Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Juniperus ashei

Introductory

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Sullivan, Janet. 1993. Juniperus ashei. 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 : JUNASH SYNONYMS : Juniperus sabinoides (H.B.K.) Nees sensu Sargent J. mexicana Spreng. J. monticola Martinez J. occidentalis var. Texana Vasey J. occidentalis var. conjugens Engelman Sabina sabinoides (H.B.K.) Small SCS PLANT CODE : JUAS COMMON NAMES : Ashe juniper mountain cedar rock cedar Ozark white cedar post cedar Mexican juniper break cedar brake cedar Texas cedar sabino enebro cedro tascate Texate TAXONOMY : The accepted scientific name for Ashe juniper is Juniperus ashei Buchholz. Ashe juniper is thought to hybridize with redberry juniper (J. pinchotii) [19,30]. Adams and Kistler [3] summarized a number of studies that investigated the report that Ashe juniper hybridizes with eastern redcedar (J. virginiana) [17,18]. They concluded that there was no evidence of gene flow between the two species, even though their ranges overlap, and morphological intermediates exist. There are no recognized subspecies, forms, or varieties of Ashe juniper. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Ashe juniper has a limited range in southwestern North America.  It occurs in disjunct populations in southwestern Missouri and Arkansas, in the Arbuckle Mountains of southern Oklahoma, and in Coahuila, Mexico. The main population occurs in west-central Texas, largely on the Edwards Plateau [20,28,41]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES15  Oak - hickory    FRES31  Shinnery    FRES32  Texas savanna    FRES38  Plains grasslands    FRES39  Prairie STATES :      AR  MO  OK  TX  MEXICO BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :    13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont    14  Great Plains KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    K086  Juniper - oak savanna    K087  Mesquite - oak savanna SAF COVER TYPES :     66  Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper     67  Mohr ("shin") oak     68  Mesquite SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Ashe juniper forms dense to open communities with oaks (Quercus spp.), including live oak (Q. virginiana) and Mohr oak (Q. mohriana), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.).  These communities have invaded many acres of adjacent little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) grasslands as a result of overgrazing and fire suppression [42]. Publications which list Ashe juniper as a dominant or codominant species include: Utilization of grass- and shrublands of the southwestern United States [21].  A comparison of some woody upland and riparian plant communities   of the southern Edwards Plateau [46]. An ecological comparison of upland deciduous and evergreen forests of   central Texas [45].  North American shrublands [31].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : The wood of Ashe juniper is aromatic, close-grained, hard and light, but not strong [47].  The heartwood of Ashe juniper is durable and is used for fenceposts, crossties, poles, small woodenware, and fuel [32,41,47]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Juniper "berries" are consumed by many species of birds and small mammals, including bobwhite, American robin, Gambel's quail, cedar waxwing, curve-billed thrasher, gray fox, raccoon, and thirteen-lined ground squirrel [47].  The foliage of Ashe juniper is occasionally browsed by goats and deer [47].  Individual trees may be more palatable than the general population [38].  Ashe juniper browse is not considered a valuable food for deer or for livestock [22]. The bark of Ashe juniper is very shreddy and is used for nesting material, most notably by the rare golden-cheeked warbler [25,41].  This bird appears to be obligately dependent on the presence of Ashe juniper in its habitat [25].  It is not currently listed as endangered or threatened [59]. PALATABILITY : Ashe juniper "berries" are highly palatable to many species of birds and small mammals [10,41,47].  The browse is of low palatability [10,56]. Heavy browsing of Ashe juniper in winter and spring is an indicator of deer overpopulation and poor rangeland conditions [10]. NUTRITIONAL VALUE : The nutritional value of mixed plant parts (leaves, stems and berries) of Ashe juniper is as follows [22]:                         % of dry weight protein                       6-10 digestible organic matter    60-70 phosphorus                 0.07-0.15 COVER VALUE : Ashe juniper has high escape and cover value for a number of birds and mammals, most notably the white-tailed deer [7].  