Lupinus sericeus, silky lupine
Matthews, Robin F. 1993. Lupinus sericeus, silky lupine. 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/lupser
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| LUPSER | silky lupine | Lupinus sericeus | Life Form: Plants/Forb, Plants/Shrub, Plants/Subshrub Kingdom: Plantae Class: Dicot Order: Fabales Family: Fabaceae Genus: Lupinus | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Native Invasiveness: Noninvasive |
Silky lupine growing in British Columbia, Canada (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Taxonomy
The currently accepted scientific name of silky lupine is Lupinus sericeus Pursh [5,11,13,41]. Lupinus is a taxonomically complex genus and there is much confusion regarding nomenclature. Species within the genus are extremely variable and freely intergrade, making morphological characteristics used to separate taxa few and inconsistent. There is much disagreement among authorities concerning recognized subspecies, varieties, and forms of silky lupine [12,13,18,41].
Synonyms
- No entry
Other Common Names
blue-bonnet lupine
General Distribution
Silky lupine is distributed east of the Cascade Range from British Columbia south to California and Arizona and east to Alberta, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, and New Mexico [5,11,12,22,41].
States and Provinces
- United States: AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY
- Canada: AB, BC
Site Characteristics
Silky lupine is found on dry, rocky sites on gentle to steep slopes and in open woods [7,11,19]. It grows best in dry, sandy, loamy, sandy-loam, and clayey-loam soils. It does not grow well in clay or other organic, acid, or sodic-saline soils. Silky lupine has been found to 10,000 feet (3,030 m) elevation in Colorado and Utah [6].
Plant Communities
Silky lupine is found in a range of habitats including grasslands, sagebrush, mountain brush, and aspen and conifer forests [5,22,41]. The following publications list silky lupine as an herbaceous layer dominant in Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) or common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) habitats:
- Grassland vegetation in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming [14]
- Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest [16].
Some species commonly associated with silky lupine include Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), common snowberry, ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), pinegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), fescues (Festuca idahoensis and F. scabrella), prairie junegrass (Koeleria cristata), and sedges (Carex spp.) [16,25,33].
Botanical Description
Silky lupine is a native, perennial, cool-season forb [39,40]. Simple or branched stems arise from a woody caudex. Plants are generally 8 to 20 inches (20-50 cm) tall. Leaves are mostly basal and have seven to nine leaflets. The inflorescence is a terminal raceme. Flowers are conspicuously hairy on the dorsal side of the banner. Pods contain three to seven seeds [11,12,41]. Silky lupine has a deeply buried root system [35].
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Chamaephyte
Seasonal Development
Silky lupine is a cool-season species [40]. In western Montana, growth begins in May and flowering occurs from June through July. Seed dissemination takes place in August, and plants are dried by the end of that month [28]. Throughout its range, silky lupine generally flowers from June through August or September [6].
Regeneration Processes
Silky lupine most often reproduces by seed [6,35,39]. The seeds are heavy and are not widely dispersed. They will germinate in full sun or partial shade. Silky lupine is not rhizomatous but will sprout from the caudex [35].
Successional Status
Facultative Seral Species
Silky lupine can persist under partial shade, but its cover increases with more sunlight and less competition [35]. It has greater abundance in early seral stages of plant succession in the Wallowa-Snake Province, Oregon [16]. Silky lupine is also present in late seral Douglas-fir/pinegrass habitats in Idaho [35], and in climax ponderosa pine forests throughout the western United States [42].
Immediate Fire Effects
Aboveground portions of silky lupine are most likely destroyed by fire. Deeply buried roots probably survive even severe fires.
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Caudex, growing points in soil
- Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Silky lupine growing in a controlled burn in British Columbia, Canada (CC BY 4.0).
Fire Adaptations
Silky lupine has a deep root system and sprouts from the caudex following disturbance [24,35]. Seeds are stored in the soil and germinate on mineral soil in full sun or partial shade. Stored seeds may be 100 percent viable [20,35].
Plant Response to Fire
Some lupines are fire survivors and are present in the initial stages of postfire plant succession [17]. Silky lupine is generally enhanced or not affected by fire [16]. Following fire, it germinates from buried seed. It is a prominent forb in burned aspen stands in the Caribou National Forest, Wyoming [3]. It is also dominant in postfire communities in mountain big sagebrush/rough fescue (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana/Festuca scabrella) and Douglas-fir/mountain big sagebrush vegetation types in the Helena National Forest, Montana [34]. Silky lupine showed no significant change in cover after fire in fescue grasslands in western Montana, although burning occurred before August senescence [1].
Fire Regimes
For 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.
Fire Management Considerations
No entry.
Federal Status
None
Other Status
No entry.
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
Silky lupine is readily to moderately available within its range and is consumed from a moderate to high degree by white-tailed deer, upland game birds, small nongame birds, and small mammals [6]. In sagebrush habitats in the River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho, silky lupine comprised 6 percent of the summer diet of bighorn sheep [8]. Dead aerial portions of the plant are preferred by bighorn sheep in winter in Glacier National Park, Montana [32]. The leaves and flowers of silky lupine are preferred by Columbia ground squirrels [23].
