Prunus andersonii



Charles Webber California Academy of Sciences

Gucker, Corey L. 2007. Prunus andersonii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: [].



desert peach
desert or Anderson peachbush
wild almond

The scientific name of desert peach is Prunus andersonii Gray (Rosaceae) [18,21].



No special status

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


SPECIES: Prunus andersonii
Desert peach is restricted to eastern California and western and central Nevada. In California, its range extends from Modoc and Lassen counties in the north, along the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada to Kern and Inyo counties in the south [12,33]. In the Great Basin Desert of western and central Nevada, desert peach occurs as far east as Eureka and Nye counties [12,22]. Plants Database provides a distributional map of desert peach.

Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) shrublands, yellow pine (Pinus spp.) forests, and pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) woodlands are typical desert peach habitat. Throughout its range, desert peach occurs in both late-seral and disturbed communities. Desert peach occurs in big sagebrush/rubber rabbitbrush/cheatgrass (A. tridentata/ Chrysothamnus nauseosus/Bromus tectorum), singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper (P. monophylla-J. osteosperma), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera subsp. trichocarpa)/big sagebrush communities that are considered late-seral vegetation in the Mill Creek Watershed of central Nevada [8]. In the Glass Mountain Region of Mono County, California, desert peach occurs in cheatgrass-dominated grasslands considered to be recovering to a more native flora [19].

Desert peach is a dominant species in the following vegetation types in Nevada:


SPECIES: Prunus andersonii



Br. Alfred Brousseau, Saint Mary's College

This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [12,18,22,32]).

Desert peach is a clonal, deciduous, many branched shrub [18,32,50]. Aboveground stems are connected by an extensive network of rhizomes, and lignotubers occur at the base of most shrubs. Desert peach clones can be several acres in size [23,50]. Shrubs are typically 3 to 7 feet (2-3 m) tall, but heights of 10 feet (3 m) are possible. Desert peach branching is often wide and loose, and there are many short, stiff, spiny lateral branches [12,18,22,23,32]. Aboveground stems are short lived. From a large clone in the Medell Flats area of western Nevada, the maximum number of stem growth rings was 8 [49].

Leaves are simple, often bundled, and arranged alternately. Tips are pointed, and margins have minute teeth. Leaf blades measure 0.4 to 1 inch (1-3 cm) long, 3 to 7 mm wide [12,18,31], and can be summer deciduous [23]. Solitary flowers are most common, but clusters of up to 5 are reported [12]. Flower diameters measure 0.5 to 0.9 inches (1.2-2.2 cm) [22,23]. Desert peach produces mostly round drupes that measure a little over 0.4 inch (1 cm) and typically have dry and/or thin pulp [12,18,32]. Kay and others [23] report that fruit fleshiness depends on moisture availability. In years of above-average moisture, fruits are fleshy and split to expose the stone seed, but if moisture is average or below, fruits are described as "mummified" and the fruit flesh dries on the stone. Desert peach seeds are heart-shaped stones with a thick, hard coat that opens along a suture. Seeds are typically 1 cm long and wide [4].


Desert peach regenerates asexually through rhizome and/or lignotuber sprouting [43,50] and sexually from seed production and germination [23]. Sprouting was the only method of desert peach regeneration on 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year-old burned big sagebrush/Thurber needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum) communities north of Reno, Nevada [50]. While asexual regeneration may predominate on disturbed sites, the relative importance of asexual and sexual regeneration has not received much attention in the available literature (2007).

Pollination: Insects are the primary desert peach flower pollinators; however, the wide flowers may attract other pollinators [31].

Breeding system: Desert peach produces perfect flowers [12,22,23].

Seed production: Late-season frosts reduce desert peach seed production. Flower and/or fruit damage is common when late-season freezing occurs, but flowering date is variable among clones growing in a common area and may ensure that some seed is produced each year. Flowering date can differ by as much as a month among neighboring clones [23].

Small mammals are seed predators and seed dispersers. Desert peach in the western Great Basin of Nevada produced between 0 and 5,200 fruits/shrub. Seed losses were low (6.5%), although 38% of fruits were insect infested. Over 70% of fruits were taken from the canopy by white-tailed antelope squirrels. Great Basin pocket mice, deer mice, and Panamint kangaroo rats removed desert peach fruits and seeds primarily from the ground, and fewer fruits and seeds with insects were removed than uninfested fruits and seeds [3].

