SPECIES: Ephedra viridis


Ephedra viridis INTRODUCTORY

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Anderson, Michelle D. 2001. Ephedra viridis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].



ABBREVIATION:

EPHVIR

SYNONYMS:

No entry

NRCS PLANT CODE [94]:

EPVI
EPVIV
EPVIV2

COMMON NAMES:

green ephedra
Mormon tea
joint-fir

TAXONOMY:
The currently accepted name of green ephedra is Ephedra viridis Coville (Ephedraceae) [45,94]. The 2 recognized varieties are [45,100]:

E. viridis var. viridis
E. viridis var. viscida (Cutler) L. Benson

LIFE FORM:

Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:

No special status

OTHER STATUS:

No entry


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:

Green ephedra is found extensively in the Great Basin Region, from the southwest corner of Wyoming and western Colorado, south to northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern California, and north to Harney County, Oregon [19,35,38,39,41,46,47,99,104]. It has also been found in the Colorado, Little Colorado, and San Juan river drainages, and in the Rio Grande drainage south from Santa Fe into west Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico [97].

ECOSYSTEMS [33]:

FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES33 Southwestern shrub steppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands

 

STATES:

AZ CA CO ID NV
NM OR TX UT WY
 
MEXICO
  BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [5]:

3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau

KUCHLER [50] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K033 Chaparral
K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K044 Creosotebush-tarbush
K053 Grama-galleta steppe
K054 Grama-tobosa prairie
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna

SAF COVER TYPES [28]:

211 White fir
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon-juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
247 Jeffrey pine
250 Blue oak-foothills pine

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [77]:

104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
206 Chamise chaparral
207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
210 Bitterbrush
211 Creosote bush scrub
212 Blackbrush
320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
405 Black sagebrush
406 Low sagebrush
408 Other sagebrush types
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
414 Salt desert shrub
415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
416 True mountain-mahogany
417 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
501 Saltbush-greasewood
502 Grama-galleta
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
505 Grama-tobosa shrub
508 Creosotebush-tarbush
509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Green ephedra is a constituent in a variety of plant associations but is rarely referred to as a dominant or subdominant species. It has, however, been identified as a dominant on the upland bench of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico in the galleta (Hilaria jamesii)-blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)-fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) vegetation type [20], and in a cold desert community of Wupatki National Monument in northern Arizona [15]. It has also been identified as a dominant in some sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-grasslands [6] and pinyon (Pinus spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.) woodlands [10,30,89,91]. It is often present with low or moderate occurrence in Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) [66,99], blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) [9,14,32,43,65,73,100,101] desert shrub [13,15,23,35,61,71,72,74,91,98,99,100], sagebrush [7,41,54,56,64,65,72,74,88,93,99,100,101,105,106,108], desert grassland [58,65,99,100,101,102], and pinyon-juniper communities [3,13,18,39,42,54,55,61,64,69,74,79,80,86,99,104,106,108].

The following species have been identified as common associates of green ephedra [99]:

creosotebush (Larrea tridentata)
shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia)
fourwing saltbush
big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
galleta
sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus)
Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis)

Green ephedra is also associated with the following Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) habitat types [8]:

Utah juniper/black sagebrush (Artemisia nova)/Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenoides)
Utah juniper/black sagebrush/rock
Utah juniper/littleleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus intricatus)


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Green ephedra is an important browse species for big game and domestic livestock [9,21,37,51,53,57,92,111]. It is heavily browsed by livestock and big game on winter range but only moderately or lightly browsed during other seasons [21,42,51].  Green ephedra stems and twigs are nearly all within reach of grazing animals, and can serve as winter forage because they extend above the snow [62,69,81].  Green ephedra is considered a highly important browse species in California due to its wide distribution and relative abundance [69]. Green ephedra is also of importance to small mammals; the stem parts and sizeable seeds are favored by many small mammals [37,97]. The seeds were ranked 12-13 out of 18 and 16 out of 28 in shrub-seed preference of deer mice [27], and are also eaten by mountain quail [57].

