|
|
FEIS Home Page |
 |
|
Al Schneider @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database |
Hybrids: Black sagebrush hybridizes readily with big sagebrush (A. tridentata) and other Tridentatae sagebrushes [13,89,138,149,298] and with Bigelow sagebrush (A. bigelovii, which some treatments exclude from Tridentatae) [169]. Among Tridentatae, black sagebrush cooccurs most often with and is closely related to basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata. subsp. tridentata) [310], so black sagebrush × basin big sagebrush is the most common black sagebrush cross [242]. Black sagebrush hybrids often form narrow bands between the black sagebrush zone and the adjacent zone of the other Tridentatae parent [298]. See these publications: [150,164,173] for lists of Tridentatae taxa with which black sagebrush may hybridize, and these sources: [150,173] for an explanation of phylogenetic relationships within Artemisia.
SYNONYMS:Expert opinion and historical evidence from pioneer journals support the idea that distribution of sagebrush species has not greatly shifted since European settlement. Sagebrushes dominate the Columbian and Great basins today, and most pristine plant communities in the Columbian and Great basins were historically dominated by sagebrushes (review by [156]).
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES: |
Black sagebrush communities: Black sagebrush habitat types typically form wide, often continuous bands along elevational zones that separate black sagebrush from other communities. Low-elevation black sagebrush communities commonly form nearly pure to pure shrub stands, with a sparse herbaceous understory (review by [145]). On a latitudinal gradient, black sagebrush vegetation types reach their northern limit in southeastern Idaho [111]. Black sagebrush is not typically dominant near its southern limits. However, a black sagebrush-snake broomweed-Greene's rabbitbrush (Gutierrezia sarothrae-Chrysothamnus greenei) vegetation type occurs at Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico [82], and a few other black sagebrush types are also described for northern New Mexico. Left: A black sagebrush-needle-and-thread grass community in southern Utah. USDA, Forest Service photo. Density of this productive community contrasts with that of the sparsely-vegetated black sagebrush community in the Inyo Mountains. |
There may be more bare ground than plant cover in black sagebrush communities, and plant diversity is typically low in black sagebrush compared to other plant communities. Structure of low-elevation, xeric black sagebrush communities is usually scattered shrubs with extensive bare interspaces and a few widely scattered herbs [175]. A study in the Wasatch Mountains of Idaho and Utah found total plant diversity of black sagebrush communities was the 3rd lowest of 25 plant communities [203]. Cover of biological soil-crust species may be high in black sagebrush communities, though. Belnap and others [20] list and describe lichen and moss soil-crust species that occur in sagebrush ecosystems of the Great Basin and Columbia Plateau. See the vegetation classification list for more information on black sagebrush communities.
Other shrubland communities: Black sagebrush is more closely associated with salt-desert vegetation than any other sagebrush except budsage (Picrothamnus desertorum) [27]. It is especially common in shadscale communities [73,265]. Black sagebrush and shadscale communities may form a mosaic, with black sagebrush dominating on lower elevation, less saline, or less alkaline sites than shadscale [73]. Black sagebrush is also common in big sagebrush and mountain brush communities. It is, for example, a common species in curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) communities on the Hardware Ranch Game Management Area in Cache County, Utah [6].
Woodlands: Black sagebrush grows in pinyon-juniper [96,240,266], juniper [190], ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) [63,190,242,278], and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [310] woodlands. It may dominate these woodland understories on xeric sites. In central Utah, black sagebrush is an important to dominant understory component of Colorado pinyon-Utah juniper woodlands, dominating on some sites with shallow soils [68]. Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities with black sagebrush are structurally open and are more often woodlands than forests (for example, [310,322]). In Washington and Oregon, black sagebrush is common in the understories of Pacific ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa var. ponderosa) communities on the east slope of the Cascade Range and in the Blue and Okanogan mountains [63]. Black sagebrush occurs in ponderosa pine communities of Beaverhead and Madison counties, Montana, with black sagebrush dominating the shrublands above the ponderosa pine and western juniper (J. occidentalis) zones [190]. Interior ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum)/black sagebrush communities in northern New Mexico occur above Colorado pinyon-juniper (P. edulis-Juniperus spp.) woodlands, with a mix of associated species that includes mountain-brush shrubs such as Utah snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilis) and soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca) [70]. Black sagebrush is associated with Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) communities in southeastern Idaho [310].
Grasslands: Black sagebrush fingers into warm-desert grasslands in the northern Southwest. It is usually an associated species, but it dominates some sagebrush steppe communities within the desert grassland ecosystem [120].
Vegetation classifications describing black sagebrush-dominated communities are listed below, from north to south and west to east.
Intermountain WestForm and architecture: Black sagebrush is an evergreen, aromatic shrub. It is low-growing and decumbent, so it is grouped with the dwarf sagebrushes [16,222]. Black sagebrush crowns are typically irregular, spreading, and U-shaped [222,319], although heavily browsed plants become rounded [230]. Habit is occasionally upright [16]. Black sagebrush has a taproot [79] and wide-spreading lateral roots. Roots can be deep on favorable sites [79,125], but shallow soils prevent deep root development on most sites where black sagebrush is dominant (see Soils). Black sagebrush tends to have a larger number of fibrous roots than big sagebrush [248]. Above ground, vegetative growth typically reaches 4 to 10 inches (10-30 cm), with inflorescences rising about equally high above branches [64,107,160,298]. Within black sagebrush stands, individual shrubs tend to reach similar heights, giving the stands a "hedged" appearance [81]. Branches are woody [145] and short, spreading loosely [81,298] from a short trunk [107]. Vegetative branches are typically numerous [13]. Lowest branches may arise from the base of the root crown [138]. Mature bark is shreddy [13,205,290].
Leaves: Black sagebrush leaves are darker than leaves of associated sagebrush (Artemisia spp.); hence, the common name "black sagebrush" [298]. There are 3 different leaf types: ephemeral, unlobed flowerstalk leaves; ephemeral, lobed stem leaves; and persistent, lobed stem leaves [13,38]. Ephemeral stem leaves are larger than persistent stem leaves and are irregularly lobed [71,222]. Persistent leaves are bell-shaped [222], shallowly to deeply 3- to 5-lobed, and small, mostly 0.2 to 0.8 inch (0.5-2 cm) long [138,298]. Persistent stem leaves are considered characteristic of sagebrush species, so they are nearly always those used in keys for identifying sagebrush taxa [71].
Reproductive structures: The black sagebrush inflorescence is a long, narrow panicle [13]. There are typically 3 to 5 flowers/flowerhead [64,138,174]; the small, few-flowered heads are characteristic of this species [138,160]. Ray flowers are lacking; all are perfect disc flowers [107,135,165,174,209]. The fruit is an achene [64] about 1 to 2 mm long [107]. Seeds have a thin, waxy seed coat [19]. Black sagebrush seeds are the largest of the Tridentatae, but with about 2,000 seeds/g [176], they are still small.
Morphs: The 2 black sagebrush morphs are distinguishable by leaf color: one morph has gray leaves and the other green [13,16,222]. Chemical differences between the morphs have important implications for rangeland management (see Palatability). Black sagebrush morphs may occur in pure stands or together [13]. Studies are needed to determine the geographic ranges of these morphs [222].
Stand and age class structure: Black sagebrush communities are typically open, with crown cover usually less than 15% [302]. In black sagebrush communities in the Buckskin Mountains of western Nevada, black sagebrush density averaged 2.2 plants/m² and frequency was 100% [319]. See Fuels for more information on plant densities in black sagebrush communities.
Limited information was available on black sagebrush's age class structure as of 2009. The Buckskin Mountains study [319] divided black sagebrush into 5 age classes: seedling, young, mature, patriarch, senescent, and dead plants. Seedlings were very rare, with only 1 seedling found on 1,000 square feet (100 m²). Within stands, about 6% of the black sagebrush were young plants (woody but not yet seed-producing); there were as many dead as young plants. Plants were mostly mature (seed-producing but <40 years old), ranging from 0.7 to 2.0 feet (0.2-0.6 m) tall and 0.7 to 1.6 feet (0.2-0.5 m) in crown diameter. For mature plants, about 10% of the canopy was dead. Plants older than about 40 years gained biomass but did not grow taller due to decay of the main stem. Patriarch plants (≥40 years with the main stem mostly intact) had about 30% aboveground dead material, with relatively fewer leaves and more branch spread than plants in younger age classes. Senescent black sagebrushes had ≥50% dead material; their ages could not be estimated due to stem decay. Comparing stand structure of black sagebrush communities with that of lower-elevation basin big sagebrush communities, Young and Palmquist [319] found that within each community, mean biomass of the 2 sagebrushes was similar. Although basin big sagebrush was taller and wider, black sagebrush was about twice as dense [319].
Passey and Hugie [206] estimated the maximum age of black sagebrushes in southern Idaho, northern Utah, and northeastern Nevada at 47 years.
Physiology: Black sagebrush is highly drought tolerant [185]; it is more likely to endure drought than most sagebrush taxa [236]. It is slightly salt tolerant (reviews by [145,302]) and flood intolerant [230]. Laboratory studies suggest its ability to photosynthesize is restricted to a narrow temperature range [300] (see Elevation).
Raunkiaer [214] life form:| Flowering periods of black sagebrush by area | |
| Area | Range |
| California | July-August [192] |
| Nevada | July-October [11,138] |
| New Mexico | August-September [160] |
| Intermountain West | September-October [64] |
Depending on location, fruit ripens from late summer [115] to November [19]. Seeds are first shed in October, with dispersal continuing through winter [13,176]. Flowerstalks persist until the following year [13,16,222]. Black sagebrush continues photosynthesizing through winter [236]. In northern Utah, root carbohydrate concentrations fluctuated erratically but showed a general increase from stages of early stem growth in March to floral bud development in August. Root carbohydrates declined sharply in September [60].
On sites across western Wyoming, black sagebrush showed less variation in timing of its phenology than big sagebrush and associated bunchgrasses. Over 3 years, black sagebrush phenological development was [146]:
| Ranges and means of black sagebrush phenological events in Wyoming [146] | |
| Event | Dates |
| Vegetative growth starts | 15-30 May; x=20 May |
| Full bloom | 15-20 Sept.; x=15 Sept. |
| Seed disseminates | 25 Oct.-5 Nov.; x=5 Nov. |
Pollination and breeding system: Black sagebrush is wind pollinated [89,199,209].
Seed production: Black sagebrush flower and fruit production are highly variable across years [16]. In favorable years, black sagebrush produces achenes in "profusion" [13], and its spread can be abundant in good seed-crop years [16,148]. It takes "several years" for black sagebrush plants to reach seed-bearing age [204]. Black sagebrushes planted on favorable Utah sites flowered 4 years after seeding (review by [291]).
Seed dispersal: Gravity [183], wind ([204,209], review by [31]), and water [13] disperse black sagebrush seeds. The seeds have no morphological adaptations for dispersal [45] other than their small size, which helps to keep them air-borne on windy days. Most seeds fall under or near the parent plant.
Seed banking: Black sagebrush has a transient seed bank; seeds typically do not persist in the soil for more than 1 growing season [13,115]. A few seeds may remain viable in soil for 2 years if their chilling and light requirements were not met the 1st year [183]. Even in dry storage, black sagebrush seed viability dropped rapidly over time, from 81% to 1% viability after 2 and 10 years of storage, respectively [245].
Germination: Most black sagebrush seeds go dormant and overwinter in the soil seed bank, although some may be immediately germinable. Stratified seeds showed 80% to 90% germination in the greenhouse [19]. Laboratory tests have had mixed success trying to germinate fresh black sagebrush seed. In some cases, different seedlots gave different results [184], suggesting a genetic component to seed dormancy. Meyer and others [184] reported "near full" germination of most fresh black sagebrush seedlots in the laboratory, but 2 collections showed dormancy. Other laboratory studies found fresh black sagebrush seeds had low germinability and required cold stratification to germinate [19,183].
Seeds may germinate over a broad temperature range, although all but shallowly buried seed may show poor germination. Since black sagebrush seeds disperse in late fall, it is likely that cold temperatures inhibit germination until spring. Beetle [13] speculates that in the field, duration of high temperatures during the day is probably more important to black sagebrush germination than fluctuating temperatures. Restoration studies [232,280,291] and another field study [13] suggest black sagebrush establishes best from seeds on or near the soil surface. Laboratory studies show black sagebrush seed germinates better in light than in dark [183,184,232]. Germination rates may be 3 or more times greater in light than in dark. In the laboratory, Meyer and others [183,184] reported mean germination rates of 92% with light and 21% with dark. A mean of 48 days was required for the seedlot to reach 50% germination at 30 °Fahrenheit (1 °C) in light [183].
Seedling establishment: Most black sagebrush seedlings establish near parent plants. On oil-shale reclamation sites in Utah, black sagebrush seedlings were found under or near black sagebrush nursery stock transplanted 4 years earlier [179]. Seedlings emerge quickly; in the laboratory, cotyledons are fully exposed within 4 days [13]. Deep litter reduces establishment of black sagebrush seedlings and is likely to favor grass seedlings, while a thin litter layer or soil disturbance such as rodent digging is likely to favor black sagebrush establishment [13]. In early development, black sagebrush seedlings grow microscopic hypocotyl hairs that apparently help seedlings attach to and their radicles penetrate the substrate. A laboratory study found early seedling development was similar on fine sand, coarse sand, and filter paper. Hypocotyls and radicles emerged 25 hours after the achene broke open [318].
In the Buckskin Mountains, the black sagebrush seedlings on study plots established only between soil mounds, which supported parent plants. Soil nitrate levels were lower between mounds (with seedlings) than on mounds (with parents). Although the lower-elevation basin big sagebrush community showed episodic basin big sagebrush seedling establishment that might have occurred after fires and/or during periods of favorable climate, black sagebrush did not show similar episodic recruitment. The authors suggested that black sagebrush may rely on infrequent, steady establishment, but they noted that it is difficult to infer patterns in black sagebrush recruitment without further information [319].
Limited research suggests that black sagebrush seedlings may establish well on some sites and in some years, especially after disturbances such as chaining or fire that remove interfering vegetation. McArthur and Stevens [174] called black sagebrush an "aggressive natural spreader from seed". Once established, seedlings usually persist even under adverse conditions [176]. Black sagebrush showed good establishment following chaining of a Colorado pinyon-Utah juniper community on the Fountain Green Wildlife Management Area, Utah [243]:
| Black sagebrush density in lagomorph-ungulate exclosures after chaining in central Utah [243] | |||
| Postchaining year | 2 | 11 | 22 |
| Plants/300 feet² | 1 | 2,754 | 3,306 |
In this study, black sagebrush seedling establishment rates were similar on exclosure plots and plots accessible to black-tailed jackrabbits, mule deer, or both [243]. Black sagebrush also showed good establishment after chaining in a Colorado pinyon-Utah juniper community in central Utah. Total shrub density increased from 9,570 plants/ha before chaining to 11,880 plants/ha 2 years after chaining. Black sagebrush seedlings were the most numerous of the 4 shrub species that increased after chaining [68], with average densities of 320 mature black sagebrush/ha before and 470 seedlings black sagebrush/ha 3 years after chaining [66].
See Plant response to fire for information on black sagebrush postfire seedling establishment.
Growth: Black sagebrush growth rate varies from slow [67] to rapid [255], depending on site and year. Because black sagebrush grows in shallow soils, growth is likely contingent upon high soil moisture levels just before [105] and during (review by [262]) the growing season. This may not apply to all sites, however. A northwestern Utah study found no significant correlations between black sagebrush production and amount of spring precipitation or spring temperatures. Among 7 associated cold-desert shrubs, black sagebrush was the only shrub lacking those correlations [78]. Black sagebrush may have an intrinsically slower growth rate than associated sagebrushes. Productivity rates of black sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana), and Wyoming big sagebrush were compared in a common garden in Ephraim, Utah. Black sagebrush gained least annual stem growth and stem and leaf biomass of the 4 taxa [67]. Release from interference of grasses may result in a black sagebrush growth spurt [13].
In the Buckskin Mountains, mean biomass accumulation of black sagebrush was 13.2 g/m²/year [319]. On shale-oil restoration sites in Utah, container stock showed 64% mean survivorship; surviving plants averaged 7 inches (0.2 m) in height and 2 feet (0.6 m) in canopy diameter at 5 years of age [77]. On the Owl Creek Range of Wyoming, black sagebrushes on sites subject to snowdrift accumulation, such as depressions and benches, showed more aerial crown development than black sagebrushes on adjacent sites. Black sagebrush on adjacent sites showed sprawling, low growth [79].
See Young and Palmquist [319] for black sagebrush growth models.
Vegetative regeneration: Black sagebrush does not sprout [13,27,138,169]. Typically, it does not layer [13,27,138], although McArthur and others [169] noted layering of black sagebrush in Washington County, Utah.
Silver sagebrush × black sagebrush hybrids may sprout. The 2 sagebrushes are closely related; among Tridentatae, some cladistic treatments place black sagebrush directly between silver sagebrush [177], which sprouts, and big sagebrush, which does not. Sprouting is thought to be a heritable trait in crosses between nonsprouting and sprouting sagebrushes [166]. See FEIS's review of silver sagebrush for more information on sprouting in silver sagebrush hybrids.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Although it has a wide geographical distribution, black sagebrush is sharply limited as to where it can grow [13]. It is most common on shallow, dry, infertile soils at low to midelevations [183]. In the Curlew Valley of southern Idaho and north-central Utah, for example, black sagebrush dominates on dry ridges and hills. It is only an associated species in lower-elevation, more mesic Utah juniper communities [97]. Woody sagebrush species tend to segregate edaphically [15,128] and by elevation [128]. Sites where black sagebrush dominates are usually less favorable than adjacent sites dominated by big sagebrush or other species [64,97,162,263].Soils supporting black sagebrush communities are typically shallow [15,64,107], rocky [64,107], and xeric. They are often poorly developed, overlying bedrock or caliche [230,236]. On the Humboldt National Forest of northeastern Nevada, black sagebrush dominates on minimally developed Aridisols and Entisols [127]. In east-central Nevada, soils with black sagebrush are typically frigid [25]. See Jensen [129] for a classification of sagebrush communities on the Humboldt National Forest based on soil characteristics.
