SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata


Tetradymia glabrata: INTRODUCTORY

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
 

Photo courtesy of
®Christopher Christie
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Howard, Janet L. 2002. Tetradymia glabrata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
TETGLA

SYNONYMS:
None

NRCS PLANT CODE [57]:
TEGL

COMMON NAMES:
littleleaf horsebrush

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of littleleaf horsebrush is Tetradymia glabrata Torr. & Gray (Asteraceae) [14,26,30,60,61]. Putative littleleaf × gray horsebrush (T. canescens) hybrids have been found in southern Idaho [52].

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
No entry


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Littleleaf horsebrush occurs from north-central Oregon to Idaho and south to Utah, Nevada, and southern California [14,30]. It is most common in the central Great Basin [29]. Plants Database provides a distributional map of littleleaf horsebrush.

ECOSYSTEMS [22]:
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands

STATES:
CA ID NV OR UT

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [2]:
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range

KUCHLER [33] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K055 Sagebrush steppe

SAF COVER TYPES [17]:
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
238 Western juniper

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [48]:
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue
320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 
321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
405 Black sagebrush 
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
414 Salt desert shrub
501 Saltbush-greasewood
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Littleleaf horsebrush is common throughout the Great Basin, but never occurs in pure stands. It usually occurs as isolated individuals or small colonies [38]. Littleleaf horsebrush showed 100% constancy in a spiny hopsage-green rabbitbrush/cheatgrass (Grayia spinosa-Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus/Bromus tectorum) community in north-central Nevada [4], and 50% constancy in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)/cheatgrass and big sagebrush-spiny hopsage communities in west-central Nevada [5]. In the Great Basin it occurs in shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), big sagebrush, sagebrush-rabbitbrush (Artemisia-Chrysothamnus spp.), and pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) communities [5,6,38,61,62]. Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Nevada ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), gray horsebrush, and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) are common shrub associates. Cheatgrass, Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and galleta (Pleuraphis spp.) are common grass associates [6,18,62]. In California, littleleaf horsebrush occurs in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, greasewood-shadscale, and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) communities [10,26].

Plant communities dominated by littleleaf horsebrush are rare. Blackburn and others [5] describe a littleleaf horsebrush/cheatgrass community in west-central Nevada, and Fautin [18] describes a littleleaf horsebrush-shadscale community in western Utah.

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
Photo courtesy of Charles Webber, California Academy of Sciences

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Littleleaf horsebrush is a native subshrub or shrub with semiwoody to woody stem texture [30]. Plants are 1 to 4 feet (0.3-1.2 m) tall, at least as wide, and densely branched. It is considered 1 of the unarmed horsebrushes, but primary leaves (the 1st leaves to appear at the node) may be weakly spinescent. They are 0.2 to 0.4 inch (0.6-1 cm) long. Secondary leaves grow in the leaf axils of primary leaves and are about the same length. The flower is a corymb with tubular, perfect flowers [14,36,38,61]. The fruit is a 3- to 8-mm long, hairy achene with a many-bristled pappus [26,61]. Horsebrushes (Tetradymia spp.) are taprooted [34]. Littleleaf horsebrush's roots are shallow (< 8.2 feet (2.5 m)) [24].

Littleleaf horsebrush may form small colonies [52]. Littleleaf horsebrush-dominated communities are generally taller, and have greater amounts of bare ground, compared to surrounding desert shrub communities [18].

RAUNKIAER [44] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Littleleaf horsebrush regenerates from seed and by sprouting [3,40,52,63]. Information on breeding, seed production, viability, and dispersal, and seed banking is scant for littleleaf and other horsebrushes. Further research is needed on the reproductive ecology of this genus.

Pollination: Horsebrushes are pollinated by insect generalists including flies, moths, bees, and beetles [36].

Seed dispersal: Horsebrush seeds are wind dispersed [64]. The hairs on the achenes and pappi aid dispersal [21].

Seedling establishment/growth: Horsebrush seedlings are somewhat rare, probably due to harsh, dry environments [52]. Littleleaf horsebrush may establish well from seed in years when favorable precipitation arrives at the right time; however, this has not been documented.