PALATABILITY:

Green ephedra is moderately palatable to all domestic livestock and many big game species, especially as winter browse [22,37,53,69]. Palatability typically decreases in the summer months [99]. Overall palatability of green ephedra for domestic livestock and wildlife is rated as follows [22,37,69]:

 

CO

CA

UT

Cattle Fair Fair to poor Fair
Sheep Fair Fair to poor Fair
Horses Fair Poor Fair
Pronghorn --- --- Fair
Elk --- --- Fair
Mule deer --- Fair to poor Fair
Small mammals Fair --- Good
Small nongame birds --- --- Good
Upland game birds --- --- Good
Waterfowl --- --- Poor
 

NUTRITIONAL VALUE:

Green ephedra has fair energy and protein value [22]. Specific nutrient values vary according to plant part and seasonal development. Mineral content was examined in detail in a study at the Nevada Test Site [97], and the results are as follows:

 

percent dry weight

Site 1 P Na K Ca Mg Si
new shoot 0.16 0.039 2.34 0.66 0.27 0.10
old shoot 0.15 0.023 0.50 2.72 0.25 11

Site 2

           
new shoot 0.39 0.023 3.03 0.36 0.22 0.04
old shoot 0.14 0.046 0.67 2.27 0.40 0.15

Site 3

           
new shoot 0.28 0.008 2.59 0.61 0.20 0.03
old shoot 0.16 0.025 0.92 3.19 0.24 0.12

 

 

ppm of dry weight

Site 1

Zn Cu Fe Mn B Al Ti Co Ni Mo Sr Ba
new shoot 17 4 141 62 18 165 6 2 10 4 121 73
old shoot 17 4 112 70 15 120 4 4 12 4 132 74

Site 2

                       
new shoot 19 10 109 32 20 56 4 2 7 2 61 --
old shoot 23 5 141 115 16 186 7 3 9 4 110 26

Site 3

                       
new shoot 4 11 102 49 29 29 6 6 10 2 72 3
old shoot - 2 74 86 17 85 4 3 10 4 78 4

Nutritional value is fairly high in the winter months relative to dormant grasses [65].

Green ephedra is highly toxic to both domestic sheep and cows during gestation, even at low doses. It causes ruminal impaction, diarrhea, vomiting, fecal mucus, anorexia, and in some cases death. However, this study reported no negative effects on offspring, either lambs or calves. Green ephedra plant tissue contains ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norephedrine, N-methyl pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, N-mehtyl pseudoephedrine, and a high tannin content [46].

COVER VALUE:

Green ephedra provides some cover for small birds and mammals. The value of green ephedra as cover for wildlife is rated as follows [22]:

CO UT
Small mammals Fair Good
Small nongame birds Poor Good
Upland game birds --- Fair
Waterfowl --- Poor
 

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Green ephedra is listed as a successful shrub for restoring western rangeland communities [63] and can be used to rehabilitate disturbed lands [16,25,29,30,40,66]. It also has value for reducing soil erosion on both clay and sandy soils [65,92]. Green ephedra establishes readily through direct seeding, transplants, and stem cuttings [67,92]. Container-stock green ephedra has  potential value for rehabilitation of arid road cuts, with more than 80% of plants surviving for at least 2 years on both north and south exposures. However, major plant losses occurred on the southern exposures during the winter [25]. Container stock also showed high survival along roadsides in the Mojave Desert [16]. Green ephedra also shows promise for reclamation use of surface-mined lands and coal fields in the pinyon-juniper shrubland of Utah [29,30]. Seedlings require protection from trampling by livestock until they are well established [92].

Green ephedra seed is being used to restore disturbed areas to native vegetation, though in 1996 the amount of seed sold (1605 lbs.) by Utah distributors was relatively small compared to sagebrush and saltbrush species [59,82]. Green ephedra has been listed as a species selected for forage, cover, productivity, adaptability and ease of establishment for reseeding degraded rangeland in the Intermountain Region of the United States [40], but green ephedra is very site-specific. When seeded on marginal or poor sites, green ephedra plants are less vigorous and fail to spread by natural seed; the young plants grow slowly and do not survive if subjected to herbaceous competition [62]. Green ephedra is highly sensitive to soil salinity; on soil with conductivity of 0.20 mmhos/cm plants displayed normal, healthy growth and color, but on soil with conductivity of 6.92-25.8 mmhos/cm, all green ephedra plants died within the first three months [97]. On studies of disturbed sites, green ephedra was found to be poorly suited for mixed-seed revegetation due to its inability to compete with grass and legume seed mixtures [29,36]. 

Germination rates of seed be improved by a period of afterripening [96]; fresher seed lots had germination rates of 28% over a 28 day period, whereas older seed lots experienced full germination over 28 days [60]. In laboratory tests, optimum germination of seeds was achieved with alternating temperature regimes with 16 hour cold periods of 35.6  to 41  degrees Fahrenheit (2-5C) and 8 hour warm periods of 59 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit (15-25C) [111]. 

