Fire Effects Information System (FEIS)

FEIS Home Page

INTRODUCTORY

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION SYNONYMS NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY LIFE FORM FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OTHER STATUS
	W.L. Wagner @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database	Luz Hernandez @ Medicinal Plants of the Southwest

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
McWilliams, Jack 2003. Artemisia filifolia In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/artfil/all.html [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
ARTFIL

SYNONYMS:
Oligosporus filifolius (Torr.) Poljakov [80]

NRCS PLANT CODE [75]:
ARFI2

COMMON NAMES:
sand sagebrush
sand sage
old-man sagebrush

TAXONOMY:
The accepted scientific name of sand sagebrush is Artemisia filifolia Torr. (Asteraceae) [37,38,46,81]. Sand sagebrush is not known to hybridize with other sagebrushes (Artemisia spp.) [48].

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
No entry

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

• GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
• ECOSYSTEMS
• STATES
• BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
• KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS
• SAF COVER TYPES
• SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES
• HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

Community types: A community type of sand sagebrush is delineated by Collins [14] in southeastern Wyoming on sandy soils. Lauenroth and Milchunas [42] describe a community type of sand sagebrush/little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) occurring on aeolian sands in the shortgrass prairie.

Plant series: A honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)-sand sagebrush series occurs on sandy soils in the Trans-Pecos region of Texas. In sand sagebrush-midgrass series, an evergreen shrubland or midgrass grassland occurs on sandy soils in the rolling and high plains area [74].

Plant alliances: In Kansas 3 shrubland "alliances" with sand sagebrush as a dominant are listed by Lauver and others [44]. All of these alliances occur on "excessively-drained," sandy soils.

Sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii)/sand sagebrush type: This ecotype is common in Texas wherever sand shinnery oak grows. It is characterized by honey mesquite, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and plains yucca (Yucca campestris). Most common grasses include purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea), black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), false buffalograss (Monroa squarrosa), and dropseeds (Sporobolus spp.) [65].

Sand sagebrush type: In a discussion of major forage types in Colorado and Wyoming, Costello [17] describes a sand sagebrush type with blue grama  (B. gracilis) with a mixture of taller grasses including needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), red threeawn (A. p. var. longiseta), and sand dropseed (S. cryptandrus) along with sand indicators prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) and sand bluestem (Andropogon gerardii var. paucipilus). Little bluestem now persists mostly where moisture conditions are favorable and in cemeteries where there is no grazing. On areas heavily and continuously overgrazed, blue grama is commonly replaced by Russian-thistle (Salsola kali), lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), saltmeadow plantain (Plantago argyraea), and spreading buckwheat (Eriogonum effusum) [17].

Sand sagebrush grasslands: Sand sagebrush occurs with perennial grasses such as little bluestem, Carolina crabgrass (Digitaria cognata), blue grama, sand bluestem, and sand dropseed [15].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

• GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
• RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM
• REGENERATION PROCESSES
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• SUCCESSIONAL STATUS
• SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

Sand sagebrush is a native, round, freely-branching woody shrub up to 5 feet (1.5 m) tall. Leaves are 1.2 to 2.0 inches (3-8 cm) long, less than 0.5 mm wide, entire or pinnately divided into filiform divisions and often fascicled. Numerous nodding heads containing 2 or 3 fertile, pistillate ray flowers and 1 to 6 perfect but sterile disc flowers are arranged into leafy, narrow panicles [48]. Fruits of sand sagebrush are lightly-ribbed, obovoid achenes 0.7 to 1.0 mm long and 0.4 to 0.5 mm wide [72].

Sand sagebrush can accumulate mineral nutrients well above levels found in the soils in which it grows, indicating it is adapted to soils of low fertility [50].

RAUNKIAER [60] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
Chamaephyte
Geophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Breeding system: Pendleton and others [56] describe sagebrush as monoecious.

Pollination: Sand sagebrush is wind pollinated [47,56].

Seed production: No information

Seed dispersal: Sagebrush seed in general has very poor dispersal. It lacks appendages for airborne transport by wind or attachment to animals. Most seed falls beneath the plant and moves 3 feet (0.9 m) or less per generation [64]. There are no specific references to dispersal of sand sagebrush seeds in the literature.

Seed banking: No information

Germination: In laboratory germination trials, Bridges [9] planted sand sagebrush at various depths. He found germination only occurred at a planting depth of 0.5 inch (1.3 cm). Other depths tested were all deeper, implying sand sagebrush germinates better at shallow depths than deeper. It was 17 days from planting until 1st emergence of sand sagebrush seedlings. Vines [79] states seed of sand sagebrush has a germination rate of 40 to 50%.