Soil type is important in determining productivity [206] and fuel loads in black sagebrush communities. See Fuels for more information.
Depth: Although black sagebrush is most common in shallow soils, it also grows in deeper soils. In Nevada, black sagebrush generally occurs on soils where rooting depth is restricted to the upper 18 inches (46 cm) or less [230]. Soils where black sagebrush dominates tend to be shallower ([15], review by [145]) than soils where big sagebrush dominates (review by [145]). An Albany County, Wyoming, study found black sagebrush occurred on the shallowest soils of 4 sagebrush species [258]. On the Modoc Plateau of northeastern California, black sagebrush occurred on young, shallow alluvial fans, with the oldest, deepest lakebed soils occupied by big sagebrush [2]. In the White Mountains of California, black sagebrush replaced big sagebrush as a dominant only on shallow, gravelly, calcareous soils [260]. Soils are typically deep, however, where black sagebrush codominates with big sagebrush [11]. Studies in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada found black sagebrush occurred on moderately deep gravels as well as shallow soils [206].
Nutrients: Burke and others [43] suggested that there may be a soil-nutrient gradient among black sagebrush and big sagebrush vegetation types, with black sagebrush on the low-fertility end of the gradient. Soils where black sagebrush dominates tend to have lower soil organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus levels than soils supporting big sagebrush communities ([162,230], review by [91]). On the Stratton Sagebrush Hydrology Study Area of Wyoming, soils of black sagebrush communities had lower mean soil nitrogen and phosphorus levels at shallow depths compared to Wyoming or mountain big sagebrush communities [41]. On the Humboldt National Forest, sagebrush-dominated communities tended to sort out on a soil fertility gradient, with black sagebrush dominating sites with lowest soil organic matter, nitrogen, and exchangeable calcium levels. Black sagebrush-dominated communities also had significantly drier, shallower soils than other sagebrush communities (P<0.05 for all variables) [127,128]. Unlike other sagebrush taxa, black sagebrush dominance was poorly correlated to soil subgroups [127].
In the Buckskin Mountains, soil nitrate levels beneath black sagebrush plants increased with black sagebrush age, and nitrate levels under black sagebrush plants dropped significantly after plant death (P≤0.1). Litter accumulation resulted in mounding beneath black sagebrushes; nitrates accumulated at mound edges [315,319].
pH and parent materials: Black sagebrush is common on neutral [258] to basic [91,258], calcareous soils. Soil pH on sites with black sagebrush ranges from slightly acidic to alkaline across black sagebrush's range [125,280]. In the Columbia River Basin, black sagebrush generally occurs on calcareous soils that are aridic, frigid, shallow, and gravelly [111]. Black sagebrush may be restricted to limestone-derived or other calcareous soils on most dry sites [111], although it is not limited to calcareous soils on all sites [168,300]. Black sagebrush is apparently limited to limestone-derived soils in southern Idaho [111]. On Limestone Ridge in Moffat County, Colorado, black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass communities occur exclusively on soils derived from calcareous parent materials. Mean pH of these soils is 7.94, while Utah juniper-Colorado pinyon/black sagebrush communities in the same area have a mean soil pH of 7.85. [5]. On the Shoshone National Forest, black sagebrush is an indicator species of "very shallow, stony soils that are calcareous to the surface" [118], although black sagebrush has also been found on granitic soils there [268]. In southern Utah, black sagebrush grows on soils derived from dolomite and volcanic materials [11]. In the White Mountains of California, West [300] found black sagebrush was restricted to dolomite soils, while low sagebrush and big sagebrush grew on other parent materials. Black sagebrush grew well on other soils in the laboratory [300], suggesting that poor competitive ability limits black sagebrush to dolomite soils in the White Mountains.
Black sagebrush tolerates slightly saline soil [218]. Within salt-desert shrub communities, it grows on the "least salty, comparatively mesic sites" [302].
Texture: Black sagebrush grows in soils of all textures [212,258]. It is most common on sandy or gravelly loams [176] and on clays [205,286,315]. Studies in Utah, Idaho, and Nevada found black sagebrush occurred on silty loams [206]. Black sagebrush-dominated communities in northeastern Nevada occur on loamy-skeletal soils [21]. Soils supporting black sagebrush communities in west-central Nevada are very fine and clayey-skeletal [25]. Soils where black sagebrush dominates tend to have a higher percentage of rock than soils where big sagebrush dominates (review by [145]).
Soil texture and depth may be critical in determining where black sagebrush is dominant. In the Buckskin Mountains of west-central Nevada, Young and Clements [315] found ecotones between big sagebrush and black sagebrush communities were "extremely abrupt and distinct, with no intermixing of the two types". They attributed this to different soils; across sites, plant community composition changed rapidly with relative soil development or erosion. Within an alluvial fan complex, black sagebrush occurred on undeveloped, stony clay soils; black sagebrush and a dwarfed form of green rabbitbrush were the only woody species growing on those soils. Big sagebrush communities occurred in areas with an erosional fill of fine sand, and their plant species composition was more diverse [315]. On the east slopes of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range, boundaries between black sagebrush and other vegetation types are usually abrupt. Black sagebrush types occur mostly on shallow soils overlying bedrock, claypan, or a cemented layer of iron oxide that is 2 to 30 inches (5-76 cm) deep [58]. Duchesnicola black sagebrush is limited to red clay uplands of the Uinta Basin, Utah [167,298].
Moisture: Black sagebrush tolerates and is most common on xeric soils [110,236] but also grows on mesic soils [302]. Within the rooting zone, soils supporting black sagebrush communities are usually dry for most of the growing season (review by [145]). Soils where black sagebrush dominates tend to have a lower water-holding capacity than soils where big sagebrush dominates ([162,230], review by [91]). Wyoming big sagebrush rangeland types often transition to black sagebrush types on their xeric edges [263]. On the Snake River Plain of southern Idaho, black sagebrush series are confined to the driest portions of the sagebrush ecosystem, on limestone-derived, calcareous soils [110,261]. A study of plant-water relationships of shrub and graminoid plant communities of the Ruby Valley of Nevada found that black sagebrush-dominated sites were more xeric than all but saltbush (Atriplex spp.) and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) sites. The black sagebrush sites had the highest ratio of plant-water potential (estimate of energy expended by a plant to draw soil moisture) to evapotranspiration of 14 plant communities studied (r= -0.92) [185]. A similar study in eastern Idaho found sagebrush communities were arranged along a mesic-to-xeric moisture gradient from threetip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita) to low sagebrush, big sagebrush, and—on the most xeric sites—black sagebrush [110]. Soil parent materials or texture may affect black sagebrush's ability to tolerate low soil moisture. In the White Mountains, black sagebrush seedlings survived drought better on limestone- than on sandstone-derived soils [300].
Topography: Black sagebrush grows on flat to steep sites [93,122,230,323] on all aspects [258,300]. Some black sagebrush-dominated communities may be relatively inaccessible due to steepness of slope [53]. Black sagebrush is common on alluvial fans [260,268,315]. On the Desert Experimental Range, black sagebrush occurs on rough, broken topography [48]. In the northern Bonneville Basin, Utah, black sagebrush grows on rounded knolls above the barren playa of the Pleistocene-epoch Lake Bonneville [93]. It is reported on mesas, rocky ridges, slopes, and plains in Arizona [103] and New Mexico [160]. At Chaco Culture National Historic Park, where black sagebrush is near its southernmost geographical limit, black sagebrush-dominated communities occur on mesa tops of sheetwash alluvium [82].
Black sagebrush is common on windy ridges [43] that are often swept free of snow in winter [98,195]. On the Stratton Sagebrush Hydrology Study Area, black sagebrush and black sagebrush-Wyoming big sagebrush communities both occurred on windy ridges, but pure black sagebrush stands were more prevalent on these exposed sites. Black sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and mountain big sagebrush vegetation types were correlated with topographic position, with the big sagebrush types occupying gentler slopes that held more snow than slopes supporting black sagebrush-dominated types (P=0.04, R²=66.7) [42].
Although black sagebrush may occur on all aspects [5,22], it is most common on warm, south and west slopes [190,237]. At high elevations, it is mostly confined to south slopes [67]. The black sagebrush/cheatgrass community type of Crane Spring Watershed in Nevada occurs on south-facing slopes of 10% to 25% around 5,400 feet (1,600 m) elevation [21]. On the Rock Spring Watershed, the type occurs on all aspects on slopes of 3% to 33% at 6,200 to 6,900 feet (1,900-2,100 m) [22].
Elevation: Black sagebrush has a wide elevational range [91]. Across its distribution, it occurs from 4,600 to 11,000 feet (1,400-3,400 m) ([11,64,81,138,169,192], review by [47]), although poor competitive ability may restrict its elevational range on many sites. Along elevational gradients, black sagebrush communities often occur between lower-elevation basin big sagebrush or salt-desert sites and higher-elevation low sagebrush [191,301], Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, or pinyon-juniper [190,254] sites. On the Nevada Test Site, the ecotones of shadscale and higher-elevation black sagebrush communities lay at about 4,900 feet (1,500 m). At about 5,900 feet (1,800 m), dominance switches from black sagebrush to singleleaf pinyon and Utah juniper [10]. In Colorado, black sagebrush communities occur between lower-elevation basin big sagebrush and higher-elevation mountain big sagebrush communities [293]. Black sagebrush reaches its highest known elevational range in California and Nevada:
| Elevational ranges of black sagebrush across its geographic distribution | |
| Area | Range (feet) |
| Arizona | 6,000-8,000 [139] |
| California | 5,000-11,000 [192] |
| White Mts. | 7,000-9,500 [191] |
| Colorado | 7,000-8,200 [70,103] |
| Nevada | 5,000-11,000 [11,138] |
| New Mexico | 7,000-8,000 [160] |
| Utah | 4,600-8,500 [298] |
| south-central Utah | 8,000-9,000 [322] |
| southern Utah | 4,920-7,870 [298] |
| Great Basin | 5,000-8,000; most common around 7,000 [14] |
| Intermountain West | 4,600-8,370 [64] |
In part, black sagebrush's physiology restricts it to certain elevational zones. A study in the White Mountains of California found peak photosynthesis rates for black sagebrush occurred at 68 °F (20 °C) [300,301]. West [300] described black sagebrush's ability to photosynthesize at other temperatures as "essentially nil". Although it occurs at lower and higher elevations, inefficient photosynthesis at lower and higher elevations and poor competitive ability on low-elevation, fertile soils tend to concentrate black sagebrush on limestone-derived soils in the singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper zone (6,600-8,200 feet (2,000-2,500 m)), where daytime temperatures favor black sagebrush photosynthesis [300,301].
Climate: Black sagebrush is largely restricted to semiarid, cold-desert climates with cool to cold winter temperatures. Most precipitation is in winter and spring (reviews by [91,145]). Across black sagebrush's range, mean annual precipitation ranges from 7.1 to 12.6 inches (180-320 mm) [176]. Across cold desert regions, mean annual precipitation may be as low as 5.9 to 7.1 inches (150-180 mm) [302]. In the Columbia River Basin, mean annual precipitation in areas where black sagebrush grows ranges from 8 to 10 inches (200-300 mm) [111]. The frost-free period of sagebrush ecosystems averages 120 days but may be as short as 80 days in high-elevation sagebrush sites [90], where black sagebrush is most likely to dominate (see Habitat Types and Plant Communities).
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:Black sagebrush communities: Beetle [13] stated that black sagebrush has "topographic and edaphic climax status" where it dominates. Black sagebrush and other sagebrush-dominated communities are likely late-seral or "climax" types in most of the Great Basin ([106], reviews by [33,91]). Pioneers on the Oregon Trail described pristine, sagebrush-dominated shrublands in these areas, with grasslands mostly confined to valley bottoms and moist sites [33]. See Plant response to fire for information on postfire succession in black sagebrush communities.
Montane black sagebrush communities—generally those above the pinyon-juniper zone—are usually stable. In the Uinta Mountains region of the Ashley National Forest, Utah, black sagebrush cover was greatly reduced after 2,4-D application. However, black sagebrush cover on sprayed sites was similar to that of unsprayed sites 20 years after herbicide treatment [91]. Montane black sagebrush communities are generally more resistant to invasion by cheatgrass or other nonnative grasses than lower-elevation communities [91,221]. On the Travputs Plateau region of the Ashley National Forest, black sagebrush displaced crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and other nonnative grasses within 20 years after nonnative grasses were seeded in. The sites were protected from cattle and lagomorph grazing [91].
In montane black sagebrush shrublands, black sagebrush is sometimes displaced successionally by Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir or other conifers [310]. It is sometimes a nurse plant for junipers, and without fire or other disturbance, black sagebrush may be replaced by junipers in some black sagebrush habitat types. Increasing conifer densities in black sagebrush communities are thought to be due to past fire exclusion, past overgrazing, climate change, or a combination of these factors. As succession proceeds, the conifers eventually shade out black sagebrush in the absence of fire or other stand-replacing disturbance [23]. In the late 1970s, Young and others [169] reported that "large areas" in Nevada that were formerly dominated by black sagebrush had become dominated by Utah juniper and singleleaf pinyon [169]. Utah juniper has encroached upon black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass communities in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. Prior to 1890, Utah juniper was apparently restricted to limestone and skeletal soils there. The author attributed successional replacement of black sagebrush with Utah juniper to fire exclusion and livestock grazing. Cattle had removed many of the grasses that historically fueled fires in the black sagebrush community. Periodic fires tended to kill Utah juniper seedlings and increase black sagebrush cover [292]. See Fuels and Fire Regimes for more information on expansion of pinyons and junipers into black sagebrush communities due to fire exclusion.
In the Wasatch Mountains of southern Idaho and northern Utah, black sagebrush is followed successionally by tiny trumpet (Collomia linearis) and Douglas's knotweed (Polygonum douglasii), native forbs that, in large numbers, are undesirable on rangelands [215].
Pinyon-juniper communities: Black sagebrush is often seral in pinyon-juniper communities, with successional replacement by the conifers ([91,241], unpublished report by [257]). In west-central Utah, black sagebrush was a midsuccessional species after fire in a Utah juniper-singleleaf pinyon woodland. These conifers replaced black sagebrush and big sagebrush successionally around 75 years after fire [7] (see Plant response to fire for more information on this study). Black sagebrush biomass declined with increasing tree biomass (r²=0.85) in a Utah juniper-singleleaf pinyon/black sagebrush community in the Needle Range of central Utah. Black sagebrush cover averaged 80% across seral stages (unpublished report by [257]).
Black sagebrush understory cover remains stable or increases on some pinyon-juniper sites without stand-replacing events such as fire. In a chronosequence study in Nevada, black sagebrush dominated the understories of 17-, 24-, 45- and 115-year-old burns in singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper woodlands [241]. In the Pine Valley of western Utah, black sagebrush cover increased significantly over 53 years—from 0.8% to 2.9% (P<0.01)—in a singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper/black sagebrush community. Overall, cover of shrub and native perennial grass species tended to remain stable or increase (P<0.01), while cover of singleleaf pinyon (P<0.01) and Utah juniper (P<0.05) decreased. Mostly light livestock grazing occurred over that period; otherwise, study plots were undisturbed [313].
Grasslands: In northern desert-grassland ecosystems, black sagebrush may be an edaphic climax species on some sites with shallow, limey soils [87]. Drought generally favors black sagebrush over grasses on more favorable sites. In nondrought years, shade from grasses may result in black sagebrush seedling death [13].
Sagebrush communities on relatively mesic sites are generally more susceptible to cheatgrass infestation than xeric black sagebrush sites, but cheatgrass may invade black sagebrush communities on some sites and in wet years. On burned areas in the Nevada Test Site, cheatgrass was more frequent on deep soils associated with big sagebrush than shallow soils associated with black sagebrush [9]. In black sagebrush communities, cheatgrass is most invasive at midelevations [314]. With the introduction of cheatgrass, a few communities where black sagebrush was dominant have undergone a type conversion to annual grassland communities [91]. Loss of black sagebrush can degrade ecosystem function by reducing availability of palatable black sagebrush browse (see Importance to Wildlife and Livestock), reducing litter and soil accumulation, altering nutrient cycling, and increasing soil erosion [80]; increases in cheatgrass may alter historic fire regimes (see Effects of invasive nonnatives on fire regimes). These alterations may push succession on new trajectories. Cheatgrass is most invasive on disturbed sites [9]; however, it may also invade undisturbed sites. An inventory of a big sagebrush-black sagebrush community above the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Utah showed cheatgrass was the most frequent plant species in the community, with frequencies of 67% for cheatgrass, 5% for big sagebrush, and 4% for black sagebrush. The area was on a steep, south-facing slope that was inaccessible to livestock, little used by humans, and had not experienced fire for at least 50 years [92]. Cheatgrass will likely persist in cold-desert ecosystems where it has replaced black sagebrush stands [91]. Potential for black sagebrush recovery may be low on many cheatgrass-invaded sites [91], so it is unlikely that black sagebrush will regain its position as climax dominant on some invaded sites where it was formerly dominant. See the FEIS review of cheatgrass for more information on how cheatgrass may impact succession and other ecosystem processes in cold-desert and other ecosystems.