It is important for nesting and roosting for many species of birds [10]. VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : All native juniper species are valued as ornamentals [23].  The bark of Ashe juniper was used by Native Americans to make mats, saddles and other items [32]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : In the last century on the Edwards Plateau in Texas, scrub oak (Texas live oak [Quercus virginiana var. fusiformis] and Vasey oak [Q. pungens var. vaseyana])-juniper communities have spread onto the mixed prairie. This vegetative shift is due largely to the absence of fire, but overgrazing, seed dispersal by livestock, and a possible shift in climate are contributing factors [38,39,42].  It is currently estimated that Ashe juniper occupies 0.5 million acres in southern Oklahoma and 8.6 million acres in Texas, much of it on former grasslands [16].  Large dense stands of Ashe juniper are considered detrimental to both livestock and wildlife; white-tailed deer prefer open stands and edges close to cover and a variety of foods.  Dense stands of Ashe juniper reduce the amount of understory vegetation, resulting in a decrease in available forage [33]. Chemical control:  Grumbles [16] reported that spot-application of picloram at a rate of 0.1 ounce active ingredient (4 mL) per 3 feet (90 cm) of crown canopy diameter resulted in 97 percent mortality, except for the very largest trees (over 15 feet [4.5 m] crown diameter). Failure to kill the largest trees was attributed to heavy litter layers and low precipitation.  The study also determined that spring applications were more effective than fall applications.  Other authors do not believe that herbicides are effective or economical in controlling Ashe juniper, and that use of herbicides can be detrimental to other species [40,49]. Mechanical control:  Thirteen to eighteen years after Ashe juniper was removed by treedozing only (no burning of piles or downed trees), Ashe juniper comprised 50 percent or more of the total brush cover.  Such treatment leaves the seedbank intact, allowing Ashe juniper to reestablish fairly rapidly.  In similar areas where Ashe juniper was removed by treedozing and the piles burned 5 years later, Ashe juniper comprised less than 14 percent of total brush cover [35].  Double chaining Ashe juniper into piles and then burning the piles the same year reduced Ashe juniper cover by 93 percent [38].  Ashe juniper trees less than 5 feet (1.5 m) tall are not pulled up by chaining, so the areas need to be broadcast burned to kill the young Ashe junipers between piles.  Single chaining is probably effective on pure, even-aged Ashe juniper stands and is less expensive than double chaining.  The double chaining method is recommended for stands which are uneven-aged or have other species present in substantial numbers [38].  To summarize the recommended treatments:  Ashe juniper should be reduced by mechanical means and then burned about 5 years later.  Any undesirable species can be spot treated with herbicides; the area should be burned again when Ashe juniper saplings reach 4 feet (1.2 m) in height [33,34,35,52,53]. Sprouting species, such as Mohr oak and flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallina), may increase on rangeland where Ashe juniper is controlled by burning.  The particular species depends on prior establishment, treatment, and factors related to soil and aspect.  Brush species have to be evaluated as to their contribution to management goals.  It is often the case that the sprouting species are palatable and nutritious for livestock and wildlife, and can be controlled by grazing practices. Other species not removed by fire may not be desirable for livestock or wildlife, and need to be controlled by other means (usually herbicides) [33,35]. In general, it is neither possible nor desirable to eradicate all trees and brush from the rangelands on the Edwards Plateau.  Current management on public lands and on private ranches recognizes the economic value of white-tailed deer.  A mixed pattern of open stands and grassland is more desirable for deer and is also acceptable for livestock [7,38,39]. Culture:  Germination of Ashe juniper seeds is enhanced by cold stratification at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (4 deg C) for 120 days.  Ashe juniper seeds should be sown in the fall or cold stratified and sown in the spring.  They can be drill seeded or hand broadcast and should be mulched.  Seedlings need light shade the first growing season, as they are easily damaged by excessive heat.  