Seedling success rates are good.  Sticky whiteleaf manzanita stands are dense by postfire years 3 or 4 [24], and generally remain so. Nine years following a fire in Yuba County, California, the combined density of sticky whiteleaf manzanita and its codominant, deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus), was 6,523 plants per acre (16,118/ha) [33].  By postfire year 10, these dense stands of sticky whiteleaf manzanita have reached sexually maturity [12]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : The Research Project Summary Plant response to prescribed burning with varying season, weather, and fuel moisture in mixed-conifer forests of California provides information on prescribed fire and postfire response of many plant community species including sticky whiteleaf manzanita. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Timber and grazing:  Annual prescribed burning can convert sticky whiteleaf manzanita brushfields to timber or pastureland if the site is otherwise suitable.  Yearly fires prevent sticky whiteleaf manzanita seedlings from maturing and gradually reduce the residual seed stock.  Eventually, sticky whiteleaf manzanita is eradicated from the site [20,26].  Safe conditions exist for a late winter or early spring burning if each of these elements is within the following range [19]:                   Element                       Intensity                                               low       high           fuel stick moisture (%)              15         5           relative humidity (%)                58        26           wind speed (mi/h)                     0        10           air temperature (degrees F)          40        84        Fire suppression:  Fire suppression in sticky whiteleaf manzanita chaparral results in unnaturally high fuel levels.  This eventually results in severe wildfires that are extremely difficult to contain.  Prescribed burning is recommended for reducing fuel loading in sticky whiteleaf manzanita communities [20].


SPECIES: Arctostaphylos viscida
REFERENCES :  1.  Amaranthus, M. P.; Li, C. Y.; Perry, D. A. 1990. Influence of vegetation        type and madrone soil inoculum on associative nitrogen fixation in        Douglas-fir rhizospheres. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20:        368-371.  [11185]  2.  Ball, Charles T.; Keeley, Jon; Mooney, Harold; [and others]. 1983.        Relationship between form, function, and distribution of two        Arctostaphylos species (Ericaceae) and their putative hybrids. Oecologia        Plantarum. 4: 153-164.  [12179]  3.  Berg, Arthur R. 1974. Arctostaphylos Adans. manzanita. In: Schopmeyer,        C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United        States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 228-231.  [7428]  4.  Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,        reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's        associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:        U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.        [434]  5.  Biswell, H. H.; Gilman, J. H. 1961. Brush management in relation to fire        and other environmental factors on the Tehama deer winter range.        California Fish and Game. 47(4): 357-389.  [6275]  6.  Bissell, Harold D.; Strong, Helen. 1955. The crude protein variations in        the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and Game. 41(2):        145-155.  [10524]  7.  Buchanan, Hayle; Biswell, Harold H.; Gibbens, Robert P. 1966. Succession        of vegetation in a cut-over Sierra redwood forest. Utah Academy        Proceedings. 43(Part 1): 43-48.  [16543]  8.  Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and        others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook.        Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural        Communications. 276 p.  [6235]  9.  Clark, Harold W. 1937. Association types in the North Coast Ranges of        California. Ecology. 18: 214-230.  [11187] 10.  Cooper, W. S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California.        Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.        145 p.  [6716] 11.  Davis, Craig B. 1973. "Bark striping" in Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae).        Madrono. 22: 145-149.  [12203] 12.  Detling, LeRoy E. 1961. The chaparral formation of southwestern Oregon,        with considerations of its postglacial history. Ecology. 42(2): 348-357.        [6360] 13.  Eastwood, Alice. 1934. A revision of Arctostaphylos with key and        descriptions. Leaflets of Western Botany. 1(11): 105-127.  [12207] 14.  Ellstrand, Norman C.; Lee, Janet M.; Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C.        1987. Ecological isolation and introgression: biochemical confirmation        of introgression in an Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae) population. Acta        Oecologica, Oecologica Plantarum. 8(4): 299-308.  [7907] 15.  Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at        the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho        Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p.  [7191] 16.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905] 17.  Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].        1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range        ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.  [998] 18.  Gottlieb, Leslie D. 1968. Hybridization between Arctostaphylos viscida        and A. canescens in Oregon. Brittonia. 20(1): 83-93.  [10143] 19.  Gratkowski, H. 1961. Brush problems in southwestern Oregon. Portland,        OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest        Forest and Range Experiment Station. 53 p.  [8596] 20.  Green, Lisle R. 1977. Fuel reduction without fire--current technology        and ecosystem impact. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene,        technical coordinators. Proc. of the symp. on the environmental        consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems;        1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 163-171.  [4840] 21.  Griffin, James R. 1977. Oak woodland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor,        Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley        and Sons: 383-415.  [7217] 22.  Hanes, Ted L. 1977. California chaparral. In: Barbour, Michael G.;        Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John        Wiley and Sons: 417-469.  [7216] 23.  Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial        natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department        of Fish and Game. 156 p.  [12756] 24.  Hughes, Thomas F.; Christopher, R. L.; Tappeiner, John C., II; Newton,        Michael. 1987. Biomass and leaf-area estimates for varnishleaf        ceanothus, deerbrush, and whiteleaf manzanita. Western Journal of        Applied Forestry. 2(4): 124-128.  [2894] 25.  James, Susanne. 1984. Lignotubers and burls--their structure, function        and ecological significance in Mediterranean ecosystems. Botanical        Review. 50(3): 225-266.  [5590] 26.  Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, R. E. 1985. A preliminary investigation on        the feasibility of preharvest prescribed burning for shrub control. In:        Proceedings, 6th annual forestry vegetation management conference; [Date        of conference unknown]; Redding, CA. [Place of publication unknown].        [Publisher unknown]. 89-114.  [7526] 27.  Kauffman, J. B.; Martin, R. E. 1990. Sprouting shrub response to        different seasons and fuel consumption levels of prescribed fire in        Sierra Nevada mixed conifer ecosystems. Forest Science. 36(3): 748-764.        [13063] 28.  Kilgore, Bruce M. 1971. Response of breeding bird populations to habitat        changes in a giant sequoia forest. American Midland Naturalist. 85(1):        135-152.  [7281] 29.  Kotok, E. I. 1933. Fire, a major ecological factor in the pine region of        California. In: Pacific Science Congress Proceedings. 5: 4017-4022.        [4723] 30.  Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation        of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:        American Geographical Society. 77 p.  [1384] 31.  Lanini, W. Thomas; Radosevich, Steven R. 1982. Herbicide effectiveness        in response to season of application and shrub physiology. Weed Science.        30: 467-475.  [3389] 32.  Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession        following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall        Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council        fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.        14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373.  [1496] 33.  McDonald, Philip M. 1981. Adapatations of woody shrubs. In: Hobbs, S.        D.; Helgerson, O. T., eds. Reforestation of skeletal soils: Proceedings        of a workshop; 1981 November 17-19; Medford, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon        State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 21-29.  [4979] 34.  McDonald, Philip M. 1983. Clearcutting and natural implications for the northern Sierra Nevada.        Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-70. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.        11 p.  [15953] 35.  McMillan, Calvin. 1956. The edaphic restriction of Cupressus and Pinus        in the Coast Ranges of central California. Ecological Monographs. 26:        177-212.  [11884] 36.  Minore, Don; Weatherly, Howard G.; Means, Joseph E. 1988. Growth of        whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida Parry). Forest Science.        34(4): 1094-1100.  [6616] 37.  Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:        University of California Press. 1905 p.  [6155] 38.  Parsons, David J. 1981. The historical role of fire in the foothill        communities of Sequoia National Park. Madrono. 28(3): 111-120.  [13586] 39.  Parsons, David J.; Rundel, Philip W.; Hedlund, Richard P.; Baker, Gail        A. 1981. Survival of severe drought by a non-sprouting chaparral shrub.        American Journal of Botany. 68(7): 973-979.  [7638] 40.  Philpot, C. W. 1969. Seasonal changes in heat content and ether        extractive content of chamise. Res. Pap. INT-61. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 10 p.  [13250] 41.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 42.  Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range        brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California,        Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment        Station, Extension Service. 162 p.  [3240] 43.  Schimke, Harry E.; Dougherty, Ronald H. 1966. Disposal of logging slash,        thinnings, and brush by burying. Res. Note PSW-111. Berkeley, CA: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and        Range Experiment Station. 4 p.  [11516] 44.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants        of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p.  [23104] 45.  Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,        their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of Agriculture. 362 p.  [4240] 46.  Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L.        1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,        Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley        and Sons: 295-358.  [7219] 47.  Wells, Philip V. 1968. New taxa, combinations, and chromosome numbers in        Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae). Madrono. 19: 193-210.  [12171] 48.  Waring, R. H. 1969. Forest plants of the eastern Siskiyous: their        environment and vegetational distribution. Northwest Science. 43(1):        1-17.  [9047] 49.  Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern        Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire        Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p.  [20090]

FEIS Home Page