Asexual regeneration: Littleleaf horsebrush sprouts from the root crown after top-growth removal by fire or other means [3,40,63].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Littleleaf horsebrush grows on dry, open valleys, plains, and foothills. It is generally common up to 5,900 (1,800) feet elevation, and is occasionally found at 7,500+ feet (2,300 m) elevation [14]. Elevational range by state is as follows:

CA 2,600-7,900 feet (800-2,400 m) [26]
NV 2,300-6,800 feet [4,5]
UT 4,500 -6,300 feet (1,370-1,925 m) [61]

Littleleaf horsebrush occurs on skeletal, sand, fine-loam, and clay soils in the Great Basin [4,5,6,18,49]. The soils are often saline or alkaline. They may be shallow to deep, and sometimes have durapans [49]. Bare ground or desert pavement may account for considerable (10-45%) cover on some sites [4,5,18], and litter cover may be scant. Litter cover in big sagebrush and shadscale communities with a littleleaf horsebrush component ranged from 10 to 30% in west-central Nevada [4,5].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Littleleaf horsebrush is a weedy, seral species [30]. After fire or other disturbance in the Great Basin, littleleaf horsebrush and other sprouting shrubs form a seral community that is eventually displaced by nonsprouting shrubs such as sagebrush and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) [53]. Evans and Young [16] state that littleleaf horsebrush and other sprouting shrubs dominate during a long successional period after fire in pristine big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) communities of the Great Basin.

Littleleaf horsebrush may be expected to increase with grazing due to its unpalatability. However, data are lacking to support this, and further research is needed to determine the species' response to grazing disturbance. Littleleaf horsebrush increased 64% after 30 years' cessation of cattle grazing in a Nevada big sagebrush/Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) community [45].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Littleleaf horsebrush leafs out around snowmelt, when most plants are still dormant. Leaf-out and stem elongation occur in February in southern portions of the Great Basin [32,38], and in spring in colder areas [20]. Flowering begins in April in the Mojave Desert and as late as mid-June in Idaho [14,35,38]. Colonies usually have synchronous flowering. Failure to flower or develop seed is apparently triggered by low rainfall. In very dry years, some individuals -- or entire colonies -- may not flower, or will flower and not set seed [52]. Littleleaf horsebrush is drought deciduous, shedding the secondary leaves 1st [24,52]. Leaves are dying by mid-summer and shed by late summer [20,38]. New leaves and shoots may grow in wet summers [38]. More often, plants are dormant from summer until late winter or early spring [54].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Horsebrushes are "slightly damaged by fire" [46]: top-growth is removed. Littleleaf horsebrush is dormant in summer and fall, so fires in those seasons have almost no effect on established plants [42,43]. When top-killed by fire, littleleaf horsebrush establishes by sprouting from the root crown [3,9,40,56,63]. Postfire establishment from seed has not been documented for little horsebrush.

Fire regimes: Fires in the desert shrub and steppe ecosystems in which gray horsebrush occurs were historically stand-replacing surface fires. Fires in the pinyon-juniper types were of mixed severity [41]. Fires seldom occur in plant communities dominated by littleleaf horsebrush; the communities show more bare ground cover than plant cover [4,5,18] and seldom have enough fuels to carry fire [63,64].

The following table provides some fire regime intervals for plant communities where littleleaf horsebrush is a common component of the vegetation. For further information, see the FEIS summary on the plant community dominants listed below.

Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
sagebrush steppe Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata 20-70 [41]
basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata 12-43 [46]
mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana 15-40 [1,11,36]
Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis 10-70 (40**) [59,65]
saltbush-greasewood Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus < 35 to < 100 
cheatgrass Bromus tectorum < 10
western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70 
Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum < 35
pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. < 35 [41]
Colorado pinyon Pinus edulis 10-400+ [19,23,31,41]
**mean

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [50]:
Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Fire top-kills littleleaf horsebrush. Horsebrush species are rarely killed by fire [42,43].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No entry

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Littleleaf horsebrush sprouts from the root crown after top-kill by fire [3,9,40,56,63]. Further research is needed littleleaf horsebrush's ability to establish from seed.

Littleleaf horsebrush was present on a southeastern Oregon big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass community before a prescribed summer fire. It was present 2 years after the fire [13]. Method of postfire regeneration was not mentioned.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
No entry

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Fire exclusion on desert steppes has tended to favor sagebrush species over fire-tolerant shrubs such as horsebrush [12,25,27,65]. Increased fire frequencies due to invasion of cheatgrass, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and other annual grasses may favor littleleaf horsebrush over sagebrushes.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Tetradymia glabrata
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Palatability/nutritional value: Littleleaf horsebrush is toxic, and it is not palatable to wildlife and livestock [20,35]. Browse palatability is rated poor for cattle and horses and fair for domestic sheep in Utah [15].