Junipers in general are resistant to damping off and root rot [23]. Diseases:  Ashe juniper is susceptible to juniper blight (Phomopsis juniperova), which infects foliage and stem tissue.  This is a particular problem in nursery stock.  Total loss of seedlings can occur in epidemic years.  Older trees are seldom killed; mortality occurs through girdling of small diameter stems.  Control consists of the fungicide, Benomyl, applied throughout the growing season.  Ashe juniper is resistant to cedar-apple rust (Gymnosporangium juniperi-virginianae) [23,37,47].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Ashe juniper is a small, native, evergreen tree or shrub.  It is usually many-stemmed and rarely grows over 30 feet (9 m) tall.  The bark is shreddy and thin [41].  Ashe juniper has strong taproots and has extensive lateral roots in the surface foot of soil [18]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :       Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Ashe juniper becomes sexually mature when 10 to 20 years old.  Heavy seed crops are produced irregularly, but some seeds are usually produced each year.  The embryo is usually dormant, and the seeds may take 2 to 3 years to germinate.  There is probably some seedbank built up in the soil; Ashe juniper seeds retained 50 percent of original viability after 4 years of storage in high humidity at 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 deg C) [23]. Ashe juniper does not reproduce asexually. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Historically, Ashe juniper occurred only on rock outcrops or dissected upland limestones but in the last century has spread to adjacent grasslands [20,42].  It usually occurs on shallow, limestone-derived soils [18,41]. Overstory associates not previously mentioned include Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), Harvard oak (Q. harvardii), post oak (Q. stellata), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and redberry juniper [13,48,51,57,58]. Understory associates not previously mentioned include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats grama (B.  curtipendula), tall grama (B. pectinata), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), curlymesquite (Hilaria belangeri), vine-mesquite (Panicum obtusum), Wright threeawn (Aristida wrightii), hairy tridens (Tridens pilosus), Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), whitebrush (Aloysia gratissima), and huisache (Acacia smallii) [38,57]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Facultative Seral Species Ashe juniper can form dense climax stands ("cedar brakes") that suppress the growth of understory species.  Growth inhibitors contribute to such suppression [6,8,50].  The extensive lateral root system at the surface of the soil contributes to its competitive success in xeric environments; dense stands of Ashe juniper are resistant to invasion [18]. Most species of juniper are intolerant to very intolerant of shade. Ashe juniper is probably intolerant of shade. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : The staminate catkins of Ashe juniper open in early spring [23]. Pollination of the ovulate cones occurs at this time; the fruit develops through its first summer and is ripe in early fall and winter.  The "berries" usually persist through the winter [47].  Germination is in the spring, usually after one, two, or three winters [23].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Ashe juniper is not well adapted to fire.  Its thin bark is easily damaged by fire; the foliage often hangs near the ground, increasing the risk of damage by ground fires; and it is nonsprouting.  Small stems (less than 1 inch [2.5 cm] in diameter) are easily killed by fire [56]. Mature trees in moderate to dense stands are resistant to fire.  Fine fuels in such stands are usually not sufficient to carry fire, and the trees are usually far enough apart to prevent fire being carried from crown to crown [56]. Historically, Ashe juniper was restricted to dissected uplands and ridges that acted as fire refugia.  With the suppression of fire and poor rangeland management in the past 100 years or so, Ashe juniper has colonized large areas of adjacent grassland [33,42,48].  Ashe juniper is readily controlled by prescribed fire. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    Tree without adventitious-bud root crown    Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Ashe juniper seedlings are easily killed by low-severity fires.  Hot fires can kill large Ashe juniper trees [50,56].  Scorching 60 percent of the crown will kill most Ashe juniper trees [44]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Colonization of burned areas occurs through seed dispersed by birds or mammals, or by seed that survived fire.  