T
T
T
Species Review

Cercis orbiculata, California redbud

Written
September, 2006
Contributors
Scott Hauser - 1st Author

Hauser, A. Scott. 2006. Cercis orbiculata, California redbud. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/cerorb

DOI
10.2737/feis-species-review-cerorb

AbbreviationCommon NameScientific NameClassificationStatus
Plants
CERORBCalifornia redbudCercis orbiculataLife Form: Plants/Tree
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Dicot
Order: Fabales
Family: Fabaceae
Genus: Cercis		Fed. Protected: No
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive

Photo of California redbud branch having a cluster of pink blooms.
Photo of California redbud tree with pink blossoms.

Taxonomy

The scientific name of California redbud is Cercis orbiculata Greene (Fabaceae) [38].

Synonyms

  • Cercis occidentalis Torr. ex Gray [35,40,54,55,76]
    = Cercis orbiculate
  • Cercis occidentalis var. orbiculata (Greene) Tidestrom [76]
    = Cercis orbiculata

Other Common Names

western redbud, Arizona redbud, Judas tree

General Distribution

California redbud occurs in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah [35,38,40,54,55,76]. Its occurrence in Arizona is restricted to a few scattered locations in canyons and mountains in upper desert and woodland zones. It is common in the Grand Canyon [49]. In Utah, California redbud is restricted to a few scattered locations in the southern part of the state [26]. A distributional map of California redbud is available here.

States and Provinces

  • United States: AZ CA NV UT

Site Characteristics

California redbud occurs on dry, shrubby slopes [35,39,44,54,55] and rocky plains [39], in canyons [35,39,44,54] and ravines [35,44], along streambanks [13,32,35,44] and washes [39], and in chaparral [32,35,44,54,55] and foothill woodland ecosystems [35,44,54].

In the foothills of northern California, California redbud occurs at low elevations on north-facing slopes or near seasonal water courses [18].

Climate: California redbud is light and drought tolerant [44,72]. In California chaparral sites, California redbud persists where the winters are cool and wet and the summers are hot and dry [18].

Elevation: The elevation ranges for California redbud in the 4 states where it occurs are presented in the table below:

StateElevation
Arizona4,000 to 6,000 feet [40,49]
California400 to 5,000 feet [35,54,55]
Nevada2,500 to 6,200 feet [39]
Utah2,168 to 4,053 feet [21,76]

Soil: California redbud can tolerate a wide range of soils [68,72]. In California chaparral, California redbud is found on granitic soils [32].

Plant Communities

California redbud is recognized as a dominant species in this Arizona vegetation classification:

California redbud/western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii)/scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis) at Vasey's Paradise in the Grand Canyon [21]

Photo of California redbud tree with pink blossoms.
Photo Credit
Photo by © Casey Flinspach, some rights reserved

California redbud (CC BY_NC)

Botanical Description

This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available [35,40,54,55,76].

California redbud is a native [44], deciduous [35,44,72] shrub-tree [11,36,48,49,54,64]. It can appear as a tree with arching canopies that almost reach the ground or a considerably shorter, many-stemmed shrub [68,72]. Plants generally occur singly, but they may form thickets in riparian zones [36].

California redbud plants are commonly from 7 to 20 feet (2-5 m) tall [35,54,55,76]. The tallest California redbud on record is 29 feet (8.8 m) [11]. The stems are clustered and erect [36,54,55] and predominantly leafless [44]. During the 1st year of life, California redbud stems are covered in hairs [49]. The inflorescence is a 2- to 5-flowered raceme [35]. The flowers are 8 to 12 mm long [54,55] and appear before the leaves [20,40,76]. The seedpod is a flat legume from 2 to 4 inches (4-9 cm) long and 0.8 to 1 inch (2-2.5 cm) wide [54,55]. Each seedpod contains 7 seeds [72] from 3 to 4 mm in diameter [54,55]

California redbud is intermediately tolerant of flooding in semiarid riparian zones. Intermediately tolerant is defined as a species that "is able to survive flooding for periods between 1 to 3 months during the growing season. The root systems of these plants may produce few new roots or will be dormant during the flooded period" [75].

Raunkiaer Life Form

  • Phanerophyte [63]

Seasonal Development

Depending upon the ecosystem, California redbud flowers from February to June [11,39,72]. In more temperate sections of the California coast, California redbud tends to bloom poorly in the spring because temperatures are too warm to facilitate flower bud formation [68].