OTHER USES AND VALUES:

The stems of green ephedra were traditionally brewed by Native Americans to make a nonmedicinal beverage [111,112] as well as a medicinal tea considered to be a remedy for a backache [46,92,112]. Native Americans also made flour and a coffeelike beverage from the seeds [92]. Ephedra species also provided Native Americans with good charcoal for tatooing [112]. Green ephedra can be used for xeriscaping projects [38], and has been widely used as a landscape species for roadsides, mine dumps, and recreational sites. It is valuable for its vivid green color in an often dull gray sagebrush environment [111].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Green ephedra transplants as well as seeds have been planted with success [16,52]. Container stock has experienced 100% survival on both irrigated and non-irrigated sites after two years, with 67% of irrigated stock and 100% of non-irrigated stock surviving after 5 years [17]. Successful seeding requires a shallow planting depth of 0.39 to 0.79 inches (1-2 cm) [96].

Mixed results have been found regarding green ephedra's reponse to grazing. It is described as a constituent of communities that are productive for grazing in Nevada [91], and has been found in greater abundance on grazed sites than on ungrazed sites in Canyonlands National Park, Utah [47]. A limited increase in the presence of green ephedra after grazing has been reported in Utah [47,65], while others found the shrub decreasing or absent on heavily grazed and recovering sites in Arizona and Utah [43,65,81]. Generally, green ephedra is found on ungrazed sites as well as sites subject to light or moderate grazing pressure [43], and green ephedra found in Utah's Pine Valley pinyon-juniper woodlands has demonstrated an increase in live plant cover following a reduction in grazing [104]. 

 


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Green ephedra is a native, erect evergreen shrub [13,24] that is drought resistant and winter hardy [73,99]. Growth occurs in the cool season [65].  

Green ephedra typically reaches 0.75 to 5 feet (.25 to 1.5 m) in height  [18,65,69,99], though it has been reported to grow up to 6 feet (2 m) tall and 10 feet (3 m) wide [92]. It has numerous parallel stems that point upward resembling a broom, with branchlets clustered around nodes. Stems are generally less than 0.12 inch (3 mm) in diameter [18,19,99] and are bright green, with thicker growth developing gray, shreddy bark [18,99]. The jointed branches have small, scale-like, inconspicuous leaves growing opposite on the stem joints [65,69,111]. 

The fragile [5,75], deep-rooting system of green ephedra consists of several taproots extending almost straight down from the shrub's base, spreading only slightly and subdividing at intervals into somewhat smaller roots [4].

Green ephedra is dioecious [94], producing nut-like seeds partly or entirely enclosed in large bracts that form a cone structure [69]. It has been reported displaying spatial segregation of male and female plants [12,76]. 

RAUNKIAER [68] LIFE FORM:

Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Green ephedra regenerates from seed and by sprouting from the roots and woody crown.  Green ephedra is readily established from seed [49,52,96], though seed production is erratic under natural conditions, with an abundant seed crop occurring very infrequently [111]. Seeds are pollinated by wind [58,76], and seed dispersal occurs via small mammals [58]. Seeds undergo a period of dormancy, which can be broken by a 4-week prechill [60]. Constant warm temperatures decrease germination rates, suggesting green ephedra responds to the stratification effect of cold periods [111]. Seed remains viable for 5 years stored dry at 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 C) [96]. Seed germination rates have not been found to drop significantly over 15 years with temperatures ranging from negative 21 to 101 degrees Fahrenheit (-29.9-38.3 C) [84]. After 15 years stored in an open unheated and uncooled warehouse, germination has been found to decrease significantly, from 88% at 15 years to 24% at 20 years (p<0.05). After 25 years, germination rates dropped to 2% [83]. 

Vegetative regeneration: Green ephedra has also been identified as a resprouting species following disturbance. It sprouts from root tissue [6,7,26] and woody crown tissue [97,109]. Shrub clumps over an extensive area may represent individuals or multiple clones [109]. Stem cuttings were found to root readily under greenhouse conditions [103].

