Yucca brevifolia


Table of Contents


INTRODUCTORY


  1998 Christopher L. Christie
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Yucca brevifolia. 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:
YUCBRE

SYNONYMS:
Yucca baccata var. brevifolia L.D. Benson & Darrow [46]

for Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia:
Yucca brevifolia var. herbertii (Webber) Munz [107]

NRCS PLANT CODE [100]:
YUBR

COMMON NAMES:
Joshua tree
Jaeger's Joshua tree
yucca palm

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of Joshua tree is Yucca brevifolia Engelm. (Agavaceae) [29,37,49,50,110]. Joshua tree is part of the spongy-fruited or Clistocarpa section of the Yucca genus [72,107].

The following varieties are recognized, although not consistently [49,50]:

Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia Engelm., Joshua tree
Yucca brevifolia var. jaegeriana McKelvey, Jaeger's Joshua tree

In the Tickapoo Valley of southern Nevada, the distributions of Y. b. var. brevifolia and Y. b. var. jaegeriana overlap, and hybridization may occur [88].

The scientific names given above will be used when discussing varieties in this review.

LIFE FORM:
Tree-shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

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

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Yucca brevifolia
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Joshua tree is a Mojave Desert endemic [99]. Its distribution follows the Mojave Desert boundary in southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, western Arizona, southeastern California, and northern Baja California Norte [21,50,51,76,77,110]. Yucca b. var. brevifolia and Y. b. var. jaegeriana occur in the Mojave Desert's western and northeastern portions, respectively [92]. Southern Nevada's Tickapoo Valley is the only reported area where distributions of Y. b. var. brevifolia and Y. b. var. jaegeriana overlap [88]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of Joshua tree.

ECOSYSTEMS [33]:
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands

STATES/PROVINCES: (key to state/province abbreviations)
UNITED STATES
AZ CA NV UT

MEXICO
B.C.N.

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [9]:
4 Sierra Mountains
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau

KUCHLER [57] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K027 Mesquite bosques
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K041 Creosote bush
K042 Creosote bush-bur sage
K043 Paloverde-cactus shrub
K044 Creosote bush-tarbush
K053 Grama-galleta steppe

SAF COVER TYPES [27]:
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [91]:
401 Basin big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
501 Saltbush-greasewood
502 Grama-galleta
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
505 Grama-tobosa shrub
506 Creosotebush-bursage
507 Palo verde-cactus
508 Creosotebush-tarbush

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Joshua tree is recognized in several vegetation types, but while often a visual dominant, it is rarely a true dominant in terms of abundance. Its density is low in Joshua tree woodlands and blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) scrub communities of the eastern Mohave Desert [28]. Rowlands [88] suggests that recognition of a Joshua tree woodland community type is erroneous, and points out that Joshua tree woodlands in Joshua Tree National Park are entirely different from Joshua tree woodlands in California's Eureka Valley.

In the northern part of the Mojave Desert, Joshua tree is associated with Great Basin species, and in the southern Mojave, Joshua tree is found with characteristic Mojave and Sonoran desert species [65]. Often, perennial grasses are the dominants in Joshua tree stands. In the western Mojave, desert needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum) and Indian ricegrass (A. hymenoides) are common dominant associates. In the eastern Mojave Desert, western Arizona, and Joshua Tree National Park, big galleta (Pleuraphis rigida) and black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) are dominant in Joshua tree stands, while galleta (P. jamesii) and blue grama (B. gracilis) dominate Joshua tree stands in northern parts of the eastern Mojave and in the Great Basin [88]. Other common Joshua tree associates in Joshua Tree National Park include California juniper (Juniperus californica), singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella), blackbrush, green ephedra (Ephedra viridis), eastern Mojave buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), white burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola), bladdersage (Salazaria mexicana), and Mojave desertrue (Thamnosma montana) [85].

The following vegetation classifications identify Joshua tree as an important species:

California: Nevada: Mojave Desert:

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Yucca brevifolia

 

2004 James M. Andre
 
Br. Alfred Brousseau, Saint Mary's College
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g. [37,50,76,77,110]).

Aboveground description: Maxwell [68] describes Joshua tree as a "delight to the eye and a fascinating feature of the western landscape." More specifically, however, Joshua tree is a 20- to 70-foot (5-20 m) tall, evergreen, tree-like plant. Trees exceeding 40 feet (10 m) are rare, and height is easily overestimated [51,62,72,76,77]. Tree size and growth form often vary with site and climate conditions [37,68,92]. Typically trees have 1 main stout stem that measures 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in diameter and have an expanded base [21,50,56,105,107]. Growth forms with several large stems are noted as well [92,107,110]. Trunks are fibrous, and the bark or periderm is "soft and cork like" [55,66,92]. Mature tree trunks typically measure 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in diameter. Bark plates measure 3 to 6 inches (7.5-15 cm) long by 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) in thickness [72].

Branching is often extensive on old plants, and rounded open crowns are common [37,50,62,92]. Young trees typically lack branches and are covered with persistent reflexed leaves [105]. Trees normally reach 3 to 9 feet (0.9-3 m) tall before branching [66]. Johnson [47] describes Joshua tree branching as "grotesque" and random. However, branching is formally referred to as dichotomous or almost dichotomous. Branches are formed following terminal bud death due to flowering or insect damage [50,66,68,88]. Branches are often 7 to 20 feet (2-5 m) or longer and fork at 2- to 3-foot (0.6-0.9 m) intervals. Inner branches are typically erect, and outer branches can be horizontal or drooping [21,50,62,72,110].

Joshua tree is slow growing and long lived [22,62]. Wallace and Romney [105] indicate that height, growth rings, or number of leaf blades may be used to age Joshua tree, but they caution that height may not accurately age "very mature" plants. Webber [107] reports that 21-year-old Joshua trees were unbranched, and the average annual growth rate was 5.9 cm/year. Other Y. b. var. jaegeriana plants grew an average of 11.7 cm/year. Johnson [47] indicates that large trees can be 300 years old, and Keith [55] suggests that Joshua tree has an average life span of 150 years. Little [62] suggests that Joshua tree is among the among the desert's "oldest living plants." An approximately 60-foot-tall (20 m) tree in California was an estimated 1,000 years old [62].

Leaves are clustered in rosettes at the branch ends. Clusters are commonly 1 to 5 feet (0.3-1.5 m) long and 1 to 2 feet (0.3-0.5 m) in diameter. Leaves are linear, needle shaped and measure 5.9 to 14 inches (15-35 cm) long by 0.3 to 0.6 inch (0.7-1.5 cm) wide. Enlarged bases attach the leaves to the branch. Leaf shape is slightly triangular and leaf margins are lined with small teeth. Spines measuring 0.3 to 0.5 inch (7-12 mm) occur at the leaf tips [6,21,37,50,51,62,76,77,107,110]. Leaf clusters are longer (3 to 5 feet (1-1.5 m)) on juvenile plants than on mature plants (1-3 feet (0.3-1 m)) [72]. Outer leaf layers are thick and waxy to reduce water loss [66]. Dead leaves are persistent and fold down, covering the branches and coating the trunks of young trees [47].

Joshua tree flowers occur in dense, heavy panicles that measure 8 to 20 inches (20-40 cm) long. Individual flowers are round to egg shaped and measure 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) by 0.4 to 0.8 inch (1-2 cm) wide [21,37,47,51,62,76,77,110]. Fruits are indehiscent capsules, which become spongy and dry with age. Egg-shaped capsules are 2 to 4 inches (6-10 cm) long and approximately 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. Fruits develop at the base of the inflorescence while the upper portion is still in flower. Mature fruits contain 30 to 50 seeds, which are flat to thickened with smooth to undulate surfaces. Seeds are 0.3 to 0.4 inch (7-11 mm) long [3,21,47,50,61,62,72,76,77,107]. Fruit clusters often weigh over 9 pounds (4 kg), while a single capsule frequently weighs over 8.8 ounces (250 g). Fruits borne on erect branches are not easily detached [61]. Average individual seed weight ranged from 0.0025 to 0.0035 ounce (0.07-0.1 g) based on several seed collections in the Southwest [3]. In Los Angeles County, California, the average fruit length was 2.7 inches (69 mm), the number of seeds per locule averaged 26, and individual seed weight averaged 99 mg [53].