On moist California chaparral sites, California redbud leaves are normally present from April through October [18], and fruit ripening occurs from July to September [11]. While the flowering period of California redbud covers several months, individual plants only remain in flower for approximately 2 weeks [72].

Regeneration Processes

California redbud regenerates primarily from seed [11]. California redbud may sprout from damaged boles following fire [1].

Pollination

California redbud is pollinated by bumble bees and orchard mason bees [11,24,72].

Breeding System

The flowers of California redbud are dioecious [11].

Seed Production and Predation

California redbud produces abundant crops of legumes, but seed set is variable [11].

Seed Dispersal

California redbud seeds are dispersed by wind, birds, and animals [11].

Seed Banking

California redbud utilizes a seed bank [23].

Germination

California redbud seeds require scarification and stratification for germination [44,48,53]. The seeds are adapted to prolonged periods of dryness and cold due to an impervious seed coat and a dormant embryo [1,34,72].

There are no field studies of California redbud seed longevity to date (2006); however, California redbud seeds remained viable for 12 years or more when stored in a freezer at 5% to 9% humidity and 0°F (-18 °C) [11].

Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth

California redbud seedlings have a "rapid" growth rate [11].

Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration

Asexual regeneration: California redbud may regenerate asexually by sprouting from boles damaged by fire [1].

Successional Status

California redbud is found on disturbed sites such as burns [1] and is found in several stages of succession [22,29,50]. While it can withstand shade [68], more than light shading can cause a reduction in flower production [22].

At Ellis Ranch, California, California redbud occurs on "early succession" burn sites [29,50]. California redbud is an important species in the late-seral conifer forest-chaparral association of northern California [22].

Immediate Fire Effects

California redbud is top-killed by fire [1].

Postfire Regeneration Strategy

  • Tall shrub, adventitious bud/root crown [69]

Fire Adaptations

California redbud establishes following fire by seed [50] and/or sprouting from the bole [1].

Plant Response to Fire

California redbud establishes following fire by seed [50] and/or sprouting from the bole [1]. The seed is dispersed onto burned sites by wind, birds, and mammals [11]. California redbud also utilizes a seed bank [23]. As of this review (2006), there is no information on seed tolerance to fire. Seed insulated by soil is probably well protected from fire.

While there is little scientific information regarding California redbud's response to fire, Native Americans in the Sierra Nevada burned California redbud every several years, or even annually, to promote growth of young sprouts (see Other Uses) [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Further, a summer prescription fire in an interior live oak-gray pine community promoted California redbud sprouting or establishment from seed in postfire years 1, 2, and 3 [50]. This suggests that fire promotes California redbud sprouting.

With such a dearth of information regarding California redbud response to fire, further fire research is sorely needed on this plant species.

Summer prescription burning of California redbud at Ellis Ranch, California, caused significant (p<0.05) decreases in California redbud canopy cover at postfire month 2 and postfire year 1. Prior to burning, the area was "preburn prepared" by crushing brush and interior live oak with a bulldozer and selectively cutting gray pine and interior live oak for firewood. Prior to the preburn preparation during the summer of 1986, California redbud cover was 2%. Following the preburn preparation and prior to the prescription fire, California redbud significantly increased to 18% cover. The prescription burn occurred in August 1987 and vegetation sampling occurred in October 1987 (postfire month 2), November 1988 (postfire year 1), 1989 (postfire year 2), and in November 1995 (postfire year 8). Two months following the burn, there were no California redbud seedlings found on the burn site. At postfire year 1, 364 California redbud seedlings were counted on the burn site. The following table gives mean canopy cover of California redbud before the preburn preparation, after the preburn preparation, and at 4 dates following prescription burning. While it is not clear in the research literature, it is assumed that California redbud canopy cover includes sprouts and seedlings [29,50]:

Preproject 1986Postpreparation 1987Postfire month 2Postfire year 1Postfire year 2Postfire year 8
2%18%0%6%14%15%

Fire Regimes

Research literature on California redbud is primarily centered on its occurrence in California chaparral and oak woodlands. Both of these community types can have lightning-ignited fires and have long been affected by anthropogenic fire, starting with Native Americans [2,42,43]. Prior to European settlement, the western Mono, foothill Yokuts, and Miwok Native Americans of the central and southern Sierra Nevada foothills set autumn fires at intervals of 1 to several years to induce rapid elongation of young growth of California redbud (see Other Uses) [1,2,4,5,6]. They also actively burned to keep down shrubs and trees and maintain an open, park-like woodland that aided hunting and favored certain food crops [32]. Fire exclusion policies were implemented as European settlers entered the area in the late 19th century, again altering the chaparral and oak woodland communities [3,4]. With so much historical human interference in the oak woodlands and chaparral of California, gauging the historic or presettlement fire return interval in these communities is difficult and often debated. In a review by Keeley [42], evidence is offered that fire frequency in California chaparral has increased, not decreased, due to human-caused accidental fires (see Fire Management Considerations).