Green ephedra seedling vigor is described as weak. Initial growth is often slow, with seedlings reaching 2 feet (0.6 m) in height after 5 to 10 years of growth [99].  Many multistemmed plants appear to be single individuals, but are actually 2  or more genetically distinct plants which originated from a common rodent cache [17].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

Green ephedra is found on dry, rocky, open sites in valleys and washes, and on slopes, alluvial fans, mesas, and foothills [4,18,24,41,61,65,107,111]. It is typically found at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 feet (914-2,286 m) [1,13,14,48,55,65,80,107] though it has been reported at elevations up to 10,000 feet (3,048 m) in California and Utah [80,104]. Green ephedra has been reported growing on north [1,31,61], south [91], southwest, and west aspects [48]. Average precipitation on sites supporting green ephedra ranges from 8 to 15 inches (200-380 mm) [6,48], and green ephedra has been found to require 6 to 10 inches (150-250 mm) annual precipitation [65]. 

Green ephedra grows primarily on sandy, gravelly or rocky, well-drained, undeveloped soils [13,14,20,47,74,99]. Soil parent material is often granitic [1,49,90,106]. Green ephedra grows well on shallow, medium or deep soils [55,93,99] and is tolerant of calcareous, weakly saline, moderately alkaline, slightly sodic soils [6,34,71,87,99]. It is found on silty loam soils with low infiltration rates [87], but it is intolerant of wet, poorly drained sites [99].

The following sagebrush site characteristics are examples of sites where green ephedra occurs [93]:

  basin big sagebrush mountain big sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush black sagebrush
annual precipitation 13+ inches (330 mm) 12-17 inches (300-430 mm)

--

--
soil deep, well-drained soil deep, well drained soil, moisture available most of the growing season moderately deep to shallow soil, well-drained, gravelly well drained soil, rocky to gravelly, carbonates present at the soil surface
location valleys, foothills mountain brush, pinyon-juniper communities xeric valleys, foothills, gravelly outcrops, high plains, alluvial fans lower foothills, valley edges and bottoms, alluvial fans, rocky ridges and saddles at high elevations

 Cover values for green ephedra vary based on site characteristics; in Arizona, washes with active soil and gravel deposition had a green ephedra cover value of .5%, while slopes above the washes that had shallow soils and little soil development had a cover value of 1.8%.  The transition zone with stabilized soil formed from wash deposits but with no active soil movement had the highest cover value, 3.2% [24].

 

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:

Though not usually reported as a species of major importance, as a plant community component green ephedra occurs in early, mid-, and late successional stages [48,106]. It grows vigorously in full sun and more slowly in partial shade [99]. Green ephedra has been reported as having a cover value of 0% in the first stage (grass-forb) of succession in a pinyon-juniper woodland, 0.8% in the second stage (shrub-tree), and 0.1% in both the third and fourth stages (tree-shrub and tree, respectively) [49]. It appears in both shrub dominated and tree dominated pinyon-juniper and sagebrush sites in the Great Basin [86].  On Spy Mesa in Arizona, green ephedra was identified in both grass-dominated areas (early succession) and shrub-dominated (mid-succession) areas of a pinyon-juniper woodland [87]. In a pinyon-juniper woodland where no successional change occurred over 23 years, green ephedra plants and clumps demonstrated variable increases and decreases in size [91], and green ephedra was present in a nearly mature pinyon-juniper woodland at less than 1% cover [106]. Green ephedra is considered weakly competitive due to its slow growth rate [99]. 

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Vegetative growth of green ephedra occurs during the cool season [65]. Seed development begins in the spring and seeds mature by late summer [99,111].  Seed maturation dates have been established at July 15 to September 1 [75]. Green ephedra seed germination occurs following a minimum 4-week chill to break seed dormancy [60].


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Green ephedra generally sprouts vigorously from the roots or woody root crown after fire [6,48,99,109] and rapidly produces aboveground biomass from surviving meristematic tissue [26]. Green ephedra has also been documented in southern California as nonsprouting postfire [18]. It is capable of reestablishing disturbed areas through seed [7], though no significant difference was found between its occurrence on seeded versus nonseeded postburn sites in a Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland [48]. Fires are relatively uncommon in some green ephedra communities due to insufficient fuels [99]. Green ephedra has been found in plant communities with a wide range of fire return intervals, and has been found in ecosystems following large, stand replacing fires as well as small, patchy, erratic fires [61]. Green ephedra establishes early after fire but with relatively low occurrence compared to mid- and late successional stages [48].

Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which green ephedra occurs are summarized below. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities and ecosystems where green ephedra is found, see the "Fire Ecology and Adaptations" section of the FEIS species summary for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below.