Palatability and Nutritional Value
Palatability of silky lupine in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana is poor to fair for cattle and horses and fair for sheep [6].
Silky lupine is generally poor in energy and protein value [6]. Nutrient values from plants collected in July in the River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho, were 26 percent crude fiber; 17 percent crude protein; 1.09 percent calcium; and 0.21 percent phosphorous. Moisture content was 62 percent [8].
Cover Value
Silky lupine provides fair to good cover for small nongame birds and small mammals [6].
Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites
Silky lupine is useful in the rehabilitation of disturbed areas [4,20,29]. Its ability to fix nitrogen allows it to colonize repeatedly disturbed and low-fertility soils. It has established in old roadbeds in abandoned mining towns of Montana [20], and in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming [4]. Overall, silky lupine has been given a medium to low rating for erosion control and long-term revegetation potential in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana [6]. Lupines as a whole have possibilities for use in management, but more information is needed on the response of the genus to stand disturbance in a wide range of habitats [17].
Other Uses
No entry.
Other Management Considerations
Silky lupine is a highly toxic plant, especially to sheep [15,23]. It is less toxic to cattle and horses [19], but causes calf deformities if ingested by cows between 40 to 70 days gestation [15,27,37]. It produces quinolizidine alkaloids which affect the nervous system of livestock [27]. Lupines (Lupinus spp.) are responsible for more losses among sheep in Montana, Idaho, and Utah than any other single plant genus [19]. Silky lupine is toxic from the beginning of growth in the spring until it dries in late summer [15,37]. Dried plants are probably poisonous as well [19]. Sheep are poisoned by ingesting 0.125 to 0.25 pound (0.06-0.11 kg) daily for 3 to 4 days. Cattle are poisoned by ingesting 1.0 to 1.5 pounds (0.45-0.68 kg) daily. Livestock normally consume silky lupine only when other forage is unavailable [15,37]. The symptoms associated with silky lupine poisoning have been described in detail [19,37]. Silky lupine is apparently not toxic to wildlife [6,27].
Silky lupine increases under intensive grazing, and is most abundant under poor or fair range conditions [16,39,40]. It often forms nearly pure stands in overgrazed areas [39]. Poisoning of livestock occurs when poor range management has resulted in overgrazing and depletion of preferred rangeland species [27]. Where lupine species are common, ranges should be utilized when other forage is abundant and especially when lupines are not in fruit [37]. Silky lupine has been controlled by various esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T [15,37]. Plants should be sprayed after they are approximately 5 inches (12.7 cm) tall, but before they bloom [15]. After spraying, grazing should be deferred to let desirable plant species occupy the range.
Lupines (L. sericeus and L. caudatus) responded with minor changes in canopy cover to different management regimes in Douglas-fir/pinegrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Calamagrostis rubescens) habitat types in central Idaho. The plants decreased slightly in canopy cover, but seedlings established when stands were selectively cut or clearcut followed by mechanical scarification. There was a slight increase in growth in stands that were clearcut with no site preparation. Seedling establishment and an increase in cover were evident in stands destroyed by wildfire and in stands that were clearcut followed by broadcast burning [35]. In ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) types in eastern Washington, silky lupine increased 1,100 percent in plots thinned with 26-foot (8.0 m) spacing. There was no increase in unthinned plots [26]. Silkly lupine is the dominant forb in Idaho fescue grasslands of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming. It produces an average of 156 pounds per acre (175.5 kg/ha) and comprises 9 percent of the total production of all stands [14].