In oak woodlands, California redbud is often found in canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak-gray pine (Q. douglasii-Pinus sabiniana), and interior live oak (Q. wislizenii) community types. The fire return interval in these communities is from <35 to <100 years [57]. The fire return interval of stand-replacement fires in California chaparral varies, depending upon species composition. In reviews, Keeley and Keeley [41,43] stated that modal frequency of stand-replacement fires in California chaparral ranges from 20 to 30 years, and Paysen and others [57] reported fire return intervals ranging from less than 35 years to about every 100 years. Relatively long fire-return intervals are typical of chaparral dominated by obligate seeding species such as waveyleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus foliosus) [51], while relatively short fire-return intervals favor spouting chaparral species such as chamise [41,43].

The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where California redbud is important. For additional fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name on the Advanced Search page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.

Community or EcosystemDominant SpeciesFire Return Interval Range (years)
California chaparralAdenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp.<35 to <100
Sagebrush steppeArtemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata20-70
Coastal sagebrushArtemisia californica<35 to <100
Grama-galleta steppeBouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis jamesii<35 to <100
Blue grama-tobosa prairieBouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis mutica<35 to <100
California montane chaparralCeanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp.50-100 [57]
Curlleaf mountain-mahogany*Cercocarpus ledifolius13-1,000 [9,66]
Mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrubCercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii<35 to <100
Arizona cypressCupressus arizonica<35 to 200
Western juniperJuniperus occidentalis20-70 [57]
Pine-cypress forestPinus-Cupressus spp.9-63 [7,70,74]
pinyon-juniperPinus-Juniperus spp.<35 [57]
Colorado pinyonPinus edulis10-400+ [28,31,41,57]
Jeffrey pinePinus jeffreyi46172
Pacific ponderosa pine*Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa1-47 [8]
Interior ponderosa pine*Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum2-30 [8,10,47]
Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppePleuraphis jamesii-Aristida purpurea<35 to <100 [57]
California mixed evergreenPseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii<35
California oakwoodsQuercus spp.<35 [8]
Oak-juniper woodland (Southwest)Quercus-Juniperus spp.<35 to <200 [57]
Coast live oakQuercus agrifolia2-75 [33]
Canyon live oakQuercus chrysolepis<35 to 200
Blue oak-foothills pineQuercus douglasii-P. sabiniana<35
Oregon white oakQuercus garryana<35 [8]
California black oakQuercus kelloggii5-30 [57]
Interior live oakQuercus wislizenii<35 [8]
*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species review

Fire Management Considerations

The limited research presented above suggests that fire favors California redbud. However, land managers should use caution if fire is used to promote California redbud growth. While fire can be suitable for the management of California redbud, it may have unintended consequences on the plant communities where it is used. In a review, Keeley [42] recommends against prescribed burning in California chaparral. Because fire frequencies have increased, not decreased, with European settlement, populations of obligate seeding shrubs in chaparral have been reduced, and prescription burning would only exacerbate the situation. Thus, fire prevention and fire exclusion may be needed to restore native plant communities in the chaparral [42].

Federal Status

None

Other Status

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

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

There is little information on the importance of California redbud to livestock and wildlife. California redbud is moderately important as fall (prior to leaf fall) and spring (April-May) browse for mule deer [11,64], but is of little to no use to domestic goats, horses, and other livestock species [11,64]. Domestic goats, domestic sheep, and cattle favor the young shoots, leaves, and seedpods [72]. California redbud is important for bees that depend upon the nectar from its flowers [72]. The only other reference to California redbud and its importance to wildlife found in the literature (2006) refers to coyotes in eastern Tehama County, California, which depend minimally on California redbud fruits [12].

Palatability and Nutritional Value

No information is available on this topic.

Cover Value

Currently (2006) there is no literature addressing the cover value of California redbud. However, given its height [35,54,55,76] and arching canopy [68,72], it likely provides cover for a variety of mammal and bird species.

Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites

California redbud is a "good" soil stabilizer along degraded stream banks [72]. In California, it has been successfully used to revegetate roadside cuts on Mount Palomar [37] and to prevent erosion and provide cover along Tapo Canyon Creek [56].