Belowground description: The Joshua tree root system is described as deep and extensive [11,22]. The enlarged trunk base of mature trees can be almost 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter but extends only about 1 foot (0.3 m) into the ground, suggesting that Joshua trees are supported mainly by their roots and rhizomes [92]. A large number of small fibrous roots penetrate down and horizontally [56]. In southern Utah, Joshua tree roots were found in an excavation pit in a blackbrush community when the nearest Joshua tree was 36 feet (11 m) away [11].

Not all Joshua trees produce rhizomes. Rhizome production and clonal growth are more common at high elevations [92]. See Asexual regeneration for a discussion of possible reasons for rhizome presence or absence.

Newly produced rhizomes are unbranched, succulent, and covered with bud scales. Young rhizomes grow and produce aerial stems quickly. After producing aerial stems, rhizomes become woody and hard, lose their bud scales, and may produce lateral branches [92,107]. The periderm on mature rhizomes is thin, dense, and hard: not at all corky like the periderm on aboveground stems [92]. Rhizomes are typically 0.4 to 2 inches (1-5 cm) in diameter and grow horizontally approximately 3 feet (1 m) from the parent plant before sending up aerial stems [88]. Simpson [92] reports that rhizomes can be as long as 10 feet (3 m) or more. Rhizome diameter is greatest at the base of aboveground shoots, and roots commonly occur along the entire rhizome length. In rocky substrates, irregular rhizome growth is common [92].

Variability: Yucca b. var. jaegeriana is often generically referred to as dwarf Joshua tree and displays true dichotomous branching. This variety is often smaller (10 to 20 feet (3-6 m) tall), with shorter leaves (<8.7 inches (22 cm)) and shorter branches (2-3 feet (0.7-1 m)), than Y. b. var. brevifolia [50,51,72,88,92]. Yucca b. var. brevifolia is less stocky, often 20 to 40 feet (5-12 m) tall, with longer leaves (7.5-15 inches (19-37 cm)) and higher branches (7-10 feet (2-3 m) above ground) than Y. b. var. jaegeriana. Yucca b. var. brevifolia branching is not truly dichotomous [50,88]. Simpson [92] indicates that Y. b. var. brevifolia trees taller than 70 feet (20 m) have been recorded. Growth forms of both varieties may vary with elevation. Joshua trees growing below 4,000 feet (1,200 m) are often single-stemmed trees, but when growing above 4,000 feet (1,200 m), plants often have many stems connected by long, thin, horizontal rhizomes [92]. For more information about clonal Joshua tree growth forms, see Asexual regeneration.

RAUNKIAER [86] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Joshua tree reproduces sexually through seed production [111,115] and on some sites, asexually by rhizome growth [12,56,92,107].

Pollination: Flowers are pollinated by a single species of moth. The yucca moth, Tegeticula synthetica, is commonly considered Joshua tree's pollinator [4]. Researchers have discovered another Joshua tree pollinator, Tegeticula antithetica, in the eastern and northeastern parts of the Mojave Desert where Y. b. var. jaegeriana occurs. Distributions of the 2 moth species are not thought to overlap [82]. 

Many refer to and describe the pollination process, but experiments and true observations are lacking as of this writing (2006). It is generally accepted that a female moth emerges from her pupa near a Joshua tree plant, mates in a flower, and flies to a freshly opened flower. Using specialized mouth parts sometimes referred to as "tentacles," she scrapes pollen from the anthers, forms it into a ball, and carries it between her tentacles and thorax to another flower. Whether or not the receiving flower is on the same inflorescence or tree is often speculated, but direct observation is lacking. The female moth penetrates the ovary wall and deposits 1 or more eggs in a locule. All eggs may be put in 1 locule or eggs may be distributed among several locules. She then pushes the pollen ball into the stigmatic tube. Moth larvae feed on the developing Joshua tree seeds [4].

When the Joshua tree moth pollinator was introduced into a moth-free area, Lenz [61] found that moths dispersed as far as 384 feet (117 m). Force and Thompson [31] found that Tegeticula synthetica is susceptible to parasitism by endo- and ectoparasites. Parasitized larvae in Joshua tree fruit and fruit stalks collected in California's San Gabriel Mountains ranged from 12.5% to 82.4% [31].

Breeding system: Joshua tree is chiefly monoecious, but some perfect flowers are produced [83]. Some suggest that a period of cold temperatures is necessary for flower production [89].

Seed production: Seed production is most often described as periodic or rare [56,68,112]. "Wet years" are suggested as best for flowering and fruit production [56,68].

In Los Angeles County, researchers evaluated seed predation by Tegeticula moth larvae (see Pollination). The average number of Tegeticula larvae per fruit was 1.4 in 155 examined fruits. Just 7% of seeds were destroyed. The range of larvae per fruit was 0 to 6; 39% of Joshua tree fruit had no larvae. Researchers suggested several potential reasons for fruit production without the presence of larvae. Flowers may have been self pollinated or pollinated by a vector other than Tegeticula, which researchers considered unlikely. Moths may have pollinated the flower but failed to oviposit, or moths laid their eggs, but the larvae died [53].

Seed production may also be affected by small mammal predation. California ground squirrels climb Joshua trees and consume the fleshy fruits and seeds, thus destroying some of the seed crop [61]. Went [112] predicts that 99% of Joshua tree seeds are consumed by rodents or moth larvae; however, experiments or observations leading to this assertion are not described.

Seed dispersal: Joshua tree seeds are dispersed by mammals and wind. As fruits become overmature, skins crack and moisture is released, making fruits lighter and more easily wind dispersed [61,92]. Finding clumps of 2 or more seedlings is likely evidence that the dried fruits were wind dispersed [61].

White-tailed antelope squirrels collect overripe dry fruits and crack the coating, consuming some seeds and allowing others to fall to the ground. It is common to find broken fruits and seeds at the bases of Joshua trees. It has been suggested that the large effort in fruit production by Joshua tree without a specialized dispersal agent may indicate that this type of fruit production is an evolutionarily old trait designed to attract a now extinct megaherbivore dispersal agent. The researcher suggests elephants. However, with current dispersal means, young or juvenile plants have been found as far as 495 feet (151 m) from a seed-producing plant in Los Angeles County. A maximum dispersal distance of 823 feet (251 m) was recorded in San Bernardino County [61].

Seed banking: Longevity of seed in the soil seed bank is unknown. Joshua tree seeds collected in Arizona were stored under artificial conditions, and germination was 98% and 72% after 6 months and 1.5 years of storage, respectively [71].

Germination: Joshua tree seeds germinate readily in the laboratory and do not require any pretreatment [1,105]. Joshua tree seeds may germinate any time after being shed and receiving moisture. Because of seed predation by rodents, Went [111] suggests that the best chance for successful germination is immediately after falling.

Seeds collected in Joshua Tree National Park germinated well in the laboratory at 68F (20C) and 77 F (25 C) [111]. Controlled seed germination experiments from collections made at the Nevada Test Site indicate that germination was best at 64 F (18 C) compared to germination at 50 F (10 C) and 95 F (35 C) [105]. Viability of 25 Joshua tree seeds collected from native habitats was 96%, and of 50 seeds kept on moist filter paper, 24% produced seedlings [3]. Joshua tree seeds, collected in Arizona and kept in a dark laboratory, showed 0% initial germination at 50 F (10 C); 24% after 8 to 10 days at 59 F (15 C); 100% after 2 to 5 days at 68 F (20 C); and 100% after 1 to 2 days at 77 F (25 C) [71].

Short durations of hot temperatures may increase Joshua tree germination. Germination percentages of seed, collected from several Joshua tree populations in the Mojave Desert and subjected to heat treatments, are provided below. Germination percentages for seed kept at 190 F (90C) for 5 minutes were significantly higher (p<0.01) than seed under control conditions [54].