Seed dispersal: Desert peach seed is dispersed by gravity and wildlife [3,42]. In the western Great Basin, dispersal by small mammals (white-tailed antelope squirrels, Great Basin pocket mice, deer mice, and/or Panamint kangaroo rats) was tracked by locating scandium-46 labeled fruits from 12 desert peach shrubs. The small mammals larder-hoarded 1,053 seeds and scatter-hoarded 901 seeds into 438 caches. Caches had 1 to 20 seeds at 0.08- to 2.6-inch (2-67 mm) depths [3].

Seed banking: Studies of the longevity of desert peach seed banks are lacking. Jorgensen and Stevens [20] suggest that dry desert peach seed stored at low temperatures and low humidity remains viable for 4 to 6 years, but Rowlands [40] reports very low germination rates of stored desert peach seed.

Germination: Desert peach seed germinates best after stratification. Some studies indicate that desert peach seed requires an after-ripening period of 1 to 3 months and 1 to 6 months of stratification [20]. Others studies have achieved moderate to high germination with stratification alone. When germination was encouraged at 68 to 86 F (20-30 C), percentages of 80% to 100% were reached after 30 days of stratification at 40 F (2C) in activated charcoal and after 15 days at 59 F (15 C) in sand [4]. Kay and others [23] found that cool moist stratification was best for desert peach germination. They also noted that seeds released from fleshy fruits germinated more readily than seeds with fruit flesh dried on them.

Desert peach germinates from unrecovered animal caches. In the western Great Basin in Nevada, 73 desert peach seedlings emerged from 29 caches. Emergence was similar under shrub canopies and in the open [3]. Seedling survival is described below in "Seedling establishment/growth". Successful emergence from caches may relate to seed burial, which ranged from 0.08- to 2.6-inch (2-67 mm) depths. Ferguson [15] noted that Rosaceae shrub seed germinates best when covered with soil. Uncovered seeds rarely germinated.

Seedling establishment/growth: While seedling emergence in the western Great Basin was similar from animal caches in the open and caches under shrub canopies, in dry years seedling survival was higher under shrub canopies than in the open. In wet years, seedling survival was not different between the 2 microsites. Overall seedling survival was low, and researchers suggested that episodic recruitment is likely [3].

Vegetative regeneration: The spread of desert peach through vegetative means is described by many [23,43,50]. Aboveground stems sprout from rhizomes and lignotubers to form thickets [43]. The death of older stems and emergence of new stems are continual [23]. From a large clone in the Medell Flats area of western Nevada, the maximum age of aboveground stems was estimated at 8 years [49]. Individual clones can be several acres in size [23].

Desert peach is often found on dry slopes, mesas, washes, ravines, draws, cliff bases, and rocky hillsides throughout its range [12,22,32].

Aspect: In singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper woodlands of California and Nevada, desert peach was most common on eastern slopes [24].

Climate: Desert peach occupies sites with continental, semiarid to arid climates where the summers are typically dry [16,18,22]. Stark [44] reported in a revegetation manual that desert peach requires 6 to 8 inches (150-200 mm) of annual precipitation. In the Walker River Watershed of Nevada and eastern California, desert peach in Colorado pinyon-western juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus occidentalis) woodlands occupied sites with cold, dry winters and warm, dry summers. Based on a 22-year average at 6,500 feet (2,000 m), the annual precipitation was 9.5 inches (240 mm) [16]. In desert peach habitats in the Mill Creek Watershed of central Nevada, the climate is semiarid. Based on a 3-year period, annual precipitation ranged from 8.7 to 15.8 inches (220-400 mm), and over a 33-year period temperature extremes were -40 F (-40 C) and 108 F (42 C) [8].

Drought adaptations: Desert peach is morphologically and physiologically adapted to drought conditions. Specific leaf area (an indicator of the relationship between leaf transpiration area and water stored in tissues) is low, and the ratios of root length and weight to unit leaf area are high [39]. Summer dormancy and summer deciduousness are possible in dry years [23,44].