Grazing: Livestock grazing may alter successional trajectories in the Great Basin [303]. Due to black sagebrush's generally high palatability, succession in overgrazed black sagebrush communities is likely to proceed to unpalatable species. A long-term study of black sagebrush communities on the Desert Experimental Range showed season of grazing affected plant succession more than grazing intensity, although both were important. Over 53 years, spring grazing by domestic sheep resulted in greater increases in annuals, especially nonnative cheatgrass, halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), and Russian-thistle (Salsola iberica), than fall grazing. Ungrazed plots had few to no nonnative annuals. High-intensity grazing in early spring (42 sheep days/ha from March-April) increased nonnative annuals the most. Fall grazing resulted in greatest shrub cover compared to spring-grazed and ungrazed plots [303]. In eastern Oregon, black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass rangelands in poor condition due to overgrazing may be composed of mostly black sagebrush and bare ground [306]. Rangeland conditions in black sagebrush and other dwarf sagebrush, cold-desert communities declined—sometimes severely—with unrestricted livestock grazing in the early 1900s. Sagebrush communities may recover with complete livestock removal. They may recover, but at a slower rate, when livestock are managed to protect palatable plant species (for example, by limiting livestock numbers, using deferred or rotational grazing, and limiting spring and summer grazing). Permanent plots across central and northern Nevada and western Utah, established in the 1930s when public grazing was first controlled, showed significant increases in the number of black sagebrush and other palatable shrubs (P<0.1) and of palatable bunchgrasses (P<0.01) by the 1980s. Plots were subject to up to 30 years of continuous grazing after they were established. When livestock grazing was stopped, the successional trend was toward increasing dominance by black sagebrush and other palatable shrubs. Overall, palatable plant species increased relative to unpalatable species [49]. See Management Considerations for more information on grazing in black sagebrush communities.Immediate fire effect on plant: Fire usually kills black sagebrush [16,39,83,91,130,274,310,321].
Postfire regeneration strategy [249]:
Shrub without adventitious buds and without a sprouting root crown
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources)
Fire adaptations and plant response to fire:
Fire adaptations:
Black sagebrush plants have no morphological adaptations for surviving fire [307,310].
Plant response to fire: Black sagebrush establishes from seed after fire [197,272,310,321]. Since it cannot sprout after fire [64,272], its postfire recovery can be slow [287]. Black sagebrush recovery is quickest if fire follows a good seed-crop year [321] and/or browsing pressure is light in early postfire years [148]. Repeated fire on pristine black sagebrush/bunchgrass communities of eastern Oregon and Washington may reduce black sagebrush cover (also see Fuels) [62]. Because black sagebrush may take "several years" to establish and produce seed after fire, repeated, frequent fires can eliminate it from a site [204].
Black sagebrush establishes from wind-dispersed ([321], review by [31]) and other off-site seed [31,91], soil-stored seed (review by [197]), and seed from on-site parent plants that fire missed [30,31]. Since black sagebrush has a transient soil seed bank, the ability of black sagebrush to establish after fire is mostly dependent on the amount of seed deposited in the seed bank the year before the fire [197]. There is limited information on how long black sagebrush takes to regain prefire cover. In general, sagebrushes require 15 to 60 years to regain prefire cover (review by [140]). Since black sagebrush tends to dominate the harshest sites in sagebrush ecosystems, its recovery time is likely slower than that of most sagebrushes. Although present before fire, black sagebrush did not occur on any of 19 study plots 1 [83] or 2 [84] years after the Chapin 5 Wildfire in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. On montane black sagebrush communities on Tavaputs Plateau, black sagebrush regained prefire cover about 20 years after fire [91]. Nineteen years after a stand-replacement wildfire in a big sagebrush community the Gardiner Basin of Wyoming, recovery of black sagebrush, basin, Wyoming, and mountain big sagebrushes was "minimal", while abundance of rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) taxa was "much greater". The authors attributed the difference to rabbitbrushes's ability to sprout [287]. Data for black sagebrush recovery alone were not available.
Higgins and others [108] review fire effects on and postfire responses of plant species that occur frequently in black sagebrush communities. Young [321] provides a review of fire effects on forage grasses and forbs that are common in sagebrush ecosystems.
While long-term maintenance of the black sagebrush understory in pinyon-juniper communities may require periodic fire to reduce the conifers [91], black sagebrush's postfire recovery will likely be slow. In a chronosequence fire study of Utah juniper-singleleaf pinyon communities in west-central Utah, black sagebrush was the most abundant shrub on 71-year-old burns, showing greater density and cover than associated big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). It began declining on burns older than 71 years. Black sagebrush was significantly more abundant on old burns (>70 years, P=0.05) than younger burns, where it occurred in only trace amounts [7].
| Black sagebrush abundance on old Utah juniper-singleleaf pinyon burns [7] | |||
| Burn age (years) | Density (plants/100 ft²) | Cover (%) | Frequency (%) |
| 71 | 6.2 | 7.3 | 30.0 |
| 86 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 17.2 |
| 100+ | 0.7 | 0.7 | 4.7 |
Many black sagebrush communities without infestations of nonnative annual grasses lack sufficient fuels for frequent reburns. Portions of the Jarbidge Resource Area of south-central Idaho were burned by wildfires in the early 1960s, then reburned in a 1971 wildfire. Incidence of reburn on black sagebrush sites receiving 12 or more inches (305 mm) of annual precipitation was low. Based on species frequencies and relative plant masses in postfire years 10 to 13 (after the 1971 fire), black sagebrush-dominated communities were judged to have a lower-than-average likelihood of reburning due to discontinuous fine fuels and a longer green period than other shrub communities. They were in "better ecological condition" than more xeric communities, with little cheatgrass invasion. Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) frequency in black sagebrush communities averaged 35% in postfire years 10 to 13. Black sagebrushes in zones receiving 10 to 16 inches (250-400 mm) of annual precipitation had greater fire survival and/or postfire reseeding. The author speculated that except in extreme fire conditions, black sagebrush communities act as fuelbreaks in the Jarbidge Resource Area [30].
In areas with high numbers of sagebrush-feeding ungulates, browsing pressure may damage or kill black sagebrushes that a patchy fire missed. After the 1988 wildfire in the Gardiner Basin of the Gallatin National Forest, Wyoming, postfire elk and mule deer browsing killed 35% of remaining mountain big sagebrush. Fifty-nine percent of surviving mountain big sagebrush had high percentages of dead crown material due to browsing damage [284,285]. Although this study focused on big sagebrush, black sagebrush also occurs in the area. The generally high palatability of black sagebrush likely puts black sagebrush at risk for postfire browsing mortality and damage in areas with large populations of browsing ungulates.
Hybrids: Black sagebrush × silver sagebrush hybrids may sprout after fire. Genetics studies suggest black sagebrush is most closely related to silver sagebrush [149,150,177,275], which sprouts, and big sagebrush, which does not [310]. Studies on the sprouting ability of silver sagebrush, black sagebrush, and other silver sagebrush × dwarf sagebrush hybrid combinations were lacking to date (2009), but such studies might provide insight into the genetic basis for sprouting in woody sagebrushes and ultimately produce woody sagebrush plants that can better survive on sites where nonnative annual grasses have altered fire regimes. Sprouting, drought-tolerant sagebrush hybrids may be useful in rehabilitating sagebrush rangelands that have converted to annual grasslands dominated by nonnative annual grasses [166].
FUELS AND FIRE REGIMES:| Fuels:
Stand structure in black sagebrush communities varies from very open to moderately dense. Potential fire spread depends greatly
on stand structure; some black sagebrush communities function as fuelbreaks, while others are susceptible to rapid fire
spread. Black sagebrush shrublands: Pristine black sagebrush habitat types typically have low productivity (review by [187]), with scattered shrubs and a sparse understory. Consequently, fuel loads are usually low [22,24,145], with insufficient fine fuels to carry fire [121,175,272,310]. Some black sagebrush communities may serve as fuelbreaks [30,321]. Tisdale and Hironaka [262] described black sagebrush stands as "virtually fireproof" due to sparse vegetation. |
 A sparsely-vegetated black sagebrush community in the Inyo Mountains, California. Photo by Marc Hosocsky. Compare this photo with that of the black sagebrush-needle-and-thread grass community, which would likely carry fire. |
In the Intermountain region, total plant cover in black sagebrush communities averages <30% [187]. In a review, Bunting and others [39] reported a mean of 12% black sagebrush cover in black sagebrush habitats of Oregon and a range of 7% to 29% cover in black sagebrush habitat types of Idaho. Understory production tends to decrease as black sagebrush stands mature [176]. A black sagebrush community near Eureka, Nevada, had 13% cover of black sagebrush and trace cover of other plant species; nonliving ground cover (52%) was mostly desert pavement [24]. On the Stratton Sagebrush Hydrology Study Area, black sagebrush communities had >50% bare ground cover; associated species were cushion plants and grasses [43]. On the Owl Creek Range of Wyoming, mean black sagebrush cover in black sagebrush-dominated communities ranged from 7% on black sagebrush-big sagebrush communities to 24% in nearly pure to pure black sagebrush stands. Cover of other vegetation was 13.1% for herbaceous species and 0.9% for shrubs other than the sagebrushes. Areas beneath and near the sagebrushes were usually bare [79]. In Yellowstone National Park near Gardiner, Wyoming, basin, mountain, and Wyoming big sagebrush habitat types experienced stand replacement after a 1974 wildfire. However, the black sagebrush habitat type occurred on limestone outcrops with "strongly calcareous" soils; the black sagebrush habitat was sparsely vegetated and "very little" of it burned [247].
Some pristine black sagebrush/bunchgrass communities of eastern Oregon and Washington are productive enough to carry fire in some years. Productive sites generally have bluebunch wheatgrass and/or Idaho fescue in the understory as well as the grass dominant, Sandberg bluegrass [62]. In common garden experiments in central Utah, productivity of black sagebrush stands was correlated with a 3-way interaction of annual precipitation, depth to the soil's caliche layer, and percent rock in soil (R²=0.65). Productivity increased with increasing precipitation and depth to the caliche layer and decreased with increasing rock content in soil. Black sagebrush stands were the least productive among black sagebrush, black sagebrush-big sagebrush, and big sagebrush stands [248].
Some sites with black sagebrush are dense and productive. A mesic site in northern Nevada had >60% black sagebrush cover [221]. Studies of black sagebrush communities in southern Idaho, northern Utah, and northeastern Nevada found overall plant production ranged from 110 to 322 pounds/acre, and black sagebrush density ranged from 164 to 480 plants/1,000 feet², depending on soil type [206]. On the Desert Experiment Range of Utah, mean productivity of black sagebrush over 5 years was 9.9 lb black sagebrush/acre. The site was dominated by shadscale; black sagebrush was the 3rd most productive plant in the community. Total plant productivity averaged 98.7 lb black sagebrush/acre [8].
Models: Dean and others [69] provide equations for predicting aboveground biomass of black sagebrush and other dominant shrubs of west-central, central, and east-central Nevada [69]. Young and Palmquist [319] provide equations to predict annual accumulations of black sagebrush woody biomass, other aboveground growth, and leaf weight.
Woodlands: Woodland habitat types where black sagebrush is a dominant understory shrub typically have unproductive or open overstories. In the Boulder and Escalante mountains of south-central Utah, interior ponderosa pine/black sagebrush habitat types have the lowest timber production among the ponderosa pine series for those areas. Stand structure is open, and conifer regeneration is generally poor [322].
Understory production in woodlands with black sagebrush is variable. Utah juniper/black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass communities of southeastern Idaho were described as very open (15 trees/acre), with "abundant" low shrubs and grasses in the understory [224]. Some pinyon-juniper/black sagebrush communities in mid- to late succession may have dense understories and/or dense conifer overstories. At these successional stages, cover of the shade-intolerant black sagebrush is likely sparse. In east-central Nevada, closed-canopy singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper/black sagebrush stands had 0.1% black sagebrush cover, 30% conifer cover, and 50% litter cover. Open stands had 17% black sagebrush cover, 1.5% conifer cover, and 24% litter cover [23]. Utah juniper-Colorado pinyon/black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass communities of Moffat County, Colorado, were moderately dense (400-500 trees/ha). Black sagebrush cover was 8% to 10%, with black sagebrush plants "nearly hidden" by dense bluebunch wheatgrass (20% cover). Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass communities in the same area had 8% to 20% black sagebrush cover and 15% to 30% bluebunch wheatgrass cover [5].
Effect of nonnatives on fuels: In years with favorable spring moisture, cheatgrass may produce large quantities of continuous fine fuels. Cheatgrass cover may vary across years, however, and can sometimes be sparse. For example, a black sagebrush/cheatgrass community near Elko, Nevada, had 20% black sagebrush cover and 0.4% cheatgrass cover. Ground cover was 44% litter, 28% lichen soil crust, 13% pavement, 12.5% bare ground, and 2.5% rock [21].
Old black sagebrush plants may facilitate cheatgrass establishment, thereby increasing fuel loads. In the Buckskin Mountains, depth and cover of litter beneath black sagebrush plants increased with black sagebrush age, with deep litter apparently facilitating cheatgrass establishment. Ground under black sagebrush seedlings lacked litter. For mature black sagebrushes, litter ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 inch (1-1.5 cm) deep, and black sagebrush had from 40% to 60% cover. Patriarch and senescent plants had 0.8- to 7-inch-deep (2-3 cm) litter and 80% cover (see Stand and age class structure for age class definitions). Patriarch and senescent black sagebrushes supported more grasses beneath their canopies than younger age classes. Grasses on black sagebrush mounds were mostly either "dense" cheatgrass or bottlebrush squirreltail [319]. See Grasslands and Invasives for more information on succession and management in black sagebrush communities infested with nonnative annuals.
Fire regimes: There are no records of historic fire frequencies or fire regimes for black sagebrush communities [120]. Black sagebrush communities tend to occupy unproductive sites that have little fuel build-up, so fire was probably historically rare on many black sagebrush-dominated landscapes [35,121,219,319]. Winward [307] stated that "fire is not a major ecological component of these (black and other dwarf sagebrush) types". There were likely long intervals between fires in black sagebrush communities [310]. When fires did occur, they were probably mostly patchy [175,310] and of mixed severity, although stand-replacement fires may have occurred rarely. Estimates of fire-return intervals for xeric, low-productivity sagebrush communities of the Great Basin range from 35 to over 100 years [37,219]. Many authors estimate historical mean fire-return intervals of 100 to 200 years or more for low-productivity black sagebrush communities [145,153,188,219,317]. For the Buckskin Mountains of western Nevada, Young and Palmquist [319] suggested that fires in black sagebrush communities were rare and small in extent. Black sagebrush communities there occur on the most arid, highest-elevation (5,640-5,840 feet (1,720-1,780 m)) shrubland sites. These black sagebrush communities lacked sufficient herbaceous fuels to carry fires for most of the 20th century [319].
Historically, fire reduced sagebrush density in both sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems [120]. In areas where juniper and black sagebrush communities are adjacent, periodic fires may have helped prevent juniper encroachment into black sagebrush communities [145]. In order for black sagebrush to remain dominant, fire-free intervals need to be long enough to permit black sagebrush stands to mature, yet short enough to prevent displacement by conifers [186]. Historically, intervals of 150 to 250 years between stand-replacement fires were likely for black sagebrush habitat types otherwise subject to conifer encroachment [152]. Expansion or contraction of pinyons and junipers into black sagebrush and other sagebrush communities is largely regulated by a combination of climate, fire frequency [310], and bark beetle infestations [51], with the conifers expanding into sagebrush communities during times of wet weather and infrequent fire (review by [310]) and contracting during bark beetle infestations [51] and frequent fires (review by [310]). Fire-return intervals of >30 years tend to maintain or increase conifer densities, while fire-return intervals of 10 to 30 years help maintain sagebrush dominance (review by [310]). Infrequent fire likely maintains the western juniper-black sagebrush and other western juniper-dwarf sagebrush communities as savannas in the interior Columbia Basin [40]. Tausch and Hood [256] give descriptions of black sagebrush and other sagebrush communities susceptible to juniper and/or pinyon invasion.
Effects of invasive nonnatives on fire regimes: Cheatgrass and other nonnative annual grasses may alter fire regimes from historic frequency in black sagebrush communities [130]. When it produces abundant, continuous fine fuels, cheatgrass can shorten fire-return intervals and result in larger, more continuous fires. Cheatgrass dies early in the growing season on dry sites, and early curing can result in earlier fire seasons than occurred historically [145]. Degraded black sagebrush communities with even minimal amounts of cheatgrass may be vulnerable to cheatgrass dominance after fire (review by [130]). In black sagebrush communities of the Buckskin Mountains, wildfires have become "occasional", and probably larger in extent, since cheatgrass invasion [319]. Across 4 years in the Buckskin Mountains, either cheatgrass or bottlebrush squirreltail dominated the herbaceous layer, depending upon climate. Cheatgrass was dominant in a dry year (x=6.89 inches (175 mm) annual ppt) and bottlebrush squirreltail in a relatively wet year (x=10.0 inches (255 mm) annual ppt). Over 4 years, cheatgrass was more frequent (44%) than bottlebrush squirreltail (39%) [319]. Cheatgrass population expansion frequently occurs in conjunction with expansion of pinyons and/or junipers into black sagebrush communities, compounding fuel load increases [145]. Livestock grazing may increase cheatgrass density [5]. See FEIS's review of cheatgrass for further information on the fire ecology of cheatgrass.
Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) is invasive in some black sagebrush communities on fine-textured soils, altering fire regimes on those sites from historic patterns. Like cheatgrass, it has increased the fine fuel load above historical levels, resulting in stand-replacement fires that are more frequent than those of the past [50]. On sites in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, increased fuel loads from medusahead invasion in black sagebrush and other dwarf sagebrush communities have introduced fire to ecosystems that had rarely burned since European settlement. Based on fire scars on western junipers in these communities, these dwarf-sagebrush communities burned occasionally prior to settlement, but livestock grazing during the settlement period reduced the fuel load such that fires did not carry [50].
Find 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 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Occasional prescribed fire may be a valuable management tool on productive sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) sites or sagebrush sites where conifers are invading [310]. Because it is a natural component of these ecosystems, fire may disruption sagebrush ecosystems less than other stand-replacing events [36]. In general, lower productivity and the low growth form of black sagebrush and other dwarf sagebrushes make it more difficult to conduct prescribed burning in dwarf sagebrush communities compared to communities dominated by tall, upright sagebrush species such as big sagebrush. Black sagebrush-dominated communities may serve as natural fuelbreaks on some sites; however, the same sites may carry fire in years of above-average precipitation [39]. Irregular edges and islands of unburned and burned black sagebrush are optimal wildlife habitat [273]. A mosaic of different age classes provides optimal habitat for most wildlife species that prefer or are obligates in sagebrush ecosystems. Benefits of prescribed burning in sagebrush ecosystems may include the following (review by [39]):
Pinyon-juniper: Even though black sagebrush is fire-sensitive, periodic fire or other disturbance may be needed to promote black sagebrush and reduce conifers in pinyon-juniper communities or black sagebrush communities invaded by conifers [145]. Periodic fire that reduces pinyon and/or juniper density also increases habitat quality for sage-grouse [92].
Postfire invasion by nonnative annuals may be more likely in black sagebrush communities with pinyons and/or junipers than in upland or more xeric sites. Goodrich [91] writes that the "potential for cheatgrass invasion greatly complicates management of black sagebrush communities within the pinyon-juniper belt in many areas". In areas where cheatgrass, pinyons, and/or junipers are spreading into black sagebrush communities simultaneously, Kitchen and McArthur [145] recommend nonfire or combination restoration treatments. Combination treatments may include conifer thinning, herbicides, or mechanical treatments (such as chaining or harrowing) in conjunction with prescribed fire. The authors review the use of these alternative treatments in sagebrush ecosystems. To minimize cheatgrass invasion, they recommend against burning areas that lack a healthy understory of perennial grasses. They suggest that restoration fires be small and patchy to perpetuate a mosaic of seral stages and facilitate dispersal of black sagebrush seed onto burned areas. Grazing deferment for 2 years before fire may be necessary to build up the fuel load. The authors do not recommend prescribed fire in black sagebrush stands of southern Utah, where black sagebrush is nearing its southernmost geographical range, due to black sagebrush's slow postfire recovery time and the risk of invasion by nonnative annual grasses [145].
Postfire restoration: Natural recovery of a burned sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) area is the most desirable alternative. Postfire seeding or transplanting can interfere with recovery of on-site native vegetation [242]. Postfire seedings may slow invasion of nonnative species on degraded sites, although success of seeding can vary among sites and years. Grazing deferment is recommended for 1 or 2 postfire growing seasons ([145], review by [204]).
Restoring or rehabilitating degraded black sagebrush communities after fire is challenging; as with other types of restoration, unpredictable postfire weather and invasive species can make postfire restoration a long-term project. A Utah project illustrates some problems that arise with postfire rehabilitation in black sagebrush communities. Seeding had mixed results on the US Army Dugway Proving Ground postfire rehabilitation project; results were confounded by postfire weather, nonnative grazing, and establishment of nonnative annuals. A year after a 1998 wildfire, plots in a black sagebrush/shadscale community were drilled and seeded with a mix of native and nonnative forbs, grasses, and shrubs to minimize postfire invasion of cheatgrass. Cheatgrass cover was "minimal" before the wildfire, although it occurred in patches beneath shrubs. The wildfire eliminated all black sagebrush plants from the site, and black sagebrush was not among the shrubs drill-seeded after fire. When drilled and undrilled plots were compared in postfire years 1 to 3, density of seeded shrub seedlings was visibly greater on drilled, seeded plots than on undrilled, seeded plots. If black sagebrush seedlings were present after fire, it was not noted in the study. Cheatgrass density was lower on unburned than burned plots (P<0.05). On burned plots, cheatgrass density was lower on drilled than undrilled plots; however, these differences were significant (P<0.01) for only 1 year (2000), when summer precipitation was more than 2 times above normal. Cover of nonnative, invasive forbs was significantly higher on drilled and seeded compared to undrilled and seeded or unburned control plots (P=0.03). The authors speculated that this was because drill farrows provided protected microsites for nonnative forb establishment. The combination of the wildfire and drill-seeding reduced biological soil crusts 93% compared to unburned plots. Feral horses on the site preferentially grazed seeded species, and their hoofprints served as catchment and establishment sites for cheatgrass seeds. Although an adjacent black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) community was also drilled and seeded, feral horses did not use the black greasewood site. The authors concluded that the impact of "soil-disruptive methods on biological soil crusts should be considered prior to implementation" of restoration projects. Although their results were mixed, they thought that "even moderate success from drill seeding could suppress postfire establishment of cheatgrass in the long run". They called for more research on techniques that might help restore Great Basin shrublands [130].
A review [204] recommends against seeding burned sagebrush communities to crested wheatgrass except on severely degraded sites that would otherwise be vulnerable to cheatgrass or medusahead invasion. See Value for Rehabilitation of Disturbed Sites for further information on restoring disturbed black sagebrush communitiesBlack sagebrush is also a valuable browse plant for livestock [56,136]. It is particularly valued on rangelands stocked with domestic sheep [55,95,123,124]. On a salt-desert winter rangeland in Utah, domestic sheep browsed black sagebrush more than expected (43% utilization, 8% of total diet) based on its availability (3.5% cover) [95]. Black sagebrush is generally less palatable to cattle than to domestic sheep and wild ungulates [169]. Cattle use of black sagebrush is greatest in fall and winter [230], with only trace amounts consumed in summer [277].
Ungulates may underutilize black sagebrush if more palatable shrubs are available. On the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona, cattle, domestic sheep, and mule deer used black sagebrush lightly (x=20% for each ungulate spp.), while Ceanothus species and bigtooth maple (Acer grandidtatum) were utilized heavily (≥50%) [136].
Habitat:
Wild ungulates:
Mule deer and pronghorn often use black sagebrush habitats extensively. Mule deer use may be especially heavy in early decades after fire. A fire chronosequence study in Nevada showed mule deer used burned singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper communities with black sagebrush-dominated or big sagebrush-black sagebrush-dominated understories as summer rangeland habitat. Burned plots were studied 17, 24, 45, and 155 years after fire (the oldest burn may have burned twice). Mule deer use of the area was significantly higher in 17- and 24-year-old burns compared to unburned sites (P≤0.05). Use on 45- and 155-year-old burns was similar to that of sites showing no evidence of fire [241].
Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats are key components of pronghorn winter rangelands [311], and black sagebrush is especially important to pronghorn. A review identified black sagebrush as the most important source of winter browse for pronghorn in Utah [1]. Pronghorn in southeastern Oregon use black sagebrush rangelands preferentially over big sagebrush rangelands, possibly because their movement is more restricted where the taller big sagebrushes dominate [311]. Kindschy and others [143] report that "the best winter (pronghorn) ranges" are dominated by black sagebrush or a combination of black sagebrush and salt-desert species. On the Desert Experimental Range, pronghorn winter distribution was significantly associated with black sagebrush dominance (P=0.01). Pronghorn used black sagebrush communities 2 or 3 times more than expected based the area occupied by black sagebrush communities [48].
Black sagebrush and other sagebrush communities are less attractive to elk and moose. In a southwestern Wyoming comparing winter habitat use by wild ungulates, elk and moose used a Wyoming big sagebrush community with black sagebrush less than expected, while mule deer used it more than expected (almost exclusively) based on availability [200].
Birds: As of 2009, little was published on use of black sagebrush habitats by birds in general. In Wyoming big sagebrush habitats, sage thrashers prefer areas with "large amounts" of black sagebrush and other dwarf shrubs over areas with taller shrubs [181]. Medin and others [180,181] provide information on passerine use of sagebrush habitats in east-central Nevada.
Sage-grouse are known obligates in black sagebrush and other sagebrush habitats [12,34]. They use black sagebrush for food and cover [34]. Generally, black sagebrush's short stature and the low number of forbs in black sagebrush communities make black sagebrush habitats less favorable than big sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse [91]. However, some black sagebrush sites are preferred winter sage-grouse grounds. Greater sage-grouse on the Snake River Plains of Idaho use black sagebrush-big sagebrush communities as winter range [65]. In Nevada, greater sage-grouse select wind-swept ridges with short, scattered black sagebrush plants as winter feeding areas [98]. In the Gunnison Basin of Colorado, Gunnison sage-grouse used black sagebrush stands—which occurred on flats—as winter range and forage in a low snow year, when black sagebrush branches were not covered with snow. They used the big sagebrush stands—which were taller—on southwest slopes in a high snow year because some big sagebrush branches projected above snow [122]. See the FEIS review of sage-grouse for further details on sage-grouse use of black sagebrush and other sagebrush communities.
Rodents: A study in northeastern Nevada showed deer mice, Great Basin pocket mice, and Ord's kangaroo rats made moderate to heavy use of gray low sagebrush (A. arbuscula subsp. arbuscula)-black sagebrush rangelands on dry ridgetops in late spring and summer. Most rodents preferred more productive sites with loamy soils [163].
A study on cold desert-warm desert ecotones of the Nevada Test Site showed rodents preferred cold-desert communities over transition and warm-desert communities. Black sagebrush communities were among 10 cold-desert communities included in the study [102]. Rodent use of specific plant communities within cold and warm deserts was not determined.
Predators: Black sagebrush communities also support predators. For example, greater sage-grouse were the primary avian prey of golden eagles in a mixed big sagebrush-black sagebrush shrubland in southeastern Wyoming [159].
Invertebrates: Although black sagebrush is wind pollinated, insects may seek out the flowers of other plant species in black sagebrush communities for pollen. A study in the Wasatch Mountains of Idaho and Utah found black sagebrush communities had the 2nd-highest count of insect pollinator species among 25 plant communities [203].
Sagebrush obligates: Among animals that use black sagebrush habitats, some are either sagebrush obligates or prefer sagebrush to other habitats. See these sources: [204,309] for lists and other information on these animals.
Several protected birds and mammals are dependent on sagebrush ecosystems. However, except for sage-grouse (see Birds) and pronghorn (see Wild ungulates), research to date (2009) has rarely focused on potential dependency of protected animals on particular sagebrush taxa. Legally protected sagebrush obligates that may depend on black sagebrush for food and/or cover include the Gunnison sage-grouse, greater sage-grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, pronghorn, and pygmy rabbit [147,204]. Wisdom and others [308] provide guidelines for assessing habitat quality of black sagebrush and other sagebrush ecosystems in the western United States for protected species.
Palatability: Black sagebrush provides generally palatable, nutritious browse for wildlife and most classes of livestock [16,117]. Sampson and Jesperson [226] rate black sagebrush as palatable to pronghorn, mule deer, domestic sheep, and domestic goats and unpalatable to cattle and horses. Overall black sagebrush palatability has been rated as moderate [276]. Beetle [14] rated black sagebrush "somewhat less palatable" than Wyoming big sagebrush. McArthur and Stevens [174] caution that the results of ungulate preference tests may not apply to every area and that there are infraspecific differences in black sagebrush palatability. Utilization of black sagebrush may be higher if other forage species are also available [304]. In a cafeteria study, tame mule deer (n=4) preferred big sagebrush to black sagebrush. In the field, mule deer generally utilize black sagebrush mostly in winter, when other forage is scarce [98]. Black sagebrush can be an important emergency food for wintering mule deer [193].
Pronghorn utilize black sagebrush heavily [8,239]. On the Desert Experiment Range, pronghorn preferred black sagebrush to any other plant species on the rangeland. Although it was the 3rd most common plant, it comprised the majority (68%) of their summer diet [8]. Black sagebrush comprised from 14% to 98% (x=65%) of the diet of 48- to 137-day-old pronghorn fawns from November through March. Fawns utilized black sagebrush more than all other forage species combined. Researchers found "little difference" in plant species that juveniles and adults selected for forage; black sagebrush was also the most important late fall and winter forage species of adult pronghorns [239].
Ranchers appreciate black sagebrush as high-quality forage for domestic sheep, cattle, and domestic goats [191]. Black sagebrush is best as livestock feed when it grows with other palatable forage (review by [98]). It is especially valuable as domestic sheep food [81]. Domestic sheep generally browse sagebrush species lightly from spring through fall. Utilization increases in winter or when domestic sheep are fed a protein supplement (review by [88]). The domestic sheep industry that emerged in the Great Basin in the early 1900s was largely based on wintering domestic sheep in back sagebrush communities; black sagebrush was regarded as "hot" feed that allowed domestic sheep to survive harsh, cold-desert winters [191].
Black sagebrush morphs: There are genetic and/or geographic differences in black sagebrush's palatability [233,246,251]. Although overall black sagebrush palatability is rated as moderate [276], black sagebrush palatability varies across sites and between black sagebrush morphs. Laboratory and field tests show that depending on the morph, black sagebrush shows 2 different responses to long-wave ultraviolet light. Gray-leaf types fluoresce to bluish-white due to the presence of coumarin, a chemical substance that is highly palatable to ungulates and sage-grouse. Green-leaf types do not fluoresce, are low in coumarin, and low in palatability [222]. Experiments in Nevada show palatable black sagebrush morphs can be identified in the field [246]. See Distinguishing black sagebrush and Stevens and McArthur [246] for further details on identifying black sagebrush morphs.
Mule deer food choices among black sagebrush and big sagebrush taxa vary with location [297]. A study near Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, found mule deer preferred black sagebrush least (8% utilization) among black, basin, Wyoming, and mountain sagebrushes [210,288]. Mountain big sagebrush had highest (52%) utilization. Black sagebrush had the highest concentrations of nonvolatile terpenoids among the 4 sagebrush taxa [210]. Nutritional content of the 4 sagebrushes was not analyzed. Other studies in [251] and near [283] Yellowstone National Park found mule deer preferred Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush over black sagebrush and basin big sagebrush, although black sagebrush tested as the most digestible taxa in the laboratory [251].
Wildlife use of black sagebrush browse likely depends on the balance of distasteful volatile and nonvolatile oils and palatable substances including coumarin and nutrients. Terpenoid oils in black sagebrush browse may lower black sagebrush's digestibility and palatability and discourage browsers. High concentrations of volatile terpenes can kill rumen bacteria and interfere with ungulate digestion [194]. Concentrations of black sagebrush's volatile and nonvolatile terpenes may vary by site and season ([210,229,251,297,305], review by [193]). In a common garden experiment near Helper, Utah, mule deer utilization of current-year black sagebrush growth ranged from 0.0% to 82.7% in black sagebrush accessions from 7 sites in Utah. Although digestibility of the most palatable accession was relatively low, the accession had moderate monoterpene and high protein and phosphorus content relative to other accessions [18,296]. It also showed fastest stem leader growth [18], implying that the accession was well-adapted to browsing. There was no significant relationship between monoterpene content of black sagebrush browse and mule deer preference [17].
Nutritional value: Black sagebrush is generally highly digestible and high in protein (reviews by [270,294]), phosphorus (review by [294]), and carotene (review by [294]). These publications provide analyses of the nutritional content of black sagebrush: [55,56,56,104,157,295,296].
Black sagebrush and horsebrush (Tetradymia app.) can be a deadly combination to domestic sheep [131,191,231]. Domestic sheep feeding on black sagebrush followed by horsebrush can become severely photosensitive and ewes may abort. Feeding trials using domestic sheep showed sequential injection of black sagebrush and gray horsebrush produced a synergistic effect; levels of some blood toxins were greatly elevated compared to toxin levels of domestic sheep that consumed only one of the shrubs [131].
Cover value: Black sagebrush provides fair to good cover for small animals [242], sometimes giving shelter on harsh sites where few other plant species can grow [242].
Black sagebrush is too short to provide good cover for ungulates. A study in southeastern Idaho found elk preferred Wyoming big sagebrush to black sagebrush for bedding cover [252]. Although mule deer rely heavily on black sagebrush for food, they do not use it for cover. Even mule deer fawns cannot hide beneath black sagebrush shrubs [201].
Sage-grouse usually use black sagebrush communities less than surrounding communities for cover. With total plant ground cover in black sagebrush communities averaging <30% in the Intermountain region, some black sagebrush communities do not meet sage-grouse's cover needs [187]. In big sagebrush-black sagebrush communities, sage-grouse hens may prefer to nest under big sagebrush. On the Sheep Experiment Station in southeastern Idaho, for example, greater sage-grouse hens nested beneath big sagebrush and other sagebrushes in preference to black sagebrush. Black sagebrush dominated on rocky and windswept areas, while other sagebrush taxa were most common on gentler sites [119]. However, sage-grouse prefer some wind-swept areas as wintering grounds (reviews by [44,220]). On the Inyo National Forest, California, greater sage-grouse use black sagebrush communities "heavily" for nesting cover and food [227]. Hens may prefer black sagebrush communities in areas where snow lingers under larger shrubs longer than it stays under black sagebrush. On such sites, sage-grouse hens use black sagebrush communities as prenesting, nesting, and brood-rearing sites; broodless hens and males use such black sagebrush communities for foraging [61]. Among black sagebrush communities, hens generally prefer communities with tall bunchgrasses for nesting; they prefer black sagebrush communities with forbs, especially legumes, for prenesting and brood rearing [61].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:Many sagebrush types may not require postfire seeding because the native plants recover on their own. As with burned sagebrush sites [242], natural recovery of other disturbed sagebrush areas is the most desirable alternative. Seeding or transplanting can interfere with recovery of on-site native vegetation [242]. However, natural recovery may not be possible on mined or other severely disturbed sites. Horton [117] advised that sites with infestations of invasive nonnative species or some sites that support nonsprouting species (such as black sagebrush) may be "extremely slow" to recover by natural regeneration alone. However, black sagebrush shows good natural seed regeneration on many disturbed sites [16].