Duration

Control

2 hours 5 minutes
Temperature (C) 80 90 90 100 110 120
Sample size 6 3 6 3 3 6 6
Germination (%) 61 60 0 93 57 26 0

Seedling establishment/growth: Quantity of Joshua tree seedlings observed in the field varies. Yeaton and others [115] report numerous Joshua tree seedlings in the eastern Mojave. Went [111] observed seedlings in Joshua Tree National Park, but abundance was not reported. Wallace and Romney [105] report few seedlings at the Nevada Test Site, and population structure observations suggested that successful seedling establishment may occur only a few times each century in the area. These differences may be related to site variation, observation timing, climate differences, and/or observation effort. Seedlings are easily concealed by nurse plants [61], and seedling predation by black-tailed jackrabbits is common in Lanfair Valley, California (Griffith, personal communication cited in [61]), suggesting that effort and timing may be crucial to finding Joshua tree seedlings.

Seedling growth rates and production vary with age, temperature, and photoperiod. In Joshua Tree National Park, unbranched seedlings grew at an average rate of 3 inches (7.6 cm)/year for the first 10 years and an average of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm)/year thereafter [55]. Yucca (Yucca spp.) seedlings grown from seed collected from several native populations produced their 1st few leaves rapidly, then produced, on average, 1 new leaf every 2 months. Along with a decreased rate of leaf production was an increase in leaf size. Twenty-two-day-old seedlings had an average of 4 leaves [3]. Based on studies at the Nevada Test Site, Wallace [105] indicated that Joshua tree seedlings that survive 3 to 5 years are established.

Went [112,113] suggests that cold periods are required for optimal seedling growth. Seedlings (3.5 years of age) kept at 40 F (4 C) for 2 months produced twice as many new leaves as seedlings without the cold treatment, even though there was no new growth produced during the 2-month cold period [112,113].

McCleary [71] found that day length affected the growth of seedlings grown from seed collected in Arizona. Seedlings grown with 10 hours of daylight and 14 hours of dark produced on average the longest and most leaves (x =15.1); seedlings grown in 16 hours of daylight and 8 hours of dark produced the shortest and fewest leaves (x =9.5). Other photoperiods were tested; see [71] for complete results.

Nurse plants: In the Spring and Sheep mountain ranges of southern Nevada, shrub species, especially blackbrush, provide important Joshua tree seedling habitat. Joshua tree stands on study sites were between 3,000 and 7,000 feet (1,000-2,000 m). In sixteen 100 50 m-sites, researchers located a total of 277 seedlings. Of these, 257 grew under the canopy of some other shrub, even though shrub coverage averaged just 20.1 % in the area. The majority of seedlings occurred at 5,200 foot (1,600 m) elevation, and 71% of all canopy seedlings grew under blackbrush. White bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), and range ratany (Krameria parvifolia) also had more Joshua tree seedlings beneath their canopy than expected based on available canopy area or density. Researchers suggested that seedlings growing under shrub canopies experience increased soil moisture, decreased insolation, reduced soil temperatures, decreased evapotranspiration, increased nutrients, decreased herbivory, and/or lower wind desiccation. For more on the effects of site aspect as related to nurse plants, see [13].

Asexual regeneration: Some Joshua trees reproduce asexually by rhizomes, branch sprouts, and/or basal sprouts [56,92]. Stem damage, as well as certain environmental conditions, may encourage rhizome production and clonal growth [107]. It is common for dormant buds beneath the periderm to grow when old stems bend or stems are injured. Joshua trees with extensive rhizome growth and clonal form are typically shorter and have less branching than single-stemmed trees. In some cases basal buds do not develop into distinct rhizomes, and stems grow adjacent to the main stem as sprouts [92].

Several Joshua tree populations in southern California are clonal [12,107]. Joshua trees in the Leibre Mountains form dense "impenetrable thickets" [12]. From the southern and western slopes of Tehachapi Mountains to at least Monolith, California, some Joshua trees occur in clumps nearly 30 feet (8 m) in diameter, with 30 to 40 trunk-like stems. Plants with this growth form were once classified as Y. b. var. herbertii [107]. Simpson [92] found a single clone in Gorman Creek, California, that occupied approximately 1 acre (0.4 ha) and was comprised of several hundred stems. Rowlands [88] and Simpson [92] report that the extent of cloning increases with increased elevation. Webber [107] indicates that in low-elevation dry areas Joshua tree rarely forms more than 1 or 2 stems, but 2 to 3 stems are common, and some clumps are found, in higher, moister areas. Cold temperatures, high winds, and abundant snowfall, common at high-elevation sites, may "restrict aerial development" thereby "necessitating elaboration of underground portions," according to Simpson [92]. The extensive clone in Gorman Creek occurred at approximately 3,000 feet (910 m) in "montane" weather conditions with high levels of winter snowfall. Fire has also been suggested as a possible factor in the evolution of Joshua tree's clonal growth [92].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Joshua tree occurs in hot, dry sites on flats, mesas, bajadas, and gentle slopes in the Mojave Desert, which is often described as a transition zone or ecotone, much like the Great Basin Desert in its northern parts and like the Sonoran Desert in its southern parts [21,37,47,67,76,77,89,101,110].

Climate: Joshua tree survives in areas with cold winters, hot summers, and little precipitation. Several researchers indicate that Joshua tree is restricted to areas with cold winter temperatures [25,89]. A dormant period is considered "essential" for Joshua tree [55]. Leaves collected from Joshua trees in Joshua Tree National Park survived minimum and maximum temperatures of 12 F (-11 C) and 140 F (59 C), respectively [93]. Lenz [61] reports that plants tolerate temperatures of -13 F (-25 C) to 120 F (51C) and annual precipitation ranges of 3.9 to 10.6 inches (98-268 mm). Hughes [39] reports that summer temperatures often reach 120 F (51C), annual precipitation ranges from 3 inches (80 mm) in dry years to 14 inches (360 mm) in El Nio years, and droughts are typical from May to July in the Mojave Desert. Joshua tree woodlands in southern California receive 6 to 15 inches (150-380 mm) of precipitation annually, and some comes in the summer months [76].

In Joshua tree-blackbrush communities in Utah's Washington County, the number of days with temperatures above 105 F (40.5 C) was a low of 8 in 1970 and a high of 15 in 1971 over the course of a 3-year study (1969-1971). The lowest temperature recorded was 4.5 F (-15.3 C). Most precipitation came from November through March. In 23 years the average annual precipitation ranged from a low of 3.7 inches (93 mm) to a high of 16.9 inches (428 mm) [11]. Welsh and others [110] indicate that Joshua tree grows successfully as far north as Salt Lake City, Utah.

Elevation: Lower elevational limits increase with Joshua tree's more northerly distribution. This phenomenon is likely due to a complex interaction of precipitation and evapotranspiration [88]. Joshua tree occurs within the following elevation ranges:

State/region Elevation (feet)
Arizona up to 3,600 [51]
California 1,600-6,600 [37,76,77]
Death Valley, California above 5,600 [67]
Nevada 3,600-6,900 [50]
Utah 2,600-7,200 [110]
below 3,600 [47]
Intermountain West 2,800-7,200 [21]
Mojave Desert 2,000-6,600 [66,89]

Soils: Soils in Joshua tree habitats are silts, loams, and/or sands described as fine, loose, well drained, and/or gravelly [37,55,89,99,101]. Joshua tree tolerates alkaline and saline soils [94].

In a study of Joshua tree-blackbrush communities in Utah's Washington County, soils were predominantly shallow sandy loams. The pH was approximately 8, and soils had low organic matter. Based on a 3-year period, soil temperatures ranged from a high of 110 F (46 C) at a 2 inch (5 cm) depth in June, to approximately 39 F (4 C) in winter [11].

In the Great Basin-Mojave desert ecotone in Washington County, Utah, researchers studied a gradient (100-200 feet (30-50 m) elevation) from floodplain to ridgetop. Joshua tree occurred at all positions, but had greatest coverage on the floodplain and 2nd greatest coverage at the ridgetop. On the ridgetop soil depth was lowest, and there were large areas of exposed rock. On the floodplain soil depth was greatest, and there were large areas of bare ground. Shrub cover was greatest on the slopes [17].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
The concept of succession, in which community composition changes over time as a site is modified by past and present species, was developed in mesic eastern forests and does not apply well to southwestern desert ecosystem dynamics. In eastern forest ecosystems, pioneer species are typically not present in climax communities. In southwestern deserts, species that make up the predisturbed vegetation are the same species that make up the recovering vegetation [74]. Vegetational change in desert systems may be better described as "parasuccession." While true Clementsion succession does not occur in semiarid and arid ecosystems, it is possible to see shifts in species dominance in relation to disturbance. Complete recovery after "denudation" can take centuries or millennia, and this long process has not been extensively studied in desert communities [87].