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 (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES20 Douglas-fir
- FRES21 Ponderosa pine
- FRES23 Fir – spruce
- FRES25 Larch
- FRES26 Lodgepole pine
- FRES28 Western hardwoods
- FRES29 Sagebrush
- FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
- FRES35 Pinyon – juniper
- FRES36 Mountain grasslands
- FRES37 Mountain meadows
- FRES38 Plains grasslands
- FRES44 Alpine
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- 4 Sierra Mountains
- 5 Columbia Plateau
- 6 Upper Basin and Range
- 7 Lower Basin and Range
- 8 Northern Rocky Mountains
- 9 Middle Rocky Mountains
- 10 Wyoming Basin
- 11 Southern Rocky Mountains
- 12 Colorado Platea
- 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
- 15 Black Hills Uplift
- 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)
- K007 Red fir forest
- K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
- K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
- K011 Western ponderosa forest
- K012 Douglas-fir forest
- K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
- K015 Western spruce - fir forest
- K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
- K017 Black Hills pine forest
- K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
- K019 Arizona pine forest
- K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
- K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
- K022 Great Basin pine forest
- K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
- K024 Juniper steppe woodland
- K025 Alder - ash forest
- K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
- K033 Chaparral
- K034 Montane chaparral
- K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
- K038 Great Basin sagebrush
- K050 Fescue – wheatgrass
- K051 Wheatgrass – bluegrass
- K052 Alpine meadows and barren
- K055 Sagebrush steppe
- K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
- K063 Foothills prairie
- K064 Grama - needlegrass – wheatgrass
- K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 203 Balsam poplar
- 206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
- 207 Red fir
- 208 Whitebark pine
- 209 Bristlecone pine
- 210 Interior Douglas-fir
- 212 Western larch
- 213 Grand fir
- 216 Blue spruce
- 217 Aspen
- 218 Lodgepole pine
- 219 Limber pine
- 220 Rocky Mountain juniper
- 237 Interior ponderosa pine
- 238 Western juniper
- 239 Pinyon – juniper
- 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
- 256 California mixed subalpine
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry
1. Antos, Joseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire on an ungrazed western Montana grassland. American Midland Naturalist. 110(2): 354-364. [337]
2. 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]
3. Canon, Stephen Kemble. 1985. Habitat selection, foraging behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in burned vs unburned aspen forest. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 110 p. Thesis. [599]
4. Cotts, N. R.; Redente, E. F.; Schiller, R. 1991. Restoration methods for abandoned roads at lower elevations in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 5: 235-249. [16995]
5. Barneby, Rupert C. 1989. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part B: Fabales. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden. 279 p. [18596]
6. 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]
7. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]
8. Elliott, Charles R.; Flinders, Jerran T. 1984. Plant nutrient levels on two summer ranges in the River of No Return Wilderness Area, Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(1): 621-626. [859]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 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]
11. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
12. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 614 p. [1167]
13. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
14. Hurd, Richard M. 1961. Grassland vegetation in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Ecology. 42(3): 459-467; 1961. [1222]
15. James, L. F.; Keeler, R. F.; Johnson, A. E.; [and others]. 1980. Plants poisonous to livestock in the western states. Agriculture Information Bulletin 415. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration. 90 p. [1243]
16. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p. [9600]
17. Jurgensen, Martin F.; Tonn, Jonalea R.; Graham, Russell T.; [and others]. 1991. Nitrogen fixation in forest soils of the Inland Northwest. In: Harvey, Alan E.; Neuenschwander, Leon F., compilers. Proceedings--management and productivity of western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 101-109. [15974]
18. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
19. Kingsbury, John M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 626 p. [122]
20. Knapp, Paul A. 1991. The response of semi-arid vegetation assemblages following the abandonment of mining towns in south-western Montana. Journal of Arid Environments. 20: 205-222. [14894]
21. 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]
22. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
23. Lambeth, Ron; Hironaka M. 1982. Columbia ground squirrel in sublapine forest openings in central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 35(4): 493-497. [8269]
24. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
25. Martinka, Robert R. 1972. Structural characteristics of blue grouse territories in southwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36(2): 498-510. [16751]
26. McConnell, Burt R.; Smith, Justin G. 1970. Response of understory vegetation to ponderosa pine thinning in eastern Washington. Journal of Range Management. 23(3): 208-212. [15839]
27. Mueggler, W. F. 1970. Objectionable characteristics of range plants. In: Range and wildlife habitat evaluation--a research symposium: Proceedings; 1968 May; Flagstaff; Tempe, AZ. Misc. Publ. 1147. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 63-70. [12986]
28. Mueggler, Walter F. 1983. Variation in production and seasonal development of mountain grasslands in western Montana. Research Paper INT-316. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [1710]
29. Plummer, A. Perry. 1970. Plants for revegetation of roadcuts and other disturbed or eroded areas. Range Improvement Notes. [Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region]; 15(1): 1-10. [1897]
30. Ralphs, M. H.; Olsen, J. D. 1987. Alkaloids and palatability of poisonous plants. 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: 78-83. [7400]
31. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
32. Riggs, Robert Alexander. 1977. Winter habitat use patterns and populations of bighorn sheep in Glacier National Park. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [112]
33. Schlatterer, Edward F. 1972. A preliminary description of plant communities found on the Sawtooth, White Cloud, Boulder and Pioneer Mountains. Unpublished report. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 111 p. [2076]
34. Schwecke, Deitrich A.; Hann, Wendell. 1989. Fire behavior and vegetation response to spring and fall burning on the Helena National Forest. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; [and others], compilers. Prescribed fire in the Intermountain region: Symposium proceedings; 1986 March 3-5; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 135-142. [11260]
35. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1993. The Douglas-fir/pinegrass habitat type in central Idaho: succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-298. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 83 p. [21512]
36. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
37. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1968. 22 plants poisonous to livestock in the Western states. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 327. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Animal Disease and Parasite Research Division & Crops Reserch Div. 64 p. [4275]
38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
39. Van Dyne, George M. 1958. Ranges and range plants. 290 p. [7310]
40. Wambolt, Carl. 1981. Montana range plants: Common and scientific names. Bulletin 355. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 27 p. [2450]
41. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
42. Wright, Henry A. 1978. The effect of fire on vegetation in ponderosa pine forests: A state-of-the-art review. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 21 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. [4425]