Artificial regeneration is established from seeds or nursery stock [213,232]. Seeds are commercially available, and nursery stock can be started from wild cuttings [16,76]. Stevens [244] rated expected establishment success for bareroot, wild, or container-grow black sagebrush stock as "high". In the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming, black sagebrush showed good establishment from direct seeding after prescribed fire to control junipers (Juniperus sp.). Fall seeding resulted in more black sagebrush establishment than spring seeding [80]. Black sagebrush can be direct seeded onto rangelands in good condition. On rangelands invaded by cheatgrass, medusahead, or other nonnative annual grasses, the native perennial grass understory may need to be restored before black sagebrush and other sagebrushes can establish [183]. On shale-oil reclamation sites in Utah, transplanted black sagebrush stock showed 55% mean survival; about average among 9 transplanted shrub species [179]. On other shale-oil restoration sites in Utah, black sagebrush container stock showed 64% mean survivorship; surviving plants averaged 7 inches (20 cm) in height and 2 inches (5 cm) in canopy diameter after 3 to 4 years [77]. Kitchen and McArthur [145] review restoration planting techniques that have been successful in black sagebrush communities. See the following sources for information on black sagebrush seed collection [232,280,291], propagation [232,280], and outplanting [232,280,291] information. Monsen and Stevens [189,247] provide information on selecting species for and conducting postfire restoration plantings in black sagebrush communities.
As of 2009, programs for restoring degraded black sagebrush and other sagebrush ecosystems were still in development. Restoring sagebrush ecosystems is difficult, expensive, and will likely require decades to centuries. Restoration may not be possible on sites where a type conversion to annual grassland has occurred because political and economic support may be lacking or ecosystem functions (for example, fire and/or nutrient cycles) may be altered beyond a returnable threshold (review by [147]).
An unpredictable climate makes restoration projects in the Great Basin risky. Success of plantings on black sagebrush types may be especially unpredictable due to variable but usually low precipitation, which can result in death of new plants [109]. Survivorship of transplanted black sagebrush seedlings may be low with drought, and other, seeded native species may show poor establishment on xeric black sagebrush sites [274]. Black sagebrush showed 48% mean survivorship the first 3 years following transplanting of nursery-grown black sagebrush and other shrub seedlings on exclosures near Provo, Utah. However, survivorship of black sagebrush and other shrubs declined rapidly when seedlings were hit with above-average precipitation followed by drought. The site supported a winterfat-sickle saltbush (Krascheninnikovia lanata-Atriplex falcata) community on "slightly saline" soils. Precipitation rose above normal when black sagebrush seedlings were 6 years old, and above-average precipitation continued for a record-breaking 3 years (1982-1984). This extremely wet period was followed by 5 years of below-normal precipitation and increased black sagebrush mortality. Black sagebrush did not recover from its decline; black sagebrush mortality was 100% by posttransplant year 12 (1989) [208]. Die-off of black sagebrush transplants followed a region-wide trend of shrub die-off during the extreme wet-to-dry climate fluctuation [161,196,208]. The authors attributed the die-off to a high water table and subsequent build-up of pathogenic fungi, extreme swings in wet and dry weather, and a peak in grasshopper numbers and subsequent heavy grasshopper browsing [208].
| Survivorship of transplanted black sagebrush seedlings by age and yearly mean annual precipitation [208] | |||||||||
| Seedling age (Year) | 1 (1977) | 2 (1978) | 3 (1979) | 4 (1980) | 5 (1981) | 6 (1982) | 7 (1983) | 8 (1984) | 12 (1989) |
| Survivorship (%) | 52 | 50 | 43 | 34 | 14 | 7 | 7 | ---* | 0 |
| Annual precipitation (inches)** | --- | --- | --- | --- | 9 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 7 |
| *No data. **Long-term mean=10 inches. |
|||||||||
See Postfire restoration for more information restoring black sagebrush communities.
Black sagebrush in particular and shrubs in general can be under-used in postfire and other restoration projects. Although federal regulations dictate using native species when available (see Richards and others [217] for a review of these laws), lack of native propagule sources and poor performance often result in nonnative plantings outnumbering native plantings. Postfire plantings are often aimed at short-term watershed protection rather than maintaining long-term ecosystem function and diversity. A 1998 survey of postfire and mine rehabilitation projects in Nevada found black sagebrush was used on 0% of burned sites (n=50) and 9% of mined sites (n=32). All shrubs used on burned or mined sites were native, but both native and nonnative herbs were used. Wyoming big sagebrush was the only substantially outplanted shrub on burned sites (8%). Among shrubs, forbs, and grasses, nonnative crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum, 38% of sites) and Siberian wheatgrass (A. fragile, 36%) were the 2 most heavily planted species on burned sites [217].
OTHER USES:Native Americans used a decoction of black sagebrush stems, leaves, and twigs to treat bronchitis; vapors from the crushed leaves were inhaled to treat nasal congestion [253].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Black sagebrush can withstand moderate wildlife use. Black sagebrush seedling establishment was similar on grazed and ungrazed plots on the Fountain Green Wildlife management area (see Seedling establishment). Mule deer numbers were "low", and black-tailed jackrabbit numbers were "high" in grazed plots [243]; relative utilization of black sagebrush by each animal was not assessed. In the Duck Creek Basin of east-central Nevada, black sagebrush was less productive on sites protected from wildlife and livestock grazing for 10 years (x=39.0 kg black sagebrush/ha) compared to grazed sites (x=99.4 kg black sagebrush/ha) [267].
Productivity in black sagebrush communities generally ranges from low to medium [135]. See Fuels for quantitative data on productivity and density of black sagebrush communities. Young and Clements [316] aptly describe rangeland productivity and utilization of black sagebrush communities in Nevada: "You can argue whether black sagebrush/bunchgrass communities represent the higher potential salt desert communities or the lower potential sagebrush/bunchgrass environments, but nonetheless, black sagebrush is a major browse species on winter ranges".
Black sagebrush declines with long-term overuse. Long-term overgrazing by domestic sheep may convert black sagebrush-dominated communities to communities dominated by unpalatable shrubs such as Greene's rabbitbrush or broom snakeweed [145]. For domestic sheep ranges of the Great Basin and southwestern Wyoming, a 1954 Farmer's Bulletin recommended no more than 70% utilization of annual black sagebrush growth to maintain good condition [123]. Heavy domestic sheep grazing "virtually removed" black sagebrush from Cedar Valley, Utah (Bowns 1987 personal observation cited in [134]). A black sagebrush-dominated rangeland in eastern Nevada was subjected to mostly domestic sheep and some cattle grazing, with permanent plots established on grazed and ungrazed sites. After 42 to 50 years of use, black sagebrush cover was significantly greater on ungrazed than grazed sites (2.8% vs. 1.7% cover, P<0.01), and overall shrub cover was greater on ungrazed plots (P<0.05). Shadscale, Greene's rabbitbrush, and broom snakeweed were more abundant than black sagebrush on grazed plots [46]. In the Antelope Valley of Nevada, combined productivity of black sagebrush and big sagebrush was much greater on domestic sheep rangelands grazed every other year compared to those grazed every year (36 vs. 2 lbs/acre, respectively) [116]. On the Ashley National Forest, black sagebrush crown cover near the upper edge of the pinyon-juniper zone increased with decreased utilization; it was 11% on sites with heavy deer and elk use, 15% to 18% on mule deer winter ranges, and 27% to 28% on sites with low ungulate use and/or where livestock were excluded [91].
Overgrazing can change the species composition in black sagebrush communities. On the Shoshone National Forest and other rangelands in southeastern Wyoming, shadscale has invaded overgrazed black sagebrush stands (Baker personal communication in [52]).
Control: Controlling black sagebrush is not recommended because it rarely spreads and it provides valuable wildlife forage [14,16,120,156]. Beetle and Johnson [14,16] state there is "no reason to control black sagebrush". Humphrey [120] recommended against black sagebrush control in northern Arizona because it provides good forage and apparently does not interfere greatly with growth of herbaceous forage. Because black sagebrush typically dominates on unproductive sites (see Site Characteristics), controlling black sagebrush is unlikely to boost production of other forage in black sagebrush-dominated communities [207]. Other Tridentatae—particularly big sagebrush—were targeted for control from the 1960s through the 1980s to help establish nonnative crested wheatgrass as a forage plant (for example, [74,235]), but black sagebrush often escaped that management practice. In the Crowley Lake area of the Inyo National Forest, California, black sagebrush communities have been protected from sagebrush control due to their high value as greater sage-grouse habitat, although big and silver sagebrush in adjacent sagebrush communities have been targeted for reduction on greater sage-grouse and cattle rangelands [227].
Invasives: It is commonly argued that the most cost-efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their establishment and spread by maintaining "healthy" natural communities [158,234] (for example, avoiding road building in wildlands [269]) and by monitoring several times each year [132]. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility is likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invaders [113]. Besides cheatgrass, there are many other nonnative species that are, or have the potential to be, invasive in sagebrush ecosystems. Rice and others [216] and Knick and others [147] discuss these sagebrush-ecosystem invasives in reviews.
About 1 million acres, or about 5%, of Nevada's sagebrush rangelands were converted to crested wheatgrass before the mid-1960s. Although crested wheatgrass remains dominant in some areas, the conversion was unsuccessful on many sagebrush sites in the Great Basin. Most areas have converted back to sagebrush—mostly basin big sagebrush, the primary dominant before conversion—with crested wheatgrass barely surviving. Return of native perennial bunchgrasses has been slow to nonexistent, and cheatgrass dominates many former sagebrush/bunchgrass sites [316].| Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which black sagebrush may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [155], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Pacific Northwest | ||||||||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | ||||||||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
|||||||
| Northwest Shrubland | ||||||||||
| Salt desert scrubland | Replacement | 13% | 200 | 100 | 300 | |||||
| Mixed | 87% | 31 | 20 | 100 | ||||||
| Salt desert shrub | Replacement | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | |||||
| Mixed | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert | Replacement | 86% | 200 | 30 | 200 | |||||
| Mixed | 9% | >1,000 | 20 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 5% | >1,000 | 20 | |||||||
| Wyoming sagebrush steppe | Replacement | 89% | 92 | 30 | 120 | |||||
| Mixed | 11% | 714 | 120 | |||||||
| Low sagebrush | Replacement | 41% | 180 | |||||||
| Mixed | 59% | 125 | ||||||||
| Mountain big sagebrush (cool sagebrush) | Replacement | 100% | 20 | 10 | 40 | |||||
| Northwest Woodland | ||||||||||
| Western juniper (pumice) | Replacement | 33% | >1,000 | |||||||
| Mixed | 67% | 500 | ||||||||
| Ponderosa pine | Replacement | 5% | 200 | |||||||
| Mixed | 17% | 60 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 78% | 13 | ||||||||
| Northwest Forested | ||||||||||
| Ponderosa pine (xeric) | Replacement | 37% | 130 | |||||||
| Mixed | 48% | 100 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 16% | 300 | ||||||||
| California | ||||||||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | ||||||||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
|||||||
| California Woodland | ||||||||||
| Ponderosa pine | Replacement | 5% | 200 | |||||||
| Mixed | 17% | 60 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 78% | 13 | ||||||||
| Southwest | ||||||||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | ||||||||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
|||||||
| Southwest Grassland | ||||||||||
| Desert grassland with shrubs and trees | Replacement | 85% | 12 | |||||||
| Mixed | 15% | 70 | ||||||||
| Shortgrass prairie with shrubs | Replacement | 80% | 15 | 2 | 35 | |||||
| Mixed | 20% | 60 | ||||||||
| Montane and subalpine grasslands with shrubs or trees | Replacement | 30% | 70 | 10 | 100 | |||||
| Surface or low | 70% | 30 | ||||||||
| Southwest Shrubland | ||||||||||
| Salt desert scrubland | Replacement | 13% | 200 | 100 | 300 | |||||
| Mixed | 87% | 31 | 20 | 100 | ||||||
| Low sagebrush shrubland | Replacement | 100% | 125 | 60 | 150 | |||||
| Interior Arizona chaparral | Replacement | 100% | 125 | 60 | 150 | |||||
| Mountain-mahogany shrubland | Replacement | 73% | 75 | |||||||
| Mixed | 27% | 200 | ||||||||
| Southwest Woodland | ||||||||||
| Madrean oak-conifer woodland | Replacement | 16% | 65 | 25 | ||||||
| Mixed | 8% | 140 | 5 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 76% | 14 | 1 | 20 | ||||||
| Pinyon-juniper (mixed fire regime) | Replacement | 29% | 430 | |||||||
| Mixed | 65% | 192 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 6% | >1,000 | ||||||||
| Pinyon-juniper (rare replacement fire regime) | Replacement | 76% | 526 | |||||||
| Mixed | 20% | >1,000 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 4% | >1,000 | ||||||||
| Ponderosa pine/grassland (Southwest) | Replacement | 3% | 300 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 97% | 10 | ||||||||
| Bristlecone-limber pine (Southwest) | Replacement | 67% | 500 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 33% | >1,000 | ||||||||
| Southwest Forested | ||||||||||
| Ponderosa pine-Gambel oak (southern Rockies and Southwest) | Replacement | 8% | 300 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 92% | 25 | 10 | 30 | ||||||
| Great Basin | ||||||||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | ||||||||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
|||||||
| Great Basin Grassland | ||||||||||
| Great Basin grassland | Replacement | 33% | 75 | 40 | 110 | |||||
| Mixed | 67% | 37 | 20 | 54 | ||||||
| Great Basin Shrubland | ||||||||||
| Blackbrush | Replacement | 100% | 833 | 100 | >1,000 | |||||
| Salt desert scrubland | Replacement | 13% | 200 | 100 | 300 | |||||
| Mixed | 87% | 31 | 20 | 100 | ||||||
| Salt desert shrub | Replacement | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | |||||
| Mixed | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Basin big sagebrush | Replacement | 80% | 50 | 10 | 100 | |||||
| Mixed | 20% | 200 | 50 | 300 | ||||||
| Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert | Replacement | 86% | 200 | 30 | 200 | |||||
| Mixed | 9% | >1,000 | 20 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 5% | >1,000 | 20 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert with trees | Replacement | 84% | 137 | 30 | 200 | |||||
| Mixed | 11% | >1,000 | 20 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 5% | >1,000 | 20 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Wyoming sagebrush steppe | Replacement | 89% | 92 | 30 | 120 | |||||
| Mixed | 11% | 714 | 120 | |||||||
| Interior Arizona chaparral | Replacement | 88% | 46 | 25 | 100 | |||||
| Mixed | 12% | 350 | ||||||||
| Mountain big sagebrush | Replacement | 100% | 48 | 15 | 100 | |||||
| Mountain big sagebrush with conifers | Replacement | 100% | 49 | 15 | 100 | |||||
| Mountain sagebrush (cool sage) | Replacement | 75% | 100 | |||||||
| Mixed | 25% | 300 | ||||||||
| Mountain shrubland with trees | Replacement | 22% | 105 | 100 | 200 | |||||
| Mixed | 78% | 29 | 25 | 100 | ||||||
| Black and low sagebrushes | Replacement | 33% | 243 | 100 | ||||||
| Mixed | 67% | 119 | 75 | 140 | ||||||
| Black and low sagebrushes with trees | Replacement | 37% | 227 | 150 | 290 | |||||
| Mixed | 63% | 136 | 50 | 190 | ||||||
| Curlleaf mountain-mahogany | Replacement | 31% | 250 | 100 | 500 | |||||
| Mixed | 37% | 212 | 50 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 31% | 250 | 50 | |||||||
| Great Basin Woodland | ||||||||||
| Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodland | Replacement | 20% | 333 | 100 | >1,000 | |||||
| Mixed | 31% | 217 | 100 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 49% | 135 | 100 | |||||||
| Ponderosa pine | Replacement | 5% | 200 | |||||||
| Mixed | 17% | 60 | ||||||||
| Surface or low | 78% | 13 | ||||||||
| Great Basin Forested | ||||||||||
| Interior ponderosa pine | Replacement | 5% | 161 | 800 | ||||||
| Mixed | 10% | 80 | 50 | 80 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 86% | 9 | 8 | 10 | ||||||
| Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir | Replacement | 10% | 250 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Mixed | 51% | 50 | 50 | 130 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 39% | 65 | 15 | |||||||
| Great Basin Douglas-fir (dry) | Replacement | 12% | 90 | 600 | ||||||
| Mixed | 14% | 76 | 45 | |||||||
| Surface or low | 75% | 14 | 10 | 50 | ||||||
| Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) | Replacement | 28% | 170 | 80 | 400 | |||||
| Mixed | 72% | 65 | 50 | 250 | ||||||
| Northern and Central Rockies | ||||||||||
| Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | ||||||||
| Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
|||||||
| Northern and Central Rockies Grassland | ||||||||||
| Northern prairie grassland | Replacement | 55% | 22 | 2 | 40 | |||||
| Mixed | 45% | 27 | 10 | 50 | ||||||
| Mountain grassland | Replacement | 60% | 20 | 10 | ||||||
| Mixed | 40% | 30 | ||||||||
| Northern and Central Rockies Shrubland | ||||||||||
| Salt desert shrub | Replacement | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | |||||
| Mixed | 50% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | ||||||
| Wyoming big sagebrush | Replacement | 63% | 145 | 80 | 240 | |||||
| Mixed | 37% | 250 | ||||||||
| Basin big sagebrush | Replacement | 60% | 100 | 10 | 150 | |||||
| Mixed | 40% | 150 | ||||||||
| Low sagebrush shrubland | Replacement | 100% | 125 | 60 | 150 | |||||
| Mountain big sagebrush steppe and shrubland | Replacement | 100% | 70 | 30 | 200 | |||||
| Northern and Central Rockies Woodland | ||||||||||
| Ancient juniper | Replacement | 100% | 750 | 200 | >1,000 | |||||
| Northern and Central Rockies Forested | ||||||||||
| Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies) | Replacement | 4% | 300 | 100 | >1,000 | |||||
| Mixed | 19% | 60 | 50 | 200 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 77% | 15 | 3 | 30 | ||||||
| Douglas-fir (xeric interior) | Replacement | 12% | 165 | 100 | 300 | |||||
| Mixed | 19% | 100 | 30 | 100 | ||||||
| Surface or low | 69% | 28 | 15 | 40 | ||||||
| *Fire Severities— Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants. Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects. Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [101,154]. |
||||||||||
1. Allen, Arthur W.; Cook, John G.; Armbruster, Michael J. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: pronghorn. FWS/OBS-82/10.65. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 22 p. [11709]
2. Anderson, Catherine L. 1983. Geobotany: An aid to geologic mapping. California Geology. 36(2): 35-43. [20654]
3. Austin, D. D.; Hash, A. B. 1988. Minimizing browsing damage by deer: landscape planning for wildlife. Utah Science. 49(3): 66-70. [6341]
4. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]
5. Baker, William L.; Kennedy, Susan C. 1985. Presettlement vegetation of part of northwestern Moffat County, Colorado, described from remnants. The Great Basin Naturalist. 45(4): 747-783. [384]
6. Banner, Roger E.; Johnson, Kendall L.; McCawley, Paul F. 1990. Evaluation of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) stands 23 years following mechanical treatment. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings, 5th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Cercocarpus; 1988 July 13-14; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 67-74. [16097]