There is one California redbud cultivar ('common') available [71].

Other Uses

California redbud is important for the western Mono, foothill Yokuts, and Miwok Native Americans of the central and southern Sierra Nevada of California. Young California redbud shoots, owing to their brilliant red color and straight, flexible structure, are used for basketry [1,2,3,4,5,6]. While not identified by name, other Native American nations also used California redbud shoots in basketry [15]. In the American Southwest, Native Americans used California redbud roots and bark as a remedy for diarrhea and dysentery [11,45]. Beyond medicinal and basketry purposes, the Navajo roasted the seedpods of California redbud in ashes and ate the seeds [19,25].

California redbud is often used as a landscaping ornamental [11,20,72].

Other Management Considerations

Coppicing/Pruning: To simulate the burning of California redbud, the southern Miwok of California manage the plant by coppicing (cutting the plant to within several inches of its base) and selective pruning. California redbud responds to coppicing/pruning as it does to fire, by growing new shoots that are long, straight, and slender, making them ideal for basket-making. Coppicing/pruning generally occurs 1 full growing season prior to harvest. In the Sierra National Forest, coppicing of California redbud plants produced a significantly (p<0.05) greater number of usable branches for basket-making than plants not coppiced [1].

Insects: The red humped caterpillar is a common defoliator of California redbud plants in California [17,52,58,60,61]. The larvae of red humped caterpillars can consume an average of 0.4 inch² of California redbud foliage per day [52]. Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticidal bacterium, can control red humped caterpillar larvae [17,17,58,60,61].

Bacillus thuringiensis is also an effective deterrent for the fruit tree leafroller, which causes serious leaf defoliation in California redbud plants [59].

Fungus: California redbud is highly susceptible to a fungal canker caused by Botryosphaeria ribis and B. dothidea [62,65].

Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.

Forest and Range Ecosystems

  • FRES20 Douglas-fir
  • FRES21 Ponderosa pine
  • FRES28 Western hardwoods
  • FRES29 Sagebrush
  • FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
  • FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
  • FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
  • FRES40 Desert grasslands [30]

BLM Physiographic Regions

  • 3 Southern Pacific Border
  • 4 Sierra Mountains
  • 6 Upper Basin and Range
  • 7 Lower Basin and Range
  • 12 Colorado Plateau [14]

Kuchler Plant Associations

  • K005 Mixed conifer forest
  • K009 Pine-cypress forest
  • K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
  • K011 Western ponderosa forest
  • K026 Oregon oakwoods
  • K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
  • K029 California mixed evergreen forest
  • K030 California oakwoods
  • K031 Oak-juniper woodland
  • K032 Transition between K031 and K037
  • K033 Chaparral
  • K034 Montane chaparral
  • K035 Coastal sagebrush
  • K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub
  • K053 Grama-galleta steppe
  • K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe
  • K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe [46]

SAF Cover Types

  • 222 Black cottonwood-willow
  • 230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock
  • 233 Oregon white oak
  • 235 Cottonwood-willow
  • 237 Interior ponderosa pine
  • 238 Western juniper
  • 239 Pinyon-juniper
  • 240 Arizona cypress
  • 241 Western live oak
  • 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
  • 245 Pacific ponderosa pine
  • 246 California black oak
  • 247 Jeffrey pine
  • 248 Knobcone pine
  • 249 Canyon live oak
  • 250 Blue oak-foothills pine
  • 255 California coast live oak [27]

SRM Rangeland Cover Types

  • 107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
  • 201 Blue oak woodland
  • 202 Coast live oak woodland
  • 203 Riparian woodland
  • 204 North coastal shrub
  • 205 Coastal sage shrub
  • 206 Chamise chaparral
  • 207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
  • 208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral
  • 209 Montane shrubland
  • 210 Bitterbrush
  • 412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
  • 413 Gambel oak
  • 415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
  • 416 True mountain-mahogany
  • 417 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany
  • 418 Bigtooth maple
  • 419 Bittercherry
  • 420 Snowbrush
  • 502 Grama-galleta
  • 503 Arizona chaparral
  • 504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
  • 505 Grama-tobosa shrub
  • 509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association [67]

1. Anderson, M. Kat. 1991. California Indian horticulture: Management and use of redbud by the southern Sierra Miwok. Journal of Ethnobiology. 11(1): 145-157. [17968]

2. Anderson, M. Kat. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration & Management Notes. 14(2): 154-166. [35819]

3. Anderson, M. Kat. 1997. California's endangered peoples and endangered ecosystems. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 21(3): 7-31. [35821]