Based on the few studies that compare pre- and postdisturbance communities in Joshua tree habitats, it is generally true that Joshua tree abundance is often less in disturbed than undisturbed communities. In a Nevada study, old roads of Wahmonie ghost town had not been traveled for 33 years. Joshua tree was absent from old roads and occurred only on less disturbed adjacent sites [108]. Joshua tree density was much greater on undisturbed sites than on old-field sites on eastern Mojave Desert uplands. Fields were abandoned approximately 65 years ago, and of 10 old-field sites, just 1 had Joshua tree density that was not significantly (p<0.01) lower than undisturbed sites. On another old-field site, Joshua tree density was nearly 20% of that of undisturbed sites, but for all other old-field sites Joshua tree density did not exceed 0.5 plant/ha. Density of Joshua tree on undisturbed sites averaged 75 plants/ha [20].

In California, Brooks and Matchett [16] compared burned and unburned sites in blackbrush communities in the Mohave Desert that had burned 6 to 14 years prior to the study period. Cover of woody perennials was 60% lower on burned than unburned sites, and annual forb cover was 266% greater on burned than unburned sites. Researchers noted that there were some changes in species composition but predominantly changes were in dominance. Joshua tree was present on unburned and 6-, 8-, and 14-year-old burned sites [16]; however, absolute Joshua tree coverage was not reported.

Joshua tree grows best in full sun conditions [37] and likely does not increase with browsing pressure [41].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Joshua tree flowers between March and May throughout its range [21,50,51,62,66,76,77].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Yucca brevifolia
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Apical meristems growing high above the ground and fire-resistant bark on mature trees may allow Joshua tree to survive fire in some vegetation types [18]. Vogl [104] reports that Joshua tree is more fire resistant once the dead leaves that encourage fire spread into the crown are shed from its trunk. If top-killed or damaged by fire, Joshua tree can sprout from the root crown, rhizomes, and/or branches [18,34,43,64,104]. Vigorous postfire sprouting is described by Maxwell [34]. Others indicate that Joshua tree dies if burned [14]. Establishment from off-site seed is another postfire regeneration strategy [18].

Fire regimes: Presettlement fire history in the Mojave Desert is largely unknown [42]. Many researchers have speculated on the frequency or occurrence of fire in desert ecosystems based on vegetation patterns and fuel structure. In creosotebush-white bursage communities, the open stand structure does not carry fire well except when high annual herbaceous production follows remarkably heavy winter rainfall. The ordinarily low forb and grass cover in blackbrush communities suggests that high temperatures and wind speeds and low relative humidity are necessary for burning [42]. In 1930 Bauer [7] reported that fire was probably not an important influence in desert vegetation of California's Tehachapi Mountains, where Joshua tree is often important.

Leary [58] suggests 3 reasons that fires were historically rarer in southwestern deserts than in other ecosystems. Vegetation spacing in the deserts did not promote fire spread. Litter and fuel levels were low in the deserts, and lastly, deserts were sparsely populated and had a reduced chance of human-caused fires. However, invasive species have changed the fuel and litter loads (see Changes in fire frequency and size with nonnatives), and human-caused fires have become more common (see study in Discussion and Qualification of Plant Response by [60]). Loik and others [64] report that the current fire return interval for singleleaf pinyon-California juniper communities of Quail Mountain in Joshua Tree National Park is approximately 15 years.

Changes in fire frequency and size with nonnatives: It is well documented that increases in herbaceous nonnative vegetation, namely cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and red brome (B. madritensis), have facilitated increased fire incidence and fire size in the Mojave and Great Basin deserts since the mid 20th century. At the Nevada Test Site, researchers have been surveying plants since 1957. Red brome and cheatgrass have increased in density and frequency since 1957. The density of cheatgrass or red brome reached 1,000 plants/m by 1988 [44]. Following the very wet winter of 2004 to 2005 in Nevada's Delamar Valley, Joshua tree on unburned sites grew in dense cheatgrass up to 20 inches (60 cm) tall. In the Mohave-Great Basin desert transition zone, cheatgrass and red brome promote previously uncharacteristic large fires by filling in the shrub interspaces that once retarded fire spread in arid ecosystems [26].

In the western Mojave desert of California, nonnative annual grasses (red brome, cheatgrass, and Mediterranean grasses (Schismus spp.)) and forbs (chiefly, cutleaf filaree (Erodium cicutarium)) may comprise over 50% of the biomass. Fires are more frequent, since these nonnative species have altered the fuel structure and subsequent fire behavior in what was a relatively fire-resistant landscape. Nonnative annual grass stems are persistent, and nonnative litter decomposes slowly, providing fuel for frequent fires. Red brome contributed to substantial increases in fire frequency in the Mojave and Colorado deserts of California since the 1970s. From 1980 to 1995, 77% of the total BLM-managed Mojave Desert areas burned. Approximately 25% of the fires were started by lightning, while the other 75% were human caused. Most fires burned in the summer (May-September), and most fires in BLM-managed areas of the Colorado Desert burned along the Mojave Desert ecotone near Joshua Tree National Park [14,15].

Fires were rare in Joshua Tree National Park until about 1965. Since the establishment of red brome and cheatgrass, fires have become more frequent and more severe. Before 1965 most lightning fires burned less than 0.25 acre (0.1 ha). In 1979 the Quail Mountain Fire burned 6,000 acres. In 1995, the Covington Fire burned 5,158 acres (2,087 ha), and 4 years later 13,894 acres (5,623 ha) of Joshua Tree National Park burned [34].

The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where Joshua tree is important. For further information, see the FEIS review of the dominant species listed below.

Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata 12-43 [90]
Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis 10-70 (x=40) [103,116]
saltbush-greasewood Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus <35 to <100
desert grasslands Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica <35 to <100
grama-galleta steppe Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis jamesii <35 to <100
blue grama-tobosa prairie Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis mutica <35 to <100 [80]
cheatgrass Bromus tectorum <10 [84,114]
blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima <35 to <100
western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70
Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum <35 [80]
creosotebush Larrea tridentata <35 to <100 [42,80]
pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. <35 [80]
Colorado pinyon Pinus edulis 10-400+ [30,35,52,80]
galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe Pleuraphis jamesii-Aristida purpurea <35 to <100 [80]
mesquite Prosopis glandulosa <35 to <100 [37,80]
oak-juniper woodland (Southwest) Quercus-Juniperus spp. <35 to <200 [80]

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [95]:
Tree with adventitious bud/root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Yucca brevifolia

 

 
 

2005 Steven Perkins

  2003 Monty Rickard

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Apical meristems growing high above the ground and fire-resistant bark on mature Joshua tree trees may allow Joshua tree to survive fire in some vegetation types [18,43]. Vogl [104] suggests that Joshua tree becomes more fire resistant once the dead leaves that encourage fire spread into the crown are shed from its trunk. However, plants may be top-killed [34] or killed by fire [14]. Fires that burn into Joshua tree crowns often kill the plant [26].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No additional information is available on this topic.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Joshua tree may sprout from the root crown, rhizomes, or branches following fire [18,18,34,43,64,64,92,104]. Some have described postfire sprouting as "vigorous" [34]. Others suggest that postfire sprouting may be linked to plant size [43], fire temperature [64], or differences in Joshua tree varieties [26].

If killed by fire, Joshua tree recolonization depends on off-site seed sources [18]. The current available literature (2006) does not address effects of fire on Joshua tree seed. In the laboratory, however, germination of Joshua tree seeds collected from several Mojave Desert populations was tested following heat treatments. Germination after 5 minutes at 190 F (90 C) was significantly higher (p<0.01) than for untreated seeds [54]. For a more complete summary of this study, see Germination. In Joshua Tree National Park, researchers did not find Joshua tree seedlings on burned sites but found many young Joshua tree plants within blackbrush canopies on unburned sites. Researchers suggested that recovery of blackbrush may be necessary for Joshua tree seedling establishment [64]. Lenz [61] reports that new Joshua tree seedlings are easily concealed in nurse plants, which may be an important consideration in postfire sampling. The recovery of Joshua tree woodlands to prefire conditions may take decades or centuries [26].