Elevation: The elevational range of desert peach is 3,000 to 8,900 feet (900-2,700 m). Narrower ranges are provided in the table below.

Desert peach elevation ranges by state or region
State/region Elevation (m)
California 900-2,600 [18]
California (Glass Mountain Region, Mono County) 2,100-2,700 [19]
California (southern) 1,070-1,980 [32]
Nevada 1,500-2,100 [22]
Intermountain West 1,200 to 2,400 [12]

Soils: Desert peach is common on well-drained, poorly-developed, granitic soils [18,23,43]. Slightly saline or alkaline, coarse-textured soils are tolerated [44]. On Granite Mountain north of Reno, desert peach occurs in dense clumps on Mollic Haplargids with sandy to clay loam textures [41]. In central Nevada's Mill Creek watershed, desert peach occupies coarse to fine loamy Mollisols in big sagebrush/rubber rabbitbrush/cheatgrass vegetation and loamy, skeletal Haploxerolls in black cottonwood/big sagebrush communities [8].

Late-seral and early postdisturbance communities provide desert peach habitat. Desert peach grows best in full or almost full sun [18,44], but in semiarid to arid shrub-dominated habitats shade is not directly linked to seral condition. In the Mill Creek watershed, desert peach occurs in late-seral big sagebrush/rubber rabbitbrush/cheatgrass, black cottonwood/big sagebrush, and singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper communities [8]. In other singleleaf pinyon woodlands in the Great Basin, desert peach is often present in early successional communities after fire or logging [30].

Disturbance related succession: While desert peach is often present in early postdisturbance communities, abundance may be lower on recently or heavily grazed sites compared to lightly or less recently grazed sites. On Medell Flats in western Nevada, desert peach was absent from heavily grazed sites, had a density of 800 stems/ha on moderately grazed sites, and had a density of 100 stems/ha on lightly grazed sites. Medell Flats were described as a "dust bed" in the early 1900s because of heavy domestic livestock use, but current cattle and sheep grazing intensity and patterns were not well described [49]. On Morey Mountain in central Nevada, desert peach cover and frequency were greater in deer and livestock exclosures than on unprotected sites. Duration and intensity of animal use were not given [46]. Density of desert peach was much greater on ungrazed than grazed sites after a fire in big sagebrush/Thurber needlegrass range north of Reno. The exclosure was constructed the same year as the July fire, and differences between grazed and ungrazed sites were evaluated 4 years later. Livestock grazing was heavy; in one year there was complete perennial grass utilization, and in another year, perennial grass utilization was heavy and utilization of cheatgrass was 80% to 90%. Desert peach density was 7/1,000 m and 23/1,000 m on grazed and ungrazed sites, respectively [13].

Desert peach flowers appear slightly earlier [32] or at the same time [31] as the leaves. Flowers appear sometime from March to July throughout the desert peach range [4,23,44], though timing of flower development can differ by as much as a month among individual clones growing in the same area [23].

Timing of desert peach flower development by state and/or region

State/region Typical flowering dates
California (southern) March-April [32]
Nevada April-July [22]
Great Basin April-May [31]
Intermountain West mid-April-early June [12]


SPECIES: Prunus andersonii
Fire adaptations: Desert peach sprouts from rhizomes and/or lignotubers following fire [41,48,50], and is said to "reach its greatest development" on burned sites [22]. Postfire seedling establishment is rare [50] based on the limited postfire regeneration studies available.

Fire regimes: The fire regimes in desert peach habitats in California and Nevada have been altered by European settlement. In some cases, species introduced during European settlement have increased fire frequency from what prevailed in presettlement times, and in other cases, exclusion of fire after European settlement has decreased fire frequency.

Cheatgrass in big sagebrush-antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) communities in the western Great Basin has fueled larger and more frequent fires since its establishment. Before cheatgrass invaded these habitats, the widely-spaced dominant shrubs and perennial bunchgrasses did not carry fire well. Cheatgrass has filled the vegetation interspaces and provided more continuous fuels. When winter and/or spring precipitation are adequate, cheatgrass grows 8 to 10 inches (20-30 cm) tall by May; plants dry by early June, and ignition and fire-spreading fuels are available from June to October [6].