It can take 10 to 40 years for Ashe juniper to establish stands that are over 4 feet (1.2 m) tall [33,50]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Dead Ashe juniper trees are highly volatile fuels and must be treated with caution.  Firebrands can carry up to 400 feet (120 m), depending on conditions, and can ignite spot fires, especially where there is a preponderance of highly flammable dried animal dung. Prescribed burning is rarely used alone on mature Ashe juniper stands, as there is usually not enough fine fuel to carry fire [34,52].  Wright and Bailey [53], however, list it as a technique to convert dense stands into more open stands. Chained stands are the easiest to burn; herbicide-treated or treedozed stands can also be successfully burned [34,52,53].  In order to carry fire to ignite piles and burn seedlings, it is generally recommended that there be a minimum of 1,000 pounds per acre (1,120 kg/ha) of fine fuels, and 2,000 pounds per acre (2,240 kg/ha) of continuous fine fuel is optimal [34,50,52,53].  The lower figure is not sufficient if it consists of bunchgrasses.  Plots consisting of dozed or chained Ashe juniper piles interspersed with grasses and Ashe juniper seedlings may be safely burned with a headfire into a 500 foot (150 m) fireline under certain conditions [9,34,52,53]. Dalrymple [11] reported 100 percent mortality of individuals less than 2 feet (0.6 m) and 77 percent mortality of trees from 2 to 6 feet (0.6-1.8 m) tall after a prescribed fire in Okalahoma.  Less than 25 percent of trees taller than 6 feet (1.8 m) were killed.  Juniper (Juniperus spp.) trees in open stands can be individually ignited and burned using propane or oil burners [44]. Some authors recommend windrowing of larger trees rather than dozing for achieving crown fires.  With windrows, six trees are burned for every tree pushed into standing tree lines [6,8].  Good tree to tree spread of fire does not occur unless the trees are less than 26 feet (8 m) apart [6].  Since leaf moisture is one of the most important variables for satisfactory burning, Engle and Stritzke [12] tested the proposition that an aerial application of paraquat could reduce foliage water content and increase crown scorch during broadcast fires in tallgrass prairie.  They found that the leaf water content was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) for all applied levels of paraquat, and that large trees were more damaged by the paraquat plus fire treatment than by fire alone (p < 0.0319).  They conclude that paraquat can be used as a desiccant to promote crown fires in closed-canopy stands of Ashe juniper. One of the major environmental concerns about the use of prescribed fire for rangeland management is increased soil loss caused by the removal of vegetation.  Wright and others [54] tested the effect prescribed burning of Ashe juniper had on erosion and found that for very gentle slopes (1 to 4 percent grade), there was very little soil loss, but on moderate (15 to 29 percent) or steep (45 to 53 percent) slopes the losses increased greatly.  The amount and duration of soil loss depended largely on vegetative cover and slope.  The negative effects of burning Ashe juniper can be mitigated by artificially seeding moderate and steep slopes. With adequate precipitation, the resulting ground cover can reduce the amount of time needed to stabilize soils from 18 months to 3 months on steep slopes.  Total stabilization (i.e.  return to pretreatment levels of soil loss) can be reduced from 42 months to 6 months, again with adequate precipitation [54]. A 10- to 40-year interval between prescribed fires is recommended to maintain control of Ashe juniper; a general rule of thumb is to burn when Ashe juniper trees are 4 feet (1.2 m) tall [33,34,38,53].

FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION : Sullivan, Janet., compiler. 1993. Effects of fire on Ashe juniper in northern Texas. In: Juniperus ashei. 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/ []. REFERENCE : Wink, Robert L.; Wright, Henry  A. 1973. Effects of fire on an ashe juniper community. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 326-329. [50]. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : 1) Spring/low--followed wet winter and spring 2) Spring/high--followed dry winter and spring STUDY LOCATION : The Beckham Ranch, Callahan County, 14 miles (24 km) southeast of Baird, Texas. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : The natural vegetation of the area consists of mixed-prairie grasses interspersed with Ashe juniper and several species of oak.  