Sampling issues: In many cases, Joshua tree abundance is low on both burned and unburned sites, and small quadrat understory sampling does not allow for accurate estimations of Joshua tree abundance [88]. Joshua tree is often missed with small quadrat sampling (see results presented in [64]). In stands with high Joshua tree density (over 150 trees/ha), 0.1 to 0.2 ha is an adequate sampling area; in areas with low Joshua tree density (<50 trees/ha) a 0.5- to 1.0-ha sampling area is recommended. Accurate estimates of Joshua tree cover or density typically require a sampling area of at least 0.2 acre (0.1 ha) [88].

Postfire sprouting: According to Emming [26], Y. b. var. jaegeriana, which is distributed at the upper limits of Joshua tree's range, often sprouts following fire. Yucca b. var. brevifolia, found at lower latitudes than Y. b. var. jaegeriana, normally establishes by seed on burned sites [26].

On the Nevada test sites, rhizome and root crown sprouts were most common on mid-size burned trees. Sprouting percentages were lower for smaller- and larger-sized trees. The number of sprouts on burned Joshua tree plants was evaluated in postfire year 1 after a 20 July lightning fire. Survival of sprouts beyond postfire year 1 was not reported. These findings suggest that long-term fire protection in Joshua tree stands may affect postfire regeneration strategies. Recurrent fires and a complete removal of fire may both be detrimental to Joshua tree stands. A summary of postfire sprouting is provided below [43]:

Tree height (m) Number of trees Percentage with sprouts
0-1 24 29
1-2 21 48
2-3 22 45
3-4 20 15
over 4 2 0

Baldwin [5] also reports that plant size affected sprouting following an August fire in Joshua Tree National Park. A more complete summary of this study is provided in the discussion below.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
In the few Joshua tree fire studies published to date (2006), Joshua tree cover or density was commonly lower on burned than unburned sites. In 1 case, reduced Joshua tree density on burned sites was apparent for 17 years following a severe fire [60]. In another case, Joshua tree density was equal on burned and unburned sites 10 years following fire, and the researcher suggested that early postfire coverage of Joshua tree may be greater on burned than unburned sites due to postfire sprouting [5].

Two days after a late June fire in California's San Bernardino County, researchers found that some aboveground stems had survived and that rhizomes approximately 1 foot (0.3 m) below ground were uninjured. Fire characteristics were not described [92].

Joshua tree sprouts were observed 1 year following an August fire in Joshua Tree National Park. High winds were reported but other fire characteristics were not. Three to four sprouts sometimes occurred where a single tree had burned. Sprouts were much more common from small Joshua trees (under 10 feet (3 m)) tall that were approximately 5 to 50 years old than from large burned trees. The researcher suggested that large trees had more area covered with fire-fueling dead leaves and may have burned at a higher temperature than small trees. Mortality was greater for large than small trees [5].

Researchers found Joshua tree root crown sprouts and canopy sprouts following a July 1995 lightning fire in the Lower Covington Flats area of Joshua Tree National Park. Twenty-eight percent of Joshua tree plants along five 1,000-m belt transects had root crown sprouts 16 months following fire. Canopy sprouts occurred in 4% of the plants, but no plant had both rhizome or root crown and canopy sprouts. Researchers speculated that root crown sprouting was likely related to extent of tissue death, which was determined by fire temperature [64].

Joshua tree was classified as an increaser following fire when burned and unburned sites were compared in the Joshua tree woodland-singleleaf pinyon-California juniper ecotone in the Victor Valley of the southwestern Mojave Desert. Six burned and adjacent unburned sites were evaluated. Sites had burned approximately 3 to 13 years earlier in June, July, or August. No other fire characteristics were reported. Joshua tree density was determined using 0.025-acre quadrats. Density averaged 71 individuals/acre on unburned sites and 142.7 individuals/acre on burned sites. Frequency of Joshua tree was slightly lower on burned (29.2%) than on unburned (36.3%) sites. The clumped nature of postfire sprouts explained the increases in density and decreases in frequency. Methods for delineating individual plants for density estimates were not reported. Mature trees without shaggy dead leaves at the base of the plant had outer periderm exposed, which reduced the chance of fire in the crowns and increased the chance of apical meristem survival [96].

Researchers found that Joshua tree height and basal diameter generally increased with increased time since fire in a study of burned sites in Joshua Tree National Park. Visited sites had burned 1 to 28 years previously. Sites with longer recovery time had the most Joshua trees growing independently of a nurse plant and the fewest fire surviving plants (identified as sprouts in the table). Sites burned 9 to 12 years earlier were a mixture of Joshua tree sprouts and seedlings (mostly emerging from the canopy of nearby vegetation), while sites burned 1 year earlier were populated only by sprouting Joshua trees. Study results are summarized below [64]:

Site

Frequency (%)

Time since fire (years) Number of trees measured Independent Canopy emergent Sprout (based on fire scars)
Lost Horse Valley 28 22 77.2 9.1 13.6
Covington Falls 18 15 66 33 0
Hidden Valley 12 14 7.1 28.6 64.3
Lost Horse Mine 9 12 16.6 41.6 41.6
Lower Covington Flats 1 37 0 0 100

In Joshua Tree National Park, Joshua tree was absent from early postfire communities, but density on burned and unburned sites was equal 10 years following fire. Joshua tree was only found on unburned sites following an August lightning fire in the western part of Joshua Tree National Park. Burned areas were visited 3 months, 6 months, and 8 months following the fire. Fire characteristics were not reported [59]. In other studies, Joshua tree density was equal on 10-year-old burned and unburned sites in Joshua Tree National Park. No information about the fire was provided [5]. Joshua tree was present on 3 burned sites in the Mojave Desert. Sites had burned 6, 8, and 14 years earlier. Neither absolute coverage percentages on burned and unburned sites nor fire characteristics were reported [16].

Joshua tree density was greater on unburned than burned sites in southern Nevada's Spring Mountain area. Joshua tree was absent from sites burned 8 and 13 years before the study, but present on sites burned 17 years earlier. Differences between burned and unburned densities were greatest on severely burned sites. Generally, burned soils had higher soil temperatures but lower organic matter and moisture contents than unburned soils. The table below summarizes fire characteristics and Joshua tree density on burned and unburned plots [60]:

Site Elevation
(m)
Fire
cause
Severity
rating
Postfire
year
Burned density
(plants/100 m)
Unburned density
Sandy Valley 1300 natural severe 8 0 0.5
Bird Spring 1200 human severe 13 0 1.5
Sandstone Canyon 1400 human moderate 17 0.01 0.02
Blue Diamond 1250 human severe 17 <0.01 1.9

Hughes [40] provides purely descriptive studies of burned and unburned sites within the Big Hole grazing allotment in northwestern Arizona. Sites were visited in late 1990s or early 2000s. In 1 area, the prefire community was dominated by blackbrush, creosotebush, and Joshua tree. The area burned in the 1940s, and most of the burned area was dominated by unidentified annual species. Hughes [40] reported that Joshua tree and other shrubs were returning to the burned sites. In another area burned between 1970 and 1980, annuals were dominating burned sites, and Joshua tree was conspicuous only on unburned sites [40].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Joshua tree communities with an abundance of nonnative annual grasses and forbs have become more difficult to manage, as they have fostered a fire frequency that exceeds the historic fire frequency in Joshua tree habitats (see Fire Ecology). Control of these nonnative species may aid in the fire management of Joshua tree populations. In the prioritization of nonnative species control, managers may want to focus on sites where human-caused fire ignitions have increased.

Removal of fire from Joshua tree habitats, while likely impossible, may also not be prudent. As reported above [43], postfire sprouting is most common in mid-sized Joshua trees, which suggests that recurrent fires and complete removal of fire may harm Joshua tree stands.