From fire-scarred Colorado pinyon and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) trees in a small (<100 acre (40 ha)) area within the Walker River watershed of Nevada and eastern California, Gruell [16] determined that a low-severity fire burned somewhere in the area approximately every 8 years before European settlement. Sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), and desert peach were the most common shrubs in the area. The Paiute occupied the Walker River watershed for over 10,000 years, and likely supplemented lightning ignition with anthropogenic ignition. Lightning storms are common ignition sources from May to September. However, between 1960 and 1997, the 266 wildfires that burned were controlled, and only 5 exceeded 100 acres (40 ha) in size. The largest was a 900-acre (400 ha) fire that burned in 1996. Elimination of the Native American ignition source and decreased availability of fine fuels through heavy domestic livestock grazing have contributed to an overall decrease in fire frequency and size and allowed for a dramatic increase in tree cover. In this Colorado pinyon woodland, woody fuel buildup has altered the low-intensity, frequent fire regime to a regime of high-intensity, infrequent fires occurring during extreme weather conditions [16].

The following table provides fire regime information on vegetation communities in which desert peach may occur:

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which desert peach may occur. For each community, fire regime characteristics are taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [27]. 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 each Potential Natural Vegetation Group listed below. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
California Southwest Great Basin Northern Rockies
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
Minimum interval
Maximum interval
California Shrubland
Montane chaparral Replacement 34% 95    
Mixed 66% 50    
California Woodland
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
California Forested
California mixed evergreen Replacement 10% 140 65 700
Mixed 58% 25 10 33
Surface or low 32% 45 7  
Mixed conifer (North Slopes) Replacement 5% 250    
Mixed 7% 200    
Surface or low 88% 15 10 40
Mixed conifer (South Slopes) Replacement 4% 200    
Mixed 16% 50    
Surface or low 80% 10    
Great Basin
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
Minimum interval
Maximum interval
Great Basin Shrubland
Blackbrush Replacement 100% 833 100 >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    
Montane chaparral Replacement 37% 93    
Mixed 63% 54    
Mountain shrubland with trees Replacement 22% 105 100 200
Mixed 78% 29 25 100
Black and low sagebrushes Replacement 33% 243 100  
Mixed 67% 119 75 140
Black and low sagebrushes with trees Replacement 37% 227 150 290
Mixed 63% 136 50 190
Great Basin Woodland
Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodland Replacement 20% 333 100 >1,000
Mixed 31% 217 100 >1,000
Surface or low 49% 135 100  
Ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 200    
Mixed 17% 60    
Surface or low 78% 13    
Great Basin Forested
Interior ponderosa pine Replacement 5% 161   800
Mixed 10% 80 50 80
Surface or low 86% 9 8 10
*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 [17,26].

Small shrub, adventitious buds and/or a sprouting root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)


SPECIES: Prunus andersonii
Desert peach is typically only top-killed by fire [50]. Neither aboveground stem survival nor complete shrub kill is reported following fire; however, literature on these topics is limited.

No additional information is available on this topic.

Stems sprout from rhizomes and/or lignotubers following fire [41,48,50]. Kartesz [22] reports that the "greatest development" of desert peach is reached following rangeland fires. Nearly all desert peach shrubs sprouted in the first postfire growing season after a summer fire in "degraded" big sagebrush/Thurber needlegrass communities north of Reno. Fire severity was not described. There were no desert peach seedlings 1, 2, 3, or 4 years after fire, but postfire sprouting was described as "vigorous" [50].

There are few studies on postfire regeneration and recovery of desert peach. Available fire effects information, however, indicates that desert peach can be present in early postfire communities [50], and abundance appears to increase with time since fire [5,49]. However, long unburned stands (>60 years) may support less desert peach than more recently burned stands (4-60 years) [24]. Many studies of fire in desert peach habitats fail to provide prefire or unburned comparison data and/or fire season or severity information. Without more fire effects studies, inferences regarding the effects of fire season and severity on desert peach abundance are difficult.

Desert peach and cheatgrass dominated in the first years after a June wildfire in a bitterbrush sagebrush community in the Sierra Nevada of eastern California. The description of fire severity was limited, but "no measurable regrowth of bitterbrush occurred from the charred stumps" [35,36]. On Medell Flats in western Nevada, the density of desert peach was 800 stems/ha on sites burned less than 10 years previously and 900 stems/ha on sites burned more than 10 years previously. Fires were not described [49].

