313
RANGE CONDITION
new method of determining forage cover and production on desert shrub vegetation. Jour. Range
Mangt. 11: 244-246.
HANSON,W. R. 1951. Condition
classes on mountain ranges in
southwestern Alberta. Jour. Range
Mangt. 4: 165-170.
HUMPHREY,R. R. 1949. Field comLITERATURE CITED
ments on the range condition
method of forage survey. Jour.
ARNOLD,JOSEPHF. 1955. Plant lifeRange Mangt. 2: l-10.
form classification and its use in
S. S., AND G. STEWART.
evaluating range condition and HUTCHINGS,
trend. Jour. Range Mangt. 8: 1761953. Increasing forage yields and
181.
sheep production on IntermounCOOK, C. WAYNE, L. A. STODDART, tain ranges. U.S. Dept. Agr. Cir.
AND LORIN E. HARRIS.1954. The
925. 64pp.
nutritive value of winter range
HUTCHINGS,S. S. 1954. Managing
plants in the Great Basin. Utah
winter sheep range for greater
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 372. 56pp.
profit. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 2067.
COOK, C. WAYNE, L. A. STODDART, 46 PP.
AND F. E. KINSINGER.1958. ReINGRAM,D. C. 1931. Vegetative
sponses of crested wheatgrass to
changes and grazing use on Dougvarious clipping treatments. Ecol.
las-fir cut-over land. Jour. of
Mono. 28: 237-272.
Agr. Res. 43: 387-417.
COSTELLO,
DAVIDF., AND GEORGET.
JOHNSON,
W. M. 1956. The effect of
TURNER.1941. Vegetative changes
grazing intensity on plant compofollowing exclusion of livestock
sition, vigor, and growth of pinefrom grazed ranges. Jour. of Forbunchgrass ranges in central Colestry. 39: 310-315.
orado. Ecology 37: 790-798.
DYKSTERHUIS,
E. J. 1949. Condition
KLEMMEDSON,
JAMES0. 1956. Interand management of range land
relations of vegetation, soils and
based on quantitative e c o 1o g y.
range conditions induced by grazJour. Range Mangt. 2: 104-115.
ing. Jour. Range Mangt. 9: 134-138.
ELLISON,L. 1954. Subalpine vegeKRAMER,P. J. 1949. Plant and Soil
tation of the Wasatch Plateau,
Water Relationships. McGraw Utah Ecol. Mono. 24:89-184.
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 347
ESPLM, A. C., J E. GREAVES,
ANDL.
.
A. STODDART.
1937. A study of
Lg
T L H C BUCKMAN AND
Utah winter ranges, composition
N. C. BRA&. 1950: The Nature and
of forage plants and use of suppleProperties of So i 1s. Macmillan
ments. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
Co., New York. 5th ed. 591 pp.
277. 47 pp.
PARKER,KENNETH
W. 1954. ApplicaGOEBEL,CARL J., LEONARDDEBANO,
tion of ecology in the determinaAND RUSSELLD. FLOYD. 1958. A
tion of range condition and trend.
Jour. Range Mangt. 7: 14-23.
PECHANEC,
J. F. 1945. Indicators of
downward trend on sagebrushperennial grass ranges grazed by
sheep in the spring and fall. Intermtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta.
Res. Paper 12. 2 pp. (Mimeographed).
REID,E. H., ANDG. D. PICKFORD.
1946. Judging mountain meadow
range condition in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. U.S.
Dept. Agr. Cir. 748. 31 pp.
RENNER,F. G., AND E. A. JOHN~DN.
1942. Improving range conditions
from wartime livestock production. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1921.
18 PP.
SCHOLLENBERGER,
C. J. 1945. Determination of soil organic matter.
Soil Sci. 59:53-56.
SHANTZ,H. L. ANDR. L. PIEMEISEL.
1940. Types of vegetation in Escalante Valley, Utah, as indicators
of soil conditions. U.S. Dept. Agr.
Tech. Bul. 173. 46 pp.
SHORT,L. R. AND E. J. WOOLFOLK.
1956. Plant vigor as a criterion of
range condition.
Jour. Range
Mangt. 9: 66-69.
STEWART,GEORGE,W. P. C~TTAM,
ANDS. S. HUTCHINGS.
1940. Influence of unrestricted grazing on
northern salt-desert plant association in western Utah. Jour. Agr.
Res. 60: 289-316.
UNITEDSTATESDEPT. INTERIOR,
BuREAUOF LANDMANAGEMENT.
1957.
