T
T
T
Species Review

Yucca brevifolia, Yucca jaegeriana, Joshua tree

Written
May, 2025
Contributors
Taryn R. Brahmsteadt - 1st Author, Kristin Zouhar - 1st Editor, Robin J. Innes - 2nd Editor

Brahmsteadt, Taryn R. 2025. Yucca brevifolia, Yucca jaegeriana, Joshua tree. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/yucspp

DOI
10.2737/feis-species-review-yucspp

AbbreviationCommon NameScientific NameClassificationStatus
Plants
YUCBREJoshua treeYucca brevifoliaLife Form: Plants/Shrub, Plants/Tree
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Monocot
Order: Liliales
Family: Agavaceae
Genus: Yucca
Fed. Protected: No
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive
YUCJAEeastern Joshua treeYucca brevifolia var. jaegerianaLife Form: Plants/Shrub, Plants/Tree
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Monocot
Order: Liliales
Family: Agavaceae
Genus: Yucca
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive
YUCSPPyuccaYucca spp.Life Form: Plants/Forb, Plants/Shrub, Plants/Tree
Kingdom: Plantae
Class: Monocot
Order: Liliales
Family: Agavaceae
Genus: Yucca
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive

This review summarizes information that was available in the scientific literature as of 2025 on the biology, ecology, and effects of fire on western and eastern Joshua trees in the United States.

Joshua tree is a perennial, tree-like evergreen monocot. Genetic and morphological studies indicate that Joshua tree can be recognized as two species—western Joshua tree and eastern Joshua tree. Western Joshua tree grows to 12 m tall and branches after it first flowers. Eastern Joshua tree grows to 6 m tall and branches before it first flowers.

Joshua tree is native to the Mojave Desert and adjacent areas, where it grows on hot, dry sites on flats, mesas, bajadas, and gentle slopes. It is the diagnostic species of the Joshua tree woodland alliance, which occurs within Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub.

Joshua tree establishes from seeds, and some individuals spread vegetatively by rhizomes and resprout from the root crown after topkill. Most Joshua tree plants begin flowering and producing fruit when they reach 2 to 3 m tall. In most years, some Joshua tree individuals in a population bloom, but rarely do most plants bloom in the same year. Fruit production is dependent on Joshua tree’s obligate pollinator moths. Seeds are primarily dispersed by seed-caching rodents. Seeds persist in a short-term soil seed bank but are vulnerable to granivorous rodents and ants. Recruitment is limited by germination and seedling establishment and is characterized by episodic peaks. Seedling establishment is largely dependent on favorable climatic and site conditions, including relatively wet winters, presence of nurse plants, and protection from herbivores.

Joshua tree is often top-killed by fire. Typically, some burned plants resprout from the root crown, rhizomes, or branches after fire. Rates of resprouting vary, but generally average between 7% and 34%. Joshua trees are vulnerable to further postfire mortality due to additional stressors including herbivory, toppling, and drought. Seedling establishment may be limited in the postfire environment, especially when cover of mature Joshua trees (i.e., seed sources) and nurse plants (i.e., establishment sites) are reduced.

Historically, Joshua tree communities did not have enough fine fuel to carry fire in most years. Patches of vegetation were separated by large areas of bare ground, and cover of annual and perennial herbs was sparse and discontinuous, except after one or more relatively wet years. Fuel and fire regime characteristics in contemporary Mojave Desert scrub communities have likely shifted outside the range of historical variation, primarily due to the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive annual grasses. Nonnative invasive annual grasses have fueled many wildfires in Joshua tree communities over the last several decades. These fires pose a serious threat to Joshua tree persistence and may lead to vegetation type conversions—from desert scrub or Joshua tree woodland to nonnative annual grasslands or other ruderal plant communities, especially on frequently or severely burned sites.

Climate models predict that the Mojave Desert may become warmer and drier over the next century. Joshua tree habitat is predicted to decline up to 90% by 2070–2099. Although new suitable habitat may occur to the north and east of its current distribution and at higher elevations, climate changes are likely to occur faster than Joshua tree can disperse to new suitable habitat. Warmer temperatures may increase Joshua tree flowering and fruit production. However, periods of drought may limit Joshua tree seedling establishment. Climate variability and change may benefit nonnative invasive plant species that interfere with Joshua tree persistence.

Taxonomy

In this Species Review, Joshua tree is treated as two species: western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia Engelmann) and eastern Joshua tree (Yucca jaegeriana McKelvey) (Asparagaceae), based on taxonomic authorities [69,70], and botanical management resources [21,120,163]. These sources recognize them as separate species based on genetic [134] and morphological [105] studies, as well as the identification of different obligate pollinator moth species for each [56,124]. The broader common name, Joshua tree, will be used when information describes both species.

As of 2025, there is not a scientific consensus regarding Joshua tree taxonomy. Some taxonomic authorities still recognize Joshua tree as two varieties of Yucca brevifolia rather than separate species (see Synonyms).

Hybridization between western and eastern Joshua trees occurs in Tikaboo Valley, Nevada—the only place where the ranges of the two species are known to overlap [133] (see General Distribution). Gene flow occurs primarily from eastern Joshua tree to western Joshua tree (i.e., western Joshua tree produces hybrid seeds, but eastern Joshua tree generally does not) due to behavioral and morphological differences of the two moth species that Joshua trees depend on for pollination [151]. For more information on this and related topics, see Breeding System and Pollination and the following sources: [44,142,151,193].

Single Joshua tree in the foreground of a desert scrub community, with several Joshua trees in the background, scattered small shrubs throughout, and a rock formation in the background.
Photo Credit
National Park Service photo by Paul Martinez.

Figure 1—Western Joshua tree in Joshua Tree National Park. National Park Service photo.

Common names are used throughout this Species Review. See the Appendix for scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in this review.

Joshua tree is the focus of several in-depth literature reviews, two of which are cited extensively throughout this review: [21,167].

Synonyms

For western Joshua tree:

  • Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia Engelmann [58,82,85,165]
  • Yucca brevifolia var. herbertii (J. M. Webber) Munz [179]

For eastern Joshua tree:

  • Yucca brevifolia var. jaegeriana McKelvey [58,82,85,165]

Other Common Names

Joshua tree, hunuvat chiy’a, humwichawa

General Distribution

Joshua tree is endemic to the United States [11,120] and is sometimes considered endemic to the Mojave Desert [131,161,169]. However, Mojave Desert boundaries—with the Great Basin Desert in the north and the Sonoran Desert in the south—are influenced by changes in climate and geology and are transitional in nature. Thus, Joshua tree’s distribution extends into the Great Basin Desert at its northern extent [120,160] and into the Sonoran Desert at its southeastern extent [42,190].

Map of southeastern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona, showing the distribution of western Joshua tree, eastern Joshua tree, and known hybrid populations.
Photo Credit
Map created by Tony McKinney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Field Office.

Figure 2—Distribution of western Joshua tree (YUBR), eastern Joshua tree (YUJA), and known hybrid populations.

Western Joshua tree occurs on 1,788,371 ha in California and Nevada, and eastern Joshua tree occurs on 1,987,636 ha in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. The two species cooccur and hybridize on approximately 49,048 ha in Tikaboo Valley in southern Nevada [167]. Rowlands (1978) suggests there may be additional hybrid populations on the Nevada Test and Training Range [133], which has restricted access for biologists but contains suitable habitat for both species [56]. Western Joshua tree populations that exhibit clonal growth occur in a narrow band in southwestern California in an area that includes the Tehachapi, Sierra Pelona, and San Bernardino Mountains, the southern Sierra Nevada, and the Antelope Valley, and possibly elevational extremes in Joshua Tree National Park [26,67,141,172,179] (i.e., a narrow, generally high-elevation band at the southwestern edge of “YUBR South” in fig. 2). The current extents of western and eastern Joshua trees may be a result of biotic factors (e.g., pollinator distribution) rather than abiotic factors (e.g., temperature or precipitation) [56,63].

Planted Joshua trees can survive outside of their range in parts of Utah [182] and Colorado [101], although self-sustaining populations are unlikely to establish because their obligate pollinator moths do not disperse long distances from existing populations (see Pollination).

States

  • Western Joshua tree: CA, NV [69,120]
  • Eastern Joshua tree: AZ, CA, NV, UT [70,120]

Site Characteristics

Joshua trees grow on hot, dry sites on flats, mesas, bajadas, and gentle slopes in the Mojave Desert and surrounding transitional areas [11,48,83,90,119] (see General Distribution). They grow on well-drained, relatively coarse-textured soils [72,101]. Soil textures are often loamy or sandy [25] with a large percentage of gravel [31,72,161,179]. Soils may have high [31,161] or low [72] moisture-holding capacity and are often derived from granitic parent materials, typically of alluvial origin [72]. Fine-grained soils, such as those characteristic of basin floors, may preclude establishment. In Nevada, Joshua trees appear to be limited at their lowest extent by fine-grained soils on basin floors and limited at their highest extent by low temperatures [31]. Soils with relatively higher coarse fragment volume (i.e., the volume of the soil comprised of fragments >2 mm), may also inhibit Joshua tree establishment and growth [23].

Joshua trees grow in areas with hot summers and cold winters. Although one author suggests their distribution is restricted by lethal low-temperature events [50], most authors indicate that they are restricted to areas with cold winter temperatures [161] for optimal growth [184] and/or flowering [135]. Leaves collected from western Joshua trees in Joshua Tree National Park tolerated temperatures as low as -11 °C [145], and plants survived temperatures of -25 °C [104]. The lowest temperatures recorded in Utah over 3 years in eastern Joshua tree-blackbrush communities ranged from -15.3 °C to -13.6 °C [25]. Its minimum temperature tolerance may be an important factor in determining its upper elevational limit [145]. Western Joshua tree leaves tolerated temperatures as high as 59 °C [145], and plants survived temperatures of 51 °C [104]. Over 3 years in eastern Joshua tree-blackbrush communities in Utah, high temperatures exceeded 38 °C between 31 and 41 days each year. High temperatures exceeded 40.5 °C between 8 and 15 days each year. In the hottest year, high temperatures exceeded 43.5 °C on 2 days [25].

Joshua trees grow in arid climates with winter-dominated, bimodal precipitation patterns characterized by limited and highly variable precipitation. Most precipitation occurs in the winter [131], and remaining precipitation primarily occurs from localized, high-intensity thunderstorms during late summer monsoons [25], with relatively more precipitation in summer within the range of eastern Joshua trees [133]. Annual precipitation generally ranges from 80 mm in dry years to 360 mm in El Niño years, and droughts are typical from May to July [78].

Precipitation and temperature patterns differ between the ranges of western and eastern Joshua trees in ways that influence their potential and actual distribution. Generally, western Joshua trees receive a greater relative amount of winter precipitation, while eastern Joshua trees receive precipitation in a more evenly distributed bimodal pattern, with precipitation peaks in the winter and summer [56,133]. Summer rain accounts for approximately 21% of annual precipitation within the distribution of western Joshua trees and 33% within the distribution of eastern Joshua trees [21,167] (table 1). Western Joshua trees grow in slightly cooler areas than eastern Joshua trees. In California, maximum, minimum, and median temperatures were slightly lower in the range of western Joshua trees compared to those in the range of eastern Joshua trees [167] (table 2). Within western Joshua tree’s distribution, precipitation is higher (averaging 350 to 410 mm [179]) in the narrow band in southwestern California in which the clonal growth form occurs, than in other parts of the species’ range [172]. Both species have a similar profile of annual aridity, apparently because the range of eastern Joshua trees has more evenly distributed precipitation, despite higher temperatures and greater temperature variability. However, modeling that includes factors beyond temperature and precipitation (e.g., wind velocity and thermal radiation) indicates that eastern Joshua trees have a greater overall climatic moisture deficit than western Joshua trees in parts of its range [56].

Table 1—Medians and extremes of mean annual precipitation (MAP) and mean summer (May–September) precipitation (MSP) in centimeters, across the distribution of western and eastern Joshua tree. Table adapted from the Species Status Assessment Report for Joshua Trees (2023) [167].
VariableWestern Joshua treeEastern Joshua tree
MAP Min11.911.8
MAP Median17.523.0
MAP Max42.142.9
MSP Min1.13.1
MSP Median3.77.5
MSP Max9.414.8
Table 2—Summer and winter temperature medians and extremes (°C) across the distribution of western and eastern Joshua tree over 30 years (1991–2020). MWMT: mean temperature of the warmest month; EXT: maximum temperature recorded; MCMT: mean temperature of the coldest month; EMT: minimum temperature recorded. Table adapted from the Species Status Assessment Report for Joshua Trees (2023) [167].
VariableWestern Joshua treeEastern Joshua tree
Summer MWMT Min20.822.2
Summer MWMT Median26.329.7
Summer MWMT Max30.733.3
Summer EXT Min38.339.2
Summer EXT Median43.645.8
Summer EXT Max49.149.3
Winter MCMT Min-0.71.3
Winter MCMT Median5.67.2
Winter MCMT Max8.910.8
Winter EMT Min-30.0-27.5
Winter EMT Median-16.0-11.9
Winter EMT Max-5.6-6.1

Soil temperatures appear to impact belowground growth. When grown in a greenhouse for 90 days, Joshua trees grew 1.57 grams of dry root weight/plant when soil was maintained at 21 °C, whereas plants grew 0.56 and 0.95 grams of dry root weight/plant when soils were maintained at 16 °C and 28 °C, respectively [175]. Naturally occurring soil temperatures may be much higher. In an eastern Joshua tree-blackbrush community in southwestern Utah, soil temperature reached 46 °C at a depth of 5 cm [25].

Joshua trees occur at elevations ranging from 320 to 2,200 m (table 3). They occur at higher elevations in the northern part of their distribution due to a complex interaction of precipitation and evapotranspiration [133]. Aspect also affects Joshua tree distribution. For example, in blackbrush communities in Nevada, eastern Joshua trees generally occur between 1,280 and 1,830 m on north-facing slopes, although they can occur as low as 1,190 m. On south-facing slopes, eastern Joshua trees may be found up to 1,980 m [29].

Table 3—Elevational range of Joshua tree by area.
AreaElevational Range (m)
Southwest460–2,000 [179]
Intermountain West850–2,200 [48]
Arizona<1,100 [89]
California400–2,000 [11]; 600–1,800 [119]
California, high-elevation mountain ranges and Kelso Dunes in the eastern Mojave Desert320–510 [157]
Nevada1,100–2,100 [86]
Utah<1,100 [83]; 800–1,710 [182]

Plant Communities

Joshua tree is a diagnostic and very conspicuous, dominant species of the Joshua Tree Wooded Scrub Alliance (fig. 3), which occurs within the Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub Group [120]. The following description of this alliance is modified from NatureServe (2025) [120].

This alliance is characterized by an open or scattered emergent layer of Joshua trees. Joshua trees are typically distributed evenly and have ≥1% cover. The understory is most often shrub-dominated but may be dominated by perennial graminoids. Sonoran scrub oak, singleleaf pinyon, or juniper may be present with <1% cover. The shrub layer may be dominated by a wide variety of desert species, such as big sagebrush, blackbrush, creosotebush, Mexican bladdersage, Nevada jointfir, yellow rabbitbrush, or others. Where the understory is dominated by perennial graminoids, species including desert needlegrass, big galleta, James’ galleta, or Sandberg bluegrass may be dominant. Forb cover is mostly from seasonal annuals.

Joshua trees rarely provide the highest cover or density in communities where they occur [161], leading some to conclude that Joshua tree woodlands should not be considered a distinct community type. A study of vegetation dynamics of Joshua tree communities found that while Joshua trees grow in a variety of desert communities they rarely dominate cover or importance value, leading the author to conclude that the “so-called ‘Joshua tree woodland’ community type does not exist” [133]. However, a study of central Mojave Desert plant communities determined that Joshua trees are a “reasonably good indicator species” of the Joshua Tree Wooded Shrubland Alliance, despite a high degree of variation in the shrub and herbaceous understory [156]. Many management resources recognize a Joshua tree woodland community type [45,64,120,126,162]. Joshua trees may contribute over half of the total vegetation biomass in some communities [159].

A field of Joshua trees with a grassy understory in front of a rocky bluff.
Photo Credit
Photo by Brad Frick, all rights reserved.

Figure 3—A relatively dense stand of mostly mature western Joshua trees. Several unbranched, young Joshua trees are apparent. The understory is dominated by native bunchgrasses. Photo used with permission.

Joshua trees occur as a sparse emergent layer with <1% cover in many other Mojave Desert communities, including those dominated by big galleta, James’ galleta, black grama [110], blackbrush, creosotebush, Nevada jointfir, Mexican bladdersage, Utah juniper, white bursage [120], antelope bitterbrush, black sagebrush, spiny hopsage [72,126], and other Mojave Desert shrubs, grasses, and trees.