Littleleaf horsebrush is the most poisonous of the horsebrushes [20,51], containing compounds (furanoeremophilanes and resins) that cause liver damage in domestic sheep. Photosensitization also occurs in domestic sheep when black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) and littleleaf horsebrush are consumed together [39,47,51,58]. The 2 shrubs seem to synergistically increase sheep sensitivity to the toxins [29,58]. Poisoning occurs when ingestion reaches 0.5 pound (225 g) of browse or 0.5% of the sheep's weight [32,55], and may result in abortion or death. Domestic sheep consumption of littleleaf horsebrush is limited, but they may utilize littleleaf  horsebrush heavily when other forage is scarce. All parts of littleleaf horsebrush are toxic to domestic sheep, but young twigs and buds are generally the most palatable. Because littleleaf horsebrush usually greens up before most associated species, sheep may browse new shoots heavily when turned out onto the range too early [29,47]. There was regional variation in the toxicity of littleleaf horsebrush in Utah [28]. Toxicity is largely gone after plants flower [51]. Cattle are not affected by the toxins [20,32], but seldom browse littleleaf horsebrush [20]. 

Little information is available on nutritional content of littleleaf horsebrush. It is rated poor in protein and energy value [15].

Cover value: No information

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Horsebrushes provide critically needed ground cover and protection from erosion on dry sites that are otherwise often sparsely vegetated [35].

OTHER USES:
No information

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Eradication of littleleaf horsebrush is not practical or ecologically desirable [35,54]. The best way to prevent domestic sheep losses is to turn animals onto the range after early spring, when other forage has begun growth [54].