The dominant decreasers are little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula).  Important increasers are buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), vine-mesquite (Panicum obtusum), Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), tall grama (B. pectinata) and meadow dropseed (Sporobolus asper var. hookeri). TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : Large Ashe juniper trees were bulldozed and piled in 1965 (burning took place in 1970 and 1971).  Small Ashe junipers that escaped the bulldozers and new seedlings were also present. SITE DESCRIPTION : Average annual precipitation is 24 to 28 inches (600-700 mm).  The topography of the area is level to undulating with some slopes greater than 20 percent.  Elevation is 1,198 to 1,394 feet (365-425 m).  The average minimum January temperature is 23 degrees Fahrenheit (-5 deg C), and the average maximum July temperature is 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 deg C).  The average growing season is 232 days. Sandy loam sites in the study area have deep soils with fine sandy loam surfaces 6 to 14 inches (15-36 cm) thick, and sandy clays and sandy loam subsoils.  The soils are slowly to moderately permeable.  The low stony hill site consists of very shallow, moderately permeable, calcareous, stony clay soils.  Depth ranges from 6 to 12 inches (15-31 cm) with limestone rocks and boulders present on the surface and in the profile in various amounts. All three sites were sampled for herbage production and fine fuel concentration, and individual plots were marked to measure pile consumption and tree mortality.  The uniformly fine fuels ranged from 686 to 3,186 pounds per acre (768-3,568 kg/ha).  The estimated amount of heavy fuels (piles of Ashe juniper) varied from 20 to 30 tons per acre (44.8-67.2 t/ha) and occupied from 0 to 85 percent of the area with an average cover of 22 percent. FIRE DESCRIPTION : Air temperature:  75 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit (24-30 deg C) humidity: 25-35 percent wind speed: 10 to 15 miles per hour (16-25 km/h) The objectives of the prescribed fires were to consume the piles of dead trees and to burn the intervening areas where Ashe juniper seedlings had established.  Fires were conducted in 2 separate years.  In March of 1970, one pasture of 1,013 acres (405 ha) was burned, and in March 1971, 2 pastures for a total of 1,620 acres (648 ha) were burned.  All areas were burned with headfires.  The ignition pattern was a combination of perimeter and strip headfiring. Fire intensities were not reported. FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : Plots on which fine fuels were 686 and 859 pounds per acre (768 and 962 kg/ha) were not successful in carrying the fire.  On plots where fine fuels exceeded 1,000 pounds per acre (1,120 kg/ha), 99 percent of the piles were consumed by fire.  The March 1971 fires followed 6 months of very dry weather and were conducted under the lowest humidities and highest winds that could be tolerated for prescribed burning.  Where large piles were within 40 feet (12 m) of each other, firebrands would ignite the piles downwind, precluding the necessity of continuous fine fuel. Ashe juniper mortality was high where the fine fuels were adequate to carry the headfire.  Of 368 trees under 6 feet (1.8 m) tall, only one survived.  Many trees over 6 feet (1.8 m) tall were killed by the fire, particularly where fine fuels exceeded 2,000 pounds per acre (2,240 kg/ha). FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : Prescribed burning is a useful method for controlling Ashe juniper encroachment on grasslands.  It is recommended that the larger trees be chained or dozed to assure mortality and to concentrate dead stems into piles.  Fires require a minimum of 1,000 pounds per acre (1,120 kg/ha) of fine fuels for successful spread, and 2,000 pounds per acre (2,240 kg/ha) is optimal.  Soil moisture should be a primary consideration before conducting a prescribed fire.  Herbaceous plants require good soil moisture for rapid recovery after the fire, which helps reduce soil erosion.  Burning increased the yield of little bluestem and meadow dropseed after the 1970 fire, which followed a wet winter and spring. The same species decreased about 50 percent after the 1971 fires following a dry winter and spring. Vegetation on the burned juniper pile areas differed from that adjacent to the piles.  Silver leaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) and Carolina horsenettle (S. carolinense) were dominant on the burned pile areas, and may need to be controlled with herbicides.  Smoothleaf sumac (Rhus glabra) also increase in prominence on the burned pile areas.