Seedling establishment/growth: Sand sagebrush was planted at the Alton coal fields in Utah [24]. Three years after planting, sand sagebrush seedlings had a 75% survival rate, and plants averaged 36 inches (91.4 cm) in height with 42 inches (106.7 cm) mean crown diameter.

Asexual regeneration: Sand sagebrush resprouts profusely after both fall and spring prescribed burns [76].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sand sagebrush occurs on dunes, hills and other deep, well-drained sands [35].

Secor and others [65] analyzed soil samples taken from surface soil directly beneath sand sagebrush plants in a shinnery oak/sand sagebrush community in New Mexico. Their results indicate sand sagebrush grows in sandy soils with low silt and clay values. Their analysis of soil texture was:

Daley [18] analyzed the soil at 2 different sand sagebrush sites in eastern Colorado and also found sand sagebrush grows in sandy soils with low silt and clay components. The sites are approximately 100 miles (160 km) apart. His results, expressed in percentages and standard error of the mean (S.E.), are:

Elevational range for sand sagebrush over its whole range is given as 2,000 to 6,000 feet (610-1,829 m) [35]. Some elevational ranges for individual states are:

Arizona: 4,000 to 6,000 feet (1,219-1,829 m) [38]
Colorado: 3,500 to 5,500 feet (1,067-1,676 m) [31]
New Mexico: 3,500 to 5,500 feet (1,067-1,676 m) [46]
Texas: 2,500 to 5,000 feet (762-1,524 m) [57]
Utah: 2,707 to 7,513 feet (825-2290 m)[81]

Annual precipitation for the shortgrass prairie, which includes sand sagebrush as a major shrub, ranges from 11.8 to 21.7 inches (300-550 mm) [42]. In Utah sand sagebrush occurs in areas with 8 to10 inches (200-275 mm) of annual precipitation [59]. The sandhills of Oklahoma, where sand sagebrush is a dominant shrub, receives 23.7 inches (602 mm) average annual precipitation [76].

Diamond and others [20] describe 2 "series" of plants containing sand sagebrush as "late seral." First is an evergreen shrub system described as a sand sagebrush-mid-grass series that occurs on the high plains and rolling plains of  Texas. The 2nd is a "mainly deciduous shrub" series of honey mesquite-sand sagebrush that occurs in the Trans-Pecos region of Texas.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Information on the phenology of sand sagebrush is sparse. Growing period for sand sagebrush in the southern Great Plains is from February to November [63]. In the north Central Plains sand sagebrush fruit ripens from September to October [68]. Flowering times for sand sagebrush in several states are:

Arizona: August through November [38]
New Mexico: August and September [46]
Kansas: August to October [6]

FIRE ECOLOGY

• FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS
• POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY

Fire regimes: In an early (1939) report on vegetation of Colorado sand hills, Ramaly [58] describes a sand sagebrush community as "...a somewhat permanent community partly dependent for its persistence upon grass fires and overgrazing."

There is no specific information in the literature concerning fire regimes for sand sagebrush. Fire regimes for plant communities and ecosystems in which sand sagebrush occurs are summarized below. Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".

FIRE EFFECTS

• IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT
• PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE
• DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE
• FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Vermeire and others [76] conducted both spring and fall prescribed burns to determine effects of fire on sand sagebrush in Oklahoma. They found fire-induced mortality was less than 10% for both fall and spring burns. However, Wright and others [83] describe sand sagebrush as killed by fire.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Sand sagebrush resprouts profusely after both fall and spring prescribed burns [76]. Braun [8] states sand sagebrush resprouts after fire.

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
In fall and spring prescribed burns on sand sagebrush, Vermeire and others [76] found "profuse" resprouting, seemingly without any negative effects on the plant's carbohydrate reserves. Sand sagebrush on fall-burned plots resprouted the next March, a month after bud break on nonburned sand sagebrush. Of the plants burned, 94% resprouted. Sand sagebrush in spring-burned plots initiated resprouting in May of the same year with a 92% resprout rate.

Vermeire and others [76] found the primary effect of fire on sand sagebrush was alteration of canopy structure. Fall burns reduced shrub height by nearly 50% and canopy area and volume by more than 75%. Spring burns reduced shrub height, canopy area and volume by more than 90%.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
In a 1978 study on controlling woody range plants in Nebraska, Launchbaugh and Owensby [43] state sand sagebrush can be "controlled" by spring burning at "grass greenup" to kill the tops of sand sagebrush and then moderate continuous grazing pressure can be used to retard sprouts and seedlings. They urge caution with sandy sites where thick brush occurs because complete plant removal by fire and subsequent hoof action may open up an area to wind and water erosion. Humphrey [33] cautions "...control of sand sagebrush, particularly by fire, should be attempted only after careful evaluation of the local erosion hazard" and Daley [18] states a reduction in cover of sand sagebrush could have "serious effects" by exposing the surface to wind erosion.