Several threatened and endangered species that are associated with Joshua tree woodlands in Joshua Tree National Park need to be considered in fire management decisions for this area [59].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Yucca brevifolia
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Joshua tree provides important habitat and food for small mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and spiders. Use by livestock and deer, however, is limited to the consumption of accessible blossoms and fruits and utilization of shade [41,55,105].

Small mammals: Squirrels, woodrats, jackrabbits, kangaroo rats, and mice utilize Joshua tree habitats and/or feed on Joshua tree fruits. In a review, McKelvey [72] reports that Mexican woodrats have been observed climbing Joshua tree to cut its spiny leaves, which they use to protect burrow entrances. Merriam's kangaroo rats and southern grasshopper mice are considered "diagnostic" of Joshua tree woodlands in the San Gabriel Mountains of California. The Panamint kangaroo rat is also common in Joshua tree woodlands. Coyotes are the dominant carnivore [102]. Joshua tree has also been recovered from macrofossil woodrat middens in the western Mojave Desert [70] and in Death Valley [109].

Antelope squirrels cache Joshua tree seeds [55]. California ground squirrels climb Joshua tree and consume fruits and seeds, and white-tailed antelope squirrels collect over mature dry fruits. The mature fruit coating is cracked and some seeds are consumed, while others fall to ground and are dispersed by wind [61]. The seedlings are a food source for black-tailed jackrabbits in Lanfair Valley, California (Griffith, personal communication in [61]).

In the Coso area of California's Inyo County, Mohave and white-tailed antelope squirrels were observed in June and July feeding on Joshua tree fruits. Of 22 individually sighted Mohave ground squirrels, 20 were observed harvesting Joshua tree seeds. Mohave ground squirrels worked in the tops of Joshua trees nearly continuously from 3 hours after sunrise to 1 hour before sunset. One Mohave ground squirrel was observed for 4 hours working on clumps of Joshua tree fruits. Every 15 to 20 minutes the ground squirrel made trips back to a Joshua tree, where the seeds were cached in a burrow near the base of the trunk. Joshua trees were apparently a preferred Mohave ground squirrel food. There were 16 Mohave ground squirrels and 21 white-tailed antelope squirrels observed at Joshua tree fruit clusters in an approximately 0.4 km area on 3 July from 2:45 to 3:30 p.m. Trees never had more than 1 Mohave ground squirrel, but there were as many as 7 white-tailed antelope squirrels in a single tree. Mohave and white-tailed antelope squirrels occurred together in Joshua trees, but aggressive behavior was only avoided in large trees with 2 or more widely spaced fruit clusters [117].

Birds: Numerous bird species utilize Joshua tree and Joshua tree habitats in the Mojave Desert. Twenty-five bird species use Joshua tree as a nesting tree. Scott's orioles nest in the crown; ladder-backed woodpeckers and northern flickers nest in trunk or limb holes. American kestrels and loggerhead shrikes use Joshua tree as a perch when hunting. Many bird species feed on Joshua tree blossoms [55].

A bird survey in Joshua Tree National Park concentrated on populations occupying habitats with cliffs and those without. Joshua tree occurred only on sites without cliffs. Fourteen species were found in noncliff habitats. American kestrels, common nighthawks, ash-throated flycatchers, cactus wrens, northern mockingbirds, loggerhead shrikes, and orange-crowned warblers were exclusive to noncliff sites [19]. A bird census of the Great Basin-Mojave desert ecotone found that the ecotone provided habitat to 22 resident bird species. Thirteen species were encountered along the Mojave Desert transect. Ladder-backed woodpeckers were found solely on Joshua tree [106].

Herptiles: Joshua tree provides protection and feeding sites for some Mojave Desert lizards. The small desert night lizard is often found in Joshua tree bark and clusters of dead leaves [72], as are desert spiny lizards [89]. A night lizard that was not identified to species is considered dependent on Joshua tree. Joshua tree bark provides protection and shelter, while the night lizard feeds on insects [68]. In southwestern Utah, Joshua tree is common in desert tortoise habitats, but specific use of Joshua tree was not reported [69].

Arthropods: Spiders, scorpions, beetles, and white ants utilize dead Joshua tree leaves and fallen branches as homes in the Mojave Desert [72]. The Navaho yucca borer lays eggs in young Joshua tree stems produced from rhizomes but avoids stems produced from seed [68].

Palatability/nutritional value: Few studies report on the palatability or nutritional composition of Joshua tree. Dittberner and Olson [24] rate the palatability of Joshua tree as poor for cattle, domestic sheep, horses, pronghorn, elk, mule deer, and small mammals. In Los Angeles County, Joshua tree fruits collected in early June had an average sugar content of 11.6%. In early July, the average was 14.5%. When Joshua tree fruits are fully ripe the sugar content may exceed 20% [61].

The composition of Joshua tree leaf blades collected in Yucca Flat, Nevada is presented below. Researchers indicated that phosphorus and potassium contents decreased with age, while sodium calcium, silicon, iron, boron, aluminum, and titanium increased with age [105].

P Na K Ca Mg Si
percent
0.1-0.41 0.003-0.02 0.6-1.6 1.1-1.6 0.4-0.53 0.04-0.18

Zn Cu Fe Mn B Al Ti Mo Co Ni Sr Ba

ppm

10-18 13-18 92-240 17-52 11-21 131-379 2-17 0.5 0.5-0.8 3-52 78-79 16-18

In a review, Webber [107] reports the chemical composition of Joshua tree seed pods as follows:

Water Protein Fat Oil Fiber N-free extract Ash

percent

 
7.6 6.7 2.0 34.4 16.8 60.0 6.9

Cover value: See the species of interest above in Importance to Livestock and Wildlife for information on Joshua tree's use as cover. Dittberner and Olson [24] report that Joshua tree provides poor cover for livestock and native ungulates.

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Joshua tree seeds or plants are available commercially [75], and Joshua tree is recommended for use in revegetation projects along Nevada's highways [94]. Excessive watering of transplanted of Joshua trees may facilitate disease in the outer leaves [107].

In the eastern part of the Mojave Desert, Joshua trees between 3 and 8 feet (0.9-2 m) tall with just a few branches were salvaged from a future gold mine site. Plants were grown close together in rows and given supplemental water. After 2 years, just 9% of the 1,447 trees had died; 36% were in excellent health (no yellow leaves), and 56% were in poor health. The study indicated that large plants (up to 50 years old) could be salvaged from future mine sites for later revegetation of the disturbed areas [32].

OTHER USES:
Joshua tree may have been an important part of giant ground sloth diets. The analysis of giant ground sloth dung found in Nevada's Gyssum Cave revealed that ~80% of the fecal material was Joshua tree [50]. Maxwell [68] also noted that Joshua tree was a regular part of the giant ground sloth diet. However, evidence provided by Lenz [61] suggests that the importance of Joshua tree in giant ground sloth diets has been exaggerated.

Native people of the Mojave Desert used Joshua tree for food and in construction. Cahuilla people of southern California used Joshua tree fibers to make sandals and nets and consumed Joshua tree blossoms [8]. Red Joshua tree rootlets were utilized as a dye for baskets and blankets [2,55], and sweet Joshua tree flowers were roasted and eaten by Native people [55]. Joshua tree seeds were eaten raw or ground into a mash and cooked by southern California Natives [79]. In a review, Webber [107] reports that Joshua tree beams and timber have been found in ancient cliff dwellings.

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Biomass estimations: Researchers developed a method for estimating the biomass of Joshua tree in an entire watershed. Estimations are based on Joshua tree size classes and their corresponding mean weights [10].

Climate change: Numerous studies have investigated the potential changes in Joshua tree growth and distribution based on climate change and elevated CO2 levels. Huxman and others [45] conducted experiments on Joshua tree growth and photosynthetic capabilities under elevated CO2 levels and increased temperatures. Dole and others [25] modeled changes in Joshua tree's distribution based on climate change and increased CO2 levels. Based on work by Loik and others [63], the lethal low temperature tolerance for Joshua tree seedlings is lowered by 2.9 F (1.6 C) under doubled CO2 concentrations. The model predicted that a considerable portion of Joshua tree's current range would become unsuitable, but that some new habitat would be made suitable. However, occupation of new habitats would depend on successful recruitment and availability of the new habitats. For maps of the future distribution of Joshua tree with climate change, increased CO2 levels, and/or altered freezing tolerance, see [25].