Tetradymia glabrata: References


1. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]
2. Bauer, H. L. 1930. Vegetation of the Tehachapi Mountains, California. Ecology. 11(2): 263-280. [15102]
3. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption, and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
4. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
5. 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]
6. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon Watershed. R-45. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 155 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [460]
7. Branson, Farrel A.; Miller, Reuben F.; McQueen, I. S. 1976. Moisture relationships in twelve northern desert shrub communities near Grand Junction, Colorado. Ecology. 57(6): 1104-1124. [510]
8. Breck, Stewart W.; Jenkins, Stephen H. 1997. Use of an ecotone to test the effects of soil and desert rodents on the distribution of Indian ricegrass. Ecography. 20(3): 253-263. [29188]
9. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings: brush management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 61-68. [521]
10. Brotherson, Jack D.; Brotherson, Karen J. 1979. Ecological and community relationships of Eriogonum corymbosum (Polygonaceae) in the Uinta Basin, Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 39(2): 177-191. [530]
11. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565]
12. Butler, Bret W.; Reynolds, Timothy D. 1997. Wildfire case study: Butte City Fire, southeastern Idaho, July 1, 1994. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-351. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 15 p. [27526]
13. Chabot, Brian F.; Billings, W. D. 1972. Origins and ecology of the Sierran alpine flora and vegetation. Ecological Monographs. 42(2): 163-199. [11228]
14. Cody, M. L. 1986. Spacing patterns in Mojave Desert plant communities: near-neighbor analyses. Journal of Arid Environments. 11: 199-217. [4411]
15. Cody, Martin L. 1993. Do cholla cacti (Opuntia spp., subgenus Cylindropuntia) use or need nurse plants in the Mojave Desert? Journal of Arid Environments. 24: 139-154. [22628]
16. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. [28653]
17. 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]
18. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
19. Fleming, C. E.; Miller, M. R.; Vawter, L. A. 1922. The spring rabbit-brush: a range plant poisonous to sheep. Bulletin No. 104. Reno, NV: The University of Nevada. 29 p. [41407]
20. Fort, Kevin P.; Richards, James H. 1998. Does seed dispersal limit initiation of primary succession in desert playas? American Journal of Botany. 85(12): 1722-1731. [30069]
21. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 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]
22. Green, Lisle R.; Sharp, Lee A.; Cook, C. Wayne; Harris, Lorin E. 1951. Utilization of winter range forage by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 4: 233-241. [7891]
23. Hacke, Uwe G.; Sperry, John S.; Pitterman, Jarmila. 2000. Drought experience and cavitation resistance in six shrubs from the Great Basin, Utah. Basic Applied Ecology. 1: 31-41. [41409]
24. Hanes, Ted L. 1976. Vegetation types of the San Gabriel Mountains. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 65-76. [4227]
25. Harniss, Roy O.; Murray, Robert B. 1973. 30 years of vegetal change following burning of sagebrush-grass range. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 322-325. [1086]
26. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]
27. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
28. Houston, Douglas B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 54(5): 1111-1117. [5781]
29. Johnson, A. Earl. 1987. The relationship of Tetradymia species and Artemisia nova to photosensitization in sheep. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 113-117. [1270]
30. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]
31. 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]
32. Manning, Sara J.; Groeneveld, David P. 1990. Shrub rooting characteristics and water acquisition on xeric sites in the western Great Basin. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 238-244. [12856]
33. Maskarinec, Gary S. 1994. Native plant die-offs. In: Despain, Don G., ed. Plants and their environments: Proceedings of the 1st biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; 1991 September 16-17; Yellowstone National Park, WY. Tech. Rep. NPS/NRYELL/NRTR. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Yellowstone National Park: 199-204. [26285]
34. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens, Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571]
35. McArthur, E. Durant; Stevens, Richard. 1986. Composite shrubs. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 155 p. [7342]
36. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [26637]
37. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
38. Mueggler, Walter F. 1950. Effects of spring and fall grazing by sheep on vegetation of the upper Snake River plains. Journal of Range Management. 3: 308-315. [1703]
39. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 p. [1731]
40. Nelson, David L.; Harper, Kimball T.; Boyer, Kenneth C.; [and others]. 1989. Wildland shrub dieoffs in Utah: an approach to understanding the cause. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 119-135. [5942]
41. Neuenschwander, L. F. 1978. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art review. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 31 p. [1747]
42. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
43. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Plummer, A. Perry; Robertson, Joseph H.; Hull, A. C., Jr. 1965. Sagebrush control on rangelands. Agriculture Handbook No. 277. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 40 p. [1858]
44. 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]
45. Ralphs, Michael H.; Schen, David C.; Busby, Fee. 1975. Prescribed burning--effective control of sagebrush and open juniper. Utah Science. 36(3): 94-98. [1931]
46. Ralphs, Michael H.; Schen, David C.; Busby, Frank E. 1976. General considerations necessary in planning a prescribed burn. In: Use of prescribed burning in western woodland and range ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1976 March 18-19; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station: 49-53. [1932]
47. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
48. 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]
49. Schuster, Joseph L.; James, Lynn F. 1988. Some other major poisonous plants of the western United States. In: James, Lynn F.; Ralphs, Michael; Nielsen, Darwin B., eds. The ecology and economic impact of poisonous plants on livestock production. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 295-307. [41408]
50. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
51. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]
52. Stoddart, L. A.; Holmgren, A. H.; Cook, C. W. 1949. Important poisonous plants of Utah. Special Report No. 2. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 21 p. [2259]
53. Strother, John L. 1974. Taxonomy of Tetradymia (Compositae: Senecioneae). Brittonia. 26: 177-202. [2268]
54. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2002. Horsebrush (Tetradymia glabrata, T. canescens). In: Agriculture Information--Bulletin 415: Plants poisonous to livestock in the western states, [Online]. Available: http://www.pprl.usu.edu/horsebrush.htm [2002, August 6]. [41588]
55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. PLANTS database (2005), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
56. Urness, Philip J. 1979. Wildlife habitat manipulation in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 169-178. [2404]
57. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]
58. Webb, Robert H.; Steiger, John W.; Newman, Evelyn B. 1988. The response of vegetation to disturbance in Death Valley National Monument, California. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1793. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 69 p. [8915]
59. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
60. 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]
61. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]
62. Wrobleski, David W. 1999. Effects of prescribed fire on Wyoming big sagebrush communities: implications for ecological restoration of sage grouse habitat. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 76 p. Thesis. [2644]
63. 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]
64. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681]
65. Zigmond, Maurice L. 1981. Kawaisu ethnobotany. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. 102 p. [35936]



FEIS Home Page