Applying prescribed fire to sand sagebrush communities does not appear to be a viable option for reducing shrub density, unless delayed mortality occurs due to additional stresses, such as infestation by insects. Prescribed fire may be a useful tool for reducing sand sagebrush canopy height and volume and potentially making resources, such as light and water, available to more desirable grasses and forbs [76].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

• IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
• VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES
• OTHER USES
• OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Sand sagebrush is listed as a plant "...important to Texas and New Mexico mule deer" by Bryant and Morrison [11], and Bryant and Demarais [10] list sand sagebrush as having "medium" food value for white-tailed deer in Texas.

In the panhandle of Oklahoma prairie dogs establish "towns" in overgrazed sand sagebrush grasslands [13], and burrowing owls utilize abandoned burrows as nesting sites.

Sage-grouse, a sagebrush-obligate species, generally is reliant on big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) but at the edges of its range it utilizes sand sagebrush [8]. In New Mexico sand sagebrush is an important part of the diet of lesser prairie-chickens, particularly in winter [32]. In Oklahoma, Jones [36] studied lesser prairie-chickens and analyzed their diet for 3 years. He found sand sagebrush was utilized by lesser prairie-chickens from November through March. No utilization was noted during April through October. His findings, expressed as percent volume of food use for 2 plant associations are [36]:

Jones [36] also assigned a "food index value" to sand sagebrush for both vegetational associations. This index places a relative value to a food item based on availability and use for a given period. In the shrub association, sand sagebrush was assigned an index value of 4 out of 12 plants. In the half-shrub association sand sagebrush was given a value of 3 out of 13 plants.

Also in Oklahoma scaled quail utilize the seeds of sand sagebrush, and Ault and Stormer [4] assigned a "selectivity rating" of low in fall and winter and medium in spring and summer for scaled quail use of sand sagebrush seeds. This rating was calculated by dividing the percentage of the food item in the feces of the bird by the percentage of the item in availability samples of that food category.

Chemical control of large blocks of sand sagebrush was carried out on the Cimarron National Grassland in southwestern Kansas in 1978. Rodgers and Sexson [61] compared post treatment response of breeding birds on treated blocks of sand sagebrush pasture with untreated blocks for 5 years. They used 10 listening stations per pasture. They found "extreme variations" in bird diversity and abundance on the treated pasture were associated with sharp annual changes in the herbaceous community during the 1st three years after chemical treatment. A decline in bird diversity and abundance was observed in the 4th and 5th years after treatment, following structural decay of dead sand sagebrush. For example, northern bobwhite quail were no longer present on the treated pasture in the 4th year but remained abundant on the control pasture. Mean number of singing birds heard per station in control and 2, 4-D treated sand sagebrush pastures for 5 years were [61]:

Palatability/nutritional value: Palatability of sand sagebrush for livestock is rated as [21]:

Savage and Heller [63] describe the yearly average of calcium content in sand sagebrush as nearly 3 times greater than the yearly average for grasses and the phosphorus content of sand sagebrush as exceeding the average for all grasses by 24.6%. Rasmussen and Brotherson [59] analyzed mineral nutrient content of sand sagebrush in Utah. Their results, expressed as means and standard deviations (SD) were:

Cover value: Lesser prairie-chickens in New Mexico occupy semiarid grasslands that typically include a large component of shrubs, either sand shinnery oak or sand sagebrush [19,30]. Jones [36] describes sand sagebrush as important for cover of lesser prairie-chickens in New Mexico, especially when grass production is poor. In Colorado in the Comanche Lesser Prairie Chicken Natural Area, sand sagebrush provides important cover for lesser prairie chickens [27].

Scaled quail in Texas utilize sand sagebrush as loafing cover [71]. Dittberner and Olson [21] rate sand sagebrush as poor cover for all classes of wildlife except upland game birds, nongame birds, and small mammals.

Sand sagebrush was tested for reclamation value at the Alton coal fields in Utah. Three years after being planted, sand sagebrush had a 75% survival rate and plants averaged 36 inches (91.4 cm) in height with 42 inches (106.7 cm) mean crown diameter. Sand sagebrush is listed by the authors as a recommended "secondary species" for reclaimed areas of the coal field [24].