7. Barney, Milo A. 1972. Vegetation changes following fire in the pinyon-juniper type of west central Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 71 p. Thesis. [38767]
8. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption, and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
9. Beatley, Janice C. 1966. Ecological status of introduced brome grasses (Bromus spp.) in desert vegetation of southern Nevada. Ecology. 47(4): 548-554. [409]
10. Beatley, Janice C. 1969. Biomass of desert winter annual plant populations in southern Nevada. Oikos. 20: 261-273. [62340]
11. Beatley, Janice C. 1976. Vascular plants of the Nevada Test Site and central-southern Nevada: ecologic and geographic distributions. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Office of Technical Information, Technical Information Center. 308 p. Available from U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. TID-26881/DAS. [63152]
12. Beck, D. I. 1975. Attributes of a wintering population of sage grouse, North Park, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 49 p. Thesis. [5757]
13. Beetle, A. A. 1960. A study of sagebrush: The section Tridentatae of Artemisia. Bulletin 368. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 83 p. [416]
14. Beetle, Alan A. 1977. Recognition of Artemisia subspecies--a necessity. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 6th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1977 May 24-25; Buffalo, WY. Laramie, WY: Shrub Ecology Workshop: 35-42. [419]
15. Beetle, Alan A. 1979. Autecology of selected woody sagebrush species. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 23-26. [420]
16. Beetle, Alan A.; Johnson, Kendall L. 1982. Sagebrush in Wyoming. Bull. 779. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 68 p. [421]
17. Behan, Barbara; Welch, Bruce L. 1985. Black sagebrush: mule deer winter preference and monoterpenoid content. Journal of Range Management. 38(3): 278-279. [423]
18. Behan, Barbara; Welch, Bruce L. 1986. Winter nutritive content of black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) grown in a uniform garden. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 161-165. [424]
19. Belcher, Earl. 1985. Handbook on seeds of browse-shrubs and forbs. Tech. Publ. R8-TP8. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 246 p. In cooperation with: Association of Official Seed Analysts. [43463]
20. Belnap, Jayne; Kaltenecker, Julie Hilty; Rosentreter, Roger; Williams, John; Leonard, Steve; Eldridge, David. 2001. Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. Technical Reference 1730-2. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Information and Communications Group. 110 p. [40277]
21. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Crane Springs watershed. R-55. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 65 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [456]
22. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Tueller, Paul T. 1971. Vegetation and soils of the Rock Springs watershed. R-83. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 116 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [457]
23. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T. 1970. Pinyon and juniper invasion in black sagebrush communities in east-central Nevada. Ecology. 51(5): 841-848. [459]
24. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1968. Vegetation and soils of the Duckwater watershed. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture. 81 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [7439]
25. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Churchill Canyon watershed. R-45. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 155 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [460]
26. Blackburn, Wilbert H.; Tueller, Paul T.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1969. Vegetation and soils of the Pine and Mathews Canyon watersheds. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [7437]
27. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464]
28. Blaisdell, James P.; Murray, Robert B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1982. Managing Intermountain rangelands--sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [467]
29. Bleak, A. T.; Frischknecht, N. C.; Plummer, A. Perry; Eckert, R. E., Jr. 1965. Problems in artificial and natural revegetation of the arid shadscale vegetation zone of Utah and Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 18: 59-65. [3992]
30. Boltz, Mike. 1994. Factors influencing postfire sagebrush regeneration in south-central Idaho. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. 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: 281-290. [24298]
31. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18211]
32. Branson, F. A. 1966. Geographic distribution and factors affecting the distribution of salt desert shrubs in the United States. In: Salt desert shrub symposium: Proceedings; 1966 August 1-4; Cedar City, UT. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 13-43. [52804]
33. Branson, Farrel A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western rangelands. Range Monograph No. 2. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 76 p. [5172]
34. Braun, Clait E.; Connelly, John W.; Schroeder, Michael A. 2005. Seasonal habitat requirements for sage-grouse: spring, summer, fall, and winter. In: Shaw, Nancy L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., eds. Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4-7; Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 38-42. [63180]
35. Britton, Carlton M. 1979. Fire on the range. Western Wildlands. 5(4): 32-33. [514]
36. Britton, Carlton M.; Ralphs, Michael H. 1979. Use of fire as a management tool in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 101-109. [518]
37. Brown, James K. 2000. Introduction and fire regimes. 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: 1-8. [36980]
38. Brunner, James R. 1972. Observations on Artemisia in Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 25(3): 205-298. [550]
39. Bunting, Stephen C.; Kilgore, Bruce M.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 33 p. [5281]
40. Bunting, Stephen C.; Kingery, James L.; Hemstrom, Miles A.; Schroeder, Michael A.; Gravenmier, Rebecca A.; Hann, Wendel J. 2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-553. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project: scientific assessment). [43462]
41. Burke, Ingrid C. 1989. Control of nitrogen mineralization in a sagebrush steppe landscape. Ecology. 70(4): 1115-1126. [7974]
42. Burke, Ingrid C.; Reiners, William A.; Olson, Richard K. 1989. Topographic control of vegetation in a mountain big sagebrush steppe. Vegetatio. 84(2): 77-86. [11178]
43. Burke, Ingrid C.; Reiners, William A.; Schimel, David S. 1989. Organic matter turnover in a sagebrush steppe landscape. Biogeochemistry. 7: 11-31. [11133]
44. Call, Mayo W.; Maser, Chris. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: sage grouse. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-187. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p. [592]
45. Chambers, Jeanne C. 2000. Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1400-1413. [43356]
46. Clary, W. P. 1986. Fifty-year response to grazing in the low-shrub cold desert of the Great Basin, U.S.A. In: Joss, P. J.; Lynch, P. W.; Williams, O. B., eds. Rangelands: A resource under siege: Proceedings, 2nd International Rangeland Congress; 1986 May 13; Adelaide, Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 37-38. [74309]
47. Clary, Warren P. 1986. Black sagebrush response to grazing in the east-central Great Basin. 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: 181-185. [639]
48. Clary, Warren P.; Beale, Donald M. 1983. Pronghorn reactions to winter sheep grazing, plant communities, and topography in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 36(6): 749-752. [641]
49. Clary, Warren P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1987. Reversal of desertification on the low-shrub cold desert. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Gonzales Vicente, Carlos E.; Moir, William H., technical coordinators. Strategies for classification and management of native vegetation for food production in arid zones: Proceedings; 1987 October 12-16; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-150. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 138-142. [2731]
50. Clements, Charlie D.; Young, James A. 1997. A viewpoint: rangeland health and mule deer habitat. Journal of Range Management. 50(2): 129-138. [28429]
51. Clifford, Michael J.; Rocca, Monique E.; Delph, Robert; Ford, Paulette L.; Cobb, Neil S. 2008. Drought induced mortality and ensuing bark beetle outbreaks in southwestern pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Gottfried, Gerald J.; Shaw, John D.; Ford, Paulette L., compilers. Ecology, management, and restoration of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine ecosystems: combined proceedings of the 2005 St. George, Utah and 2006 Albuquerque, New Mexico workshops; 2005 May 11-13; St. George, UT; 2006 October 18; Albuquerque, NM. Proceedings RMRS-P-51. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 39-51. [76198]
52. Collins, Ellen I. 1984. Preliminary classification of Wyoming plant communities. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Natural Heritage Program; The Nature Conservancy. 42 p. [661]
53. Collins, P. D.; Harper, K. T. 1982. Habitat types of the Curlew National Grassland, Idaho. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Department of Botany and Range Science. 46 p. [Editorial draft]. [663]
54. Collins, Thomas M.; Lott, John; Agnew, A.; Arnold, J.; Bartlett, F.; Bayer, J.; Bowerman, T.; Butler, C.; Campbell, R.; Davis, R.; Fallon, D.; Feltis, S.; Flood, P.; Goodrich, S.; Gordon, F.; Jackson, G.; Johnson, D.; Jorgensen, R.; [and others]. 2004. Section M341B-Tavaputs Plateau. In: McNab, W. Henry; Avers, Peter E., comps. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management: 49-1 to 49-2. [65249]
55. Cook, C. Wayne; Stoddart, L. A.; Harris, Lorin E. 1952. Determining the digestibility and metabolizable energy of winter range plants by sheep. Journal of Animal Science. 11: 578-590. [15776]
56. Cook, C. Wayne; Stoddart, L. A.; Harris, Lorin E. 1954. The nutritive value of winter range plants in the Great Basin as determined with digestion trials with sheep. Bulletin 372. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. [682]
57. Cook, John G.; Irwin, Larry L. 1992. Climate-vegetation relationships between the Great Plains and Great Basin. The American Midland Naturalist. 127(2): 316-326. [18196]
58. Cornelius, Donald R.; Talbot, M. W. 1955. Rangeland improvement through seeding and weed control on east slope Sierra Nevada and on southern Cascade Mountains. Agric. Handb. 88. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 51 p. [7510]
59. Courtois, Danielle R.; Perryman, Barry L.; Hussein, Hussein S. 2004. Vegetation change after 65 years of grazing and grazing exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57(6): 574-582. [30319]
60. Coyne, Patrick I.; Cook, C. Wayne. 1970. Seasonal carbohydrate reserve cycles in eight desert range species. Journal of Range Management. 23: 438-444. [707]
61. Crawford, John A.; Olson, Rich A.; West, Neil E.; Mosley, Jeffrey C.; Schroeder, Michael A.; Whitson, Tom D.; Miller, Richard F.; Gregg, Michael A.; Boyd, Chad S. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management. 57(1): 2-19. [47019]
62. Crawford, Rex C.; Kagan, Jimmy. 2001. 17. Dwarf shrub-steppe. In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., managing directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 52-53. [68106]
63. Crawford, Rex C.; Kagan, Jimmy. 2001. 7. Ponderosa pine forest and woodlands (includes eastside oaks). In: Chappell, Christopher B.; Crawford, Rex C.; Barrett, Charley; Kagan, Jimmy; Johnson, David H.; O'Mealy, Mikell; Green, Greg A.; Ferguson, Howard L.; Edge, W. Daniel; Greda, Eva L.; O'Neil, Thomas A. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In: Johnson, David H.; O'Neil, Thomas A., managing directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 35-37. [68070]
64. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5: Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. [28653]
65. Dalke, Paul D.; Pyrah, Duane B.; Stanton, Don C.; Crawford, John E.; Schlatterer, Edward F. 1963. Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 27(4): 810-841. [5975]
66. Davis, James N.; Harper, Kimball T. 1990. Weedy annuals and establishment of seeded species on a chained juniper-pinyon woodland in central Utah. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 72-79. [12872]
67. Davis, James N.; Stevens, Richard. 1986. Comparison of production in twenty-seven accessions of four sagebrush taxa. 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: 336-341. [757]
68. Davis, James Newton. 1987. Seedling establishment biology and patterns of interspecific association among established seeded and nonseeded species on a chained juniper-pinyon woodland in central Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Department of Botany and Range Science. 80 p. Dissertation. [68927]
69. Dean, Sheila; Burkhardt, J. Wayne; Meeuwig, Richard O. 1981. Estimating twig and foliage biomass of sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 34(3): 224-227. [787]
70. DeVelice, Robert L.; Ludwig, John A.; Moir, William H.; Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1986. A classification of forest habitat types of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-131. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 59 p. [781]
71. Diettert, R. A. 1938. The morphology of Artemisia tridentata Nutt. Lloydia. 1(1-4): 3-74. [46939]
72. 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]
73. Donart, Gary B. 1994. SRM 501: Saltbush-greasewood. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 61-62. [67041]
74. Evans, Raymond A.; Eckert, Richard, Jr.; Young, James A. 1986. High technology weed control--revegetation systems for establishment and maintenance of crested wheatgrass. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Crested wheatgrass: Its values, problems and myths: Symposium proceedings; 1983 October 3-7; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University: 91-96. [876]
75. Fautin, Reed W. 1946. Biotic communities of the northern desert shrub biome in western Utah. Ecological Monographs. 16: 252-310. [913]
76. Ferguson, Robert B.; Frischknecht, Neil C. 1981. Shrub establishment on reconstructed soils in semiarid areas. In: Shrub establishment on disturbed arid and semi-arid lands: Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 December 2-3; Laramie, WY. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department: 57-63. [916]
77. 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]
78. Fetcher, Ned; Trlica, M. J. 1980. Influence of climate on annual production of seven cold desert forage species. Journal of Range Management. 33(1): 35-37. [38662]
79. Fisser, Herbert G. 1962. An ecological study of the Artemisia tripartita subsp. rubicola and related shrub communities in Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 166 p. Dissertation. [7440]
80. Fisser, Herbert G. 1981. Shrub establishment, dominance, and ecology on the juniper and sagebrush-grass types in Wyoming. In: Stelter, Laven H.; DePuit, Edward J.; Mikol, Sharon A., tech. coords. Shrub establishment on disturbed arid and semi-arid lands: Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 December 2-3; Laramie, WY. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department: 23-28. [926]
81. Flora of North America Association. 2009. Flora of North America: The flora, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
82. Floyd, M. Lisa; Fleischner, Thomas L.; Hanna, David; Whitefield, Paul. 2003. Effects of historic livestock grazing on vegetation at Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico. Conservation Biology. 17(6): 1703-1711. [46292]
83. Floyd-Hanna, Lisa; DaVega, Anne; Hanna, David; Romme, William H. 1997. Chapin 5 Fire vegetation monitoring and mitigation: First year report. [Mesa Verde, CO]: [U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mesa Verde National Park]. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 7 p. [+ appendices]. [34181]
84. Floyd-Hanna, Lisa; Hanna, David; Romme, William H. 1998. Chapin 5 Fire vegetation monitoring and mitigation: Annual report, year 2. [Mesa Verde, CO]: [U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mesa Verde National Park]. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 7 p. [+ appendices]. [34460]
85. Francis, Richard E. 1986. Phyto-edaphic communities of the Upper Rio Puerco watershed, New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p. [954]
86. Francis, Richard E.; Aldon, Earl F. 1983. Preliminary habitat types of a semiarid grassland. In: Moir, W. H.; Hendzel, Leonard, tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on southwestern habitat types; 1983 April 6-8; Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region: 62-66. [956]
87. Francis, Richard E.; Aldon, Earl F. 1987. An ecological approach to classifying semiarid plant communities. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Gonzales Vicente, Carlos E.; Moir, William H., technical coordinators. Strategies for classification and management of native vegetation for food production in arid zones: Proceedings; 1987 October 12-16; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-150. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 9-14. [2726]
88. Frischknecht, Neil C. 1979. Biological methods: a tool for sagebrush management. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 121-128. [976]
89. Garcia, Sonia; Canela, Miguel A.; Garnatje, Teresa; McArthur, E. Durant; Pellicer, Jaume; Sanderson, Stewart C.; Valles, Joan. 2008. Evolutionary and ecological implications of genome size in the North American endemic sagebrushes and allies (Artemisia, Asteraceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 94(3): 631-649. [75469]
90. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. No. 29--The sagebrush ecosystem. In: Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 33-35. [68212]
91. Goodrich, Sherel. 2005. Classification and capabilities of woody sagebrush communities of western North America with emphasis on sage-grouse habitat. In: Shaw, Nancy L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., eds. Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4-7; Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 17-37. [63179]
92. Goodrich, Sherel; Gale, Natalie. 1999. Cheatgrass frequency at two relic sites within the pinyon-juniper belt of Red Canyon. 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: 69-71. [30494]
93. Grayson, Donald K.; Livingston, Stephanie D.; Rickart, Eric; Shaver, Monson W., III. 1996. Biogeographic significance of low-elevation records for Neotoma cinerea from the northern Bonneville Basin, Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 56(3): 191-196. [65297]
94. Green, Lisle R. 1977. Fuelbreaks and other fuel modifications for wildland fire control. Agric. Handb. 499. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 79 p. [10511]
95. Green, Lisle R.; Sharp, Lee A.; Cook, C. Wayne; Harris, Lorin E. 1951. Utilization of winter range forage by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 4: 233-241. [7891]
96. Greenwood, Larry R.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1978. Ecological relationships between pinyon-juniper and true mountain mahogany stands in the Uintah Basin, Utah. Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 164-167. [15654]
97. Gross, Jack E.; Stoddart, L. Charles; Wagner, Frederic H. 1974. Demographic analysis of a northern Utah jackrabbit population. Wildlife Monographs No. 40. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 68 p. [25000]
98. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Contributions toward a flora of Nevada: No. 49. CR-24-64. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Research Division; Washington, DC: U.S. National Arboretum, Herbarium. 170 p. [6729]
99. Hall, Harvey M.; Clements, Frederic E. 1923. The phylogenetic method in taxonomy: the North American species of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus, and Atriplex. Publication No. 326. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institute of Washington. 355 p. [43183]
100. Hancock, Norman V. 1966. Wildlife use of the salt desert shrub areas of the Great Basin. In: Salt desert shrub symposium: Proceedings; 1966 August 1-4; Cedar City, UT. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 101-112. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [52806]
101. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2008, September 03]. [70966]
102. Hansen, D. J.; Ostler, W. K.; Hall, D. B. 1999. The transition from Mojave Desert to Great Basin Desert on the Nevada Test Site. 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: 148-158. [36076]
103. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The Swallow Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]