 
Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
sagebrush steppe Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata 20-70 [11]
basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata 12-43 [70]
mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana 5-15 [110]
Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis 10-70 (40)** [95,110]
saltbush-greasewood Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus < 35 to < 100
desert grasslands Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica 5-100
grama-galleta steppe Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis jamesii < 35 to < 100
California montane chaparral Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp. 50-100 [11]
curlleaf mountain-mahogany* Cercocarpus ledifolius 13-1000 [2,72]
mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii < 35 to < 100
blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima < 35 to < 100
western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70
creosotebush Larrea tridentata < 35 to < 100
pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. < 35
Colorado pinyon Pinus edulis 10-49
Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi 5-30
Arizona pine Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica 2-10
galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe Pleuraphis jamesii-Aristida purpurea < 35 to < 100 [11]
*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary
**(mean)

 

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [85]:

Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Ephedra viridis
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Green ephedra has been reported to survive range fires [92]. It may also be top-killed by fire in both shrub and grass communities and pinyon-juniper woodlands, reestablishing on-site from both seed and surviving meristematic tissue [7,26,48,99]. Green ephedra has also been described as nonsprouting after fire in chaparral ecosystems of southern California[18].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Green ephedra sometimes sprouts vigorously from the roots or woody root crown following fire [107,109]. On a pinyon-juniper woodland site, it was found to be a dominant postfire resprouter and persisted on burns after more than 78 years [98]. After a Nevada wildfire in a late seral big sagebrush community, virtually all green ephedra plants produced new stems [109]. Though green ephedra also reestablishes from seed on-site [7], this same sagebrush community had no green ephedra seedling establishment up to 4 years postburn [109].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

After late July-early August wildfires in western Nevada, green ephedra sprouted vigorously from surviving roots and root crowns. Green ephedra density and sprouting response in the next growing season was as follows [109]:

  Density (10 m2) % Sprouting
Site 1 0.02 98
Site 2 0.01 100
Site 3 0.03 100
 

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

California chaparral communities historically experienced numerous, erratically spreading, small fires resulting in a highly fragmented mosaic. As a result of fire suppression, extensive stands of mature chaparral exist in fewer and larger patches. The effects of these community changes on green ephedra have not been evaluated, though it was found to exist as a community constituent under both fire regimes [61]. 

An evaluation of plant response to various burning, grazing, and herbicide activities was conducted in a big sagebrush community in Nevada [107]. The response of green ephedra to these activities is described in the table below. Green ephedra had greatest cover on sites burned more than 10 years before and being moderately grazed; cover was lowest on unburned sites with heavy grazing.

Burned, currently moderate grazing Unburned, currently grazed 2,4D treatment, currently grazed (~2 yrs. post treatment) 2,4D and picloram, ungrazed (~2 yrs. post treatment) 2,4D, heavy grazing (10 yrs. post treatment)
<10 years postburn >10 years postburn Heavy  Moderate Light Heavy Moderate Light
200 plants/ha 300 plants/ha 0 plants/ha 100 plants/ha 200 plants/ha 100 plants/ha 100 plants/ha 200 plants/ha 200 plants/ha 200 plants/ha

Ephedra viridis: References


1. Armstrong, Wayne P. 1966. Ecological and taxonomic relationships of Cupressus in southern California. Los Angles, CA: California State College. 129 p. Thesis. [21332]

2. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]

3. Austin, Dennis D. 1999. Changes in plant composition within a pinyon-juniper woodland. 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 138-140. [30547]

4. Baker, F. S.; Korstian, Clarence F. 1931. Suitability of brush lands in the Intermountain region for the growth of natural or planted western yellow pine forests. Tech. Bull. No. 256. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 82 p. [15591]

5. 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]

6. Billings, W. D. 1951. Vegetational zonation in the Great Basin of western North America. Union Intl. Sci. Biol. Ser. B. 9: 101-122. [443]

7. 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., 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: 22-30. [24248]

8. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1968. Vegetation and soils of the Duckwater Watershed. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture. 81 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [7439]

9. Bradley, W. G. 1965. A study of the blackbrush plant community of the Desert Game Range. Transactions, Desert Bighorn Council. 11: 56-61. [4380]

10. Brown, David E. 1982. Great Basin conifer woodland. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 52-57. [535]

11. 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. [33874]

12. Brunt, James W.; Conley, Marsha R.; Cunningham, Gary L. 1988. Sex in Ephedra trifurca (Ephedraceae) with relation to Chihuahuan Desert habitats. The American Midland Naturalist. 119(1): 137-142. [3672]