Range condition criteria for two
phase method surveys (Revised
Effect of Heat Treatment on Sprout
the more important are: shrub
live oak (QUeTcUs turbinella
Greene),
Wright’s silktassel
(Garrya wright% Torr.) , desert
ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii A.
buckthorn
Gray)
9 hollyleaf
(Rhamnus crocea Nutt.), pointleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos
pungens H.B.K.) , Pringle manzanita (A. pringlei
Parry),
It was concluded that most of
the criteria studied could be useful in classifying range condition. However, criteria such as
total plant density and percent
organic matter did not appear
to be reliable indexes.
Production of Some Shrubs of the
Chaparral in Central Arizona’
FLOYD W. POND AND DWIGHT R. CABLE
Range
Conservationists,
Range
Experiment
Chaparral occupies about 5%
million acres in the central part
of Arizona. Most chaparral is
used yearlong by cattle and deer.
Often the shrubs are too dense
for easy access by livestock.
Burning is being tried as a means
of thinning the shrubs and in-
Rocky
Station,
Mountain
Tempe,
Forest
and
Arizona
creasing grass production. The
study reported here was undertaken to determine the effect of
burning at different intervals on
sprout production of several of
the important shrub species.
Several shrubby species are
found in the chaparral. Among
Mimeo.) .
WEAVER,J. E. AND R. W. DARLAND.
1947. A method
of measuring
vigor of range grasses. Ecology
28: 146-162.
1 Forest Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture;
general headquarters
maintained
at Fort Collins, Colorado, in cooperation with Colorado
State University. Authors stationed
at Tempe and Tucson, Arizona. Research done at Tempe, Arizona, in
cooperation
with Arizona State
University.
314
POND AND CABLE
skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata Nutt.), sugar sumac (R.
ovata S. Wats.), hairy mountainmahogany (Cercocarpus brevifoZius A. Gray), birchleaf mountainmahogany (C. betuloides
Nutt.), and larchleaf
goldenweed (Aplopappus
laricifolius
Grasses and forbs
A. Gray).
usually are sparse.
The use of fire for modifying
chaparral has received more attention in California than Arizona. Their opinions as to fire
use are diverse. A sample of
viewpoints follows:
Sterling
(1904) believed that fire was responsible for all chaparral
in
northern California, for when
coniferous forests are denuded
by fire they are replaced by
chaparral. Clements
(1916)
thought that chaparral was often
a fire subclimax in southern California. Jepson (1925) supported
Clements in stating chaparral
was, for the most part, a fire
type of plant formation and that
chaparral showed evidences of
long continued burning. Bauer
(1936) also believed that fires
were frequent in the chaparral.
Shantz
(1947) concluded that
repeated burns developed “soft”
brush into broad-leaved chaparral and ultimately even chamise.
Sampson (1944) stated
that
stands of sprouting chaparral
are seldom destroyed or materially thinned by periodic burning, and that increases in herbaceous vegetation following a fire
virtually disappear by the fifth
year because of the suppressive
effect of the numerous brush
sprouts. More recently, treatment of sprout regrowth with
chemical herbicides in conjunction with burning of the original
shrub cover has been recommended for control of chamise
in California (Buttery, et al.,
1959).
Ancha Experimental Forest. The
soils of this area were thin and
rocky, and originated
from
quartzite parent materials.
Seven shrubby species, in suff icient numbers for experimental replication, were selected on
the area. These were: shrub live
oak, skunkbush sumac, Wright’s
silktassel, hollyleaf buckthorn,
desert ceanothus, pointleaf manzanita, and larchleaf
goldenweed. Shrub live oak is usually
the dominant shrub not only on
the experimental
area but
throughout the Arizona chaparral type. Pointleaf manzanita
and skunkbush sumac may be
locally abundant in rather small
areas. The other four species are
generally present
throughout
the chaparral but rarely dominate an area. Shrub live oak,
skunkbush s u m a c , hollyleaf
buckthorn, and Wright’s silktassel sprout from root crowns.
The other three species generally invade by seedlings.
Methods
In 1953, an area of chaparral
at an elevation of 5,000 feet with
annual precipitation of about 18
inches was selected on the Sierra
FIGURE 1. Shrub live oak previously
burned
in 1953
the third burn in 1959 and (B) following the 1959 burn.
and
in
1956.
(A)
Just
before
315
HEAT TREATMENT
Table
1. Composition
tions.
of seven species of Arizona
chaparral
af three loca-
Location
Pinal
Mountain
._
Percent
77.7
Shrub live oak _________________________._~._
75.6
1.6
Skunkbush sumac __._______.___________._
2.1
2.1
Wright’s silktassel ____.__.________._
____
__ 3.2
2.5
Hollyleaf buckthorn ._______
___
._.._____2.2
0.4
Desert ceanothus __________________._______.