104. Harris, Loren E. 1972. Physiological problems in animal use of shrubs as forage. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium: Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 319-330. [1098]
105. Harvey, Stephen John. 1990. Responses of steppe plants to gradients of water, soil texture and disturbance in Montana, USA. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 103 p. Dissertation. [46918]
106. Heady, Harold F. 1975. Structure and function of climax. In: Hyder, D. N., ed. Arid shrublands--proceedings, 3rd workshop of the United States/Australia rangelands panel; 1973 March 26 - April 5; Tucson, Arizona. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 73-79. [1113]
107. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
108. Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-761. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service; South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 47 p. [14749]
109. Hironaka, M.; Fosberg, M. A.; Winward, A. H. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 44 p. [1152]
110. Hironaka, Minoru. 1963. Plant-environment relations of major species in sagebrush-grass vegetation of southern Idaho. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 124 p. Dissertation. [1154]
111. Hironaka, Minoru. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of the Columbia River sagebrush type. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 27-32. [1155]
112. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
113. Hobbs, Richard J.; Humphries, Stella E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 9(4): 761-770. [44463]
114. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
115. Holmgren, Ralph C. 1954. A comparison of browse species for revegetation of big-game winter ranges in southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. No. 3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [16584]
116. Holmgren, Ralph C.; Hutchings, Selar S. 1972. Salt desert shrub response to grazing use. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 153-164. [1188]
117. Horton, Howard, ed./comp. 1989. Interagency forage and conservation planting guide for Utah. Extension Circular 433. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 67 p. [12231]
118. Houston, Kent E.; Hartung, Walter J.; Hartung, Carol J. 2001. A field guide for forest indicator plants, sensitive plants, and noxious weeds of the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-84. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 184 p. [40585]
119. Hulet, Brian V.; Flinders, Jerran T.; Green, Jeffrey S.; Murray, Robert B. 1986. Seasonal movements and habitat selection of sage grouse in southern Idaho. 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: 168-175. [1206]
120. 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]
121. 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]
122. Hupp, Jerry W.; Braun, Clait E. 1989. Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 823-829. [35158]
123. Hutchings, Selar S. 1954. Managing winter sheep range for greater profit. Farmers' Bulletin No. 2067. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [23306]
124. Hutchings, Selar S.; Stewart, George. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on Intermountain winter ranges. Circular No. 925. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 63 p. [1227]
125. Institute for Land Rehabilitation. 1979. Selection, propagation, and field establishment of native plant species on disturbed arid lands. Bulletin 500. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 49 p. [1237]
126. Jensen, M. E.; Peck, L. S.; Wilson, M. V. 1988. A sagebrush community type classification for mountainous northeastern Nevada rangelands. The Great Basin Naturalist. 48: 422-433. [27717]
127. Jensen, M. E.; Simonson, G. H.; Dosskey, M. 1990. Correlation between soils and sagebrush-dominated plant communities of northeastern Nevada. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 54: 902-910. [15502]
128. Jensen, Mark E. 1989. Soil characteristics of mountainous northeastern Nevada sagebrush community types. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 469-481. [9903]
129. Jensen, Mark E. 1990. Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 43(2): 161-167. [38660]
130. Jessop, Brad D.; Anderson, Val Jo. 2007. Cheatgrass invasion in salt desert shrublands: benefits of postfire reclamation. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 60: 234-243. [68273]
131. Johnson, A. Earl. 1978. Tetradymia toxicity - a new look at an old problem. In: Keeler, Richard F.; Van Kapen, Kent R.; James, Lynn F., eds. Effects of poisonous plants on livestock: Joint United States-Australia symposium on poisonous plants; 1977 June 19-24; Logan, UT. New York: Academic Press: 209-215. [7800]
132. Johnson, Douglas E. 1999. Surveying, mapping, and monitoring noxious weeds on rangelands. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 19-36. [35707]
133. Johnson, Kendall L. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of the sagebrush types on the high plains of Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 42-49. [1281]
134. Johnson, Kendall L. 1987. Description and discussion of field tour sites. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings of the 4th Utah shrub ecology workshop: The genus Chrysothamnus; 1986 September 17-18; Cedar City, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 55-59. [2724]
135. 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]
136. Julander, Odell. 1937. Utilization of browse by wildlife. Transactions of the 2nd North American Wildlife Conference. Washington, DC: American Wildlife Institute: 276-287. [25031]
137. 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]
138. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
139. 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]
140. Keeley, J. E.; Aplet, G. H.; Christensen, N. L.; Conard, S. G.; Johnson, E. A.; Omi, P. N.; Peterson, D. L.; Swetnam, T. W. 2009. Ecological foundations for fire management in North American forest and shrubland ecosystems. PNW-GRT-779. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 92 p. [75913]
141. Kelsey, Rick G. 1984. Glandular trichomes: a helpful taxonomic character for Artemisia nova (black sagebrush). Journal of Range Management. 37(4): 370-372. [75522]
142. Kelsey, Rick G. 1984. Using glandular trichomes as a taxonomic characteristic for black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). In: Abstracts: 37th annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1984 February 12-17; Rapid City, SD. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 201. Abstract. [1325]
143. Kindschy, Robert R.; Sundstrom, Charles; Yoakum, James D. 1982. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: pronghorns. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-145. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18 p. [9496]
144. Kindschy, Robert; Sundstrom, Charles; Yoakum, James. 1978. Range/wildlife interrelationships--pronghorn antelope. In: Proceedings, 8th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; 1978 May 2-4; Jasper, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division: 216-262. [3316]
145. Kitchen, Stanley G.; McArthur, E. Durant. 2007. Big and black sagebrush landscapes. In: Hood, Sharon M.; Miller, Melanie, eds. Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 73-95. [71081]
146. Kleinman, Larry H. 1976. Phenodynamics and ecology of sagebrush-grass rangelands. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 143 p. Dissertation. [1350]
147. Knick, Steven T.; Dobkin, David S.; Rotenberry, John T.; Schroeder, Michael A.; Vander Haegen, W. Matthew; van Riper, Charles, III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. The Condor. 105(4): 611-634. [75524]
148. Knight, Dennis H.; Jones, George P.; Akashi, Yoshiko; Myers, Richard W. 1987. Vegetation ecology in the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area: Wyoming and Montana. Final Report. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, National Park Service Research Center. 114 p. [12498]
149. Kornkven, Amy B.; Watson, Linda E.; Estes, James R. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of Artemisia section Tridentatae (Asteraceae) based on sequences from the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA. American Journal of Botany. 85(2): 1787-1795. [42433]
150. Kornkven, Amy B.; Watson, Linda E.; Estes, James R. 1999. Molecular phylogeny of Artemisia section Tridentatae (Asteraceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction site variation. Systematic Botany. 24(1): 69-84. [42432]
151. Lacey, John; Mosley, John. 2002. 250 plants for range contests in Montana. MONTGUIDE MT198402 AG 6/2002. Range E-2 (Misc.). Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Extension Service. 4 p. [43671]
152. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R7EPWM--black and low sagebrushes with trees, [Online]. In: Rapid assessment reference condition models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov /zip/Great_Basin/R2SBDW.pdf [2009, October 6]. [76011]
153. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R7EPWM--black and low sagebrushes, [Online]. In: Rapid assessment reference condition models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov /zip/PNVGs/Great_Basin/R2SBDW.pdf [2009, October 6]. [76010]
154. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: https://www.landfire.gov /downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
155. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov /models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
156. Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management. 44(5): 427-433. [43349]
157. Lesperance, A. L. 1966. Techniques for determining the nutritional value of salt desert shrub type for cattle. In: Salt desert shrub symposium: Proceedings; 1966 August 1-4; Cedar City, UT. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 147-156. [52812]
158. Mack, Richard N.; Simberloff, Daniel; Lonsdale, W. Mark; Evans, Harry; Clout, Michael; Bazzaz, Fakhri A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 689-710. [48324]
159. MacLaren, Patricia A.; Anderson, Stanley H.; Runde, Douglas E. 1988. Food habits and nest characteristics of breeding raptors in southwestern Wyoming. The Great Basin Naturalist. 48(4): 548-553. [22268]
160. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
161. Maskarinec, Gary S. 1994. Native plant die-offs. In: Despain, Don G., ed. Plants and their environments: Proceedings of the 1st biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; 1991 September 16-17; Yellowstone National Park, WY. Tech. Rep. NPS/NRYELL/NRTR. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Yellowstone National Park: 199-204. [26285]
162. Matson, Pamela; Reiners, William; Strong, Laurence. 1985. Biogeochemical processes in sagebrush ecosystems: interactions with terrain. Semi-annual report. E86-10015; NAS 1.15:87508; NASA Technical Report: NASA-TM-87508. Mountain View, CA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Ames Research Center, Moffett Federal Airfield. 11 p. [4813]
163. McAdoo, J. Kent; Barrington, Mack R.; Ports, Mark A. 2006. Habitat affinities of rodents in northeastern Nevada rangeland communities. Western North American Naturalist. 66(3): 321-331. [65155]
164. McArthur, E. Durant. 1979. Sagebrush systematics and evolution. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 14-22. [1564]
165. McArthur, E. Durant. 1983. Taxonomy, origin and distribution of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and allies (subgenus Tridentatae). In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings--1st Utah shrub ecology workshop; 1981 September 9-10; Ephraim, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University: 3-14. [1566]
166. McArthur, E. Durant. 1994. Ecology, distribution, and values of sagebrush within the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. 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: 347-351. [24308]
167. McArthur, E. Durant. 2000. Sagebrush systematics and distribution. In: Entwistle, P. G.; DeBolt, A. M.; Kaltenecker, J. H.; Steenhof, K., compilers. In: Sagebrush steppe ecosystems symposium: Proceedings; 1999 June 21-23; Boise, ID. Publ. No. BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise State Office: 9-14. [41811]
168. McArthur, E. Durant. 2005. Sagebrush, common and uncommon, palatable and unpalatable. Rangelands. 27(4): 47-51. [60405]
169. 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]
170. 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]
171. McArthur, E. Durant; Plummer, A. Perry. 1978. Biogeography and management of native western shrubs: a case study, section Tridentatae of Artemisia. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 2: 229-243. [1574]
172. McArthur, E. Durant; Plummer, A. Perry; Davis, James N. 1978. Rehabilitation of game range in the salt desert. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings of the 7th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1978 May 31-June 1; Rock Springs, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Range Management Division; Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 23-50. [1575]
173. McArthur, E. Durant; Pope, C. Lorenzo; Freeman, D. Carl. 1981. Chromosomal studies of subgenus Tridentatae of Artemisia: evidence for autopolyploidy. American Journal of Botany. 68(5): 589-605. [42431]
174. 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]
175. McArthur, E. Durant; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Composite shrubs. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., compilers. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 493-538. [52844]
176. McArthur, E. Durant; Taylor, Jeffrey R. 2004. Artemisia nova. In: Francis, John K., ed. Wildland shrubs of the United States and its territories: thamnic descriptions: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-26. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 72-74. [52104]
177. McArthur, E. Durant; Van Buren, Renee; Sanderson, Stewart C.; Harper, Kimball T. 1998. Taxonomy of Sphaeromoeria, Artemisia, and Tanacetum (Compositae, Anthemideae) based on randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). The Great Basin Naturalist. 58(1): 1-11. [28610]
178. McKell, Cyrus M. 1978. Establishment of native plants for the rehabilitation of Paraho processed oil shale in an arid environment. In: Wright, Robert A., ed. The reclamation of disturbed arid lands. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press: 13-32. [54101]
179. McKell, Cyrus M.; Van Epps, Gordon A. 1981. Comparative results of shrub establishment in arid sites. In: Stelter, Lavern H.; DePuit, Edward J.; Mikol, Sharon A., tech. coords. Shrub establishment on disturbed arid and semi-arid lands: Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 December 2-3; Laramie, WY. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department: 138-154. [43338]
180. Medin, Dean E. 1992. Birds of a Great Basin sagebrush habitat in east-central Nevada. Res. Pap. INT-452. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 4 p. [17779]
181. Medin, Dean E.; Welch, Bruce L.; Clary, Warren P. 2000. Bird habitat relationships along a Great Basin elevational gradient. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-23. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 22 p. [38470]
182. Mehus, Chris Allen. 1995. Influences of browsing and fire on sagebrush taxa of the northern Yellowstone winter range. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 70 p. Thesis. [46920]
183. Meyer, Susan E. 2008. Artemisia L.--sagebrush. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. The woody plant seed manual. Agriculture Handbook 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 274-280. [75934]
184. Meyer, Susan E.; Kitchen, Stanley; Wilson, G. Richard; Stevens, Richard. 1988. Proposal: Addition of Artemisia nova--(syn. Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova) black sagebrush to the rules. Newsletter of the Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62(1): 16-17. [5480]
185. Miller, R. F.; Branson, I. S.; McQueen, I. S; Snyder, C. T. 1982. Water relations in soils as related to plant communities in Ruby Valley, Nevada. Journal of Range Management. 35(4): 462-468. [1652]
186. Miller, Richard E.; Tausch, Robin J. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a descriptive analysis. In: Galley, Krista E. M.; Wilson, Tyrone P., eds. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species; Fire conference 2000: the first national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management; 2000 November 27 - December 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 11. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 15-30. [40675]
187. Miller, Richard F.; Eddleman, Lee L. 2000. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Technical Bulletin 151. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 35 p. [40586]
188. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffrey A. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management. 52(6): 550-559. [28671]
189. Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard. 2004. Seedbed preparation and seeding practices. 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: 121-154. [52825]
190. Morris, Melvin S.; Kelsey, Rick G.; Griggs, Dave. 1976. The geographic and ecological distribution of big sagebrush and other woody Artemisias in Montana. Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences. 36: 56-79. [1695]
191. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
192. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
193. Nagy, Julius G. 1979. Wildlife nutrition and the sagebrush ecosystem. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 164-168. [1729]
194. Nagy, Julius G.; Tengerdy, Robert P. 1968. Antibacterial action of essential oils of Artemisia as an ecological factor. II. Antibacterial action of the volatile oils of Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) on bacteria from the rumen of mule deer. Applied Microbiology. 16(3): 441-444. [11986]
195. Nelson, D. L.; Sturges, D. L. 1986. A snowmold disease of mountain big sagebrush. Phytopathology. 76(9): 946-951. [1740]
196. Nelson, David L.; Harper, Kimball T.; Boyer, Kenneth C.; Weber, Darrell J.; Haws, B. Austin; Marble, James R. 1989. Wildland shrub dieoffs in Utah: an approach to understanding the cause. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 119-135. [5942]
197. Neuenschwander, L. F. 1978. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art review. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 31 p. [1747]
198. 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]
199. O'Brien, Mary H. 1980. The pollination biology of a pavement plain: pollinator visitation patterns. Oecologia. 47: 213-218. [61317]
200. Oedekoven, Olin O.; Lindzey, Frederick G. 1987. Winter habitat-use patterns of elk, mule deer, and moose in southwestern Wyoming. The Great Basin Naturalist. 47(4): 638-643. [4058]
201. Olson, Rich. 1992. Mule deer habitat requirements and management in Wyoming. B-965. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Cooperative Extension Service. 15 p. [20679]
202. Ostler, W. K.; Hansen, D. J.; Hall, D. B. 1999. The classification of shrublands on the Nevada Test Site. 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: 137-147. [36050]
203. Ostler, W. Kent; Harper, K. T. 1978. Floral ecology in relation to plant species diversity in the Wasatch Mountains of Utah and Idaho. Ecology. 59(4): 848-861. [62227]
204. Paige, Christine; Ritter, Sharon A. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: Managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Boise, ID: Partners in Flight Western Working Group. 47 p. [65948]
205. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878]
206. Passey, H. B.; Hugie, V. K. 1962. Sagebrush on relict ranges in the Snake River Plains and northern Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 15: 273-278. [1830]
207. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Plummer, A. Perry; Robertson, Joseph H.; Hull, A. C., Jr. 1954. Controlling sagebrush on rangelands. Farmers' Bulletin 2072. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 44 p. [1860]
208. Pendleton, Rosemary L.; Frischknecht, Neil C.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1992. Long-term survival of 20 selected plant accessions in a Rush Valley, Utah, planting. Res. Note INT-403. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p. [19702]
209. 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]
210. Personius, Timothy L.; Wambolt, Carl L.; Stephens, Jeffrey R.; Kelsey, Rick G. 1987. Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 40(1): 84-88. [1872]
211. Peterson, Eric B. 2008. International vegetation classification alliances and associations occurring in Nevada with proposed additions. Carson City, NV: Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 347 p. Available online: http://heritage.nv.gov/reports/ivclist.pdf [2009, December 21]. [77864]
212. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [27411]
213. Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968. Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. [4554]
214. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
215. Ream, Robert Ray. 1964. The vegetation of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah and Idaho. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 178 p. Dissertation. [5506]
216. Rice, Peter M.; McPherson, Guy R.; Rew, Lisa J. 2008. Fire and nonnative invasive plants in the Interior West bioregion. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 141-173. [70332]
217. Richards, Rebecca T.; Chambers, Jeanne C.; Ross, Christopher. 1998. Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management. 51(6): 625-632. [30307]
218. Richardson, Bland Z. 1985. Reclamation in the Intermountain Rocky Mountain region. In: McCarter, M. K., ed. Design of non-impounding mine waste dumps; 1981 November; [Location of conference unknown]. New York: Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc: 177-192. [12780]
219. Riegel, Gregg M.; Miller, Richard F.; Skinner, Carl N.; Smith, Sydney E. 2006. Northeastern Plateaus bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 225-263. [65541]
220. Robertson, Jay A. 1986. Sage grouse-sagebrush relationships: a review. 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: 157-167. [2006]
221. Robertson, Joseph H.; Kennedy, P. B. 1954. Half-century changes on northern Nevada ranges. Journal of Range Management. 7: 117-121; 1954. [2011]
222. Rosentreter, Roger. 2005. Sagebrush identification, ecology, and palatability relative to sage-grouse. In: Shaw, Nancy L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., eds. Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4-7; Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 3-16. [63178]
223. Ross, Robert L.; Hunter, Harold E. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana: Based on soils and climate. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 64 p. [2028]
224. Rust, Steven K. 1999. Pinyon-juniper woodland classification and description in Research Natural Areas in southeastern Idaho. 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: 82-93. [30541]
225. Rydberg, P. A. 1916. Picrothamnus, Artemisia, and Artemisiastrum. North American Flora. 34: 244-285. [75302]
226. Sampson, Arthur W.; Jespersen, Beryl S. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences; California Agricultural Experiment Station, Extension Service. 162 p. [3240]
227. Schneegas, Edward R. 1967. Sage grouse and sagebrush control. Transactions, North American Wildlife Conference. 32: 270-274. [4933]
228. Schneider, Rick E.; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Crawford, Rex C.; Weakley, Alan S. 1997. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation classification--Supplemental Document 1, [Online]. In: Ostlie, Wayne R.; Schneider, Rick E.; Aldrich, Janette Marie; Faust, Thomas M.; McKim, Robert L. B.; Chaplin, Stephen J., comps. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Great Plains Program (Producer). 75 p. [Cooperative Agreement # X 007803-01-3]. Available: http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/02/greatplains_vegclass_97.pdf [2006, May 16]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [62020]
229. Scholl, Jackson P.; Kelsey, Rick G.; Shafizadeh, Fred. 1977. Involvement of volatile compounds of Artemisia in browse preference by mule deer. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 5: 291-295. [2086]
230. Schultz, Brad; McAdoo, Kent. 2002. Common sagebrush in Nevada. Special Publication SP-02-02. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension. 9 p. Available online: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2002/SP0202.pdf [2009, November 25]. [42043]
231. Schuster, Joseph L.; James, Lynn F. 1988. Some other major poisonous plants of the western United States. In: James, Lynn F.; Ralphs, Michael; Nielsen, Darwin B., eds. The ecology and economic impact of poisonous plants on livestock production. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 295-307. [41408]
232. Shaw, Nancy L.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1990. Use of sagebrush for improvement of wildlife habitat. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Aspen, sagebrush and wildlife management: Proceedings, 17th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1988 June 21-22; Jackson, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management; Shrub Ecology Workshop: 19-35. [22929]
233. Sheehy, Dennis P.; Winward, A. H. 1981. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management. 34(5): 397-399. [2128]
234. Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 69-72. [35711]
235. Shown, L. M.; Miller, R. F.; Branson, F. A. 1969. Sagebrush conversion to grassland as affected by precipitation, soil, and cultural practices. Journal of Range Management. 22: 303-311. [2139]
236. Shultz, Leila M. 1986. Comparative leaf anatomy of sagebrush: ecological considerations. 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: 253-264. [2140]
237. Shultz, Leila M. 1986. Taxonomic and geographic limits of Artemisia subgenus Tridentatae (Beetle). 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: 20-28. [2141]
238. Skousen, J. G.; Davis, J. N.; Brotherson, J. D. 1989. Pinyon-juniper chaining and seeding for big game in central Utah. Journal of Range Management. 42(2): 98-104. [1297]
239. Smith, Arthur D.; Beale, Donald M. 1980. Pronghorn antelope in Utah: some research and observations. Publication No. 80-13. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 88 p. [5305]
240. Springfield, H. W. 1976. Characteristics and management of southwestern pinyon-juniper ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-160. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p. [2216]
241. Stager, D. Waive; Klebenow, Donald A. 1987. Mule deer response to wildfire in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 572-579. [29501]
242. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation. Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 90 p. [2221]
243. Stevens, Richard. 1986. Population dynamics of two sagebrush species and rubber rabbitbrush over 22 years of grazing use by three animal classes. 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: 278-285. [2241]
244. Stevens, Richard. 1994. Interseeding and transplanting to enhance species composition. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. 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: 300-306. [24301]
245. Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Davis, James N. 1981. Viability of seed from thirty-two shrub and forb species through fifteen years of warehouse storage. The Great Basin Naturalist. 41(3): 274-277. [2244]
246. Stevens, Richard; McArthur, E. Durant. 1974. A simple field technique for identification of some sagebrush taxa. Journal of Range Management. 27(4): 325-326. [2245]
247. Stevens, Richard; Monsen, Stephen B. 2004. Guidelines for restoration and rehabilitation of principal plant communities. 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: 199-294. [52829]
248. Stevens, Richard; Plummer, A. Perry; Jensen, Chester E.; Giunta, Bruce C. 1974. Site productivity classification for selected species on winter big game ranges of Utah. Research Paper INT-158. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. [2247]
249. 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]
250. Stoms, David M.; Davis, Frank W.; Driese, Kenneth L.; Cassidy, Kelly M.; Murray, Michael P. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the Intermountain semi-desert ecoregion. The Great Basin Naturalist. 58(3): 199-216. [30151]
251. Striby, Karl David. 1985. The in vitro digestibility and utilization of big sagebrush and black sagebrush. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 111 p. Thesis. [46906]
252. Strohmeyer, Deborah C.; Peek, James M.; Bowlin, Tracy R. 1999. Wapiti bed sites in Idaho sagebrush steppe. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(3): 547-551. [75523]
253. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]
254. Suring, Lowell H.; Rowland, Mary M.; Wisdom, Michael J. 2005. Identifying species of conservation concern. In: Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H., eds. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group: 150-162. [67404]
255. Sutton, Richard F.; Johnson, Craig W. 1974. Landscape plants from Utah's mountains. EC-368. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 135 p. [49]
256. Tausch, Robin J.; Hood, Sharon. 2007. Pinyon/juniper woodlands. In: Hood, Sharon M.; Miller, Melanie, eds. Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 57-71. [71080]
257. Tausch, Robin J.; West, Neil E. 1977. Competition and structural changes during secondary succession in juniper-pinyon woodlands. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 74 p. [2307]
258. Thatcher, Albert P. 1959. Distribution of sagebrush as related to site differences in Albany County, Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 12(2): 55-61. [2314]
259. Thompson, Robert M. 1999. An example of pinyon-juniper woodland classification in southeastern Utah. 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: 60-63. [30492]
260. Thorne, Robert F. 1982. The desert and other transmontane plant communities of southern California. Aliso. 10(2): 219-257. [3768]
261. Tisdale, E. W. 1986. Native vegetation of Idaho. Rangelands. 8(5): 202-207. [2339]
262. Tisdale, E. W.; Hironaka, M. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p. [2344]
263. Tisdale, Edwin W. 1994. SRM 403: Wyoming big sagebrush. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 42-43. [43363]
264. TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. 1999. Appendix C: Descriptions of land cover types found within or near Yucca Mountain and the potential transportation corridors and facilities. In: Environmental baseline file for biological resources: B00000000-01717-5700-00009 REV 00. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System: Management and Operating Contractor--Contract Number DE-AC08-91RW00134, [Online]. North Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office (Producer). Available: http://www.ymp.gov/documents/biology/appendixc.htm [2000, November 6]. [35852]
265. Tueller, Paul T. 1994. SRM 414: Salt desert shrub. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 53-54. [66759]
266. Tueller, Paul T.; Beeson, C. Dwight; Tausch, Robin J.; West, Neil E.; Rea, Kenneth H. 1979. Pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Great Basin: distribution, flora, vegetal cover. Res. Pap. INT-229. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p. [2367]
267. Tueller, Paul T.; Tower, Jerald D. 1979. Vegetation stagnation in three-phase big game exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 32(4): 258-263. [74311]
268. Tweit, Susan J.; Houston, Kent E. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 2, Shoshone National Forest. 143 p. [2377]
269. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. [19435]
270. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1986. Sagebrush management: the state of our knowledge on its use by and value for big game animals. The Habitat Express. No. 86-1. Ogden, UT. 7 p. [30182]
271. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]
272. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Fire effects in sagebrush/grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities. In: Fire effects in plant communities on the public lands. EA #MT-930-93-01. [Billings, MT]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office: I-1 to I-42. [55086]
273. Urness, Philip J. 1979. Wildlife habitat manipulation in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 169-178. [2404]
274. Vallentine, John F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. 516 p. [2414]
275. Valles, Joan; McArthur, E. Durant. 2001. Artemisia systematics and phylogeny: cytogenetic and molecular insights. 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: 67-74. [41956]
276. Van Dyne, George M. 1958. Ranges and range plants. [Fort Collins, CO]: [Colorado State University]. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 290 p. [53375]
277. Van Vuren, Dirk. 1984. Summer diets of bison and cattle in southern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 260-261. [24531]
278. Verbyla, D. L.; Fisher, R. F. 1988. Predicting prime sites for ponderosa pine in the Dixie National Forest. Utah Science. 49(4): 124-127. [7659]
279. Verbyla, David L.; Fisher, Richard F. 1989. Ponderosa pine habitat types as an indicator of site quality in the Dixie National Forest, Utah. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 52-54. [6650]
280. Vories, Kimery C. 1981. Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art. Volume I: Shrubs. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-103. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 80 p. [3426]
281. Wambolt, Carl L. 1994. SRM 320: Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 36. [66747]
282. Wambolt, Carl L. 1994. SRM 321: Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 37. [66748]
283. Wambolt, Carl L. 1995. Elk and mule deer use of sagebrush for winter forage. Montana Ag Research. 12(2): 35-40. [27101]
284. Wambolt, Carl L. 1996. Mule deer and elk foraging preference for 4 sagebrush taxa. Journal of Range Management. 49(6): 499-503. [27222]
285. Wambolt, Carl L. 1998. Sagebrush and ungulate response on Yellowstone's Northern Range. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(3): 429-437. [75521]
286. Wambolt, Carl L.; Frisina, Michael R. 2002. Montana sagebrush: a taxonomic key and habitat descriptions. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. 8(2): 46-59. [47358]
287. Wambolt, Carl L.; Hoffman, Trista L.; Mehus, Chris A. 1999. Response of shrubs in big sagebrush habitats to fire on the northern Yellowstone winter range. 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: 238-242. [36093]
288. Wambolt, Carl L.; Kelsey, Rick G.; McNeal, Allen F.; Personius, Timothy L.; Striby, Karl D. 1985. Forage relationships of select sagebrush taxa. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings of the 14th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1985 May 29-30; Rock Springs, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 21-24. [13907]
289. Wambolt, Carl L.; Kelsey, Rick G.; Personius, Timothy L. 1987. Preference and digestibility of three big sagebrush subspecies and black sagebrush as related to crude terpenoid chemistry. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 71-73. [2448]
290. Ward, George H. 1953. Artemisia, section Seriphidium, in North America: a cytotaxonomic study. Contributions from the Dudley Herbarium. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Natural History Museum. 4(6): 155-205. [2454]
291. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023. [2458]
292. Waugh, William Joseph. 1986. Verification, distribution, demography and causality of Juniperus osteosperma encroachment at Big Horn Basin, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 204 p. Dissertation. [74308]
293. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
294. Welch, Bruce L. 1983. Big sagebrush: nutrition, selection, and controversy. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Proceedings--1st Utah shrub ecology workshop; 1981 September 9-10; Ephraim, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University: 21-33. [2481]
295. Welch, Bruce L. 1989. Nutritive value of shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M., ed. The biology and utilization of shrubs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc: 405-424. [8041]
296. Welch, Bruce L.; Briggs, Steven F.; Young, Stanford A. 1994. Pine Valley Ridge source--a superior selected germplasm of black sagebrush. Res. Pap. INT-RP-474. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 9 p. [74301]
297. Welch, Bruce L.; McArthur, E. Durant; Davis, James N. 1981. Differential preference of wintering mule deer for accessions of big sagebrush and for black sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 34(5): 409-411. [7801]
298. 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]
299. Welsh, Stanley L.; Goodrich, Sherel. 1995. Plant novelties in Lepidium (Cruciferae) and Artemisia (Compositae) from the Uinta Basin, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 55: 359-362. [75310]
300. West, Marda Lee. 1969. Physiological ecology of three species of Artemisia in the White Mountains of California. Los Angeles: University of California. 100 p. Dissertation. [7434]
301. West, Marda; Mooney, H. A. 1972. Photosynthetic characteristics of three species of sagebrush as related to their distribution patterns in the White Mountains of California. The American Midland Naturalist. 88(2): 479-484. [2501]
302. West, Neil E. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of sagebrush-dominated lands in the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 33-41. [2502]
303. Whisenant, S. G.; Wagstaff, F. J. 1991. Successional trajectories of a grazed salt desert shrubland. Vegetatio. 94(2): 133-140. [16879]
304. Wilson, Roger W. 1977. Sagebrush utilization by mule deer and antelope. In: Johnson, Kendall L., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 6th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1977 May 24-25; Buffalo, WY. Laramie, WY: Shrub Ecology Workshop: 25-34. [2581]
305. Wilt, F. Martin; Geddes, Jason D.; Tamma, Rama V.; Miller, Glenn C.; Everett, Richard L. 1992. Interspecific variation of phenolic concentrations in persistent leaves among six taxa from subgenus Tridentatae of Artemisia (Asteraceae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 20(1): 41-52. [34701]
306. Winward, Alma H. 1980. Taxonomy and ecology of sagebrush in Oregon. Station Bulletin 642. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 p. [2585]
307. Winward, Alma H. 2001. Sagebrush taxonomy and ecology workshop--October 5-6, 1999, [Online]. In: Vegetation, wildlife and fish ecology and rare species management--Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov /wcnf/unit/eco/sagebrush_workshop/sagebrush_ecology.htm [2002, October 3]. [42051]
308. Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H. 2005. Evaluating species of conservation concern at regional scales. In: Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H., eds. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group: 5-74. [67399]
309. Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H.; Schueck, Linda; Meinke, Cara W.; Knick, Steven T.; Wales, Barbara C. 2005. Habitats for groups of species. In: Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Suring, Lowell H., eds. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group: 205-231. [67406]
310. Wright, Henry A.; Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Britton, Carlton M. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [2625]
311. Yoakum, Jim. 1986. Use of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus by pronghorns. 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: 176-180. [2638]
312. Yorks, Terence P.; West, Neil E.; Capels, Kathleen M. 1992. Vegetation differences in desert shrublands of western Utah's Pine Valley between 1933 and 1989. Journal of Range Management. 45(6): 569-578. [19780]
313. Yorks, Terence P.; West, Neil E.; Capels, Kathleen M. 1994. Changes in pinyon-juniper woodlands in western Utah's Pine Valley between 1933-1989. Journal of Range Management. 47(5): 359-364. [24227]
314. Young, James A. 1994. History and use of semiarid plant communities--changes in vegetation. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. 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: 5-8. [24245]
315. Young, James A.; Clements, Charlie D. 1999. Ecotones between Artemisia nova and A. tridentata plant communities in the Buckskin Mountains of western Nevada. 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: 29-31. [36057]
316. Young, James A.; Clements, Charlie D. 2006. Nevada rangelands. Rangelands. 28(5): 10-15. [65084]
317. 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]
318. Young, James A.; Martens, Ellen. 1991. Importance of hypocotyl hairs in germination of Artemisia seeds. Journal of Range Management. 44(5): 438-442. [75526]
319. Young, James A.; Palmquist, Debra E. 1992. Plant age/size distributions in black sagebrush (Artemisia nova): effects on community structure. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(4): 313-320. [20180]
320. Young, James A; Evans, Raymond A.; Major, Jack. 1977. Sagebrush steppe. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.: 763-796. [2680]
321. Young, Richard P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, comps. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 18-31. [2681]
322. Youngblood, Andrew P.; Mauk, Ronald L. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 p. [2684]
323. Zamora, B.; Tueller, Paul T. 1973. Artemisia arbuscula, A. longiloba, and A. nova habitat types in northern Nevada. The Great Basin Naturalist. 33(4): 225-242. [2688]