13. Butterwick, Mary; Parfitt, Bruce D.; Hillyard, Deborah. 1992. Vascular plants of the northern Hualapai Mountains, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 24-25: 31-49. [18327]

14. 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]

15. Cinnamon, Steven K. 1989. Wupatki National Monument tamarisk and camelthorn eradication program 1983-88. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 20-24. [11342]

16. Clary, Raimond F., Jr.; Slayback, Robert D. 1985. Revegetation in the Mojave Desert using native woody plants. In: Rieger, John P.; Steele, Bobbie A., eds. Proceedings of the native plant revegetation symposium; 1984 November 15; San Diego, CA. San Diego, CA: California Native Plant Society: 42-47. [3343]

17. Clary, Warren P. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: spruce-fir forests. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David R., eds. Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional Research Publication No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University Experiment Station: 9-12. [3310]

18. Conrad, C. Eugene. 1987. Common shrubs of chaparral and associated ecosystems of southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-99. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 86 p. [4209]

19. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L. 1972. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 1. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, Inc. 270 p. [717]

20. Cully, Anne C.; Cully, Jack F., Jr. 1989. Spatial and temporal variability in perennial and annual vegetation at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(1): 113-122. [6742]

21. Dietz, Donald R.; Nagy, Julius G. 1976. Mule deer nutrition and plant utilization. In: Workman; Low, eds. Mule deer decline in the West: A symposium; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. [Logan], UT: College of Natural Resources, Utah Agriculture Experiment Station: 71-78. [6909]

22. 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]

23. Dixon, Helen. 1935. Ecological studies on the high plateaus of Utah. Botanical Gazette. 97: 272-320. [15672]

24. Ehleringer, James R.; Cooper, Tamsie A. 1988. Correlations between carbon isotope ratio and microhabitat in desert plants. Oecologia. 76: 562-566. [30909]

25. Everett, Richard L. 1980. Use of containerized shrubs for revegetating arid roadcuts. Reclamation Review. 3: 33-40. [11003]

26. Everett, Richard L. 1987. Plant response to fire in the pinyon-juniper 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: 152-157. [4755]

27. 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]

28. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

29. Ferguson, Robert B.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1981. Shrub establishment on reconstructed soils in semiarid areas. In: Shrub establishment on disturbed arid and semi-arid lands: Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 December 2-3; Laramie, WY. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department: 57-63. [916]

30. Ferguson, Robert B.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1985. Reclamation on Utah's Emery and Alton coal fields: techniques and plant materials. Res. Pap. INT-335. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 78 p. [917]

31. Fernandes, G. Wilson. 1992. A gradient analysis of plant forms from northern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 24-25: 21-30. [18247]

32. Gabbert, W. D.; Schultz, B. W.; Angerer, J. P.; Ostler, W. K. 1995. Plant succession on disturbed sites in four plant associations in the northern Mojave Desert. 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: 183-188. [24846]

33. 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]

34. Gonella, Michael P.; Neel, Maile C. 1995. Characterizing rare plant habitat for restoration in the San Bernardino National Forest. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Halley, 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: 81-93. [24830]

35. Greenwood, Larry R.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1978. Ecological relationships between pinyon-juniper and true mountain mahogany stands in the Uintah Basin, Utah. Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 164-167. [15654]

36. Grygiel, Carolyn E; Bonham, Charles D.; Redente, Edward F. 1984. Combined effects of environmental and agronomic factors on the invasion patterns of Sphaeralcea coccinea (Nutt.) Rydb. (Malvacea). Phytologia. 56(3): 145-153. [4641]

37. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada. No. 49: Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum Crops Research Division. 170 p. [6729]

38. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166]

39. Harper, Kimball T.; Davis, James N. 1999. Biotic, edaphic, and other factors influencing pinyon-juniper distribution in the Great Basin. 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 51-54. [30490]

40. Herbel, C. H. 1986. Seeding shrubs in the field. Reclamation and Revegetation Research. 5: 377-385. [1133]

41. Jaindl, R. G.; Doescher, P. S.; Eddleman, L. E. 1993. Influence of water relations on the limited expansion of Pinus monophylla into adjacent Cercocarpus ledifolius communities in the central Great Basin. Forest Science. 39(4): 629-643. [22513]

42. Jameson, Donald A.; Williams, John A.; Wilton, Eugene W. 1962. Vegetation and soils of Fishtail Mesa, Arizona. Ecology. 43: 403-410. [1256]