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Juniperus ashei
REFERENCES :  1.  Adams, R. P. 1975. Gene flow vs. select. press. & ancestral different.        in the comp. of spp: analysis of pop. variat. of Juniperus ashei Buch.        using terpenoid data. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 5: 177-185.        [19842]  2.  Adams, Robert P. 1977. Chemosystematics--analyses of populational        differentiation & variability of ancestral & recent populations of        Juniperus ashei. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 64(2):        184-209.  [19845]  3.  Adams, Robert P.; Kistler, J. R. 1991. Hybridization between Juniperus        erythrocarpa Cory and Juniperus pinchotii Sudworth in the Chisos        Mountains, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 36(3): 295-301.  [17084]  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, W. H. 1983. Influence of brush control on hydrologic        characteristics. In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush        management symposium; 1983 February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO:        Society for Range Management; 1983: 73-88.  [452]  6.  Britton, Carlton; Meinzer, Wyman. 1990. Fire and wildlife. Texas Parks        and Wildlife. 49(1): 30-31.  [18321]  7.  Bryant, Fred C.; Demarais, Steve. 1991. Habitat management guidelines        for whte-tailed deer in south and west Texas. In: Lutz, R. Scott;        Wester, David B., editors. Research highlights--1991: Noxious brush and        weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 22. Lubbock, TX:        Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 9-13.  [18350]  8.  Bryant, F. C.; Launchbaugh, G. K.; Koerth, B. H. 1983. Controlling        mature ashe juniper in Texas with crown fires. Journal of Range        Management. 36(2): 165-168.  [13813]  9.  Bunting, Stephen C.; Wright, Henry A. 1974. Ignition capabilities of        non-flaming firebrands. Journal of Forestry. 72(10): [Pages unknown].        [561] 10.  Crawford, Hewlette S.; Kucera, Clair L.; Ehrenreich, John H. 1969. Ozark        range and wildlife plants. Agric. Handb. 356. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 236 p.  [18602] 11.  Dalrymple, R. L. 1969. Prescribed grass burning for Ashe juniper        control. Progress Report for Noble Foundation, Inc., Ardmore, OK. In:        Proceedings, 22nd annual meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society;        1969 January 21-23; Dallas, TX: 271-272.  [19849] 12.  Engle, D. M.; Stritzke, J. F. 1991. Fire-herbicide systems for        manipulating juniper. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds.        Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives:        Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville,        TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:        397-401.  [16659] 13.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905] 14.  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] 15.  George, Ernest J. 1953. Tree and shrub species for the Northern Great        Plains. Circular No. 912. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture. 46 p.  [4566] 16.  Grumbles, J. B. 1989. Control of eastern redcedar and ashe juniper with        soil spot applications of picloram. Down to Earth. 45(1): 13-16.        [11154] 17.  Hall, Marion T. 1952. A hybrid swarm in Juniperus. Evolution. 6(4):        347-366.  [19851] 18.  Hall, Marion Trufant. 1952. Variation and hybridization in Juniperus.        Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 39(1): 1-64.  [19850] 19.  Hall, Marion T.; McCormick, J. F.; Fogg, George G. 1962. Hybridization        between Juniperus ashei Buchholz and Juniperus pinchotii Sudworth in        southwest Texas. Butler University Botanical Studies. 14(1): 9-28.        [19843] 20.  Hart, Jeffrey A.; Price, Robert A. 1990. The genera of Cupressaceae        (including Taxodiaceae) in the southeastern United States. Journal of        the Arnold Arboretum. 71(3): 275-322.  [14597] 21.  Herbel, Carlton H. 1979. Utilization of grass- and shrublands of the        south-western United States. In: Walker, B. H., ed. Management of        semi-arid ecosystems. Volume 7. Developments in agriculture and        managed-forest ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing        Company: 161-203.  [1134] 22.  Huston, J. E.; Rector, B. S.; Merrill, L. B.; Engdahl, B. S. 1981.        Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region of        Texas. Report B-1375. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University System,        Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p.  [4565] 23.  Johnsen, Thomas N., Jr.; Alexander, Robert A. 1974. Juniperus L.        juniper. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., tech. coord. Seeds of woody plants in        the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 460-469.  [1268] 24.  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] 25.  Kroll, James C. 1980. Habitat requirements of the golden-cheeked        warbler: management implications. Journal of Range Management. 33(1):        60-65.  [19844] 26.  Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation        of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:        American Geographical Society. 77 p.  [1384] 28.  Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native        and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p.  [2952] 29.  Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession        following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall        Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council        fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.        14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373.  [1496] 30.  McCormick, J. F.; Fogg, G. G. 1961. Hybridization between Juniperus        ashei Buchholz and Juniperus pinchotii Sudworth in southwestern Texas.        