In Ecology Canyon, near the University of Nevada, desert peach was not present 1 year after a July wildfire in a big sagebrush-antelope bitterbrush-green ephedra (Ephedra viridis) vegetation type, but was present 6 and 41 years after the fire. Cover and density were greater on north-facing than south-facing burned sites and increased with time since fire on north-facing slopes. One day after the fire there was almost no live aboveground plant material. Prefire or unburned data were not provided, nor were other fire characteristics described [5].

Desert peach density and cover on north- and south-facing slopes 6 and 41 years after wildfire [5]
  Density (shrubs/ha) Cover (m/ha)
Time since fire (years) South slope North slope South slope North slope
6 2.6 9.1 0.5 0.2
41 0 119.0 0 6.5

When 1- to 60-year-old burned sites were compared in singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper woodlands in California and Nevada, desert peach frequency was greatest on 15- to 17-year-old burned sites. The frequency of desert peach was 1% on 1-year-old burned sites, 35% on 4- to 8-year-old burned sites, 67% on 15- to 17-year-old sites, 31% on 22- to 60-year-old burned sites, and 13% on sites unburned for more than 60 years. Fire severities were not provided [24].

Information on the effects of fire on desert peach is lacking. Additional studies of fire in desert peach habitats are needed before recommendations regarding fire effects on this species are warranted.

Soils: Several sources describe and compare the characteristics of burned and unburned soils in desert peach habitats. Comparisons of the characteristics, nutrient content, extractable anions, and chemical composition of burned and unburned soils in big sagebrush-antelope bitterbrush/cheatgrass vegetation are provided by Blank and others [9,10,11].

Wildlife and fire management: Researchers found that a trade-off may exist between the use of prescribed fire to increase mule deer forage availability and the creation of capture and kill sites for mountain lions. On the eastside of the Sierra Nevada in eastern California, desert peach and cheatgrass dominated in the first years after a June wildfire. Before the fire, the community was dominated by bitterbrush and sagebrush. Desert peach/cheatgrass sites provided little cover, and mountain lions captured and killed prey in these sites more often than expected based on availability (P=0.002) [35,36].


SPECIES: Prunus andersonii
Mule deer, mountain lions, and various small mammals feed on desert peach and/or utilize habitats where desert peach is important. While direct use of desert peach by livestock was not noted, abundance was typically lower on recently or heavily grazed than on past or lightly grazed sites. For more information, see Disturbance related succession.

Deer: Big sagebrush-desert bitterbrush-desert peach vegetation types on Morey Mountain and in the Hot Creek Valley of central Nevada are important mule deer habitat. Mule deer use averaged 179 deer-days/acre, but direct utilization of desert peach was not indicated [46]. In a review of mule deer diet studies, Kufeld and others [25] reported that mule deer use of desert peach was light (1-5% of diets) in the winter and fall and moderate (5-20% of diets) in the spring. Mule deer were said to "avidly" consume new desert peach growth in the early spring in northeastern and east-central California. The frequency of desert peach in mule deer diets was as high as 57.1% in the early spring [28].

Mountain lions: Desert peach and cheatgrass dominated sites in the first years after a June wildfire on the eastside of the Sierra Nevada in eastern California. Mountain lions captured and killed mule deer in these sites more often than expected based on availability (P=0.002). The desert peach/cheatgrass habitats were the most likely mountain lion capture and kill sites in the study area. However, researchers noted that they could only determine where mule deer were killed. They suggested that pursuits may have begun elsewhere, and that mountain lions may have pursued deer into the desert peach/cheatgrass vegetation where kills were perhaps more successful [35,36].

Small mammals: Numerous small mammals gather and consume desert peach fruits and seeds and/or browse desert peach stems. In the western Great Basin of Nevada, over 70% of desert peach fruits were taken from the canopy by white-tailed antelope squirrels. Great Basin pocket mice, deer mice, and Panamint kangaroo rats removed desert peach fruits and seeds primarily from the ground. They gathered insect-infested fruits and/or seeds at a decreased rate compared to uninfested fruits and seeds. In the same area, small mammals larder-hoarded 1,053 seeds and scatter-hoarded 901 seeds in 438 caches from 12 desert peach shrubs with scandium-46 labeled fruits. Caches had 1 to 20 seeds at 0.08- to 2.6-inch (2-67 mm) depths [3].