Botanical Description

This description covers characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Identification keys are available (e.g., [155]). Some keys treat western and eastern Joshua trees as varieties rather than species (e.g., [86,89,119,179]) (see Taxonomy).

Joshua tree’s distinctive and iconic form inspires poetic descriptions, from a “delight to the eye and a fascinating feature of the western landscape” [109] to “the most repulsive tree in the vegetable kingdom” [60] with branches that reach “weirdly heavenwards” [183]. It has been likened to “a misshapen pirate with belt boots hands and teeth stuck full of daggers” such that “a landscape filled with Joshua trees has a nightmare effect even in broad daylight: at the witching hour it can be almost infernal” [41]. More specifically, Joshua tree is an evergreen monocot adapted to dry habitats, and its morphology varies depending on species and site characteristics [105,141,167].

Aboveground Characteristics

Close-up of a Joshua tree inflorescence, with tightly packed, cream-colored flowers surrounded by spiky green leaves.
Photo Credit
National Park Service photo by Michael Faist.

Figure 4—Western Joshua tree in flower with tightly packed individual flowers along the peduncle. National Park Service photo.

Joshua tree is a tree-like succulent with dichotomous or pseudo-dichotomous branching [105]. Mature plants can have 50 to 200 branches [51]. Old leaves of both species are persistent and remain on the stem, reaching the ground when plants are young. As the plant matures, the trunk grows to 0.5 to 0.9 m in diameter with roughened bark [174], and old leaves fall from the trunk but remain along branches below new leaves.

Flowers are tightly packed on a ≈30-cm-long peduncle [44] (fig. 4). Joshua tree seeds are relatively large, flattened ovals [10] lacking wings [173], and they are enclosed in indehiscent pods (i.e., fruits) (fig. 5). Western and eastern Joshua trees differ in their vegetative and floral morphologies [164,167].

Western Joshua tree generally grows to 5 m to 12 m [86,179] or rarely to 15 m [11,48,119] tall. One specimen, reported by the New York Botanic Gardens in 1932, was apparently over 24 m in height with a circumference of nearly 3 m, although this individual was set on fire and destroyed [73]. Western Joshua tree first branches at 2 to 3 m above the ground, generally at first flowering [179]. Branching is not truly dichotomous [86], but rather is sympodial [167]. Leaves are typically 15 cm to 35 cm long [69,179]. Flowers are nearly spherical, with broadly egg-shaped, fleshy, cream-colored petals that are strongly curved inward and never fully expand. Ovaries are cone-shaped and expand from the base, and fruits are ovoid [105].

Two images, one showing a close-up of four, black Joshua tree seeds with a hole in one of them; the other showing a cluster of Joshua tree fruits at the end of a branch covered by spiky green leaves.
Photo Credit
Photo on left by Ashley Miller, with some rights reserved. Photo on right by Diane Etchison, iNaturalist, with some rights reserved.

Figure 5—Left: Joshua tree seeds. The top left seed was presumably damaged by yucca moth larvae (CC BY-NC 3.0 US). Right: A cluster of western Joshua tree fruits at the end of a branch (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Eastern Joshua tree typically grows to 3 to 6 m tall and first branches about 1 m above the ground [86,89,179]. Plants display true dichotomous branching when young [86] and initiate sympodial branching at first flowering [141]. Leaves are less than 22 cm long [70,179]. Flowers are narrowly bell-shaped, conspicuously swollen at the base, and somewhat constricted above. Their narrowly oblong petals are usually greenish and curved backward at the tips. Ovaries are narrowly egg-shaped, and fruits are ellipsoid [105].

Two images of the base of Joshua trees, both showing a widened base and one also showing fine roots emerging from the widened base, where the soil has been washed away.
Photo Credit
National Park Service photos by Rob Hannawacker.

Figure 6—Left: Exposed western Joshua tree roots, with roots originating from the bottom of the widened base. Right: Partially exposed base of a western Joshua tree. National Park Service photos.

Belowground Characteristics

Black and white image of a small Joshua tree showing the main stem roots and rhizomes.
Photo Credit
Photo from Webber (1953) [179].

Figure 7—Main stem, roots, and rhizomes of a western Joshua tree. Note that the main stem is located to the right and is dark against the dark background. 

Joshua trees have shallow, wide-spreading root systems [25,31,75,110]. The root system is laterally extensive for water uptake and plant stabilization [31]. Many long, tough, and cordlike roots [179] grow diagonally down and out in relatively straight lines [95], starting from inside the margin of the flat, distinctly lobed base of the plant [141,179] (fig. 6). The enlarged “elephant-foot-like” base of the trunk of mature trees [179] extends only about 0.3 m into the ground, suggesting Joshua trees are primarily supported by their roots. Joshua tree roots are capable of contracting along most of their length to pull the shoot farther down in the soil [121,141]. This helps anchor the plant, which likely has relatively high anchorage demands in the dry, shifting soils it typically occupies, due to its arborescent growth form and lack of a taproot [121]. In a blackbrush-eastern Joshua tree community, eastern Joshua tree roots were found in a soil pit dug 11 m from the nearest Joshua tree [25].

Rhizome production and clonal growth seem to be more common in western Joshua tree populations and populations at high elevations [141], which receive relatively more precipitation [133,179] (see Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration). Joshua tree rhizomes are 1 to 5 cm in diameter [133], unbranched, succulent, and covered with bud scales [141]. Rhizomes grow horizontally in the soil several centimeters to nearly a meter below the soil surface and may produce clonal aboveground stems about 1 m from the parent plant [133] (fig. 7). After producing aboveground stems, rhizomes become woody and hard, lose their bud scales, and may produce lateral branches [141,179]. The bark-like periderm on these mature rhizomes is thin, dense, and hard—unlike the corky periderm on aboveground stems. Rhizomes can be 3 m long or more. Rhizome diameter is greatest at the base of aboveground stems, and roots commonly occur along the entire rhizome length. In rocky substrates, irregular rhizome growth is common [141].

Joshua trees may also sprout from primary root axes [115] or from nodules formed slightly above the soil surface [179]. Nodules and sprouts apparently do not produce roots and rarely, if ever, reach the size expected of an adult Joshua tree [179] (fig. 8).

Person with a backpack and a clipboard examining a pair of Joshua trees emerging from the based of a long-dead, leafless Joshua tree trunk. The surroundings are a sparse, dry desert scrub community with little vegetation.
Photo Credit
Photo from Barrios et al. (2017) [14].

Figure 8—A dead western Joshua tree stem and adjacent resprouts 18 years after a fire on Edwards Air Force Base. Resprouts from the base, such as these, may be vulnerable to toppling along with the dead stem [81], because they share the same root system.

Raunkiaer Life Form

  • Phanerophyte [129]

Stand Structure

Joshua trees generally occur as a sparse to open emergent layer and as scattered individuals [120]. Across a 1,507,100-ha study area that included areas where it is not dominant, average density of western Joshua trees ranged from 4 to 7 individuals/ha [186]. In four studies that collectively surveyed 277 Joshua tree stands, density varied from about 4 to 450 individuals/ha (table 4) [53,133,147,153].

Table 4—Joshua tree stand density by species and location.
SpeciesLocationNumber of stands examinedHigh density (individuals/ha)Low density (individuals/ha)Average density (individuals/ha)Reference
Joshua treeThroughout range1030010100[147]
Eastern Joshua treeThroughout range1245010144[133]
Eastern Joshua treeArizona, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument50128437[53]
Eastern Joshua treeArizona and Nevada, Lake Mead National Recreation Area2084831[53]
Eastern Joshua treeCalifornia, Mojave National Preserve50252484[53]
Western Joshua treeThroughout range83001181[133]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Death Valley National Park50340462[53]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Joshua Tree National Park50112495[53]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Joshua Tree National Park2762533[153]

Population structure varies regionally. Populations outside of modeled climate refugia—especially those at the hot and dry southern and low-elevation extents of Joshua tree’s range—are generally comprised of mature individuals with limited recruitment [43,74]. For example, surveys in Joshua Tree National Park, at the trees' southern range limit, showed reduced seedling recruitment consistent with projected habitat losses [15,153]. In contrast, mature Joshua trees in the northern parts of its range are often surrounded by seedlings and saplings [43]. Where young Joshua trees are prevalent, they typically occur at the leading edges of established populations, and their abundance tapers off within a few hundred meters [56].

Joshua tree stand structure also varies locally. For example, at six sites in northern Los Angeles County, California, most western Joshua trees were 3 to 5 m tall, with fewer individuals in smaller size classes, indicating that even if mortality of young western Joshua trees is very low, there are not enough young individuals to replace older individuals [21]. Similarly, size-class data from three other California Joshua tree stands suggested that establishment had also declined in those areas, with more trees in the 2.5 to 3 m height class than in the smallest size classes [21]. In contrast, at a site in adjacent San Bernardino County, western Joshua trees showed a height-class distribution that would be expected for a sustainable or increasing population. Although relatively few Joshua trees were recorded in the smallest height class (0–0.5 m), possibly due to difficulties in detecting young plants or fewer establishment events in recent years, the largest number of individuals were in the 0.5 to 1 m height class (≈430 plants). Fewer than half as many individuals occurred in the 1 to 1.5 m and 1.5 to 2 m height classes (≈160–175 plants), and the number of individuals in taller height classes fluctuated at relatively low numbers (0–≈100 plants) up to 12.5 m. This suggests that there were enough young individuals to replace the oldest individuals and thus maintain the population size, despite higher mortality of young individuals [21]. Data from several National Park Service units in California and Nevada [53] and data aggregated from 11 sites in Kern County, California [21] also found stable levels of recruitment sufficient to maintain western Joshua tree populations in those areas. Similarly, 83% of western Joshua trees at a preserve near Red Rock Canyon State Park measured <1 m tall [21], indicating the population is stable or growing.

Stand structure differs between western and eastern Joshua tree populations. In populations of eastern Joshua trees, stands are generally contiguous with only small, scattered patches lacking eastern Joshua trees within the stand. In contrast, populations of western Joshua trees more commonly have gaps where western Joshua trees are not present, especially in the southwestern part of its range. This has been attributed in part to greater amounts of disturbance, such as human developments and fire, in western Joshua tree populations [56]. In the southwestern part of its range, western Joshua tree readily reproduces by rhizomes, forming dense clusters of clones (see Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration).

Joshua tree stand density is typically higher at cooler, higher sites; a combination of lower seed germination, lower seedling recruitment, and higher drought mortality contribute to lower stand densities on hotter sites. Across 10 sites throughout the ranges of both species, Joshua tree density increased as the average temperature of the warmest month decreased from about 39 to 22 °C [147], although density varies widely, so it may not be appropriate to extrapolate this pattern throughout its range [167]. Similarly, across 20 sites throughout the ranges of both species, Joshua tree density trended higher with increasing elevation. Density was highest at two of the three sites over 1,750 m elevation (300 and 450 individuals/ha) [133].

See the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Species Status Assessment Report for Joshua Trees [167] for a detailed review of regional population density, structure, and demographics.

Seasonal Development

Joshua trees generally flower from March through May (table 5). Seeds mature in July [5] and are dispersed by rodents during the next 3 to 6 months (see Seed Dispersal). In Clark County, Nevada, planted seeds germinated in cohorts when relatively high soil moisture was accompanied by warm soil temperatures, which occurred in April and September. Eleven percent and 14% of available seeds germinated, respectively. A third cohort also germinated in January but only comprised 1% of available seeds. Seedlings had the best likelihood of surviving their first year when they germinated in September [130].

Table 5—Flowering dates for Joshua tree by area.
AreaFlowering dates
Throughout rangeApril–May [48]
ArizonaMarch–May [89]
CaliforniaApril–May [11]; March–May [119]
California – high-elevation mountain ranges and Kelso Dunes in the eastern Mojave DesertApril–May [157]
NevadaApril–May [86]; March–May [174]
UtahApril–May [169]

About 80% of annual growth occurs from January through May [145].

Regeneration Processes

In many parts of its range, Joshua tree reproduces primarily from seed. On some sites, it reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes, which may be the predominant method of regeneration in those areas. It may resprout following top-kill or injury, but the degree of resprouting varies, and survival of resprouts may be low.

Recruitment is limited by high rates of seed predation and low rates of germination and seedling establishment, which largely occur in episodic peaks in response to favorable climatic and microhabitat conditions [55,130]. Within a population, some individuals flower in most years; however, mass flowering occurs infrequently [18,194]. Many seeds are damaged by obligate pollinator moth larvae [22] or eaten by granivorous rodents and ants [173,195]. Germination is constrained to a narrow set of conditions that may not occur every year, and seed germinability decreases relatively rapidly [130]. Establishment of seedlings is further limited by herbivory by jackrabbits [55] and sparse availability of nurse plants [106].

Breeding System and Pollination

Joshua tree has perfect flowers [5,125] and is an obligate insect-pollinated species. Self-pollination is unlikely because anthers develop about 2 days later than the stigma in a given flower [158], and Joshua tree’s pollinator moths have only been observed pollinating the youngest flowers, in which the anthers were not yet developed [44].

Sexual reproduction in Joshua tree is dependent on flower pollination by two yucca moth species, with each Joshua tree species having one obligate moth pollinator. The western Joshua tree moth pollinates western Joshua tree, and the eastern Joshua tree moth pollinates eastern Joshua tree. These moths actively pollinate Joshua tree flowers then oviposit eggs within flower ovaries. Upon hatching, the moth larvae feed on developing seeds (fig. 5, left). Distributions of the two moth species do not overlap [124], except in the hybrid zone in Tikaboo Valley [134,151]. The two moth species do not hybridize [143].

Observations of active yucca moth pollination are very limited in the literature, with only Trelease (1893) having described western Joshua tree moth pollination of western Joshua tree [158] and Cole et al. (2017) having described eastern Joshua tree moth pollination of eastern Joshua tree [44]. Females of both yucca moth species collect pollen, carry it to another flower, actively transfer pollen to the stigma, and then oviposit eggs into the style, ensuring the production of seeds, many of which their larvae will consume [22,144] (see Seed Production and Predation).

It is not clear how often yucca moths move between flowers of the same plant or between different plants. Trelease (1893) noted that western Joshua tree moths were slow to take flight and sailed to the ground not far from the plant when they did, apparently restricting cross-pollination to flowers on the same plant to some degree. He also noted there “must be” frequent flights between plants in quiet weather [158].

Morphological differences between pollinator moths help explain the unidirectional gene flow between western and eastern Joshua trees [44,71,124] (see Taxonomy). Gene flow occurs from eastern Joshua trees to western Joshua trees because eastern Joshua tree moths can successfully pollinate western Joshua trees—its nonhost plant—and have lower host fidelity, but western Joshua tree moths apparently cannot oviposit or pollinate eastern Joshua trees and primarily visit their host plant [151]. Eastern Joshua tree moths produce fewer larvae on nonhost plants than can be explained if larval emergence was proportional to visitation by adult moths, suggesting that eastern Joshua tree moths have lower fitness when they lay eggs in nonhost plants [142].

Yucca moths have relatively limited dispersal distances. When Mojave yucca moth, a related yucca moth that pollinates Mojave yucca, was introduced into a moth-free area, moths dispersed as far as 117 m [104]. Yucca moths moved pollen of Adam’s needle 6 m to 293 m (mean: 118 m) from the pollen source plant, although a second study reported that yucca moths moved Adam’s needle pollen less than 51 m [104]. Further research is needed to determine how far Joshua tree’s yucca moths may travel when pollinating or dispersing.

Although it has not been observed in Joshua tree plant-pollinator relationships, collapse of obligate mutualisms with pollinators is possible. An apparent local population collapse of pollinators of the closely related banana yucca led to the complete failure of fruit production of thousands of plants surveyed [107].

Seed Production and Predation

Estimates of years to maturity for Joshua tree vary widely. Many sources suggest maturity is based on height thresholds, which are determined by growth rates influenced by differences in water availability and other climate factors (see Plant Growth and Mortality). Joshua trees typically flower for the first time when they are about 2 m tall [141,153] to 3 m tall [158]. Because of their slow growth rate, Joshua tree individuals may be 30 years old [55] to 90 years old (Sulenski 1972, cited in [132]) before they reach these heights and flower for the first time. A cohort of 30-year-old Joshua trees in Yucca Valley, Nevada, had not yet flowered [55]. The oldest individuals in a California botanical garden were 36 to 40 years old and 0.6 to 2.4 m tall and had never flowered. However, the earliest record of flowering occurred in the same botanical garden; four Joshua trees flowered when they were 19 years old and 1.2 to 1.8 m tall [57].