43. Jeffries, Douglas L.; Klopatek, Jeffrey M. 1987. Effects of grazing on the vegetation of the blackbrush association. Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 390-392. [248]

44. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

45. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]

46. Keeler, Richard F. 1989. Investigation of maternal and embryo/fetal toxicity of Ephedra nevadensis in sheep and cattle. Journal of Range Management. 42(1): 31-35. [6461]

47. Kleiner, E. F.; Harper, K. T. 1972. Environment and community organization in grasslands of Canyonlands National Park. Ecology. 53(2): 299-309. [6371]

48. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371]

49. Koniak, Susan; Everett, Richard L. 1982. Seed reserves in soils of successional stages of pinyon woodlands. The American Midland Naturalist. 108(2): 295-303; 1982. [1372]

50. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

51. Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [1387]

52. Landis, Thomas D.; Simonich, Edward J. 1984. Producing native plants as container seedlings. In: Murphy, Patrick M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: proceedings: Intermountain Nurseryman's Association 1983 conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 16-25. [6849]

53. Leach, Howard R. 1956. Food habits of the Great Basin deer herds of California. California Fish and Game. 38: 243-308. [3502]

54. Lei, Simon A. 1999. Gradient analysis of pinyon-juniper woodland in a southern Nevada mountain range. 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 64-68. [30493]

55. Lei, Simon A.; Walker, Lawrence R. 1997. Classification and ordination of Coleogne communities in southern Nevada. The Great Basin Naturalist. 57(2): 155-162. [27721]

56. Marquiss, Robert W. 1967. Influence of seedbed microclimate on soil moisture retention in sagebrush rangelands. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 169 p. Ph.D. dissertation. [3956]

57. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021]

58. McArthur, E. Durant. 1989. Breeding systems in shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.: 341-361. [8039]

59. 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, 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 327-330. [30591]

60. Meyer, Susan E.; Kitchen, Stanley; Wilson, G. Richard; Stevens, Richard. 1988. Proposal: Addition of Ephedra viridis--green mormon tea to the rules. Newsletter of the Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62(1): 18-19. [5477]

61. Minnich, Richard A. 1999. Vegetation, fire regimes, and forest dynamics. In: Miller, P. R.; McBride, J. R., eds. Oxidant air pollution impacts in the montane forests of southern California: a case study of the San Bernadino Mountains. Ecological Studies: Analysis and Synthesis. Vol. 134. New York: Springer-Verlag: 44-80. [30370]

62. Monsen, Stephen B. 1987. Shrub selections for pinyon-juniper plantings. 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: 316-329. [4925]

63. Monsen, Stephen B.; Christensen, Donald R. 1975. Woody plants for rehabilitating rangelands in the Intermountain Region. In: Stutz, Howard C., ed. Wildland shrubs: Proceedings--symposium and workshop; 1975 November 5-7; Provo, UT. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University: 72-119. [1680]

64. Morrison, Michael L.; Hall, Linnea S. 1999. Habitat relationships of amphibians and reptiles in the Inyo-White Mountains, California and Nevada. 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 233-237. [30556]

65. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878]

66. Phillips, Edwin A.; Page, Karen K.; Knapp, Sandra D. 1980. Vegetational characteristics of two stands of joshua tree woodland. Madrono. 27(1): 43-47. [5809]

67. 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. [171]

68. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

69. 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]

70. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579]

71. Schmutz, Ervin M.; Michaels, Charles C.; Judd, B. Ira. 1967. Boysag Point: a relict area on the North Rim of Grand Canyon in Arizona. Journal of Range Management. 20: 363-369. [2083]

72. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]

73. Schultz, Brad W.; Ostler, W. Kent. 1995. Effects of prolonged drought on vegetation associations in the northern Mojave Desert. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Halley, 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: 228-235. [24853]

74. Shantz, H. L.; Piemeisel, R. L. 1940. Types of vegetation in Escalante Valley, Utah, as indicators of soil conditions. Tech. Bull. 713. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [2117]

75. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In: Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]

76. Shea, Margaret M.; Dixon, Philip M.; Sharitz, Rebecca R. 1993. Size differences, sex ratio, and spatial distribution of male and female water tupelo, Nyssa aquatica (Nyssaceae). American Journal of Botany. 80(1): 26-30. [20451]

77. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

78. Slayback, Robert D.; Clary, Raimond F., Jr. 1988. Vegetative solutions to erosion control in the Tahoe Basin. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 66-69. [4097]