4. Anderson, M. Kat. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of temperate ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian tribes. Human Ecology. 27(1): 79-113. [35820]

5. Anderson, M. Kat; Moratto, Michael J. 1996. Native American land-use practices and ecological impacts. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Volume II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 187-206. [28967]

6. Anderson, Marion Kathleen. 1993. The experimental approach to assessment of the potential ecological effects of horticultural practices by indigenous peoples on California wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 211 p. Dissertation. [33081]

7. Armstrong, Wayne P. 1966. Ecological and taxonomic relationships of Cupressus in southern California. Los Angles, CA: California State College. 129 p. Thesis. [21332]

8. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984]

9. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]

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

11. Banner, Valerie A.; Stein, William I. 2003. Cercis L. redbud. Bonner, Franklin T., tech. coord. Woody plant seed manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Producer). Available: http://www.nsl.fs.usda.gov/wpsm/Cercis.pdf [2006, August 2]. [62844]

12. Barrett, Reginald H. 1983. Food habits of coyotes, Canis latrans, in eastern Tehama County, California. California Fish and Game. 69(3): 184-186. [13786]

13. Bennett, Peter S.; Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1989. Relative nature of wetlands: riparian and vegetational considerations. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's: Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 140-142. [13516]

14. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

15. Bonnicksen, Thomas M. 2000. Fire masters. In: Bonnicksen, Thomas M. America's ancient forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 143-216. [46248]

16. Brand, Richard J.; Pinnock, Dudley E.; Jackson, Kirby L.; Milstead, James E. 1975. Methods for assessing field persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis spores. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 25(2): 199-208. [62463]

17. Brand, Richard J.; Pinnock, Dudley E.; Jackson, Kirby L.; Milstead, James E. 1976. Viable spore count as an index of effective dose of Bacillus thuringiensis. Journal of the Invertebrate Pathology. 27(2): 141-148. [62461]

18. Calkin, Howard W.; Pearcy, Robert W. 1984. Leaf conductance and transpiration, and water relations of evergreen and deciduous perennials co-occurring in a moist chaparral site. Plant, Cell and Environment. 7(5): 339-346. [62445]

19. Castetter, Edward F. 1935. Ethnobiological studies in the American Southwest. Biological Series No. 4: Volume 1. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. 62 p. [35938]

20. Ciesla, Bill. 1981. The outriders of spring: Redbud. American Forests. 87(4): 22-27. [16170]

21. Clover, Elzada U.; Jotter, Lois. 1944. Floristic studies in the Canyon of the Colorado and tributaries. The American Midland Naturalist. 32(3): 591-642. [62472]

22. Cooper, William Skinner. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California: an ecological study of the chaparral and its related communities. Publ. No. 319. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington. 145 p. [6716]

23. DeBolt, Ann; Spurrier, Carol S. 2004. Seeds of success and the Millennium Seed Bank project. In: Hild, Ann L.; Shaw, Nancy L.; Meyer, Susan E.; Booth, D. Terrance; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Seed and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems: proceedings; 2002 August 12-16; Laramie, WY. Proceedings RMRS-P-31. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 100-108. [49104]

24. Dobson, Heidi E. M. 1988. Survey of pollen and pollenkitt lipids -- chemical cues to flower visitors? American Journal of Botany. 75(2): 170-182. [62474]

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

26. Erdman, Kimball S. 1961. Distribution of the native trees of Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11: 1-34. [35781]

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

28. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590]

29. Frost, William E. 1989. The Ellis Ranch Project: a case study in controlled burning. No. 891002. Fresno, CA: California Agricultural Technology Institute; San Joaquin Experimental Range. 11 p. [13817]

30. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

31. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; Betancourt, Julio L.; Chung-MacCoubrey, Alice L. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-132. [26188]

32. Graves, George W. 1932. Ecological relationships of Pinus sabiniana. Botanical Gazette. 94(1): 106-133. [63160]

33. Greenlee, Jason M.; Langenheim, Jean H. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay area of California. The American Midland Naturalist. 124(2): 239-253. [15144]

34. Heit, C. E. 1971. Propagation from seed. Part 22: testing and growing western desert and mountain shrub species. American Nurseryman. 133(10): 10-12, 76-89. [41526]

35. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

36. Hopkins, Milton. 1942. Cercis in North America. Rhodora. 44(522): 193-211. [62468]

37. Juhren, Gustaf. 1949. Erosion control on Palomar Mt. Observatory Road. Journal of Forestry. 47(6): 463-466. [62466]

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

39. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]