Flowering and seed production by Joshua tree are irregular and vary widely from year to year [53,124,173,184]. Flowering branches can have up to 200 flowers [44] and about 900 flowers/plant [107]. Flowering occasionally occurs en masse [135]—in most years, at least some Joshua tree individuals bloom, but only rarely do most bloom in the same year [18]. Climate models indicate Joshua trees flower slightly more often as variability of annual precipitation increases [194]. Observations and models also suggest that warming may increase flowering in Joshua tree [147] (see Management Under a Changing Climate). However, higher temperatures are also negatively correlated with stand density, suggesting that warmer temperatures may limit seedling establishment and recruitment (see Seedling Establishment and Mortality) [147].

Several possible explanations for years of high seed production (i.e., masting) in Joshua tree populations have been put forth in the literature, although none have been fully investigated. Masting may be an adaptation for pollinator attraction [67], and/or an adaptation for seed predator satiation [22,53,173,194]. Masting may be stimulated by stress, cold winter temperatures [135], greater than average precipitation [30,107,109,194], and/or accumulation of sufficient resources to support masting [22,194].

Information is limited about how disturbance affects flower and fruit production in Joshua tree, although they are likely to decrease on an area basis on sites where reproductive individuals are killed. One study in Beaver Dam Wash in southwestern Utah, found that flower and fruit production did not differ among individual eastern Joshua tree plants in unburned and burned edge plots. Eastern Joshua trees produced an average of 862 flowers/plant and 92 fruits/plant in unburned plots and an average of 956 flowers/plant and 111 fruits/plant in burned edge plots. On an area basis, fruit and flower production were similar in unburned and burned edge plots, despite lower plant cover and density on burned edges. In the interior of the burn, plant cover was significantly lower than unburned areas, and no fruiting or flowering occurred [108], possibly because surviving individuals were more likely to be resprouts not yet old enough to reproduce.

Yucca moth larvae consume Joshua tree seeds in the fruits, before seeds disperse. In a population near the southern California coast, 7% of seeds were destroyed by larvae. Most fruits contained larvae (61%); the remaining contained no larvae, likely because moth eggs failed to hatch [91]. In the San Bernardino Mountains of California, proportionately more seeds were damaged by yucca moth larvae in a year with low seed production compared to a year with high seed production. In the year with high seed production, 66% of inflorescences produced fruit, and yucca moth larvae infested 47% of fruits where they destroyed 20% of seeds in infested fruits. In the following year with low seed production, 46% of inflorescences produced fruit, and yucca moth larvae infested 83% of fruits where they destroyed 43% of seeds in infested fruits [22].

Rodents, yucca moth larvae, and ants consume many—sometimes nearly all—Joshua tree seeds produced in a given year [130,173,184,195]. When seeds were planted in the Piute Valley of southern Nevada in caged and uncaged plots, about 52% of seeds were apparently removed by rodents [130] (see Seed Banking). Went (1957) indicates that rodents or moth larvae consume “well over” 99% of Joshua tree seeds; however, experiments or observations supporting this assertion are not provided [184]. White-tailed antelope squirrels are widely-distributed and “wasteful” seed predators. As squirrels gnaw into brittle, dried fruits in the canopy of Joshua trees, remains of broken fruits and many seeds fall to the ground [104], where they are available to ground-foraging rodents and granivorous ants.

Seed Dispersal

Small, cute rodent hanging out at the end of a Joshua tree branch, from which most of the fruits have been removed.
Photo Credit
Photo by Forrest English and courtesy of iNaturalist with some rights reserved (CC BY-NC 4.0 License).

Figure 9—A white-tailed antelope squirrel harvests Joshua tree fruits. Photo by Forrest English with some rights reserved (CC BY-NC 4.0 License).

Joshua tree seeds are almost entirely dispersed by seed-caching rodents, who gather and open the fruits to release the enclosed seeds [104,170]. Most of the seeds are cached and later eaten, but some small proportion germinates and establishes seedlings from cached locations. Seeds not harvested by a seed-caching rodent may have virtually no chance of establishing as a seedling [170].

Rodents, such as white-tailed antelope squirrels, pinyon mice, and Merriam’s kangaroo rats, cache large numbers of Joshua tree seeds, often depositing them in single-seed caches beneath shrubs [22] and sometimes depositing multiple seeds in the same cache [170]. Rodents open Joshua tree fruits in the canopy [195] (fig. 9) or carry fruits to the ground to open them [22,173]. Pinyon mice open fruits and remove seeds while in the canopy, but it is unclear if they also remove entire fruits, and their activity is likely restricted to smaller trees (<5 m tall) [22]. White-tailed antelope squirrels removed 80% of fruits in the canopy on sites in Paiute Valley, Nevada, and Ivanpah Valley, California, in 86 days and 50 days, respectively [173]. At Potosi Wash in the Spring Mountains, Nevada, rodents removed all Joshua tree seeds in 1 or 2 days when scientists placed seeds on the ground near adult eastern Joshua trees. When scientists buried seeds about 3 cm deep, rodents removed 82% of seeds in 2 months [170]. In a high seed production year in the San Bernardino Mountains, rodents removed 60% of fruits on the ground after 50 days, and 100% after 120 days. Number of canopy fruits steeply declined after 120 days, and none were detected after 190 days. In a low seed production year (about 100 times fewer seeds produced), 100% of fruits on the ground were removed after 6 days, and canopy fruits disappeared after 10 days [22].

Information on Joshua tree seed dispersal distances is limited. In the Antelope Valley, California, juvenile plants were found as far away as 151 m from potential parent plants, with most juvenile plants within 90 m of potential parent plants. In Lanfair Valley, California, juvenile plants were found as far away as 251 m from potential parent plants, with most juvenile plants within 150 m of potential parent plants [104]. In Nevada, rodents cached seeds an average of 30 m from parent plants, although many seeds were removed from their original cache and probably recached, likely farther from parent plants [170].

Wind dispersal of Joshua tree fruits and seeds is unlikely because wind speeds required to move them across the soil surface are higher than those typically observed in the Mojave Desert [173]. However, some sources suggest that the relatively light, fragile fruits may be blown and broken open by high winds, allowing seeds to spread [141,158]. Two or more seedlings established at a single site may be evidence that they germinated from seeds that had remained enclosed together in a wind-dispersed fruit [104]. However, seed-caching rodents often cache multiple seeds in the same cache [170], which could result in multiple plants germinating from a single site.

Some authors suggest that dispersal of seeds may have been historically facilitated by extinct megafauna—perhaps the Shasta ground sloth [43] or North American elephant species [104]. Others suggest that an obligate relationship with an extinct, non-climbing herbivore is unlikely [170].

Seed Banking

Joshua tree has a short-term persistent soil seed bank [4,130]. In a semi-irrigated botanic garden in Riverside, California, seeds first germinated 1 or 2 weeks after planting and germinated continuously for the next 2 to 3 years [179]. Germinability of intact eastern Joshua tree seeds (no cracking, flaking, or holes) decreased with increasing soil residence time over 40 months in desert scrub habitat. Seeds showed similar germination patterns regardless of microhabitat: under creosotebush canopies or in open microsites (table 6) [130].

Table 6—Seed germination rates (%) by soil residence time for seeds under creosotebush canopies or in open microhabitats. Table modified from Reynolds et al. (2012) [130].
Soil residence timeControlCreosotebush canopy microhabitatOpen microhabitat
0 months97.3NANA
12-13 monthsNA67.550.0
17 monthsNA6.323.3
23 monthsNA6.520.7
40 monthsNA3.22.5

Granivorous rodents drive changes to Joshua tree’s soil seed bank. They add and remove Joshua tree seeds from the soil seed bank by caching them (see Seed Dispersal) and consuming them (see Seed Production and Predation), respectively. In Piute Valley, Nevada, scientists planted Joshua tree seeds in caged plots inaccessible to rodents and in uncaged plots accessible to rodents to monitor seed fate. In caged plots, 78% of seeds persisted after 12 months in the soil, and 81% of seeds persisted after 40 months in the soil. In uncaged plots, 26% of seeds persisted after 12 months in the soil. Persistence of seeds in uncaged plots after 40 months was not reported. Uncaged plots likely experienced similar seed losses to decomposition in the soil as those in caged plots (≈22%). Therefore, the remaining 52% of seeds that were unaccounted for were assumed to have been removed by granivorous rodents [130]. At Potosi Wash in the Spring Mountains, Nevada, rodents removed all Joshua tree seeds in 1 or 2 days when scientists placed seeds on the ground near adult Joshua trees. When scientists buried seeds about 3 cm deep, rodents removed 82% of seeds in 2 months and either consumed seeds or buried them in secondary caches [170].

Joshua tree seeds in the soil seed bank may be killed by high temperatures sustained under shrubs during wildfires (see Immediate Fire Effects).

Germination

Joshua tree seeds require prolonged shallow soil moisture for germination, and they appear to germinate most readily after summer monsoons, when warm temperatures accompany elevated soil moisture [31,183]. When seeds were planted in four cohorts over 11 months, the greatest proportion of seeds germinated after rainstorms that increased soil moisture in the warm months of September (14%) and April (11%). The smallest proportion germinated after a rainstorm in the cooler month of January (1%), regardless of planting month (January, July, October, and November 2009). Precipitation from each of these rainstorms exceeded 29 mm and resulted in increased soil moisture for 5 to 13 days after the storms. Daily soil temperature ranged from 20.9 to 34.8 °C preceding September germination, 6.2 to 18.2 °C preceding April germination, and 2.7 to 8.9 °C preceding January germination [130]. In the study area, conditions favorable for germination—more than 29 mm precipitation in a single month accompanied by several days of high soil moisture—occurred in about 68% of summers, suggesting germination may not be as uncommon as expected based on low seedling detection in the field [130]. In Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua tree seed germination occurred in August and September, apparently after rain followed summer seed dispersal [183].

Joshua trees preferentially germinate in microhabitats under nurse plant canopies [170,173]. Nurse plants provide protection from herbivory and intense sunlight and moderate soil and air temperatures. Soil moisture, soil nitrogen [31], and soil phosphorus [25] also tend to be higher under nurse plants. However, competition for sunlight and summer soil moisture [130] from nurse plants may interfere with seedlings growing under them [31]. Western Joshua trees reached light saturation at approximately 25% of midday irradiation [145], so shading provided by nurse plants may not be a significant cost to seedlings. For seedlings of most desert species, higher soil moisture found below shrub canopies compensates for reduction in light (Callaway 1997, cited in [31]).

Joshua tree seeds germinate best at relatively high temperatures. Laboratory studies found high rates of germination (up to 100% in 1-5 days) at ≥20 °C [112,179,183], lower germination rates at 15 °C (24% in 8-10 days), and no germination at 10 °C [112].

Joshua tree seeds germinate readily under greenhouse conditions. Seed viability is often >90% without seed treatment [112,173,174], although germination rates may be much lower [10,53]. Germination rates decreased over time when stored in airtight glass jars on open shelves, from 98% 6 months after collection to 72% 18 months after collection [112]. Under warehouse storage conditions (no temperature or moisture control), seed viability decreased after 4 years, reaching 40% to 60% viability 5 years after collection. In sealed containers with moisture control, seed viability remained near or above 80% at three storage temperatures (-15 °C, 4 °C, or room temperature) for up to 10 years [88]. Because rodents quickly consume many seeds after maturation (see Seed Production and Predation), the window for germination in the field is limited [183].

Seedling Establishment and Mortality

Germination of Joshua tree seeds occurs readily under moist conditions and warm temperatures, but seedling establishment and recruitment require the alignment of favorable conditions for an extended period. Seedlings are most vulnerable to mortality for the first 3 to 5 years [174] and/or when they are <25 cm [55] or <1 m [49] tall. The presence of distinct cohorts of Joshua trees of similar ages suggests that successful seedling establishment only occurs a few times in a century [55].

Observations of Joshua tree seedling abundance in the field vary from many to few, but quantitative information is lacking. “Many” eastern Joshua tree seedlings grew at Cima Dome and the Mid Hills area in the eastern Mojave Desert [192]. In 4 years of fieldwork throughout the southwest, Webber (1953) observed “unlimited” Joshua tree seedlings, which were “plentiful” at higher elevations with relatively more rainfall, although very few seedlings were observed at lower elevations with less rainfall [179]. Although he did not specify the number of seedlings observed, Went (1948) remarked that in Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua tree seeds seemed to germinate whenever rain fell immediately after seeds were mature (and dispersed) [183]. In contrast, on the Nevada National Security Site, young Joshua tree seedlings were “relatively sparse” [174], and over a 20-year study at three sites researchers only observed two seedlings, neither of which survived more than 2 years [46].

Since about the 1990s and possibly earlier, Joshua tree establishment has been less than necessary to maintain population sizes in parts of the species’ range, such as in southern California. Height and size-class data suggest decreased establishment of western Joshua trees since at least the 1990s in southern California [21,186], and likely since the 1950s in Los Angeles County and southwestern Inyo County [21] (see Stand Structure). Difficulties in detecting very small and young Joshua trees, which may be concealed by nurse plants [104], may skew results of demographic data [21]. Although the USFWS has aggregated demographic data [167], no study has obtained range-wide demographic data on Joshua tree, so range-wide patterns are difficult to discern and verify [194].

Seedling growth rates vary with age and are likely impacted by weather variation and resource availability. In Joshua Tree National Park, young, unbranched plants grew at an average rate of 7.6 cm/year for the first 10 years and an average of 3.8 cm/year thereafter [93]. Yucca seedlings grown from seed rapidly produced their first few leaves, then produced, on average, less than one new leaf every 2 months. Leaf size increased as leaf production rate decreased. Four Joshua tree seedlings had three to five leaves when they were nearly 6 months old [10]. In southern Nevada, 1-month-old seedlings averaged 3.5 cm in height (max: 6.9 cm), and generally consisted of a single cotyledon (73%) and occasionally one (27%) or two (<1%) primary leaves. One-year-old seedlings averaged 4.0 cm in height (max: 7.7 cm), with one (35%), two (49%), three (12%), or four (4%) leaves. Two-year-old seedlings averaged 6.4 cm in height (max: 10.2 cm) and had no more than four leaves, with some senescence of the cotyledon and earlier leaves apparent. Basal stem diameter of 2-year-old plants averaged 3.3 cm (min: 1.3 cm, max: 5.7 cm) [130]. In southern Nevada, growth was nearly undetectable in 3 of 4 years for a cohort of Joshua tree seedlings that were 32 cm tall (n = 23), and in 1 year, they grew 1.2 cm (±2.6 cm) on average [80].

Cold periods may improve seedling growth. Seedlings (3.5 years old) kept at 4 °C for 2 months had no new growth during the cold period but produced twice as many new leaves after the cold treatment as seedlings kept at warmer temperatures. When plants were 6 years old, individuals kept at warm temperatures (23–30 °C) produced 1 leaf/month, while plants kept at cool temperatures (4–10 °C) for 6 to 12 months produced 5 leaves/month after the cold period. Individuals kept at warm temperatures produced relatively short, downward-turned leaves, while individuals exposed to cold temperatures grew leaves that were twice as long and stood straight up [184,185].

Short day lengths result in more optimal seedling growth than long day lengths, suggesting higher growth rates in winter. After 1 year, Joshua tree seedlings grown from seeds collected in Arizona had the greatest number of leaves (15.1 leaves) and longest total leaf length (228.8 cm/plant) under the shortest simulated day length (10 hours light/14 hours dark). Seedlings grown under the longest simulated day length (16 hours light/8 hours dark) produced the fewest leaves (9.5 leaves) and shortest total leaf length (156.3 cm/plant). See McCleary (1973) [112] for complete results for other photoperiods.

Joshua tree seedlings are more likely to grow under nurse plants than in the open. Of 277 Joshua tree seedlings in the Sheep and Spring Mountain Ranges, nearly 93% grew under the canopy of a nurse plant. Joshua tree seedlings occurred more often than random under blackbrush, white bursage, littleleaf ratany, and spiny hopsage [31]. At Yucca Flat, Nevada, more young Joshua trees survived under nurse plant canopies (10 different species) than along the drip line or in interspaces, apparently due primarily to protection from herbivory [55]. In contrast, nurse plants increased the odds of Joshua tree seed germination but not seedling establishment near Searchlight, Nevada. Nurse plants (creosotebush) had no effect on establishment of September-emerging and January-emerging cohorts; however, an April-emerging cohort had lower survival rates under nurse plants than in the open, perhaps due to summer competition for soil moisture before seedlings could grow a more substantial root system [130].

Insufficient rainfall and herbivory constrain Joshua tree seedling establishment [174,179]. In southern Nevada, jackrabbits and possibly small rodents consumed 100 young plants of multiple species, including Joshua trees, within 2 weeks [174]. Black-tailed jackrabbits pull off the leaves and eat the growing tips of young Joshua trees [104], and they may consume postfire resprouts at high rates, particularly where they are adjacent to unburned habitat [148] (see Plant Response to Fire). Black-tailed jackrabbits consumed 62% (33 of 53) of 5- to 7-year-old plants over the course of 15 months at Yucca Flat, Nevada, a period of low precipitation [55]. Pocket gophers, white-tailed antelope squirrels, and woodrats also damage pre-reproductive Joshua trees, especially during drought years [55].