REFERENCES:


1. Alexander, Robert R.; Pond, Floyd W.; Rodgers, Jane E. 2008. Yucca L.: yucca. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook No. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 1175-1179. [55550]
2. Anderson, M. Kat. 1991. California Indian horticulture: Management and use of redbud by the southern Sierra Miwok. Journal of Ethnobiology. 11(1): 145-157. [17968]
3. Arnott, Howard J. 1962. The seed, germination, and seedling of Yucca. In: Silva, P. C.; Baker, H. G.; Foster, A. S., eds. University of California Publications in Botany. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 35(1): 1-96. [4317]
4. Baker, Herbert G. 1986. Yuccas and yucca moths--a historical commentary. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 73: 556-564. [379]
5. Baldwin, Randolph F. 1979. The effects of fire upon vegetation in Joshua Tree National Monument. [Senior thesis report]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 76 p. [40113]
6. Barker, D. H.; Adams, W. W., III; Demming-Adams, B.; Logan, B. A.; Verhoeven, A. S.; Smith, S. D. 2002. Nocturnally retained zeaxanthin does not remain engaged in a state primed for energy dissipation during the summer in two Yucca species growing in the Mojave Desert. Plant, Cell and Environment. 25(1): 95-103. [61302]
7. Bauer, H. L. 1930. Vegetation of the Tehachapi Mountains, California. Ecology. 11(2): 263-280. [15102]
8. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225 p. [35898]
9. 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]
10. Bostick, Vernon; Tueller, Paul T. 1988. Joshua tree biomass. In: Proceedings, 32nd annual meeting of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science; 1988 April 16; Tucson, AZ. In: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 23: 4-5. Abstract. [3568]
11. Bowns, James E. 1973. An autecological study of blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima Torr.) in southeastern Utah. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 115 p. Dissertation. [4972]
12. Boyd, Steve. 1999. Vascular flora of the Liebre Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, California. Aliso. 18(2): 93-139. [40639]
13. Brittingham, Steve; Walker, Lawrence R. 2000. Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave desert shrubs. Western North American Naturalist. 60(4): 374-383. [47001]
14. Brooks, Matt; Berry, Kristin. 1999. Ecology and management of alien annual plants in the California deserts. CalEPPC News (California Exotic Pest Plant Council Newsletter). 7(3/4): 4-6. [61753]
15. Brooks, Matthew L.; Esque, Todd C. 2002. Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. Chelonian Conservation Biology. 4(2): 330-340. [44468]
16. Brooks, Matthew L.; Matchett, John R. 2003. Plant community patterns in unburned and burned blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima Torr.) shrublands in the Mojave Desert. Western North American Naturalist. 63(3): 282-298. [47672]
17. Brotherson, Jack D.; Masslich, William J. 1985. Vegetation patterns in relation to slope position in the Castle Cliffs area of southern Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(3): 535-541. [528]
18. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. [36581]
19. Camp, Richard J.; Knight, Richard L. 1997. Cliff bird and plant communities in Joshua Tree National Park, California, USA. Natural Areas Journal. 17(2): 110-117. [61310]
20. Carpenter, Dean E.; Barbour, Michael G.; Bahre, Conrad J. 1986. Old field succession in Mojave Desert scrub. Madrono. 33: 111-22. [63154]
21. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
22. Crosswhite, Frank S.; Crosswhite, Carol D. 1984. A classification of life forms of the Sonoran Desert, with emphasis on the seed plants and their survival strategies. Desert Plants. 5: 131-161. [45807]
23. Davis, James N. 2004. Climate and terrain. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 33-38. [52821]
24. 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]
25. Dole, Krishna P.; Loik, Michael E.; Sloan, Lisa Cirbus. 2003. The relative importance of climate change and the physiological effects of CO2 on freezing tolerance for the future distribution of Yucca brevifolia. Global and Planetary Change. 36(1-2): 137-146. [61295]
26. Emming, Jan. 2005. Special conservation report: Nevadagascar? The threat that invasive weeds and wildfires pose to our North American desert biomes. Part 1: The Mojave Desert and Joshua tree woodlands. Cactus and Succulent Journal. 77(6): 302-312. [62021]
27. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
28. Fidelibus, Matthew; Franson, Raymond; Bainbridge, David. 1996. Spacing patterns in Mojave Desert trees and shrubs. In: Barrow, Jerry R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Tausch, Robin J., compilers. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment; 1995 May 23-25; Las Cruces, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-338. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 182-186. [27046]
29. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2012. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]
30. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590]
31. Force, Don C.; Thompson, Michael L. 1984. Parasitoids of the immature stages of several southwestern yucca moths. The Southwestern Naturalist. 29(1): 45-56. [9605]
32. Franson, Raymond L. 1995. Health of plants salvaged for revegetation at a Mojave Desert gold mine: year two. 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: 78-80. [24829]
33. 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]
34. Gorder, Joel; Shaw, Rachel; Whitney, Rebecca. 2005. Joshua Tree National Park: Fire management plan. Environmental Assessment. Twentynine Palms, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park (Producer). Available: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/parkmgmt/upload/fire.pdf [2006, September 8]. [63502]
35. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; Betancourt, Julio L.; Chung-MacCoubrey, Alice L. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-132. [26188]
36. 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]
37. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
38. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
39. Hughes, Lee E. 1998. Thirty years of rotation grazing in the Mojave Desert. Rangelands. 20(4): 6-8. [28913]
40. Hughes, Lee E. 2002. Is there recovery after fire, drought, and overgrazing? Rangelands. 24(4): 26-30. [45936]
41. Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Forage production on Arizona ranges: III. Mohave County: A study in range condition. Bulletin 244. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 79 p. [4440]
42. Humphrey, Robert R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 365-400. [14064]
43. Hunter, Richard B.; Medica, Philip A. 1987. Status of the flora and fauna on the Nevada Test Site: Results of continuing basic environmental research--January through December 1987. DOE/NV/10630-2. Contract No. DE-AC08-84NV10327. [Las Vegas, NV]: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Health Physics and Defense Waste Division. 103 p. [10571]
44. Hunter, Richard. 1989. Progress of Bromus invasions on the Nevada Test Site. Review Draft: Contract No. AC08-89NV10327. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 32 p. [10453]
45. Huxman, T. E.; Hamerlynck, E. P.; Loik, M. E.; Smith, S. D. 1998. Gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence responses of three south-western Yucca species to elevated CO2 and high temperature. Plant, Cell and Environment. 21(12): 1275-1283. [61301]
46. ITIS Database. 2012. Integrated taxonomic information system, [Online]. Available: http://www.itis.gov/index.html. [51763]
47. Johnson, Carl M. 1970. Common native trees of Utah. Special Report 22. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. [9785]
48. Johnson, Hyrum B. 1976. Vegetation and plant communities of southern California deserts--a functional view. 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: 125-164. [1278]
49. 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]
50. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. Dissertation. [In 2 volumes]. [42426]
51. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
52. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. [4395]
53. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C.; Swift, Cheryl C.; Lee, Janet. 1984. Seed predation due to the yucca-moth symbiosis. The American Midland Naturalist. 112(1): 187-191. [5808]
54. Keeley, Jon E.; Meyers, Adriene. 1985. Effect of heat on seed germination of southwestern Yucca species. The Southwestern Naturalist. 30(2): 303-304. [5761]
55. Keith, Sandra L. 1982. A tree named Joshua. American Forests. 88(7): 40-42. [5802]
56. Kliemann, Michael Wm. 1979. A review of the natural values of the Hualapai Valley Joshua tree "forest"; an examination of the appropriateness of current protective measures at the site; and various recommendations aimed at improving protection of the resource. Kingman, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Resource Area: 12-24. [61827]
57. 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]
58. Leary, Patrick J. 1979. A study of vegetational reinvasion following natural fire in Joshua Tree National Monument: I. Preliminary report. Contribution Number CPSU/UNLV No. 019/01. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada, Department of Biological Sciences, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 34 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [40180]
59. Leary, Patrick J. 1987. Survey of endangered plants, Joshua Tree National Monument. No. 037/01. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada, Department of Biological Sciences, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 26 p. [14927]