In years when black-tailed jackrabbit population densities were at a near maximum in northeastern California, 72% of desert peach shrubs had some girdling and 17% had all stems girdled. Seventy percent of desert peach shrubs were browsed. Thirty percent of shrubs were considered heavily browsed with 25% or more of the main stems browsed [29].

Palatability/nutritional value: Based on current year's leaf and stem tissue, researchers found that desert peach was 16.2% crude protein in April on a site in California [7].

Cover value: Desert peach likely provides cover for small animals present within its range; however, its importance as a cover species is not noted.

Revegetation manuals and studies indicate that desert peach is effective in revegetation or rehabilitation projects on disturbed sites within its range. In a review of species potential in revegetating disturbed Intermountain sites, desert peach establishment from transplants, soil stabilization characteristics, and disturbance adaptations were rated as "very good". Growth rate was considered "good", while establishment from seed and spread through asexual or sexual means were rated as "medium". Desert peach was recommended for use in desert shrublands, mountain brush, pinyon-juniper, and chaparral vegetation [37].

Desert peach survival was high in revegetation projects in California and Nevada. After 3 years, desert peach survival was 73% on slope cuts along a highway in Mono County, California. Forty desert peach seedlings were transplanted in mid-June. Transplants were watered at planting and 1 and 2 weeks after planting [43]. On north- and south-facing terraced road cuts on Granite Peak near Reno, 1-year-old desert peach seedling survival was over 80% in at least 2 of 3 planting years. Survival was evaluated 3 years after planting. Seedlings were grown from locally collected seed. Survival was typically lowest in 1977 when precipitation levels were about 65% of the previous year and when days above 90 F (32 C) were twice as frequent as in other planting years [14].

Native Americans near desert peach habitats utilized fruits, leaves, and twigs. The Paiute of the Great Basin boiled twigs and leaves into a tea to treat colds and rheumatism [31]. The Lake Mono Paiute along with the Cahuilla gathered desert peach fruits. Desert peaches could be boiled, sweetened with sugar and preserved as jelly [1,2].

Additional studies of desert peach sexual and asexual regeneration as they vary with disturbances would improve its management.