Plant Growth and Mortality

Joshua trees are long-lived and slow growing [46,62]. Based on an eastern Joshua tree population at Lytle Preserve in Utah, researchers predicted that 50% of individuals would survive 89 years, and 5% would survive 383 years. A more conservative estimate based on linear growth models indicated that the maximum age in that population was 138 years [62]. Bowers (1993) suggests that old individuals may live 200 years or more [24], and other estimates of maximum lifespan suggest that large individuals may live 600 to 800 years. The estimated age of the largest known Joshua tree was 1,000 years or more [87,179]. Many estimates of very old maximum ages stem from a few early resources and are difficult to verify. Joshua trees experienced a time of intensive use and vandalism in the early 1900s [179], which may have disproportionately affected old and large individuals and included the destruction of the largest known Joshua tree [73].

Because Joshua trees are monocots, they lack growth rings and are difficult to age [46,62,141]. Although Wallace (1972) indicates that Joshua trees have annual growth rings because of their “peculiar” cambium layer [174], no other sources support this observation. Age is sometimes estimated by height and growth rates or by sets of leaves produced annually. Two 21-year-old, minimally irrigated, unbranched western Joshua trees at a nursery in Riverside, California, stood 109 and 141 cm tall, with respective mean growth rates of 5.2 and 6.74 cm/year [179]. At a southern California botanical garden, the fastest growing cohort of eastern Joshua trees had reached up to 2.1 m tall at 6 to 10 years, while another cohort reached 2.4 m to 3.7 m tall at 20 years [57].

Growth rates vary among locations (table 7) and are positively associated with precipitation [55]. On the Nevada National Security Site, western Joshua trees produced about three sets of six leaves annually, on average. Plants produced six to eight sets of leaves in a particularly wet year and fewer than three sets of leaves in dry years [174]. Based on average leaf production, large Joshua trees at the Nevada National Security Site may be 200 years old [135].

Table 7—Growth rates of eastern and western Joshua trees by location.
SpeciesLocationMean growth rate (cm/year)Reference
Eastern Joshua treeCalifornia, Kelso4.1[46]
Eastern Joshua treeUtah, southwestern 3.75[62]
Eastern Joshua treeNursery—Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden12.0–18.5[57]
Eastern Joshua treeNursery—Riverside, California11.74; min = 8.12; max = 16.25[179]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Joshua Tree National Park10.0–15.0 first year; 2.5 thereafter[5]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Joshua Tree National Park7.6 first 10 years; 3.8 thereafter[93]
Western Joshua treeCalifornia, Victorville5.3[46]
Western Joshua treeNevada, Nevada National Security Site 1.5[174]
Western Joshua treeNevada, Yucca Flat 3.1[46]
Western Joshua tree (juvenile)Nevada, Yucca Flat 3.12[55]
Western Joshua treeNursery—Riverside, California6.64; min = 5.22; max = 8.12[179]

Western and eastern Joshua trees exhibit different branching patterns. Western Joshua trees first branch after flowering or after injury by wind or insects. Flowering or injury kills the growing point, and plants respond by branching below the inflorescence or injury [24], where two or three buds typically develop into new branches. As few as one or as many as five branches may develop [141]. In contrast, young eastern Joshua trees display true dichotomous branching and branch before first flowering [86], typically beginning when the plant is <1 m tall. Sympodial branching is initiated when plants first flower, at which time they display the same growth habit as western Joshua trees after first flowering [141].

Adult Joshua trees have relatively low mortality rates. Seedlings have relatively high mortality rates, with larger unbranched individuals having a middling mortality rate [46]. Joshua trees are drought tolerant [77] but may be susceptible to mortality during extended drought. Pocket gophers chew into and hollow out stems in dry years, which may kill Joshua trees outright or weaken their stems and cause them to topple [49]. Adult Joshua trees may topple after fire if trunks and roots are weakened [80].

Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration

Western and eastern Joshua trees can reproduce asexually by rhizomes, branch sprouts, and/or basal sprouts [95,141,179]. Vegetative reproduction by rhizomes is more pronounced in western Joshua trees than eastern Joshua trees, and vegetative reproduction by any means (i.e., basal sprouting, branch sprouting, or rhizome growth) occurs more frequently in both species at elevational extremes [67], especially at high elevations [51,133,141]. Basal buds may not develop into distinct rhizomes and instead grow new stems adjacent to the main stem as sprouts [141]. Vegetative regeneration may be stimulated by stem damage or stress [179].

Both western and eastern Joshua trees reproduce vegetatively via cloning, especially at elevational extremes. Cold temperatures, high winds, and abundant snowfall at high-elevation sites, and drought stress at low elevations may restrict seedling establishment and aboveground development and stimulate belowground development [67,133,141]. In Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua trees reproduced almost exclusively by cloning at both extreme high and low elevations, where both seed production and seedling establishment were limited. Although western Joshua trees flowered at both extremes, no pollinating moths, fruit development, or viable seeds occurred at either extreme [67]. However, a broad overview about Joshua trees indicates that clonal growth may be less common in low-elevation dry areas than cooler, higher elevation areas; in low-elevation areas Joshua trees typically had one or two stems, while in higher, moister areas, two to three stems were more common, and some clumps (i.e., clonal individuals) were found [179].

Western Joshua tree populations in a relatively high-elevation band in southwestern California may exhibit extensive rhizome growth and a clonal form [26,179]. Plants with this growth form were once classified as a variety of Joshua tree [179] but are now recognized as a clonal growth form of western Joshua tree [82]. This clonal growth form appears to be most common, or perhaps exclusive to, western Joshua tree populations in the southwestern part of the species’ range (parts of “YUBR South” in fig. 2) [119], where precipitation averages are higher than in other parts of its range [179] (see Site Characteristics). Clones can be dense in some areas [179] and are typically shorter and have less branching than single-stemmed trees [141]. At the extreme northwestern end of the Sierra Pelona Mountains, for example, western Joshua trees form dense "impenetrable thickets," where even the largest individuals have relatively few branches, but clonal stems grow close together [26]. A single clone along Gorman Creek, California, in an area with high levels of winter snowfall occupied approximately 0.4 ha and was comprised of several hundred stems [141]. From the southern and western slopes of Tehachapi Mountains to at least Monolith, California, some western Joshua trees occur in clumps nearly 8 m in diameter, with 30 to 40 stems [179]. Fire has been suggested as an influential factor in the evolution of Joshua tree's clonal growth form [141,172], as fire may have been more frequent in the area where it is most common than in other parts of the species’ distribution because this area is prone to lightning strikes and receives relatively more precipitation [172] (see Fire Regimes).

Western and eastern Joshua trees resprout in response to injury or stress. It is common for dormant buds beneath the periderm to grow when old stems are bent or injured [141], such as by fire (see Plant Response to Fire). In Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua trees resprouted in response to drought stress. Resprouting individuals had higher survival rates than non-resprouting individuals at some low-elevation sites [49].

Successional Status

Disturbances that initiate secondary succession were historically rare to infrequent in most desert ecosystems, including those in Joshua tree communities, but included wildfire and debris flows [100] (see Fire Regimes). In contemporary communities, disturbances from human developments (e.g., roads, agricultural fields, and military targets) also initiate secondary succession in Joshua tree communities. Joshua tree is slow to return following any type of severe stand disturbance [3,40,49,177,180], requiring extended periods to regain predisturbance abundance [3]. Western Joshua trees with clonal growth forms (see Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration) may recover more rapidly. Joshua trees appear to be better able to recolonize by seedling establishment after disturbance in the northern portion of their range, where conditions are cooler and moister than in the southern part of its range [43].

Secondary succession proceeds very slowly in deserts [8], with changes occurring over a much longer period than in more mesic environments and more temperate regions [3], making patterns more difficult to discern and generalize. Native plant communities may require decades to centuries to reach predisturbance plant cover, community structure, species diversity, and species composition, or may transition to an alternative stable state. Many dominant species have infrequent and sporadic reproduction that depends on large-scale climatic patterns. For example, Joshua tree seedling establishment depends on the alignment of multiple factors (see Seedling Establishment and Mortality), which can prolong population recovery after disturbance [4].

Joshua tree stands are generally late-successional in nature, changing very slowly in the absence of disturbance (e.g., [46]). Because disturbances were historically rare and succession slow, the dynamics and underlying mechanisms of succession in Joshua tree communities are not well described. With the presence of nonnative invasive plants and changing climatic conditions, recovery to predisturbance community structure and composition may not be possible after stand-replacing disturbances in many contemporary desert communities, including Joshua tree communities [3] (see Management Under a Changing Climate).

Joshua trees are not likely to establish in early succession following stand-replacing disturbance, in part because of the lack of nurse plants. Although adult Joshua trees dominate late successional plant communities in full sun, Joshua tree seedlings and young plants require protection from herbivory and extreme temperatures, which is typically provided by a nurse plant [130]. While ruderal native shrubs may quickly establish cover after disturbance, Joshua trees generally require densely branched, low-lying perennial shrubs as nurse plants. Blackbrush is among the most important nurse plants for Joshua trees [31], but it is killed by fire, and blackbrush communities may take hundreds of years to recover compositionally after fire [4] or debris flows [42,178]. However, in at least one instance, blackbrush reestablished on a burned site within about 10 years after fire, allowing western Joshua trees to establish 12 to 15 years after fire [106].

Joshua trees are often killed or top-killed by fire, and postfire resprouting may be limited. Joshua tree woodlands are often replaced by short-lived, pioneer shrublands after fire. At low elevations these shrublands are dominated by species such as white brittlebush; at intermediate elevations by burrobrush, threadleaf snakeweed, Virgin River brittlebush, Mexican bladdersage, and rayless goldenhead; and above 1,400 m by Mexican bladdersage, burrobrush, big galleta, and desert needlegrass [115].

Joshua trees may recolonize some sites severely disturbed by agriculture and other anthropogenic disturbances but may fail to recolonize others. On plowed fields about 50 km northwest of Needles, California, that were abandoned for 70 years, most sites had 0.5 eastern Joshua trees/ha or less, although one disturbed site had similar average density as undisturbed sites (75 Joshua trees/ha), and another site had about 15 Joshua trees/ha [40]. No eastern Joshua trees grew on roads abandoned for 33 years in the ghost town of Wahmonie, Nevada, but they occurred at a density of 2 individuals/ha in the surrounding, less-disturbed area [181].

Immediate Fire Effects

A stand of Joshua trees burned by a wildfire, with a large, blackened Joshua tree fallen in the foreground.
Photo Credit
Photo by Michael E. Gordon and used with permission. All rights reserved.

Figure 10—A fallen Joshua tree burned in August 2020 in the Dome Fire at Cima Dome. Joshua trees in the background are still standing, but most Joshua trees burned in the Dome Fire were fully scorched and were unlikely to survive [20]. At the time of this writing (2025), research was underway to assess fire effects of the Dome Fire. Photo used with permission.

Joshua trees are often killed or top-killed by fire [64,106,148] (fig. 10), and stand mortality is often high (>70%) [49,148] or very high (≥90%) [6,64,77,115]. Eastern Joshua trees may be killed at higher rates than western Joshua trees because eastern Joshua trees branch closer to the ground and have denser crowns than western Joshua trees and may be more susceptible to crown fires and higher postfire mortality as a result [47]. Mortality and survival of both species likely depend on plant age and size and degree of injury (e.g., scorching). Fire injury is related to fire intensity, which is related to prefire vegetation composition (i.e., fuels) and fire weather. Fire effects and postfire response can vary widely, even within the same burn (see Plant Response to Fire).

Persistent, dead leaves along the trunks of Joshua trees can allow flames from surface fires to spread into their crowns [115], which often kills them [51]. Young Joshua trees are more likely to be killed by fire than older plants. Young plants retain dead lower leaves along their trunk to the ground, whereas older plants shed their lowest dead leaves, allowing the exposed bark to serve as a firebreak between fine fuels on the ground and the plant’s crown [49,172]. Data from a wildfire in Joshua Tree National Park in 1999 showed that western Joshua trees with >30% of their aboveground tissue scorched had <30% likelihood of survival, whereas individuals with <30% scorching had ≥50% likelihood of survival [49]. 

Surviving Joshua trees may resprout from the root crown [23], rhizomes [154], or canopy [106]. Underground portions of plants that may produce sprouts are apparently more likely to survive relatively low intensity fires [115] or fires that burn when soil is relatively moist [172].

Information is limited regarding fire effects on Joshua tree soil seed banks; however, one laboratory study and one field study suggest that seeds in the soil seed bank are likely killed by high temperatures sustained under shrubs during wildfires but may survive in interspaces or if buried [35,92]. In the laboratory experiment, seeds exposed to heat treatments (selected to represent a range of soil temperatures likely to occur during a wildfire) generally had lower germination rates than controls. However, seeds exposed to the lowest temperatures and shortest durations had germination rates similar to controls or higher (table 8) [92]. In a creosotebush shrubland, where fire temperatures may be similar to those reached in some Joshua tree woodlands, lethal temperature thresholds were often reached under shrub canopies and drip lines, but not in interspaces. Seeds were exposed to average maximum fire temperatures of 135 °C on the soil surface and 87 °C at 2 cm deep under the canopy, compared to 66 °C on the soil surface and 49 °C at 2 cm deep under shrub drip lines [35].

Table 8—Joshua tree seed germination rates under laboratory conditions following heat treatments of varied temperature and duration of exposure. Table modified from Keeley and Meyers (1985) [92].
Exposure durationControl2 hours2 hours5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes5 minutes
Temperature (°C)5/23809090100110120
Sample size (# seeds)180901809090180180
Germination (%)616009357260

Postfire Regeneration Strategy

  • Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
  • Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources) [152]

Fire Adaptations

Joshua tree is generally not considered well-adapted to survive fire and regenerate in the postfire environment [74,99,139,144,148]. However, large, mature Joshua trees may survive low-intensity fire under some conditions because 1) bark is fire-resistant, 2) dead leaves near the base are shed (fig. 11), 3) growing points (i.e., apical meristems) are protected by a sheath of thick green leaves high above surface fuels, and 4) rhizomes are located a few inches to several feet below the soil surface [81,123,141,154] where they are well protected from heat during fire [64]. Small, young Joshua trees, on the other hand, lack fire-resistant bark and have persistent dead leaves along their stems that reach the ground (fig. 11), resulting in continuity of fuels between the surface and the crown, which makes them more vulnerable to scorching and fatal heat exposure during fire [49]. Mature eastern Joshua trees have branches closer to the ground and denser crowns than western Joshua trees and may be more susceptible to crown fires and higher postfire mortality as a result [47].

Two images, one image showing Joshua tree branches covered with dead, brown leaves along the length, with large clusters of green leaves emerging at the ends; the other image shows an older Joshua tree trunk with no leaves and covered with bark.
Photo Credit
Left photo by Gerald Holmes, Strawberry Center, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Bugwood.org. Right photo by Virginia Tech Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation.

Figure 11—Left: Green leaves and sheath of dead leaves along a Joshua tree branch. Photo by Gerald Holmes, with some rights reserved (CC BY-NC 3.0). Right: Bark exposed when dead leaves are shed from relatively old Joshua tree trunks. Photo by Virginia Tech with some rights reserved.

Joshua tree seedlings may establish on burned sites from on- or off-site seed sources [123] after nurse plants have reestablished [106]. On-site seed sources may include seeds that survive in plant canopies or soil seed banks and seeds produced by resprouting branches (fig. 12), if yucca moths are present [106,115]. Seedlings may also establish from off-site seed sources [123], although this is likely limited by the distance of rodent caches from parent trees (typically <30 m) [170,173] (see Postfire Seedling Establishment).

A mostly denuded Joshua tree trunk, with a cluster of branches sprouting about midway up the trunk.
Photo Credit
U.S. Air Force photo from Barrios et al. (2017) [14].

Figure 12—A burned Joshua tree sprouting from its trunk. 

Joshua trees that are damaged or top-killed by fire may resprout from root crowns, rhizomes, or branches to varying degrees [4,49,81,106,115,123]. Resprouting from branches or from a point high on the trunk after fire is apparently a relatively uncommon response [47]. Resprouts, especially from root crowns, often comprise most or all living Joshua trees in relatively young burns (<10 years old) for both western Joshua trees [106,115] and eastern Joshua trees [148]. However, postfire resprouting is typically not sufficient for Joshua tree populations to recover to prefire population densities, especially after repeated fires [148] (see Postfire Survival and Resprouting).

Western Joshua tree has a strongly clonal growth form in a narrow band in the southwestern most part of its range [26] (see Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration) that allows it to resprout vigorously after fire. In that area, resprouting may be sufficient to maintain or increase cover of Joshua trees after fire [23,154,172].