60. Lei, Simon A. 1999. Vegetation recovery and soil properties in blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima Torr.) shrubland ecotones. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 32(2): 105-115. [38855]
61. Lenz, Lee W. 2001. Seed dispersal in Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae)--present and past, with consideration of the future of the species. Aliso. 20(2): 61-74. [61297]
62. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. No. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]
63. Loik, Michael E.; Huxman, Travis E.; Hamerlynck, Erik P.; Smith, Stanley D. 2000. Low temperature tolerance and cold acclimation for seedlings of three Mojave Desert Yucca species exposed to elevated CO2. Journal of Arid Environments. 46(1): 43-56. [61305]
64. Loik, Michael E.; St. Onge, Christine D.; Rogers, Jane. 2000. Post-fire recruitment of Yucca brevifolia and Yucca schidigera in Joshua Tree National Park, California. In: Keeley, Jon E.; Baer-Keeley, Melanie; Fotheringham, C. J., eds. 2nd interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey: Open-File Report 00-62. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center: 79-85. [63309]
65. Lowe, Charles H. 1964. Arizona's natural environment: Landscapes and habitats. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. 136 p. [20736]
66. MacKay, Pam. 2003. Mojave Desert wildflowers: a field guide to wildflowers, trees, and shrubs of the Mojave Desert, including the Mojave National Preserve, Death Valley National Park, and Joshua Tree National Park. A Falcon Guide. Guilford, CT: Falcon. 338 p. [65313]
67. MacMahon, James A. 1988. Warm deserts. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. New York: Cambridge University Press: 231-264. [19547]
68. Maxwell, C. G. 1971. The tree that is not a tree. American Forests. 77(3): 4-5. [5804]
69. McArthur, E. Durant; Sanderson, Stewart C. 1992. A comparison between xeroriparian and upland vegetation of Beaver Dam Slope, Utah, as desert tortoise habitat. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 25-31. [19091]
70. McCarten, Niall; Van Devender, Thomas R. 1988. Late Wisconsin vegetation of Robber's Roost in the western Mohave Desert, California. Madrono. 35(3): 226-237. [6183]
71. McCleary, James A. 1973. Comparative germination and early growth studies of six species of the genus Yucca. American Midland Naturalist. 90(2): 503-508. [61290]
72. McKelvey, Susan Delano. 1938. Yuccas of the southwestern United States: Part one. Jamaica Plains, MA: The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. 147 p. [3902]
73. Minnich, Richard A. 1976. Vegetation of the San Bernardino 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: 99-124. [4232]
74. Muller, Cornelius H. 1940. Plant succession in the Larrea-Flourensia climax. Ecology. 21: 206-212. [4244]
75. Munda, P.; Pater, M. 2001. Commercial sources of conservation plant materials, [Online]. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson Plant Materials Center (Producer). Available: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/azpmsarseedlist0501.pdf [2003, August 25]. [44989]
76. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
77. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
78. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2003. National vegetation classification for Nevada, [Online]. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program (Producer). 15 p. Available: http://heritage.nv.gov/ecology/nv_nvc.htm [2005, November 3]. [55021]
79. Palmer, Edward. 1878. Plants used by the Indians of the United States. The American Naturalist. 12(10): 646-655. [60449]
80. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 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-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
81. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; Bleich, Vernon C.; Mincks, John W. 1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [1849]
82. Pellmyr, O.; Segraves, K. A. 2003. Pollinator divergence within an obligate mutualism: two Yucca moth species (Lepidoptera; Prodoxidae: Tegeticula) on the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia; Agavaceae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 96(6): 716-722. [61309]
83. Pendleton, Rosemary L.; Pendleton, Burton K.; Harper, Kimball T. 1989. Breeding systems of woody plant species in Utah. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., comps. 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: 5-22. [5918]
84. Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. 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: 31-36. [24249]
85. 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]
86. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
87. 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]
88. Rowlands, Peter Glanville. 1978. The vegetation dynamics of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia Engelm.) in the southwestern United States of America. Riverside, CA: University of California. 192 p. Dissertation. [63111]
89. Rundel, Philip W.; Gibson, Arthur C. 1996. Ecological communities and processes in a Mojave Desert ecosystem: Rock Valley, Nevada. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 369 p. [61799]
90. 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]
91. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
92. Simpson, Philip George. 1975. Anatomy and morphology of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia): an arborescent monocot. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. 524 p. Dissertation. [6280]
93. Smith, Stanley D.; Hartsock, Terry, L.; Nobel, Park S. 1983. Ecophysiology of Yucca brevifolia, an arborescent monocot of the Mojave Desert. Oecologia. 60(1): 10-17. [5759]
94. Stark, N. 1966. Review of highway planting information appropriate to Nevada. Bulletin No. B-7. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Desert Research Institute. 209 p. In cooperation with: Nevada State Highway Department. [47]
95. 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, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
96. Takeda, Donald. 1971. Effects of fire on the Joshua tree/pinyon-juniper ecotone in southern California. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. 42 p. Thesis. [63129]
97. Thorne, Robert F. 1982. The desert and other transmontane plant communities of southern California. Aliso. 10(2): 219-257. [3768]
98. Tueller, Paul T. 1989. Vegetation and land use in Nevada. Rangelands. 11(5): 204-210. [9295]
99. Turner, Raymond M. 1982. Mohave desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 157-168. [2374]
100. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
101. Vasek, Frank C.; Barbour, Michael G. 1977. Mojave Desert scrub vegetation. In: Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 835-867. [3730]
102. Vaughan, Terry A. 1954. Mammals of the San Gabriel Mountains of California. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 7(9): 513-582. [60582]
103. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]
104. Vogl, Richard J. 1968. Fire adaptations of some southern California plants. In: Proceedings, California Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967 November 9-10; Hoberg, CA. No. 7. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 79-109. [6268]
105. Wallace, A.; Romney, E. M. 1972. Radioecology and ecophysiology of desert plants at the Nevada Test Site. Rep. TID-25954. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services. 439 p. [15000]
106. Webb, Merrill. 1999. Occurrence of birds on a Great Basin-Mohave Desert ecotone in southwestern Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings: shrubland ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-39. [36059]
107. Webber, John Milton. 1953. Yuccas of the Southwest. Agriculture Monograph No. 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p. [2474]
108. Wells, Philip V. 1961. Succession in desert vegetation on streets of a Nevada ghost town. Science. 134: 670-671. [4959]
109. Wells, Philip V.; Woodcock, Deborah. 1985. Full-glacial vegetation of Death Valley, California: juniper woodland opening to Yucca semidesert. Madrono. 32(1): 11-23. [2493]
110. 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]
111. Went, F. W. 1948. Ecology of desert plants. I. Observations on germination in the Joshua Tree National Monument, California. Ecology. 29(3): 242-253. [12915]
112. Went, Frits W. 1957. Ecology. In: Went, Frits W. The experimental control of plant growth. Chronica Botanica Volume 17. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica: 237-257. [63222]
113. Went, Frits W. 1957. Miscellaneous wild plants. In: Went, Frits W. The experimental control of plant growth. Chronica Botanica Volume 17. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica: 171-183. [63220]
114. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Postfire population dynamics of Bromus japonicus. The American Midland Naturalist. 123: 301-308. [11150]
115. Yeaton, R. I.; Yeaton, R. W.; Waggoner, J. P., III; Horenstein, J. E. 1985. The ecology of yucca (Agavaceae) over an environmental gradient in the Mohave Desert: distribution and interspecific interactions. Journal of Arid Environments. 8: 33-44. [281]
116. 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]
117. Zembal, Richard; Gall, Cynthia. 1980. Observations on Mohave ground squirrels, Spermophilus mohavensis, in Inyo County, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 61(2): 347-350. [63168]
118. Zezulak, David S.; Schwab, Robert G. 1981. A comparison of density, home range and habitat utilization of bobcat populations at Lava Beds and Joshua Tree National Monuments, California. In: Blum, L. G.; Escherich, P. C., eds. Bobcat research conference: Proceedings; 1979 October 16-18; Front Royal, VA. NWF Science and Technical Series No. 6. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 74-79. [24984]

FEIS Home Page