79. Smith, Stanley D.; Bradney, David J. M. 1990. Mojave Desert field trip. 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: 350-351. [12871]

80. St. Andre, G.; Mooney, H. A.; Wright, R. D. 1965. The pinyon woodland zone in the White Mountains of California. The American Midland Naturalist. 73(1): 225-239. [2217]

81. Stevens, Richard. 1987. Thirty years of pinyon-juniper big game habitat improvement projects: what have we learned? 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: 558-571. [29500]

82. Stevens, Richard. 1999. Restoration of native communities by chaining and seeding. 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 285-289. [30567]

83. 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, 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: 257-265. [24292]

84. 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]

85. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]

86. Tausch, R. J.; Tueller, P. T. 1990. Foliage biomass and cover relationships between tree- and shrub- dominated communities in pinyon-juniper woodlands. The Great Basin Naturalist. 50(2): 121-134. [15528]

87. Thatcher, Albert P.; Hart, Virgil L. 1974. Spy Mesa yields better understanding of pinyon-juniper in range ecosystem. Journal of Range Management. 27(5): 354-357. [20416]

88. Thomas, Larry; Kitchell, Katherine; Graham Tim. 1989. Summary of tamarisk control efforts in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 61-66. [11351]

89. Thompson, Robert M. 1999. An example of pinyon-juniper woodland classification in southeastern 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. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 60-63. [30492]

90. Trent, James D.; Svejcar, Tony J.; Blank, Robert R. 1994. Mycorrhizal colonization, hyphal lenghts, and soil moisture associated with two Artemisia tridentata subspecies. The Great Basin Naturalist. 54(4): 291-300. [25507]

91. Tueller, Paul T. 1989. Vegetation and land use in Nevada. Rangelands. 11(5): 204-210. [9295]

92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1976. Some important native shrubs of the west. Ogden, UT. 16 p. [2388]

93. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1989. Identification characteristics of major sagebrush taxa and species adapted to areas inhabited by each. The Habitat Express. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. No. 89-1. 2 p. [5911]

94. 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]

95. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco Area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]

96. Vories, Kimery C. 1981. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art. Volume I. Shrubs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-103. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 80 p. [3426]

97. Wallace, A.; Romney, E. M. 1972. Radioecology and ecophysiology of desert plants at the Nevada Test Site. Rep. TID-25954. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services. 439 p. [15000]

98. Wangler, Michael J.; Minnich, Richard A. 1996. Fire and succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands of the San Bernadino Mountains, California. Madrono. 43(4): 493-514. [27891]

99. 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. 347 p. [15400]

100. 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]

101. West, N. E. 1983. Colorado plateau-Mohavian blackbrush semi-desert. In: West, Neil E., ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: 399-411. (Goodall, David W., ed. in chief; Ecosystems of the world; vol. 5). [2508]

102. West, N.E. 1983. Southeastern Utah galleta-threeawn shrub steppe. In: West, Neil E., ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company; 1983: 413-421. (Goodall, David W., ed. in chief; Ecosystems of the world; vol. 5). [2509]

103. Wieland, P. A. T.; Frolich, E. F.; Wallace, A. 1971. Vegetative propagation of woody shrub species from the northern Mojave and southern Great Basin deserts. Madrono. 21(3): 149-152. [2549]

104. Yorks, Terence P.; West, Neil E.; Capels, Kathleen M. 1992. Vegetation differences in desert shrublands of western Utah's Pine Valley between 1933 and 1989. Journal of Range Management. 45(6): 569-578. [19780]

105. Young, James A.; Blank, Robert R.; Lugaski, Thomas. 1990. Shrub communities of the Lahontan sands. 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: 260-262. [12860]

106. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1973. Downy brome--intruder in the plant succession of big sagebrush communities in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 26(6): 410-415. [2651]

107. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1974. Population dynamics of green rabbitbrush in disturbed big sagebrush communities. Journal of Range Management. 27(2): 127-132. [2652]

108. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1976. Control of pinyon saplings with picloram or karbutilate. Journal of Range Management. 29(2): 144-147. [30521]

109. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283-289. [2657]

110. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]

111. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Kay, Burgess L. 1977. Ephedra seed germination. Agronomy Journal. 69: 209-211. [6237]

112. Zigmond, Maurice L. 1981. Kawaisu ethnobotany. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 102 p. [35936]




FEIS Home Page