OTHER USES:
Adams and McChesney [1] extracted phytochemicals from sand sagebrush that can be used for liquid fuels and petrochemical substitution. Sand sagebrush is an excellent indicator of sand [48] and is recommended as a border plant in group plantings on sandy sites in the southern Great Plains [34].

The Navajo tribe used sand sagebrush as stock feed, toilet paper [22], and to treat snakebite [77].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Mowing is especially suited for controlling sand sagebrush [55]. A review of pesticides to control sand sagebrush is provided by Wilson [82].

Artemisia filifolia: References

1. Adams, Robert P; McChesney, James D. 1983. Phytochemicals for liquid fuels and petrochemical substitutions: extraction procedures and screening results. Economic Botany. 37(2): 207-215. [38146]

2. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest 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: 97-120. [36984]

3. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]

4. Ault, Stacey C.; Stormer, Fred A. 1983. Seasonal food selection by scaled quail in northwest Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(1): 222-228. [12168]

5. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1559-1569. [14986]

6. Bare, Janet E. 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: The Regents Press of Kansas. 509 p. [3801]

7. 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]

8. Braun, Clait E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? In: Proceedings, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 1998 June 26-July 2; Jackson, WY. Cheyenne, WY: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: 139-156. [35365]

9. Bridges, J. O. 1941. Reseeding trials on arid rangeland. Bulletin 278. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 48 p. [5186]

10. Bryant, Fred C.; Demarais, Steve. 1991. Habitat management guidelines for white-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]

11. Bryant, Fred C.; Morrison, Bruce. 1985. Managing plains mule deer in Texas and eastern New Mexico. Management Note 7. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 5 p. [187]

12. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565]

13. Butts, K. O.; Lewis, J. C. 1982. The importance of prairie dog towns to burrowing owls in Oklahoma. Proceedings, Oklahoma Academy of Sciences. 62: 46-52. [26110]

14. Collins, Ellen I. 1984. Preliminary classification of Wyoming plant communities. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Natural Heritage Program/The Nature Conservancy. 42 p. [661]

15. Collins, Scott L.; Bradford, James A.; Sims, Phillip L. 1987. Succession and fluctuation in Artemisia dominated grassland. Vegetatio. 73: 89-99. [9514]

16. Cooper, Charles F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology. 42(3): 493-499. [5780]

17. Costello, David F. 1944. Important species of the major forage types in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Monographs. 14: 107-134. [693]

18. Daley, Richard Halbert. 1972. The native sand sage vegetation of eastern Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 62 p. Thesis. [4905]

19. Davis, Charles A.; Riley, Terry Z.; Smith, Randall A.; Wisdom, Michael J. 1980. Spring-summer foods of lesser prairie chickens in New Mexico. In: Proceedings, prairie grouse symposium; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University: 75-80. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [18419]

20. Diamond, David D.; Riskind, David H.; Orzell, Steve L. 1987. A framework for plant community classification and conservation in Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 39(3): 203-221. [24968]

21. 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]

22. Elmore, Francis H. 1944. Ethnobotany of the Navajo. Monograph Series: 1(7). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. 136 p. [35897]

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

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

25. 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]

26. Ford, Paulette L.; McPherson, Guy R. 1996. Ecology of fire in shortgrass prairie communities of the Kiowa National Grassland. In: Warwick, Charles, ed. 15th North American prairie conference: Proceedings; 1996 October 23-26; St. Charles, IL. Bend, OR: The Natural Areas Association: 71-76. [30254]

27. Galatowitsch, S. M. 1990. Using the original land survey notes to reconstruct presettlement landscapes in the American West. The Great Basin Naturalist. 50(2): 181-191. [13772]

28. 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]

29. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; [and others]. 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]

30. Hamerstrom, Frederick; Hamerstrom, Frances. 1961. Status and problems of North American grouse. Wilson Bulletin. 73(3): 284-294. [15807]

31. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]

32. Holechek, Jerry L. 1981. Brush control impacts on rangeland wildlife. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 36(5): 265-269. [1182]

33. Humphrey, Robert R. 1955. Forage production on Arizona ranges. IV. Coconino, Navajo, Apache counties: A study in range condition. Bulletin 266. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 84 p. [5087]

34. Johnson, E. W. 1963. Ornamental shrubs for the Southern Great Plains. Farmer's Bull. 2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 62 p. [12064]

35. Johnson, Kendall L. 1987. Sagebrush types as ecological indicators to integrated pest management (IPM) in the sagebrush ecosystem of western North America. In: Onsager, Jerome A., ed. Integrated pest management on rangeland: State-of-the-art in the sagebrush ecosystem. ARS-50. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 1-10. [2841]