40. 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]

41. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. [4395]

42. Keeley, Jon E. 2001. Fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems in California. 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: 81-94. [40679]

43. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C. 1986. Chaparral and wildfires. Fremontia. 14(3): 18-21. [18365]

44. Keeley, Melanie. 2005. Propagation protocol for California redbud (Cercis orbiculata Greene). Native Plants Journal. 6(2): 131. [62447]

45. Krochmal, A.; Paur, S.; Duisberg, P. 1954. Useful native plants in the American southwestern deserts. Economic Botany. 8: 3-20. [2766]

46. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]

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

48. Liang, Yan; Harris, Jeanne M. 2005. Response of root branching to abscisic acid is correlated with nodule formation both in legumes and nonlegumes. American Journal of Botany. 92(10): 1675-1683. [62441]

49. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agricultural Handbook 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]

50. McDougald, Neil K.; Frost, William E. 1997. Assessment of a prescribed burning project: 1987-1995. In: Pillsbury, Norman H.; Verner, Jared; Tietje, William D., technical coordinators. Proceedings of a symposium on oak woodlands: ecology, management, and urban interface issues; 1996 March 19-22; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-160. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 671-678. [29051]

51. Menke, John W.; Villasenor, Ricardo. 1977. The California Mediterranean ecosystem and its management. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems; 1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 257-270. [4847]

52. Milstead, James E. 1980. Pathophysiological influences of the Heterorhabditis bacteriophora complex on fifth-instar larvae of the red humped caterpillar Schizura concinna: changes in feeding rate, larval weight, and frass production. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 35(3): 260-264. [62458]

53. Mirov, N. T. 1936. Germination behavior of some California plants. Ecology. 17(4): 667-672. [63150]

54. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]

55. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]

56. Patey, Katherine J.; Wishner, Carl; Gibson, Joseph G. 1991. Tapo Canyon Creek riparian habitat restoration plan. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 47-48. [15454]

57. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

58. Pinnock, D. E.; Brand, R. J.; Milstead, J. E.; Kirby, M. E.; Coe, N. F. 1978. Development of a model for prediction of target insect mortality following field application of a Bacillus thuringiensis formulation. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 31(1): 31-36. [62459]

59. Pinnock, D. E.; Milstead, J. E. 1978. Microbial control of the fruit tree leafroller, Archips argyrospila [Lep.: Tortricidae] in California. Entomophaga. 23(3): 203-206. [62460]

60. Pinnock, D. E.; Milstead, J. E.; Coe, N. F.; Brand, R. J. 1974. The effectiveness of Bacillus thuringiensis formulations for the control of larvae of Schizura concinna on Cercis occidentalis trees in California. Entomophaga. 19(3): 221-227. [62464]

61. Pinnock, Dudley E.; Brand, Richard J.; Milstead, James E.; Jackson, Kirby L. 1975. Effect of three species on the coverage and field persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis spores. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 25(2): 209-214. [62462]

62. Pooler, M. R.; Jacobs, K. A.; Kramer, M. 2002. Differential resistance to Botryosphaeria ribis among Cercis taxa. Plant Disease. 86(8): 880-882. [62450]

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

64. 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]

65. Santamour, Frank S., Jr.; Riedel, Louise G. H. 1995. Susceptibility of redbuds (Cercis) to root-knot nematodes. Journal of Arboriculture. 21(1): 37-40. [62446]

66. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]

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

68. Smith, Nevin. 1986. Growing natives: more from the chaparral. Fremontia. 14(3): 34-35. [62443]

69. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]

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

71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson Plant Materials Center. 2001. Commercial sources of conservation plant materials, [Online]. Available: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/azpmsarseedlist0501.pdf [2003, August 25]. [44989]

72. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. PLANTS database (2006), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

73. Vankat, John L.; Major, Jack. 1978. Vegetation changes in Sequoia National Park, California. Journal of Biogeography. 5: 377-402. [17353]

74. Vogl, Richard J.; Armstrong, Wayne P.; White, Keith L.; Cole, Kenneth L. 1977. The closed-cone pines and cypress. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 295-358. [7219]

75. Walters, M. Alice; Teskey, Robert O.; Hinckley, Thomas M. 1980. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Volume VII: Mediterranean Region; Western Arid and Semi-Arid Region. Biological Services Program: FWS/OBS-78/93. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 84 p. [52899]

76. 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]

Last updated January 12, 2026
Return to top
Share your website feedback