Plant Response to Fire

Data and observations documenting Joshua tree postfire responses are limited. Much of this information comes from fires in western Joshua tree communities in Joshua Tree National Park [6,12,49,64,106,115,153,168] and eastern Joshua tree communities in Utah’s Beaver Dam Wash [39,54,108,148]. The remainder of fire studies come from other parts of the Mojave Desert [4,23,79,81,96,110,146,154,172,177]. Long-term fire effects have primarily been investigated as part of chronosequence studies across multiple sites, rather than individual sites measured before and after fire, making it difficult to account for factors that influence postfire communities (e.g., postfire weather). A 20-year demographic study was not long enough to discern many elements of Joshua tree life history [46], and despite fire as an additional complicating factor, few studies extend beyond 10 years at the same sites.

Available information suggests variable rates of survival and postfire resprouting that seem to be greater in western Joshua tree populations and at higher elevations; postfire seedling establishment is not common in early postfire years; and mortality may be delayed for several years after fire. Overall, Joshua tree abundance is likely to decrease after fire, most populations are slow to recover in the postfire environment, and many may be permanently altered, especially after large, high-severity fires or repeated fires.

Postfire Survival and Resprouting

Resprouting–from root crowns [81,106], rhizomes [172], or trunk and/or branches [64,123,141]–allows Joshua trees to persist and eventually reproduce after fire on most sites. Resprouting is the primary mechanism for postfire survival and regeneration in most cases [4,106]. However, with the exception of western Joshua tree populations with a clonal growth form that occur in southwestern California [23,154,172] (see below), postfire resprouting is variable and generally occurs at low rates [90] that are not sufficient to reestablish prefire stand densities [148]. In general, resprouting rates range from an average of 7% to 34% [47,49,81,115]. Postfire resprouting likely depends on a number of variables, including prefire plant size, growth form, and condition, as well as fire behavior, postfire herbivory, and weather. Postfire resprouts often die at relatively high rates. Joshua trees not killed by fire may die years after fire due to herbivory, drought, or toppling (see Delayed Postfire Mortality).

Unlike other Joshua tree populations, western Joshua tree populations with a clonal growth form (see Vegetative Reproduction and Regeneration) typically resprout prolifically [154,172] (fig. 13) and generally increase in cover and dominance after fire [23,154,172] (fig. 13). For example, near Big Bear City, California, burned Joshua trees of this form averaged 8.7 resprouts/burned plant [23]. All three studies that record increases in Joshua tree stem density or cover after fire appear to refer to this form [23,154,172].

Two images, both showing burned Joshua tree stems that appear to be dead, with several green sprouts emerging from the soil around their bases.
Photo Credit
Photos by Olivia Miseroy with some rights reserved (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Figure 13—Left: Numerous resprouts emerge from a western Joshua tree clone after a wildfire at Devil’s Punchbowl Natural Area, California. Right: A relatively young, burned Joshua tree trunk at Portal Ridge Wildlife Preserve, California, with five resprouts clustered at its base. In both images, resprouts may be growing from basal sprouts and/or from rhizomes. Photos by Olivia Miseroy with some rights reserved (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Joshua tree height influences resprouting ability and survival. After a wildfire in Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua trees ≤3 m resprouted more often than trees >3 m, which did not characteristically resprout within 1 year after fire. Mortality was greater for trees >3 m than for smaller trees [12]. In contrast, after a different wildfire in Joshua Tree National Park followed by several years of drought, trees ≥4 m had lower mortality (approximately 70%) than trees <4 m (approximately 80%) 5 years after fire. Most western Joshua trees <1 m died immediately after fire (approximately 80%) [49]. On the Nevada National Security Site, postfire resprouting of western Joshua trees ranged from 0% to 48%, and was lowest in the largest and smallest height classes (table 9) [81].

Table 9—Height class distribution and rate of basal sprouting for western Joshua trees in a burned area on the Nevada National Security Site, 1 year after fire [81].
Height class (m)Number of individualsSprouting individuals (%)
<12429
1-22148
2-32245
3-42015
>420

Joshua trees are more likely to survive low-intensity fires than high-intensity fires. At 15 sites in Joshua Tree National Park, 69% of western Joshua trees were killed, 14% survived with some green leaves—indicating areas with low fire intensity—and 17% survived by resprouting from top-killed plants. Resprouting was most frequent on sites with the greatest number of stems that survived with some green leaves, suggesting resprouting rates may be inversely related to fire intensity [115]. Based on 598 western Joshua trees monitored for 5 years after the May 1999 Juniper Fire Complex in Joshua Tree National Park, western Joshua trees had about a 50% chance of survival at 5 years if fire scorched less than 30% of the plant, and <20% probability of survival if fire scorched more than 80% of the plant [49].

Postfire Seedling Establishment

Joshua tree seedlings can establish from on- and off-site seed sources after fire. Mature Joshua trees that escape fire damage—either due to fire skipping areas or sufficient plant height to escape substantial scorching—may provide on-site seed sources [123]. However, because Joshua tree generally requires nurse plants for seedling establishment [31,55,173], postfire conditions may not be conducive for regeneration from seed. Considerable postfire seedling establishment has not been recorded in the literature. Joshua tree seedlings grown in a greenhouse and planted after a wildfire in Beaver Dam Wash did not survive on burned plots, whereas 47% of planted seedlings survived on unburned plots [149]. Western Joshua tree seedlings established under nurse plants on 12- and 15-year-old burns in Joshua Tree National Park, consistent with the timing of blackbrush returning as a nurse plant at those sites [106]. On the Nevada National Security Site, three Joshua trees established on one plot between 16 and 41 years after a wildfire, during a wide time gap between surveys at that site. Establishment occurred at the time when mature shrub cover on burned plots was near that on unburned control plots [177].

Delayed Postfire Mortality

Postfire mortality of Joshua trees can be delayed for several years and may result from fire damage or related factors, such as postfire herbivory, postfire weather, or toppling. At Coyote Springs in southern Nevada, eastern Joshua tree cover decreased from 0.06% cover 1 year after fire to 0.00% cover 6 years after fire, whereas its cover increased from 0.11% to 0.17% in unburned control plots over that time. The cause of mortality in burned plots was not specified [146].

Herbivory by rodents [49,179] and jackrabbits [148] may reduce or even eliminate postfire resprouts. About 25% of western Joshua trees resprouted after the 1983 Covington Flats Fire in Joshua Tree National Park, but about 90% of resprouts died within 6 years [6], apparently due to damage from native herbivores [90]. After the 1999 Juniper Fire Complex in Joshua Tree National Park, Botta’s pocket gophers, black-tailed jackrabbits, and woodrats damaged 14% of unburned and 28% of burned western Joshua tree stems, primarily at relatively low-elevation sites. In unburned sites and one burned site, herbivory only slightly reduced survival, although the burned site already had extremely low survival. At two other burned sites, survival of western Joshua trees damaged by herbivores declined rapidly [49]. Fifteen years after four wildfires in Beaver Dam Wash, eastern Joshua tree density was four times higher along burned interior transects than along burned edge transects, apparently because fewer resprouts survived at burned edges. Resprouts comprised nearly 75% of eastern Joshua trees along burned interior transects, 33% of eastern Joshua trees along burned edge transects, and 0% along unburned transects. The authors suggest that black-tailed jackrabbits—which prefer shrubby habitats (i.e., unburned areas) and are known to consume regenerating Joshua trees—may have consumed eastern Joshua tree resprouts at burned edges near preferred unburned habitat and were less active in burned interior habitat [148].

Drought can exacerbate postfire mortality. A wildfire in Joshua Tree National Park occurred after a year of abundant precipitation, which stimulated abundant growth of nonnative annual grasses. The fire was followed by a 4-year drought, and by 5 years after fire, 80% of western Joshua trees on burned plots and 26% of western Joshua trees on unburned plots had died. Mortality patterns differed among size classes. Among western Joshua trees <1 m tall, about 60% died on unburned plots, presumably due to the drought, and more than 80% died on burned plots, mostly within the first 2 postfire years. Joshua trees ≥1 m to <4 m tall on burned plots declined more slowly, but about 80% had died after 5 years. For the largest western Joshua trees ≥4 m tall, about 60% died on burned plots compared to only 10% on unburned plots. Postfire resprouting prolonged survival at wetter, higher elevation sites [49]. Joshua trees may be more likely to survive fire if precipitation is above average in the year following fire [47].

Toppling of top-killed Joshua trees occurs when roots are damaged or killed by fire and no longer able to support large trunks. Toppling reduces survival of resprouts. At the Nevada National Security Site, 51% of western Joshua trees initially resprouted after wildfire, but only 32% had live sprouts 6 years after fire. Similarly, five western Joshua trees with live trunks were present 3 years after fire, but only one of these was still living 6 years after fire—a small plant that was missed by the fire. The primary cause of death for trunks and resprouts that died more than 3 years after fire was the falling of the trunk, which killed both live meristems on branches and sprouts at the base. Very tall western Joshua trees were more likely to blow down than plants 1 to 2 m tall [80].

Fire Frequency and Severity

Postfire recovery in Joshua tree communities is very slow. While postfire plant species composition may resemble that of prefire communities in a matter of decades on some sites [4,52], others may take centuries [4]. Joshua trees may require a century or longer to reach preburn density and stature [115]. Joshua tree woodland communities codominated by creosotebush may recover compositionally as soon as 19 years [52] to 51 years after fire [4]. Communities codominated by blackbrush may take 550 years to recover. Disturbances that could further alter recovery, such as additional fires, major climatic shifts, or further invasions by nonnative species are more likely over such a long time frame [4] (see Successional Status).

Low survival and slow regeneration of Joshua trees after fire may cause long-term or possibly permanent vegetation shifts in burned Joshua tree communities [4], especially after repeated and/or large, high-intensity, and high-severity fires. Joshua trees may be less likely to resprout after repeated or high-intensity fires, and they are less likely to establish from seeds in large burn patches with few or no survivors. Based on data from 578 plots burned between 1972 and 2010 and 229 unburned control plots in the Mojave Desert, frequent fire and high-severity fire are both likely to cause long-term or permanent vegetation shifts in desert scrub communities [96]. Long-term reductions in shrub cover and increases in herb cover—especially nonnative annual grasses—are expected with increased fire activity [32,96], such that Joshua tree woodlands may be replaced by communities dominated by shrubs such as white brittlebush, burrobrush, threadleaf snakeweed, Virgin River brittlebush, Mexican bladdersage, or rayless goldenhead [115]; native perennial grasses [81,110]; or nonnative annual grasses or forbs [76,96].

Fuel Characteristics

Firefighters digging a fireline in a Joshua tree woodland, with burned landscape on one side of the flames, and unburned Joshua trees with an understory of dense grass on the other side.
Photo Credit
Bureau of Land Management photo.

Figure 14—Firefighters work to contain the Geology Fire in Joshua Tree National Park in June 2023. Nonnative annual grasses in the foreground provided continuous fuels for fire spread. A western Joshua tree in the background was torched and likely top-killed. 

During fires near St. George, Utah, and Littlefield, Arizona, flame lengths exceeded 3 m when eastern Joshua trees burned, indicating high fire intensity [54]. Because Joshua trees typically establish beneath nurse plants [173], they may be exposed to hotter temperatures from burning shrubs near their bases. Dried leaves along Joshua tree trunks (fig. 11) can provide fuel for fire to spread up the trunk into the canopy [141]. Old Joshua trees lose leaves along the lower portion of their trunk, becoming less flammable as they age [172].

In most years, desert scrub communities in which Joshua trees occur are fuel-limited, because vegetation is typically patchy and discontinuous, and understories are sparse. However, during periods with above-average precipitation, establishment of nonnative, fire-adapted annual grasses can contribute substantially to fine fuel loads and continuity [32,34]. Patches of bare ground that previously impeded fire spread become fuel bridges that can increase fire extent. This is especially true after 2 or more consecutive, relatively wet years [27,32,117]. Common Mediterranean grass, cheatgrass [196], compact brome [45], and red brome [140] comprise most of the fine fuels that allow fires to spread in Joshua tree woodlands [64] (fig. 14). Fire spreads rapidly (12 m/min) and continuously through invasive bromes and generally spreads more slowly (1 m/min) and discontinuously through invasive Mediterranean grasses. Native annual forbs, native annual grasses, and nonnative annual forbs can also contribute to fine fuel loads but do not provide enough biomass to carry fire through shrub interspaces individually [34]. Climate change is likely to further exacerbate invasion by nonnative, fire-adapted annual grasses and increase the length of fire seasons in the Mojave Desert [1] (see Management Under a Changing Climate). In portions of the Eastern Mojave Highlands region along the southeastern and eastern margins of the Mojave Desert, native perennial grasses may occur in densities sufficient to carry fire in wet years [110,115], increasing the likelihood of ignitions and large fires in those areas [188].

Fire Regimes

Historical Fire Regimes

Historically, Joshua trees occurred in the following Biophysical Settings described by LANDFIRE (2020): Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (10820), Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (10870), Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland (10780), and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (10190) [100]. See table 10 for a summary of historical fire regime characteristics for these Biophysical Settings, and the LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings section for additional details.

Fires were probably rare to infrequent in these communities, historically, and mean historical fire intervals derived from LANDFIRE succession modeling are estimated to exceed several centuries (table 10) [100]. The understories of these communities were most often shrub-dominated but some may have been dominated by perennial graminoids [120]. In areas with an understory dominated by perennial graminoids, fires may have been relatively more frequent than in areas with understories dominated by shrubs. Perennial grass-dominated stands with a sparse emergent layer of Joshua trees may have been more common in the southeastern margin of the Mojave Desert before wide-spread cattle grazing reduced native grass cover [110].

Within western Joshua tree’s distribution, several sources suggest that fire may have been more frequent in the narrow band in southwestern California in which the clonal growth form occurs than in other parts of the species’ range. Little information was available on that topic. Anecdotally, several sources suggest that Joshua trees of the clonal growth form are adjacent to vegetation types that historically burned relatively often and may have adapted to fire in that area as a result [141,154,172].

Although ignition from lightning storms may have been common during summer monsoons in some areas [64,110], based on fuel characteristics [34], lack of fire adaptations in dominant plants [3], slow growth rates, and slow postfire recovery rates of dominant plant species [4,39], fires were likely rare and small before European-American settlement in most Mojave Desert scrub communities [64]. In the majority of Joshua tree’s range, large fires are considered historically rare and were likely driven by accumulations of annual herbs following unusually wet years (see Fuel Characteristics).

Table 10—Modeled historical fire regime characteristics for LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings where Joshua tree is present to codominant in the United States. Table created from data in LANDFIRE (2020) [100].
BpS name (series code)Map zone(s)Mean fire interval (years)Minimum fire interval (years)Maximum fire interval (years)Replacement-severity fires (%)Mixed-severity fires (%)Low-severity fires (%)
Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland (10780)15282 1001,00010000
Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (10820)4, 133961001,70010000
Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (10820)65211001,70010000
Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (10820)144041001,70010000
Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (10820)12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 248311001,70010000
Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (10870)4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 253303001,00010000
Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (10190)13, 141561001,000334720

See these FEIS publications for information on historical fire regimes in plant communities in which Joshua tree is most common or dominant:

  • Fire regimes of Mojave mid-elevation mixed desert scrub communities
  • Fire regimes of Colorado Plateau blackbrush and ephedra shrublands
  • Fire regimes of creosotebush-white bursage desert scrub communities
  • Fire regimes of Great Basin pinyon-juniper communities

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.

Contemporary Fire Regimes

Fuel and fire regime characteristics in contemporary Mojave Desert scrub communities, including in Joshua tree woodlands, have likely shifted outside the range of historical variation, primarily due to the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive grasses—mostly Mediterranean grass and bromes [34]. Nonnative invasive grasses can increase fine fuel loads and continuity on invaded sites, which may increase fire frequency and intensity [84] and create a feedback loop that results in an invasive grass/fire cycle [61,97]. This can result in a plant community type conversion (i.e., from native desert scrub to nonnative grassland), which will likely persist unless fuels, ignition patterns, and/or climate significantly change [36,37].

Since the mid-1900s, fire size and frequency have been increasing in the Mojave Desert. Approximately 5% of the area of the Mojave Desert burned between 1980 and 2005 [2], with fires in 2005 burning more area (385,357 ha) than the combined area burned in the preceding 25 years (292,017 ha) [32]. Large fires burned 37,667 ha in 2023 (York Fire) and 17,401 ha in 2020 (Dome Fire) primarily within the Mojave National Preserve [116,167], an area known for some of the highest densities of large Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert. The Dome Fire alone killed up to 1,300,000 eastern Joshua trees, with only 7% to 9% of top-killed eastern Joshua trees resprouting 16 months after the fire [47,167].