9.6
0.2
Pointleaf manzanita _____________.______
3.0
0
Larchleaf goldenweed
___
_____
__._____1.8
15.5
Other shrubs __.__.____________________________
2.5
Species
Natural
drainages
Total ______________.______________
____________
.lOO.O____-
The relative importance of the
seven species in the composition
of woody vegetation on three
chaparral sites is given in Table
1. Natural drainages are near
the experimental area on the
Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest. Pinal Mountain is about 40
miles south near the town of
Globe. Other species of woody
vegetation are found in this area,
the most important being sugar
sumac. The 3-Bar Wildlife Area
is about 20 miles to the southwest of the experimental forest.
Birchleaf
mountainmahogany
and sugar sumac are important
species in this area.
Of the seven species studied,
the ones most preferred by livestock and deer are not abundant
on most chaparral sites. Hollyleaf buckthorn, desert ceanothus, and Wright’s silktassel are
all rated fairly good as deer and
livestock browse. Shrub live oak
and skunkbush sumac are used
heavily only when other forage
or browse is scarce. Pointleaf
manzanita and larchleaf goldenweed are seldom, if ever, used
by deer or livestock.
The treatments assigned
at
random to the plots were: (1)
burned each year, (2) burned
every second year, (3) burned
every third year, (4) burned
every fourth
year, and (5)
burned every fifth year.
Each treatment was replicated
two times for each species. Plot
size depended
on number of
3-Bar
Wildlife Area
42.6
1.3
0
5.6
1.9
0
0
48.6
100.0
100.0
stems. Each plot was large
enough to contain
sufficient
stems for experimental counts.
Plots were burned in June
with a torch generating 1,500”F
(Figure 1). The torch was applied
until the plant parts near the
ground glowed in order to kill
all cambial tissue at the base of
the plants. Live stems were
counted where they emerged
from the ground prior to the
first burn and immediately before each succeeding burn.
Results
Shrub Live Oak
This species proved difficult
to kill by burning (Table 2).
Following the first four annual
burns, stem counts were considerably higher than the pretreatment number. Only after
the fifth annual burn, were the
live stems fewer than before the
first burn. Numbers were further reduced by the sixth burn.
Burning at intervals of 2 or
more years failed
to reduce
sprouting (Figure 2). In 1959,
the number of live stems present on all plots except those
burned each year was several
times the original.
Skunkbush
Sumac
Results with this species were
somewhat erratic.
On plots
burned each year, the number
of live stems was reduced by
the first burn and none was
found following the second burn.
The following year, however,
more than the original number
of live stems were found on the
plots. These were burned and
during the fourth
year live
stems were again not found. A
few live stems were found in the
fifth year and burned. In 1959,
living stems were not found on
the plots.
On plots burned at 2-, 3-, and
5-year intervals, live stems were
found following each burn. The
number of stems varied from
several times to only a fraction
of the original number.
On plots burned every fourth
year, live stems were not found
following the first burn.
Wright’s
silktassel
Four annual
burns or two
burns spaced 2 years apart were
sufficient to completely eliminate the sprouts of this species.
Burning less frequently did not
completely kill sprouts, although
numbers were considerably reduced after three burns at 3year intervals.
Hollyleaf
buckihom
Two annual burns or two
burns spaced 2 years apart completely killed sprouts of this species. The number of live stems
more than doubled following the
first burn but was reduced to
zero by the second burn. Burning less frequently failed to reduce the number of sprouts.
Desert ceanofhus
One burn was sufficient to kill
most of the old plants of this
species. Seedlings were observed
coming in on the burned plots
over the years. Also, two of the
old plants definitely sprouted on
the plots treated at 2-year intervals. These
were the only
sprouts of this species observed.
They were eliminated by the
second treatment.
( Poinfleaf
manzanifa
This species was completely
killed by one burn. Though manzanita seed are reported to ger-
316
POND AND CABLE
FIGURE 2. Shrub live oak burned at 2-year intervals showing
first burn in 1953 and (B) the same plot prior to the fourth
minate readily after a fire, no
seedlings were observed.
Larchleaf
gddenweed
This species was also eliminated by one burn. No sprouts
or seedlings were observed on
the plots following
the first
treatment.
Discussion
Shrub live oak sprouts are
difficult to control
with fire.
Burning increased the number
of sprouts, and five annual burns
were necessary to reduce the
number of sprouts below the
(A) the plot prior to the
burn in 1959.
pretreatment level.
Broadcast
burning for five successive years
is practically impossible in Arizona because of lack of sufficient
fuel to carry a fire. How long
it would take to reduce the oak
sprouts by burning less often
is unknown. After three treatments at 2-year intervals, there
was still 4.37 times as many live
stems as originally. Burning at
less frequent intervals showed
about the same results.
Sprouting of skunkbush sumac
was erratic during the study.
This species appears to have the
ability of delaying sprouting for
a full year. Because of the impractibility of burning each year
and delayed sprouting characteristics, it is unlikely that this species could be reduced by broadcast burning alone.