Prunus andersonii: REFERENCES

1. Barry, W. James; Carle, David H.; Carle, Janet A. 2002. The use of prescribed fire in wetland restoration at Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; Morales, Maria; Morales, Tony, eds. Fire in California ecosystems: integrating ecology, prevention and management: Proceedings of the symposium; 1997 November 17-20; San Diego, CA. Misc. Pub. No. 1. [Place of publication unknown]: Association for Fire Ecology: 263-272. [46209]
2. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Chauilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225 p. [35898]
3. Beck, Maurie; Vander Wall, Stephen. 2004. Seed dispersal of desert peach (Prunus andersonii) and the evolution of dispersal mode, [Online]. In: Abstracts: 89th annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America; 2004 August 1-6; Portland, OR. Ecological Society of America (Producer). Available: [2007, August 27]. [67883]
4. Belcher, Earl. 1985. Handbook on seeds of browse -- shrubs and forbs. Technical Publication R8-TP8. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 246 p. In cooperation with: Association of Official Seed Analysts. [43463]
5. Billings, W. D. 1990. Bromus tectorum, a biotic cause of ecosystem impoverishment in the Great Basin. In: Woodwell, G. M., ed. Patterns and processes of biotic impoverishment. New York: Cambridge University Press: 301-322. [43174]
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. 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]
8. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1968. Vegetation and soils of the Mill Creek Watershed. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture. 71 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [12500]
9. Blank, R. R.; Young, J. A.; Allen, F. L. 1995. The soil beneath shrubs before and after wildfire: implications for revegetation. 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: 173-177. [24845]
10. Blank, Robert R.; Allen, Fay; Young, James A. 1994. Extractable anions in soils following wildfire in a sagebrush-grass community. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 58(2): 564-570. [43173]
11. Blank, Robert R.; Young, James A. 1990. Chemical changes in the soil induced by fire in a community dominated by shrub-grass. 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: 256-259. [12859]
12. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]
13. Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 1978. Effectiveness of rehabilitation practices following wildfire in a degraded big sagebrush-downy brome community. Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 185-188. [880]
14. Everett, Richard L. 1980. Use of containerized shrubs for revegetating arid roadcuts. Reclamation Review. 3: 33-40. [11003]
15. Ferguson, Robert B. 1983. Use of rosaceous shrubs for wildland plantings in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comps. 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: 136-149. [915]
16. Gruell, George E. 1997. Historical role of fire in pinyon-juniper woodlands: Walker River Watershed Project, Bridgeport Ranger District. Bridgeport, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District. 20 p. [38766]
17. 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: [2007, May 23]. [66734]
18. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
19. Horner, Michael A. 2001. Vascular flora of the Glass Mountain Region, Mono County, California. Aliso. 20(2): 75-105. [53374]
20. 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]
21. 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]
22. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
23. Kay, Burgess L.; Young, James A.; Ross, Catherine M.; Graves, Walter L. 1977. Desert peach. Mohave Revegetation Notes. No. 21. Davis, CA: University of California, Agronomy and Range Science. 6 p. [67855]
24. Koniak, Susan. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 556-566. [1371]
25. 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]
26. 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: [2007, May 24]. [66741]
27. 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: [66533]
28. Leach, Howard R. 1956. Food habits of the Great Basin deer herds of California. California Fish and Game. 38: 243-308. [3502]
29. McKeever, Sturgis; Hubbard, Richard L. 1960. Use of desert shrubs by jackrabbits in northeastern California. California Fish and Game. 46: 271-277. [67885]
30. Meeuwig, R. O.; Budy, J. D.; Everett, R. L. 1990. Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frem. singleleaf pinyon. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 380-384. [13234]
31. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
32. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
33. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
34. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2003. National vegetation classification for Nevada [NVC], [Online]. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Producer). Available: [2005, November 3]. [55021]
35. Pierce, Becky M.; Bowyer, R. Terry; Bleich, Vernon C. 2004. Habitat selection by mule deer: forage benefits or risk of predation? Journal of Wildlife Management. 68(3): 533-541. [66863]
36. Pierce, Becky Miranda. 1999. Predator-prey dynamics between mountain lions and mule deer: effects on distribution, population regulation, habitat selection, and prey selection. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks. 127 p. Dissertation. [67874]
37. 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]
38. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
39. Rieger, Mark; Duemmel, Michael J. 1992. Comparison of drought resistance among Prunus species from divergent habitats. Tree Physiology. 11: 369-380. [55170]
40. Rowlands, Peter G. 1980. Recovery, succession, and revegetation in the Mojave Desert. In: Rowlands, Peter G., ed. The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on off road vehicles: a critical review. Special Publication. Riverside, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Desert Plan Staff: 75-120. [20680]
41. Saunders, Dale V.; Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1973. Origin of soil mounds associated with clumps of Ribes velutinum. Journal of Range Management. 26(1): 30-31. [24588]
42. Shaw, Nancy L.; Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Rosaceous shrubs. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 539-596. [52845]
43. Smith, P. Dean; Edell, Jack; Jurak, Frank; Young, James. 1978. Rehabilitation of eastern Nevada roadsides. California Agriculture. April: 4-5. [2177]
44. Stark, N. 1966. Review of highway planting information appropriate to Nevada. Bull. No. B-7. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Desert Research Institute. 209 p. In cooperation with: Nevada State Highway Department. [47]
45. 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]
46. Tueller, Paul T.; Monroe, Leslie A. 1975. Management guidelines for selected deer habitats in Nevada. Publication No. R 104. [Place of publication unknown]: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Agriculture Exp. Stat. In Coop. with USDI-BLM, Nevada Department of Fish and Game. 185 p. [7435]
47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: [34262]
48. Young, J. A.; Evans, R. A.; Tueller, P. T. 1976. Great Basin plant communities--pristine and grazed. In: Elston, Robert, ed. Holocene environmental change in the Great Basin. Res. Pap. No. 6. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Nevada Archeological Society: 187-216. [2676]
49. 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]
50. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283-289. [2657]

FEIS Home Page