Fire Management Considerations

Large, high-severity fires and frequent fires can reduce or eliminate Joshua tree populations at a site because small Joshua trees are readily killed by fire (see Immediate Fire Effects), Joshua trees do not flower and produce seed until they are about 30 or more years old (see Seed Production and Predation), and sites suitable for seedling establishment (i.e., under nurse plants) are likely to be less abundant in the postfire environment (see Plant Response to Fire). Although mature plants may escape fire and produce seeds, seedling establishment and recruitment are infrequent, and a short fire interval would likely kill most newly established plants (see Fire Adaptations). Data is lacking on postfire recovery times for Joshua tree populations, but limited resprouting in most populations, episodic regeneration, and slow growth rates indicate that populations may take centuries to return to prefire densities and stature [115,130]. With frequent or severe fires, many Joshua tree communities may convert to other vegetation types [96] (see Plant Response to Fire).

Increasingly large and frequent fires [1,19] (see Contemporary Fire Regimes) in combination with limited dispersal distance [170] and potentially long times for resprouts to reach reproductive age [4,55] increasingly limit Joshua tree postfire recovery. Climate change may exacerbate these conditions. Losses of Joshua tree populations due to fire can have cascading effects, because Joshua tree is an important and unique species, and many wildlife species rely on it for food and cover (see Importance to Wildlife and Livestock). In southern California, for example, loss of Joshua trees due to burning or other disturbance may diminish habitat for woodrats, phainopeplas, kestrels, shrikes, cactus wrens, desert spiny lizards, and desert night lizards [33].

Nonnative Invasive Grasses

Over the last several decades, nonnative invasive grasses have fueled wildfires that burned many hectares of Joshua tree habitat in the Mojave Desert [21,61,64,116,189] (see Contemporary Fire Regimes). Invasive annual bromes and Mediterranean grasses are of primary management concern because they produce continuous and persistent fuel loads, and they are well-established in large areas of Joshua tree habitat [32,114]. Nitrogen deposition from pollution can increase fuel load of invasive annual grasses [127]. Small nitrogen inputs above a critical load result in large increases in fire risk, and fire risk rapidly increases with increasing nitrogen inputs [128]. Models predict that grasslands in California will expand under three climate change scenarios, largely at the expense of woodlands and shrublands, including Joshua tree woodlands. However, the models do not differentiate between native and nonnative ecosystems. The total annual area burned in California is projected to increase by 9% to 15% for the three climate scenarios, primarily driven by greater extent of grasslands [102,103].

Fires carried by nonnative invasive annual grasses in the Mojave Desert may lead to long-term or permanent vegetation shifts to nonnative invasive plant-dominated communities, especially if fires are repeated or severe [76,96]. The likelihood of local Joshua tree extinction may be highest in areas near the warm and dry extents of its range, especially where populations may be vulnerable to successive fires and where growing human use increases the possibility of human-caused fires and impacts from other disturbances [43,74,153]. Models project that suitable habitat for Joshua tree within its current range will decrease as a result of climate change [43], and that self-sustaining populations of Joshua trees may be limited to climate refugia. Protecting existing populations is likely to be more effective at maintaining the species than natural or assisted migration [74,144]. Half of modeled climate change refugia in Joshua Tree National Park had already burned as of 2019, and risk of wildfire continues to be high for remaining refugia [153].

Desert landscape populated by Joshua trees, scattered small shrubs, and scattered bunch grasses, with a two-track road going down the middle. The landscape on the right is burned and on the left is unburned.
Photo Credit
Photo by Michael E. Gordon and used with permission. All rights reserved.

Figure 15—Unburned and burned Joshua tree woodland on either side of a two-track road used as a firebreak to contain the Dome Fire in August 2020. A small wash, including one medium-sized Joshua tree, was skipped by the fire on the right side of the road. Photo by Michael E. Gordon and used with permission.

Fire Prevention and Suppression

Most management entities in the Mojave Desert call for full suppression of all fires, regardless of how they start or where they occur [38,116,168]. Reducing nonnative fuels and preventing disturbance and invasion of uninvaded communities may be the most effective way to maintain intact Joshua tree communities [33,131]. Utilizing models to identify currently occupied climate refugia for Joshua trees provides a mechanism to identify high-priority protection areas [153].

Obligate Pollinator Moths

If resprouts take a similar length of time to reach maturity as plants grown from seeds, resprouts may take over 30 years to flower after fire [4,55]. Because small, young Joshua trees are typically killed by fire, most or all surviving Joshua trees could be resprouts from large, mature burned Joshua trees (see Postfire Survival and Resprouting). Where this occurs, flowers and fruits may be lacking, and obligate pollinators may be without their host plant flowers and fruits for decades after fire. Regional collapse of obligate pollinators is possible and has been documented in a population of the obligate moth pollinators of the closely related banana yucca [107]. The impact of such a collapse on long-term Joshua tree population viability has not been studied but should be considered in land management efforts [147].

Federal Status

None [166]

Other Status

Information on conservation status of plant species in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe. Both western and eastern Joshua trees are ranked as G3–globally vulnerable. Western Joshua tree is ranked as vulnerable (S3) in Nevada. Eastern Joshua tree is ranked as critically imperiled in Utah (S1) and vulnerable (S3) in Arizona and Nevada [120]. In California, western Joshua tree is protected by the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, enacted in July 2023.

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

Wildlife and livestock use Joshua trees for food, shade, and wind protection [179]. Joshua trees provide important habitat and ecosystem services for large mammals such as bighorn sheep [45], coyotes [171], pronghorn, and deer; and many species of birds [24,33,95], small mammals [33,98,179], reptiles [16,33,65,68], and insects [13,187]. Coyotes are the dominant carnivore in Joshua tree woodlands [171].

Numerous bird species use Joshua trees and Joshua tree habitats in the Mojave Desert. Twenty-five bird species are known to nest in Joshua trees. For example, Scott's orioles nest in the crown, and ladder-backed woodpeckers and northern flickers nest in holes in the trunk or limbs. American kestrels and loggerhead shrikes use Joshua trees as a perch when hunting. Many bird species feed on Joshua tree blossoms [93]. Thirteen bird species were encountered along Mojave Desert transects in the Great Basin-Mojave Desert ecotone, where pinyon and juniper were dominant, and Joshua trees were present on 7 of 10 transects. Ladder-backed woodpeckers were found solely on Joshua trees, never on pinyons or junipers [176].

Joshua trees are important to many species of small mammals and rodents for food and cover. Squirrels, woodrats, jackrabbits, kangaroo rats, and mice utilize Joshua tree habitats and/or feed on Joshua tree fruits. Mohave ground squirrels [195] and antelope ground squirrels [28] eat large amounts of Joshua tree seeds when available. Desert woodrats preferentially forage leaf tips and south-facing leaves, perhaps for their higher nitrogen content [136], and Mexican woodrats use the spiky leaves to protect their burrow entrances [113]. Pinyon mice preferentially selected habitat containing Joshua trees [137]. Merriam's kangaroo rats and southern grasshopper mice are considered "diagnostic" of Joshua tree woodlands in the San Gabriel Mountains of California, where the Panamint kangaroo rat is also common [171]. Joshua tree macrofossils have been recovered from woodrat middens in the western Mojave Desert [111] and in Death Valley [181].

A variety of reptiles use Joshua trees, especially for habitat. Desert night lizards [65], common side-blotched lizards [68], desert spiny lizards, and western fence lizards [16] use both live and dead Joshua trees for shelter. Endangered desert tortoises use Joshua trees for cover [191] and prefer live Joshua trees for cover over other cooccurring desert vegetation, including dead Joshua trees [146] (see Cover Value). Desert night lizards are dependent on fallen Joshua trees for habitat, so negative impacts on their populations may occur long after changes occur in Joshua tree populations [65].

Several insect species rely on Joshua trees for their survival. Western and eastern Joshua tree moths have an obligate mutualism with Joshua trees, and they depend on Joshua trees for successful reproduction (see Seed Production and Predation). Bogus yucca moths oviposit into Joshua tree tissues without pollinating the plant, instead parasitizing it and forming galls in fruits and stalks [67]. Other insects, such as Joshua tree thrips [187] and a species of checkered beetle [13] depend on Joshua trees for food and/or habitat.

Joshua tree may have been an important part of the diet of the extinct giant ground sloth [86,109]. The analysis of giant ground sloth dung found in Nevada's Gypsum Cave revealed that ≈80% of the fecal material was Joshua tree [86]. However, evidence provided by Lenz [104] suggests that the importance of Joshua tree in giant ground sloth diets has been exaggerated.

Palatability and Nutritional Value

Livestock eat the succulent leaves of young Joshua trees [179]. Livestock also eat Joshua tree flowers when they are accessible; however, most Joshua tree flowers are out of reach of livestock. In Beaver Dam Wash, cattle consumed about 40% of eastern Joshua tree flowers <2 m high in burned and unburned areas [107].

Sugar content of Joshua tree fruits increases as they ripen. Fruits averaged 11.6% sugar content in June and 14.5% in early July. Sugar content likely exceeds 20% when fruits are fully ripe later in the summer [104].

For nutritional information of leaves and fruits, see Wallace and Romney (1972) [174] and Webber (1953) [179], respectively.

Cover Value

Large, many-branched Joshua tree with three bighorn sheep in its shade and surrounded by desert scrubland with many small shrubs and scattered Joshua trees.
Photo Credit
Department of Defense photo by the Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands [45].

Figure 16—Bighorn sheep shelter beneath an eastern Joshua tree on the Nevada Test and Training Range.

Large mammals, small mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects all use Joshua trees for cover. Typically, Joshua trees are the largest plants in their habitat and one of the only plants large enough to provide shade for large mammals (fig. 16).

Desert tortoises used living Joshua trees as cover more than any other plant relative to availability. In unburned habitat in Coyote Springs, Nevada, live eastern Joshua trees accounted for <0.5% relative cover but accounted for nearly 12% of desert tortoise vegetation use. In burned habitat, live Joshua trees accounted for 0.01% relative cover but accounted for nearly 9% of desert tortoise vegetation use [146].

Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites

Joshua tree seeds and plants are available commercially [118], and Joshua tree is recommended for use in revegetation projects along Nevada's highways [150]. Excessive watering of transplanted Joshua trees may facilitate disease in the outer leaves [179].

Large plants (up to 50 years old) can be salvaged from and later used to revegetate disturbed areas. In the eastern part of the Mojave Desert, Joshua trees between 0.9 and 2 m tall with just a few branches were salvaged from a gold mine site. Plants were grown close together in rows and given supplemental water. After 2 years, 9% of the 1,447 plants had died, 36% were in excellent health (no yellow leaves), and 56% were in poor health [59].

On Edwards Air Force Base, postfire revegetation efforts (i.e., imprinting, rototilling, soil stabilization, and mechanical seeding) did not improve Joshua tree recovery. It is not clear whether the seed mix contained Joshua tree seeds [14].

Restoration efforts may be hindered by the narrow range of conditions necessary for Joshua trees to establish, which includes the presence of nurse plants of associated species, warm and wet weather conditions for germination, several successive years of relatively moist conditions for establishment, and protection from herbivores for recruitment (see Germination and Seedling Establishment and Mortality). Even if plants establish, self-sustaining populations require eastern or western Joshua tree moths to produce viable fruits (see Pollination), although it may also be possible for a self-sustaining population to rely exclusively on vegetative reproduction.

Other Uses

Joshua trees have been used by American Indians in the Mojave Desert for food and other purposes. The flowers are sweet and can be roasted and eaten [17,93], and the seeds can be eaten raw or ground into a mash and cooked [122]. The Cahuilla Band of Indians of southern California use Joshua tree fibers to make sandals and nets [17]. Red Joshua tree rootlets are used to dye baskets and blankets [7]. In a review, Webber (1953) reports that Joshua trees have been found in the construction of ancient cliff dwellings. He remarks that “early and present-day” uses of yuccas, including Joshua trees, included food, beverages, detergents, medicines, clothing, dwellings, and household articles [179].

In the 1920s, Joshua tree was used intensively for a number of applications. Its fibrous stems were used to manufacture postcards, scrapbooks, book bindings, napkin rings, window dressings, and lightweight clubs. It was also used as a veneer for interior walls. Saponins from yuccas were used as a base for soaps, shampoos, cleansing powders, and toothpastes. Yucca leaves were used for fibers, and seeds and fruits were used as livestock feed materials [179].

Other Management Considerations

Eastern and western Joshua tree moths are integral to management plans and considerations regarding long-term Joshua tree sustainability because of the obligate mutualism. Regional collapses of yucca moth populations have led to complete failure of fruit production in the closely related banana yucca in the Mojave Desert [108]. Monitoring the effects of climate change on Joshua tree reproduction should include the status of their obligate yucca moth pollinators [147].

Management Under a Changing Climate

Climate models predict that the desert southwest—including the Mojave Desert—will become hotter and drier as a result of climate change. Changes in temperature and precipitation in the Mojave Desert indicate that the transition to a drier, hotter climate is already under way [9], and it is impacting species distributions [66] and regeneration [153]. Within its current range, suitable habitat for Joshua tree is predicted to decrease by up to 90% by 2070–2099 [94]. New suitable habitat is likely to occur to the north and east, and at higher elevations [94,138]. In Joshua Tree National Park, climate models predict a 75% to 100% decline in current suitable habitat for Joshua tree populations by 2070–2099, depending on carbon emission mitigation efforts [153]. Similarly, other models indicate suitable habitat in Joshua Tree National Park will decline 98% with a 3 °C increase of daily high temperatures in July [15]. Within Joshua Tree National Park, modeled refugia consistently support relatively high recruitment rates, while areas beyond the modeled refugia have had little to no recruitment for several decades [74,153]. Outside of Joshua Tree National Park within California, high recruitment and expanding populations at higher elevations and latitudes indicate Joshua tree populations are shifting in response to increasingly warmer and drier conditions [74].

Western and eastern Joshua trees may respond differently to climate change based on climate differences across their current ranges (see Site Characteristics). Modelling indicates that large areas of potential habitat for each species may currently be unoccupied. Potential habitat for western Joshua tree was at higher elevations, received more annual precipitation, and had lower annual temperatures than occupied habitat. Similarly, potential habitat for eastern Joshua tree was at higher elevations and had lower annual temperatures than occupied habitat, although it received less annual precipitation. Although areas of modelled potential habitat could be climate refugia, many areas of potential habitat—especially for eastern Joshua tree—are not contiguous with currently occupied habitat, and Joshua trees are unlikely to disperse long distances naturally. Western Joshua tree has several large areas of potential habitat that are contiguous with occupied habitat in the southwestern part of its range [56].

Climate changes are likely to happen faster than Joshua tree populations can respond. Suitable habitat under future projected climate scenarios is fragmented, sometimes with large distances between suitable areas. Joshua tree’s migrational capacity is estimated at about 2 m/year under natural conditions, indicating it has a limited capacity to establish in new areas. Assisted migration may help maintain Joshua tree populations [43]. However, to establish sustainable populations in new areas, Joshua trees require corresponding migration by their obligate pollinator moths and seed distributors (i.e., seed-caching rodents). Yucca moths and rodents can migrate more quickly than Joshua trees, but they may be unable to move between disjunct populations [144], and modeled refugia for Joshua trees may be less suitable for their obligate pollinator moths [67]. Further research on Joshua tree mutualists, including pollinator moths and mycorrhizal fungi, can increase the likelihood of success of conservation efforts. Focusing conservation efforts on existing populations that are likely to be resilient to climate change will give the greatest chance of species persistence [74,144].

Under a changing climate in the desert southwest [9,66], drought conditions are likely to occur more often as temperature increases and precipitation becomes more variable [1]. Although Joshua trees are drought tolerant, prolonged drought can cause substantial mortality. Younger Joshua trees appear to be more susceptible to drought mortality than older Joshua trees, but even the oldest individuals are susceptible to mortality from prolonged drought [49,66]. During a 5-year drought in Joshua Tree National Park, the smallest Joshua trees (<1 m tall) began dying after 2 years, and nearly 60% died after 5 years. Larger Joshua trees (1 m to <3 m tall) began dying after 4 years, and about 40% died after 5 years. The largest Joshua trees (≥3 m tall) began dying only after 5 years of drought, when about 15% died [49].

Changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to have complex impacts on Joshua tree regeneration processes. Positive correlations between temperature and Joshua tree flower and seed production suggest that warming could increase Joshua tree seed production [147,194], especially in relatively cooler, wetter areas. However, increasing temperatures also increase drought stress, which may have a net negative impact on seedling establishment and recruitment, especially in drier areas [194]. Across 10 sites throughout the ranges of both species, Joshua tree density was negatively correlated with warmer temperatures, perhaps due to a combination of the negative effects of warmer temperatures on seed germination, recruitment, and drought mortality [147]. While Joshua trees germinate well at high temperatures, seeds require extended periods of high soil moisture (see Germination) that may be less common as temperature increases and precipitation becomes more variable [9]. Joshua trees may be particularly sensitive to shifts in precipitation timing, given the differences in precipitation across the ranges of the two Joshua tree species [56].