Wright’s silktassel is not as
difficult to kill with fire as
either shrub live oak or skunkbush sumac. It was eliminated
by four successive annual burns,
and by two burns at a-year intervals. Deer and livestock graze
this species readily so that it is
considered a valuable browse
species. That it will survive one
burn easily is important. Reburning at 1 or 2 years may,
however, seriously
injure or
completely kill this species.
Hollyleaf buckthorn survives
one burn with ease. Plants may
be eliminated by a second burn
if it occurs within an interval of
3 years. This species furnishes
important forage for deer and
livestock and its elimination
would be detrimental to the forage value of a chaparral range.
Old plants of desert ceanothus
and pointleaf manzanita are virtually eliminated by burning.
Both, however, are usually replaced by seedlings. A few desert ceanothus may sprout from
old stems, but sprouts of pointleaf manzanita were not observed. Desert ceanothus is a
valuable browse plant, particularly for deer, while pointleaf
manzanita is seldom used by
deer or livestock except as cover.
Larchleaf goldenweed is easily
killed by a single burn. The species is of little or no value as
forage.
The possibilities of reducing
the abundance of the less desirable shrubs in the chaparral by
broadcast burning appear to be
remote. This is especially true
from the standpoint of range
management. Moreover, the species of most value to livestock
and deer are more easily killed
by fire than some of those with
little or no value.
HEAT
317
TREATMENT
Table 2, Cffecf of burnilng af diifereiif inf&vStls oti sproutitig of four species
--
Within the Arizona chapartak
Years between
treatments
_
19531
Stem counts before burning
in indicated year
1954
1955
710
330
1231
1950
_____.
1957
371
1959
___-
38
17
662
1469
773
1107
91
95
41
61
13
161
1142
1161
790
436
Skunkbush
26
sumac
99
0
529
_~_
i958
Shrub live oak
121
152
276
170
94
Final
count
0
233
16
109
0
24
0
11
16
0
23
Wright’s silktassel
15
25
56
59
22
7
26
58
10
0
41
35
26
Hollyleaf
21
25
9
23
13
0
0
62
buckthorn
0
0
58
0
0
0
64
102
24
Desert ceanothus
173
223
147
131
175
0
0
8
0
0
7
32
26
0
0
13
93
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pointleaf manzanita
58
51
74
77
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Larchleaf
0
0
29
27
15
22
22
goldenweed
0
0
0
0
0
__-
1Original stem counts prior to first burn.
Summary
Seven chaparral
species were
burned
and reburned
with
a
There
convention
will be a meeting
headquarters
0
0
0
0
0
hotel,
0
0
0
0
0
hand torch at intervals varying
from 1 to 5 years. Number of
stems of shrub live oak was re-
EDUCATION
COUNCIL
of the Education
Council,
Salt Lake
City,
Utah.
duced only after
five annual
burns, Burning less frequently
produced more live stems than
were present prior to the first
burn. Skunkbush sumac was alSO hard
to kili by burning, although results were more erratic
than with
shrub
live oak.
Wright’s
silktassel
and hollyleaf buckthorn
are easier to kill
than shrub live oak or skunkbush sumac but must be burned
at least twice within 3 years to
be eliminated.
Old plants of desert ceanothus, pointleaf manzanita and larchleaf
goldenweed
are killed by one burn.
Reduction of the less desirable
species of chaparral
by repeat
burning
appears
impractical.
However, repeated fires at short
intervals
may reduce or eliminate many species preferred
by
deer and livestock.
LITERATURE
CITED
BAUER, HARRY L. 1936. Moisture
relations in the chaparral of the
Santa Monica Mountains,
California. Ecol. Monog. 6: 409-454.
BUTTERY,R. F., BENTLEY, J. R., AND
PLUMB, T. R., JR. 1959. Season of
burning affects follow-up
chemical control of sprouting chamise.
Pacific
Southwest
Forest
and
Range Expt. Sta. Res. Note 154. 11
pp., illus. (Processed.)
CLEMENTS,F. E. 1916. Plant succession. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub.
242: 1-512.
JEPSON, W. L. 1925. Manual of the
Flowering
Plants of California.
Assoc. Students Store. Univ. of
Calif. Berkeley, Calif. 1238 pp.
SAMPSON, ARTHUR W. 1944. Plant
succession
on burned chaparral
lands in northern California. Calif.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 685. 144 pp.
SHANTZ, H. L. 1947. Fire as a tool in
management
of
brush
ranges.
Calif. Div. of Forestry Bul. 156 pp.
STERLING, E. 1904. Chaparral
in
F or estr y
northern California.
Quart. 2: 209-214.
TO MEET
A.S.R.M., at 1 p.m., January
30, 1961 in the