36. Jones, R. E. 1963. Identification and analysis of lesser and greater prairie chicken habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 27: 757-778. [5522]

37. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]

38. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]

39. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. 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]

40. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. 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: 90-111. [4389]

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

42. Lauenroth, W. K.; Milchunas, D. G. 1992. Short-grass steppe. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.: 183-226. [23826]

43. Launchbaugh, John L.; Owensby, Clenton E. 1978. Kansas rangelands: Their management based on a half century of research. Bull. 622. Hays, KS: Kansas State University, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. [9477]

44. Lauver, Chris L.; Kindscher, Kelly; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Schneider, Rick. 1999. A classification of the natural vegetation of Kansas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 44(4): 421-443. [38847]

45. Laven, R. D.; Omi, P. N.; Wyant, J. G.; Pinkerton, A. S. 1980. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine ecosystem in the central Rocky Mountains, Colorado. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 46-49. [7183]

46. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]

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

48. McArthur, E. Durant; Blauer, A. Clyde; Plummer, A. Perry; Stevens, Richard. 1979. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs. III. Sunflower family. Res. Pap. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 82 p. [1571]

49. McArthur, E. Durant; Giunta, Bruce C.; Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Shrubs for restoration of depleted range and disturbed areas. Utah Science. 35: 28-33. [25035]

50. McArthur, E. Durant; Stevens, Richard. 1986. Composite shrubs. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 155 p. [7342]

51. McPherson, Guy R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. In: McClaran, Mitchel P.; Van Devender, Thomas R., eds. The desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press: 130-151. [26576]

52. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [26637]

53. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the High Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. [5916]

54. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

55. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Fisher, Charles E.; Parker, Kenneth W. 1948. How to control noxious plants. In: Grass: The yearbook of agriculture 1948. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 256-260. [1856]

56. 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., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 5-22. [5918]

57. 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]

58. Ramaley, Francis. 1939. Sand-hill vegetation of northeastern Colorado. Ecological Monographs. 9(1): 1-51. [5546]

59. Rasmussen, Lars L.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1986. Habitat relationships of sandsage (Artemisia filifolia) in southern Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 58-66. [1940]

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

61. Rodgers, Randy D.; Sexson, Mark L. 1990. Impacts of extensive chemical control of sand sagebrush on breeding birds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45(4): 494-497. [15504]

62. 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]

63. Savage, D. A.; Heller V. G. 1947. Nutritional qualities of range forage plants in relation to grazing with beef cattle on the Southern Plains Experimental Range. Tech. Bull. No. 943. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 61 p. [5680]

64. Schultz, Brad; McAdoo, Kent. 2002. Common sagebrush in Nevada. Special Publication SP-02-02. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension. 9 p. Available: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/Spec%20Pubs/SP-02-02.doc [2002, October 1]. [42043]

65. Secor, Jack B.; Shamash, Saied; Smeal, Daniel; Gennaro, Antonio L. 1983. Soil characteristics of two desert plant community types that occur in the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico. Soil Science. 136(3): 133-144. [2103]

66. Seklecki, Mariette T.; Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1996. Fire history and the possible role of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 238-246. [28082]

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

68. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]

69. Stevens, Richard. 1999. Restoration of native communities by chaining and seeding. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 285-289. [30567]

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

71. Stormer, Fred A. 1981. Characteristics of scaled quail loafing coverts in northwest Texas. Res. Note RM-395. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [23085]

72. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

73. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a Mexican oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: perspectives in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. [19759]

74. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1992. Plant communities of Texas (Series level): February 1992. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Natural Heritage Program. 38 p. [20509]

75. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2003. PLANTS database (2003), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

76. Vermeire, Lance T.; Mitchell, Robert B.; Fuhlendorf, Samuel D. 2001. Sand sagebrush response to fall and spring prescribed burns. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Fairbanks, Daniel J., compilers. Shrubland ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: proceedings; 2000 June 13-15; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 233-235. [41978]

77. Vestal, Paul A. 1952. Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navaho. Reports of the Ramah Project: No. 4. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology: 40(4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 94 p. [37064]

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

79. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

80. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]

81. 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]

82. Wilson, Robert G. 1989. Sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) and brittle pricklypear (Opuntia fragilis) control. Weed Technology. 3: 272-274. [11145]

83. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W.; Thompson, Rita P. 1978. The role and use of fire in the Great Plains: A-state-of-the-art-review. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter: VIII-1 to VIII-29. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [13614]

84. 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]