Effective management of Joshua tree under a changing climate must include considerations for their obligate moth pollinators [147] to ensure continued fruit and seed production [107]. In Joshua Tree National Park, no Joshua tree fruits or seedlings occurred at the highest or lowest elevation extremes because yucca moths apparently did not occur at either elevation extreme, even though Joshua trees flowered at both. Density of yucca moths generally increased with the density of live Joshua trees at intermediate elevations [67], with pollination and fruit set peaking at the lower end of identified climate refugia [153]. Sites at relatively high elevations (1,500–1,600 m) had the highest density of Joshua trees, which primarily reproduced vegetatively as few yucca moths occurred there [67]. More research is needed to determine if obligate moth pollinators are unable to migrate to and survive at higher elevations, or if Joshua trees at higher elevations are unable to flower at sufficient densities to attract and support them. If this pattern holds, climate refugia may not be able to support sustainable populations of Joshua trees [194].

2020 LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings — Historical Fire Regime Characteristics
Biophysical SettingMean Fire Interval (years)Fire Severity Percent (%)
CodeFire Regime GroupLowMixedReplacementAllLowMixedReplacement
Series 10780 - Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland
10780_15V-A28228200100
Series 10820 - Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub
10820_4_13V-A39939900100
10820_6V-B51651600100
10820_14V-A40640600100
10820_12_15_16_17_23_24V-B81581500100
Series 10870 - Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub
10870_4_6_12_13_14_15_17_24_25V-A32932900100
Series 10190 - Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
10190_13_14III-B780337474157204733
Summary
Minimum7803372821570033
Maximum7803378158152047100
Mean7803374604153790
Median78033740639900100
Percentage of fires in 3 fire severity classes, derived from LANDFIRE succession modeling. Replacement-severity fires cause >75% kill or top-kill of the upper canopy layer; mixed-severity fires cause 26%-75%; low-severity fires cause <26%.
LANDFIRE. 2020. Biophysical settings models and descriptions, [Online]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey; Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, (Producers). Available: https://www.landfirereview.org/search.php [96496]

Table A1—Common and scientific names of plants mentioned in this review and organized by life form.
Life FormCommon NameScientific Name
Graminoidbig galletaPleuraphis rigida
Graminoidblack gramaBouteloua eriopoda
GraminoidbromeBromus spp.
GraminoidcheatgrassBromus tectorum
Graminoidcommon Mediterranean grassSchismus barbatus
Graminoidcompact bromeBromus madritensis
Graminoiddesert needlegrassPappostipa speciosa
GraminoidJames' galletaPleuraphis jamesii
GraminoidMediterranean grassSchismus spp.
Graminoidred bromeBromus rubens
GraminoidSandberg bluegrassPoa secunda
Shrubantelope bitterbrushPurshia tridentata
Shrubbig sagebrushArtemisia tridentata
Shrubblack sagebrushArtemisia nova
ShrubblackbrushColeogyne ramosissima
ShrubburrobrushHymenoclea salsola
ShrubcreosotebushLarrea tridentata
Shrubephedra; jointfirEphedra spp.
Shrublittleleaf ratanyKrameria erecta
ShrubMexican bladdersageScutellaria mexicana
Shrubmormon tea (a.k.a., green ephedra)Ephedra viridis
ShrubNevada jointfirEphedra nevadensis
Shrubrayless goldenheadAcamptopappus sphaerocephalus
Shrubspiny hopsageGrayia spinosa
ShrubVirgin River brittlebushEncelia virginensis
Shrubwhite brittlebushEncelia farinosa
Shrubwhite bursageAmbrosia dumosa
Shrubyellow rabbitbrushChrysothamnus viscidiflorus
Shrub-treeMojave yuccaYucca schidigera
Shrub-treeSonoran scrub oakQuercus turbinella
SubshrubAdam’s needleYucca filamentosa
Subshrubbanana yuccaYucca baccata
Subshrubthreadleaf snakeweedGutierrezia microcephala
TreejuniperJuniperus spp.
TreepinyonPinus spp.
Treesingleleaf pinyonPinus monophylla
Treetwoneedle pinyonPinus edulis
TreeUtah juniperJuniperus osteosperma
Table A2—Common and scientific names of animals mentioned in this review and organized by class.
ClassCommon NameScientific Name
BirdAmerican kestrelFalco sparverius
Birdcactus wrenCampylorhynchus brunneicapillus
BirdKestrelFalco spp.
Birdladder-backed woodpeckerDryobates scalaris
Birdloggerhead shrikeLanius ludovicianus
Birdnorthern flickerColaptes auratus
BirdphainopeplaPhainopepla spp.
BirdScott's orioleIcterus parisorum
BirdshrikeLaniidae
InsectantsFormicidae
Insectbogus yucca mothProdoxus weethumpi; P. sordidus
Insectcheckered beetleEnoclerus vernalis
Insecteastern Joshua tree mothTegeticula antithetica
InsectJoshua tree thripsBagnalliella mojave
InsectMojave yucca mothTegeticula mojavella
Insectwestern Joshua tree mothTegeticula synthetica
Insectyucca mothTegeticula spp.
Mammalantelope ground squirrelAmmospermophilus spp.
Mammalbighorn sheepOvis canadensis
Mammalblack-tailed jackrabbitLepus californicus
MammalBotta's pocket gopherThomomys bottae
MammalcattleBos taurus
MammalcoyoteCanis latrans
MammaldeerOdocoileus spp.
Mammaldesert woodratNeotoma lepida
Mammalgiant ground slothMegatherium spp.
MammaljackrabbitLepus spp.
Mammalkangaroo ratDipodomys spp.
MammalMerriam's kangaroo ratDipodomys merriami
MammalMexican woodratNeotoma mexicana
MammalMohave ground squirrelSpermophilus mohavensis
MammalmouseMuroidea
MammalPanamint kangaroo ratDipodomys panamintinus
Mammalpinyon mousePeromyscus truei
Mammalpocket gopherGeomyidae
MammalpronghornAntilocapra americana
MammalrodentsRodentia
Mammalsouthern grasshopper mouseOnychomys torridus
MammalsquirrelSciuridae
Mammalwhite-tailed antelope squirrelAmmospermophilus leucurus
MammalwoodratNeotoma spp.
Reptilecommon side-blotched lizardUta stansburiana
Reptiledesert night lizardXantusia vigilis
Reptiledesert spiny lizardSceloporus magister
Reptiledesert tortoiseGopherus agassizii
Reptilewestern fence lizardSceloporus occidentalis

1. Abatzoglou, John T.; Kolden, Crystal A. 2011. Climate change in western US deserts: Potential for increased wildfire and invasive annual grasses. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 64(5): 471-478. [92501]

2. Abella, S. R. 2009. Post-fire plant recovery in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of western North America. Journal of Arid Environments. 73(8): 699-707. [81859]

3. Abella, Scott R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 7(4): 1248-1284. [95419]

4. Abella, Scott R.; Gentilcore, Dominic M.; Chiquoine, Lindsay P. 2021. Resilience and alternative stable states after desert wildfires. Ecological Monographs. 91(1): e01432. [95721]

5. Alexander, Robert R.; Pond, Floyd W.; Rodgers, Jane E. 2008. Yucca L.: yucca. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook No. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 1175-1179. [55550]

6. Allison, Anita E. 1984. Post-fire regeneration: Mojave Desert, pinyon-juniper belt. Twin Research Report: Report #3. Twentynine Palms, CA: Joshua Tree National Monument. 32 p. [63252]

7. 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]

8. Angerer, Jay P; Ostler, W. Kent; Gabbert, Warren D.; Schultz, Brad W. 1994. Secondary plant succession on disturbed sites at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. EGG-11265-1118; UC-702. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 87 p. [99794]

9. Archer, Steven R.; Predick, Katharine I. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United States. Rangelands. 30(3): 23-28. [96376]

10. Arnott, Howard J. 1962. The seed, germination, and seedling of Yucca. In: Silva, P. C.; Baker, H. G.; Foster, A. S., eds. University of California Publications in Botany. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 35(1): 1-96. [4317]

11. Baldwin, Bruce G.; Goldman, Douglas H.; Keil, David J.; Patterson, Robert; Rosatti, Thomas J.; Wilken, Dieter H., eds. 2012. The Jepson manual. Vascular plants of California. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 p. [86254]

12. Baldwin, Randolph F. 1979. The effects of fire upon vegetation in Joshua Tree National Monument. [Senior thesis report]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 76 p. [40113]

13. Barr, William; Rifkind, Jacques. 2009. Two new and one resurrected species of Enoclerus Gahan (Coleoptera: Cleridae: Clerinae) from the western United States. Zootaxa. 2168(2168): 57-62. [99889]

14. Barrios, Julio; Hailstone, Misty; Papin, James; Zimmerman, Larry. 2017. Joshua tree survivorship and/or regeneration in fire area on Edwards Air Force Base. Edwards AFB, CA: United States Air Force. [99798]

15. Barrows, Cameron; Murphy-Mariscal, Michelle. 2012. Modeling impacts of climate change on Joshua trees at their southern boundary: How scale impacts predictions. Biological Conservation. 152: 29-36. [99890]

16. Barrows, Cameron; Sweet, Lynn; Rangitsch, Jeffery; Lalumiere, Kristen; Green, Tyler; Heacox, Scott; Davis, Melanie; Vamstad, Michael; Heintz, James; Rodgers, Jane. 2020. Responding to increased aridity: Evidence for range shifts in lizards across a 50-year time span in Joshua Tree National Park. Biological Conservation. 248: 108667. [99891]

17. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. 1st ed. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press. 225 p. [35898]

18. 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]

19. Betancourt, Julio L. 2012. Reflections on the relevance of history in a nonstationary world. In: Wiens, John A.; Hayward, Gregory D.; Safford, Hugh D.; Giffen, Catherine M., eds. Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource management. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell: 307-318. [88157]

20. Birch, Joseph D.; Reiner, Alicia; Dickinson, Matthew B.; Miesel, Jessica R. 2023. Prescribed fire lessens bark beetle impacts despite varied effects on fuels 13 years after mastication and fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 550: 121510. [98810]

21. Bonham, Charlton H. 2022. Report to the Fish and Game Commission status review of western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). Sacramento, CA: California Natural Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 158 p. [99817]

22. Borchert, Mark L.; DeFalco, Lesley A. 2016. Yucca brevifolia fruit production, predispersal seed predation, and fruit removal by rodents during two years of contrasting reproduction. American Journal of Botany. 103(5): 830-836. [91266]

23. Borchert, Mark. 2022. Postfire seedling establishment of desert peach (Prunus fasciculata) and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) from simulated seed caches in the Mojave Desert. Western North American Naturalist. 82(1): 107-116. [97582]

24. Bowers, Janice; Wignall, Brian. 1993. Shrubs and trees of the southwest desert. Tucson, AZ: Western National Parks Association. 140 p. [99893]

25. Bowns, James E. 1973. An autecological study of blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima Torr.) in southeastern Utah. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 115 p. Dissertation. [4972]

26. Boyd, Steve. 1999. Vascular flora of the Liebre Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, California. Aliso. 18(2): 93-139. [40639]

27. Bradley, Bethany A.; Curtis, Caroline A.; Chambers, Jeanne C. 2016. Bromus response to climate and projected changes with climate change. In: Germino, Matthew J.; Chambers, Jeanne C.; Brown, Cynthia S, eds. Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western US: Causes, consequences, and management implications. 1st ed.; Springer: Series on environmental management. Springer International Publishing: 257-274. [99802]

28. Bradley, W. Glen. 1968. Food habits of the antelope ground squirrel in southern Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy. 49(1): 14-21. [64814]

29. Bradley, W. Glen; Deacon, James E. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers: No. 13; Part 4. Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Southern University; Desert Research Institute. 201-273. [99796]

30. Brenskelle, Laura; Barve, Vijay; Majure, Lucas; Guralnick, Robert; Li, Daijiang. 2021. Analyzing a phenological anomaly in Yucca of the southwestern United States. Scientific Reports. 11(1): 107-116. [99892]

31. Brittingham, Steve; Walker, Lawrence R. 2000. Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave desert shrubs. Western North American Naturalist. 60(4): 374-383. [47001]

32. Brooks, M. L.; Matchett, J. R. 2006. Spatial and temporal patterns of wildfires in the Mojave Desert, 1980-2004. Journal of Arid Environments. 67(Supplement): 148-164. [65283]

33. Brooks, Matt; Berry, Kristin. 1999. Ecology and management of alien annual plants in the California deserts. CalEPPC News (California Exotic Pest Plant Council Newsletter). 7(3/4): 4-6. [61753]

34. Brooks, Matthew L. 1999. Alien annual grasses and fire in the Mojave Desert. Madrono. 46(1): 13-19. [34386]

35. Brooks, Matthew L. 2002. Peak fire temperatures and effects on annual plants in the Mojave Desert. Ecological Applications. 12(4): 1088-1102. [43153]

36. Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Plant invasions and fire regimes. 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: 33-45. [70467]

37. Brooks, Matthew L.; D'Antonio, Carla M.; Richardson, David M.; Grace, James B.; Keeley, Jon E.; DiTomaso, Joseph M.; Hobbs, Richard J.; Pellant, Mike; Pyke, David. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience. 54(7): 677-688. [50224]

38. Brooks, Matthew L.; Esque, Todd C. 2002. Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. Chelonian Conservation Biology. 4(2): 330-340. [44468]

39. Brooks, Matthew L.; Matchett, John R. 2003. Plant community patterns in unburned and burned blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima Torr.) shrublands in the Mojave Desert. Western North American Naturalist. 63(3): 282-298. [47672]

40. Carpenter, Dean E.; Barbour, Michael G.; Bahre, Conrad J. 1986. Old field succession in Mojave Desert scrub. Madrono. 33(2): 111-22. [63154]

41. Chase, J. Smeaton. 1919. California desert trails. Boston-New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 484 p. [99815]

42. Clarke, Chris. 2018. The Joshua tree: Myth, mutualism and survival, [Online]. The Mojave Project: Field dispatches, (Producer). Available: https://mojaveproject.org/dispatches-item/the-joshua-tree-myth-mutualism-and-survival/. [99808]

43. Cole, Kenneth L.; Ironside, Dirsten; Eischeid, Jon; Garfin, Gregg; Duffy, Phillip B.; Toney, Chris. 2011. Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree distribution support future modeled range contraction. Ecological Applications. 21(1): 137-149. [82477]

44. Cole, William; James, Alexander; Smith, Christopher. 2017. First recorded observations of pollination and oviposition behavior in Tegeticula antithetica (Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae) suggest a functional basis for coevolution with Joshua tree (Yucca) hosts. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 110(4): 390–397. [99824]

45. Colorado State University, Center for Environmental Management. 2022. 2021 South range vegetation classification: Nellis Air Force Base, Creech Air Force Base, and the Nevada Test and Training Range. Final Report. Ft. Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 90 p. [98824]

46. Comanor, Peter L.; Clark, William H. 2000. Preliminary growth rates and a proposed age-form classification for the Joshua Tree, Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae). Haseltonia. No. 7: 37-46. [99894]

47. Cornett, James W. 2022. Joshua tree mortality and recovery after the Dome Fire, Mojave National Preserve. In: Miller, David M., ed. Volcanoes of the Mojave: The 2022 Desert Symposium field trip road log; 2022 April;. Running Springs, CA: Desert Symposium Inc: 185-189. [99923]

48. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]

49. DeFalco, Lesley A.; Esque, Todd C.; Scoles-Sciulla, Sara J.; Rodgers, Jane. 2010. Desert wildfire and severe drought diminish survivorship of the long-lived Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia; Agavaceae). American Journal of Botany. 97(2): 243-250. [81858]

50. Dole, Krishna P.; Loik, Michael E.; Sloan, Lisa Cirbus. 2003. The relative importance of climate change and the physiological effects of CO2 on freezing tolerance for the future distribution of Yucca brevifolia. Global and Planetary Change. 36(1-2): 137-146. [61295]

51. Emming, Jan. 2005. Special conservation report: Nevadagascar? The threat that invasive weeds and wildfires pose to our North American desert biomes. Part 1: The Mojave Desert and Joshua tree woodlands. Cactus and Succulent Journal. 77(6): 302-312. [62021]

52. Engel, E. Cayenne; Abella, Scott R. 2011. Vegetation recovery in a desert landscape after wildfires: Influences of community type, time since fire and contingency effects. Journal of Applied Ecology. 48(6): 1401-1410. [83972]