Butler University Botanical Studies. 14: 9-28.  [19847] 31.  McKell, Cyrus M.; Garcia-Moya, Edmundo. 1989. North American shrublands.        In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San        Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc: 3-23.  [7194] 32.  Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including        Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park,        TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p.  [6130] 33.  Rasmussen, George Allen. 1986. Long-term effects of prescribed fire on        ashe juniper communities. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 134 p.        Thesis.  [12738] 34.  Rasmussen, G. Allen; McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1986.        Prescribed burning juniper communities in Texas. Management Note 10.        Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences. 5        p.  [4043] 35.  Rasmussen, G. Allen; Wright, Henry A. 1989. Succession of secondary        shrubs on Ashe juniper communities after dozing and prescribed burning.        Journal of Range Management. 42(4): 295-298.  [7856] 36.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 37.  Riffle, Jerry W.; Peterson, Glenn W., technical coordinators. 1986.        Diseases of trees in the Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-129. Fort        Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky        Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 149 p.  [16990] 38.  Rollins, Dale; Bryant, Fred C. 1986. Floral changes following mechanical        brush removal in central Texas. Journal of Range Management. 39(3):        237-240.  [10415] 39.  Rollins, Dale; Bryant, Fred C.; Waid, Douglas D.; Bradley, Lisa C. 1988.        Deer response to brush management in central Texas. Wildlife Society        Bulletin. 16(3): 277-284.  [9671] 40.  Scifres, C. J. 1980. Fire and range vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains.        In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Rio Grande        Plains of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1979 November 7; Carrizo        Springs, TX. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System, Texas        Agricultural Extension Service: 6-11.  [11458] 41.  Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas        Monthly Press. 372 p.  [11708] 42.  Smeins, Fred E. 1980. Natural role of fire of the Edwards Plateau. In:        White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of        Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.        College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System, Texas Agricultural        Extension Service: 4-16.  [11442] 43.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.        National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.        SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p.  [11573] 44.  Vallentine, John F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Provo:        Brigham Young University Press. 516 pgs.  [2414] 45.  Van Auken, O. W.; Ford, A. L.; Allen, J. L. 1981. An ecological        comparison of upland deciduous and evergreen forests of central Texas.        American Journal of Botany. 68(9): 1249-1256.  [10559] 46.  Van Auken, O. W.; Ford, A. L.; Stein, A. 1979. A comparison of some        woody upland and riparian plant communities of the southern Edwards        Plateau. Southwestern Naturalist. 24(1): 165-180.  [10489] 47.  Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.        Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p.  [7707] 48.  Flemming, Stephen P.; Smith, Peter C.; Seymour, Norman R.; Bancroft,        Robert P. 1992. Ospreys use local enhancement and flock foraging to        locate prey. Auk. 109(3): 649-654.  [19848] 49.  Whitson, R. E.; Scifres, C. J.; Polk, D. B., Jr. 1975. Economic        efficiency of ashe juniper control in the Edwards Plateau. P-R-Texas        Agricultural Experiment Station. [College Station, Texas]; 3341: 59-60.        [19846] 50.  Wink, Robert L.; Wright, Henry  A. 1973. Effects of fire on an ashe        juniper community. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 326-329.  [2582] 51.  Wood, Carl E.; Wood, Judith K. 1988. Woody vegetation of the Frio River        riparian forest, Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 40(3): 309-322.        [11870] 52.  Wright, Henry A. 1980. Techniques and procedures for safe use of        prescribed fire. In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in        the Edwards Plateau of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October        23; Junction, TX. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System,        Texas Agricultural Extension Service: 51-61.  [11445] 53.  Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States        and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p.  [2620] 54.  Wright, Henry A.; Churchill, Francis M.; Stevens, W. Clark. 1982. Soil        loss, runoff, and water quality of seeded and unseeded steep .x        watersheds following prescribed burning. Journal of Range Management.        35(3): 382-385.  [8614] 55.  Zanoni, T. A. 1978. The American junipers of the section Sabina        (Juniperus, Cupressaceae) -- a century later. Phytologia. 38(6):        433-454.  [4954] 56.  Armstrong, W. E. 1980. Impact of prescribed burning on wildlife. In:        White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of        Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.        College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M        University System: 22-26.  [11430] 57.  Van Auken, O. W.; Bush, J. K. 1991. Influence of shade and herbaceous        competition on the seedling growth of two woody species. Madrono. 38(3):        149-157.  [16572] 58.  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]


FEIS Home Page