53. Esque, T. C.; Reynolds, B.; DeFalco, L. A.; Waitman, B. A. 2010. Demographic studies of Joshua trees in Mojave Desert National Parks: Demography with emphasis on germination and recruitment. Science Newsletter. No. 1: 9-12. [99832]

54. Esque, Todd C.; Schwalbe, Cecil R.; DeFalco, Lesley A.; Duncan, Russell B.; Hughes, Timothy J. 2003. Effects of desert wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. The Southwestern Naturalist. 48(1): 103-111. [44080]

55. Esque, Todd; Medica, Pa; Shryock, Daniel; Defalco, Lesley; Webb, Robert; Hunter, Richard. 2015. Direct and indirect effects of environmental variability on growth and survivorship of pre-reproductive Joshua trees, Yucca brevifolia Engelm. American Journal of Botany. 102(1): 85-91. [99830]

56. Esque, Todd; Shryock, Daniel; Berry, Gabrielle; Chen, Felicia; Defalco, Lesley; Lewicki, Sabrina; Cunningham, Brent; Gaylord, Eddie; Poage, Caitlan; Gantz, Gretchen; Gaalen, Ross; Gottsacker, Ben; McDonald, Amanda; Yoder, Jeremy; Smith, Christopher; Nussear, Kenneth. 2023. Unprecedented distribution data for Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia and Y. jaegeriana) reveal contemporary climate associations of a Mojave Desert icon. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 11: 1266892. [99795]

57. Everett, Percy C. 2012. A second summary of the culture of California plants at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1950-1970. Version 1.1. Claremont, CA: The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 541 p. [94252]

58. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2025. Flora of North America north of Mexico, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. [36990]

59. Franson, Raymond L. 1995. Health of plants salvaged for revegetation at a Mojave Desert gold mine: year two. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Haley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K., compilers. Proceedings: Wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 78-80. [24829]

60. Fremont, Brevet Captain J. C. 1845. The exploring expedition: The Rocky Mountains in the year 1842, and to Oregon and North California in the years 1843-1844. Senate executive document, 28th Congress, 2nd session, no. 174. Washington: Gales and Seaton. 758 p. [99843]

61. Fusco, Emily J.; Finn, John T.; Balch, Jennifer K.; Nagy, R. Chelsea; Bradley, Bethany A. 2019. Invasive grasses increase fire occurrence and frequency across US ecoregions. PNAS. 116(47): 23594-23599. [95452]

62. Gilliland, Kimberly D.; Huntly, Nancy J.; Anderson, J. E. 2006. Age and population structure of Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) in the northwestern Mojave Desert. Western North American Naturalist. 66(2): 202-208. [65051]

63. Godsoe, William; Strand, Eva; Smith, Christopher; Yoder, Jeremy; Esque, Todd; Pellmyr, Olle. 2009. Divergence in an obligate mutualism is not explained by divergent climatic factors. The New phytologist. 183(3): 589-599. [99800]

64. Gorder, Joel; Shaw, Rachel; Whitney, Rebecca. 2005. Joshua Tree National Park: Fire management plan. Environmental Assessment. Twentynine Palms, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park (Producer). Available: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/parkmgmt/upload/fire.pdf [2006, September 8]. [63502]

65. Gray, Ihlara C.; Adolph, Stephen C. 2024. Joshua tree demography and decomposition: Implications for desert night lizard habitat. The Southwestern Naturalist. 68(2): 137-146. [99895]

66. Guida, Ross J.; Abella, Scott R.; Smith, William J.; Stephen, Haroon; Roberts, Chris L. 2014. Climate change and desert vegetation distribution: Assessing thirty years of change in southern Nevada's Mojave Desert. Professional Geographer. 66(2): 311-322. [98840]

67. Harrower, Jennifer; Gilbert, Gregory. 2018. Context-dependent mutualisms in the Joshua tree-yucca moth system shift along a climate gradient. Ecosphere. 9(9): e02439. [99896]

68. Heaton, Jill; Kiester, A.; Meyers, S. 2006. LizLand: A geomorphic approach to lizard habitat modeling in the Mojave Desert. Journal of Arid Environments. 67: 202-225. [99897]

69. Hess, William J.; Baldwin, Bruce G. 2022. Yucca brevifolia: Western Joshua tree, [Online]. In: Jepson Flora Project (eds.); Jepson eFlora; Revision 10. Available: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed: [2024, September 17]. [99840]

70. Hess, William J.; Baldwin, Bruce G. 2022. Yucca jaegeriana: Eastern Joshua tree, [Online]. In: Jepson Flora Project (eds.); Jepson eFlora; Revision 10. Available: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed: [2024, September 17]. [99841]

71. Himler, Anna; Machado, Carlos. 2009. Host specificity, phenotype matching and the evolution of reproductive isolation in a coevolved plant-pollinator mutualism. Molecular ecology. 18(24): 4988-4990. [99809]

72. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]

73. Hollick, Charles Arthur. 1932. Deserts of the Southwest. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden. 33(395): 247–250. [99842]

74. Hopkins, Francesca M. 2018. Inland deserts region report: California’s fourth climate change assessment. SUM-CCCA4-2018-008. Sacramento, CA: California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Natural Resources Agency, and the California Energy. 67 p. [99819]

75. Horn, Kevin J. 2013. Factors underlying invasive grass fire regimes in the Mojave Desert and its consequences on plant and animal communities. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 160 p. Dissertation. [88029]

76. Horn, Kevin J.; St. Clair, Samuel B. 2017. Wildfire and exotic grass invasion alter plant productivity in response to climate variability in the Mojave Desert. Landscape Ecology. 32(3): 635-646. [91698]

77. Horn, Kevin J.; Wilkinson, Joseph; White, Steven; St. Clair, Samuel B. 2015. Desert wildfire impacts on plant community function. Plant Ecology. 216(12): 1623-1634. [90139]

78. Hughes, Lee E. 1998. Thirty years of rotation grazing in the Mojave Desert. Rangelands. 20(4): 6-8. [28913]

79. Hughes, Lee E. 2002. Is there recovery after fire, drought, and overgrazing? Rangelands. 24(4): 26-30. [45936]

80. Hunter, Richard B. 1994. Status of the flora and fauna on the Nevada Test Site, 1993: Results of continuing basic environmental monitoring, January through December 1993. Contract No. DE-AC08-94NV11432. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Nevada Operating Office. 315 p. [99820]

81. Hunter, Richard B.; Medica, Philip A. 1987. Status of the flora and fauna on the Nevada Test Site: Results of continuing basic environmental research--January through December 1987. DOE/NV/10630-2. Contract No. DE-AC08-84NV10327. [Las Vegas, NV]: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Health Physics and Defense Waste Division. 103 p. [10571]

82. ITIS. 2025. Species name. In: The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) database, [Online]. Available: https://www.itis.gov [insert access date]. [51763]

83. Johnson, Carl M. 1970. Common native trees of Utah. Special Report 22. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station. 109 p. [9785]

84. Johnson, Mara; Rew, Lisa J.; Maxwell, Bruce D.; Sutherland, Steve. 2006. The role of wildfire in the establishment and range expansion of nonnative plant species into natural areas: A review of current literature. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Center for Invasive Plant Management. 80 p. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27808 [2021, February 3]. [68196]

85. Kartesz, J. T., The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2015. Taxonomic Data Center, [Online]. Chapel Hill, NC: The Biota of North America Program, (Producer). Available: http://bonap.net/tdc [maps generated from Kartesz, J. T. 2015. Floristic synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP)] (in press). [84789]

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

87. Kay, Burgess L.; Graves, Walter L. 1983. Revegetation and stabilization techniques for disturbed desert vegetation. In: Webb, Robert H.; Wilshire, Howard G. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles. Springer Series on Environmental Management. New York, NY: Springer: 325-340. [98949]

88. Kay, Burgess L.; Graves, Walter L.; Young, James A. 1988. Long-term storage of desert shrub seed. Mojave Revegetation Notes. No. 23: 1-12. [98845]

89. 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]

90. Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 2007. Mojave Desert scrub vegetation. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Keeler-Wolf, Todd; Schoenherr, Allan A., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 609-625. [82716]

91. Keeley, Jon E.; Keeley, Sterling C.; Swift, Cheryl C.; Lee, Janet. 1984. Seed predation due to the yucca-moth symbiosis. The American Midland Naturalist. 112(1): 187-191. [5808]

92. Keeley, Jon E.; Meyers, Adriene. 1985. Effect of heat on seed germination of southwestern Yucca species. The Southwestern Naturalist. 30(2): 303-304. [5761]

93. Keith, Sandra L. 1982. A tree named Joshua. American Forests. 88(7): 40-42. [5802]

94. Ketchum, Richard V., III. 1967. The structure and growth responses of tobosa grass Hilaria mutica (Buckl.) Benth. as related to grazing. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 38 p. Thesis. [84277]

95. Kliemann, Michael Wm. 1979. A review of the natural values of the Hualapai Valley Joshua tree "forest"; an examination of the appropriateness of current protective measures at the site; and various recommendations aimed at improving protection of the resource. Kingman, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Resource Area: 12-24. [61827]

96. Klinger, Rob; Brooks, Matt. 2017. Alternative pathways to landscape transformation: Invasive grasses, burn severity and fire frequency in arid ecosystems. Journal of Ecology. 105(6): 1521-1533. [92303]

97. Klinger, Rob; Underwood, Emma C.; McKinley, Randy; Brooks, Matthew L. 2021. Contrasting geographic patterns of ignition probability and burn severity in the Mojave Desert. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 9: 593167. [95796]

98. Laabs, David; Allaback, Mark; Mitchell, Donald. 2022. Distribution, morphology, and karyotype of San Joaquin pocket mice from the western Mojave Desert. California Fish and Wildlife Journal. 108(2): e10. [99898]

99. Lagerstrom, Katherine M.; Vance, Summer; Cornwall, Brendan H.; Ruffley, Megan; Bellagio, Tatiana; Exposito-Alonso, Moi; Palumbi, Stephen R.; Hadly, Elizabeth A. 2022. From coral reefs to Joshua trees: What ecological interactions teach us about the adaptive capacity of biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions B. 377(1857): 20210389. [99805]

100. LANDFIRE. 2020. Biophysical settings models and descriptions, [Online]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey; Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, (Producers). Available: http://www.landfirereview.org/search.php [2024, February 2]. [96496]

101. Laudenslayer, William F., Jr. 1988. Joshua tree, [Online]. In: California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, (Producer). Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=67358&inline. [99844]

102. Lenihan, James M.; Bachelet, Cominique; Drapek, Raymond; Neilson, Ronald P. 2006. The response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire in California to future climate scenarios simulated by the MC1 dynamic vegetation model. Sacramento, CA: California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2005-191-SF. 19 p. [68206]

103. Lenihan, James M.; Bachelet, Dominique; Neilson, Ronald P.; Drapek, Raymond. 2008. Response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California. Climatic Change. 87(Suppl 1): S215-S230. [75571]

104. Lenz, Lee W. 2001. Seed dispersal in Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae)--present and past, with consideration of the future of the species. Aliso. 20(2): 61-74. [61297]

105. Lenz, Lee W. 2007. Reassessment of Yucca brevifolia and Recognition of Y. jaegeriana as a Distinct Species. A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany. 24(1): 7. [99838]

106. Loik, Michael E.; St. Onge, Christine D.; Rogers, Jane. 2000. Post-fire recruitment of Yucca brevifolia and Yucca schidigera in Joshua Tree National Park, California. In: Keeley, Jon E.; Baer-Keeley, Melanie; Fotheringham, C. J., eds. 2nd interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey: Open-File Report 00-62. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center: 79-85. [63309]

107. Lybbert, Andrew; St. Clair, Sam. 2016. Wildfire and floral herbivory alter reproduction and pollinator mutualisms of Yuccas and Yucca Moths. Journal of Plant Ecology. 10(5): rtw077. [99814]

108. Lybbert; Andrew H.; Taylor, Justin; DeFranco, Alyssa; St. Clair, Samuel B. 2017. Reproductive success of wind, generalist, and specialist pollinated plant species following wildfire in desert landscapes. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 26(12): 1030-1039. [93080]

109. Maxwell, C. G. 1971. The tree that is not a tree. American Forests. 77(3): 4-5. [5804]

110. McAuliffe, Joseph R. 2016. Perennial grass-dominated plant communities of the eastern Mojave Desert region. Desert Plants. 32(1): 8-91. [91546]

111. McCarten, Niall; Van Devender, Thomas R. 1988. Late Wisconsin vegetation of Robber's Roost in the western Mohave Desert, California. Madrono. 35(3): 226-237. [6183]

112. McCleary, James A. 1973. Comparative germination and early growth studies of six species of the genus Yucca. American Midland Naturalist. 90(2): 503-508. [61290]

113. McKelvey, Susan Delano. 1938. Yuccas of the southwestern United States: Part one. Jamaica Plains, MA: The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. 147 p. [3902]

114. Meyer, S. E. 2012. Restoring and managing cold desert shrublands for climate change mitigation, Chapter 2. In: Finch, Deborah M., ed. Climate change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior American West: A review and needs assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-285. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 21-34. [91463]

115. Minnich, Richard A. 1995. Postfire succession in desertscrub communities of southern California. In: Fletcher-Jones, Anne, ed. The Desert Tortoise Council: Proceedings of 1994 symposium; 1994. San Bernardino, CA: Desert Tortoise Council: 93-112. [97152]

116. Mojave National Preserve. 2023. Dome fire, [Online]. U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Preserve of California, (Producer). Available: https://www.nps.gov/moja/learn/nature/dome-fire.htm. [99810]

117. Moloney, Kirk A.; Mudrak, Erika L.; Fuentes-Ramirez, Andres; Parag, Hadas; Schat, Marjolein; Holzapeel, Claus. 2019. Increased fire risk in Mojave and Sonoran shrublands due to exotic species and extreme rainfall events. Ecosphere. 10(2): e02592. [96102]

118. Munda, P.; Pater, M. 2001. Commercial sources of conservation plant materials, [Online]. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson Plant Materials Center, (Producer). Available: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/plant-materials/cp/releases [2022, November 8]. [44989]

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

120. NatureServe. 2025. NatureServe network biodiversity location data, [Online]. Arlington, VA: NatureServe, (Producer). Available: https://explorer.natureserve.org. [94379]

121. North, Gretchen B.; Brinton, Erin K.; Garrett, Tadao Y. 2008. Contractile roots in succulent monocots: Convergence, divergence and adaptation to limited rainfall. Plant, Cell & Environment. 31(8): 1179-1189. [99836]

122. Palmer, Edward. 1878. Plants used by the Indians of the United States. The American Naturalist. 12(10): 646-655. [60449]

123. 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-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

124. Pellmyr, O.; Segraves, K. A. 2003. Pollinator divergence within an obligate mutualism: Two Yucca moth species (Lepidoptera; Prodoxidae: Tegeticula) on the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia; Agavaceae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 96(6): 716-722. [61309]

125. 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]

126. 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. [77864]

127. Rao, L.E.; Parker, D.R.; Bytnerowicz, A.; Allen, E.B. 2009. Nitrogen mineralization across an atmospheric nitrogen deposition gradient in southern California deserts. Journal of Arid Environments. 73(10): 920-930. [99801]

128. Rao, Leela E.; Allen, Edith B.; Meixner, Thomas. 2010. Risk-based determination of critical nitrogen deposition loads for fire spread in southern California deserts. Ecological Applications. 20(5): 1320-1335. [82483]

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

130. Reynolds, M. Bryant J.; DeFalco, Lesley A.; Esque, Todd C. 2012. Short seed longevity, variable germination conditions, and infrequent establishment events provide a narrow window for Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae) recruitment. American Journal of Botany. 99(10): 1647-1654. [99829]

131. Rogstad, Alix; Bean, Travis M.; Olsson, Aaryn; Casady, Grant M. 2009. Fire and invasive species management in hot deserts: Resources, strategies, tactics, and response. Rangelands. 31(3): 6-13. [77495]

132. Rowlands, Peter G. 1980. Recovery, succession, and revegetation in the Mojave Desert. In: Rowlands, Peter G., ed. The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on off road vehicles: A critical review. Special Publication. Riverside, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Desert Plan Staff: 75-120. [20680]

133. Rowlands, Peter Glanville. 1978. The vegetation dynamics of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia Engelm.) in the southwestern United States of America. Riverside, CA: University of California. 192 p. Dissertation. [63111]

134. Royer, Anne M.; Streisfeld, Matthew A.; Smith, Christopher I. 2016. Population genomics of divergence within an obligate pollination mutualism: Selection maintains differences between Joshua tree species. American Journal of Botany. 103(10): 1730-1741. [99831]

135. Rundel, Philip W.; Gibson, Arthur C. 1996. Ecological communities and processes in a Mojave Desert ecosystem: Rock Valley, Nevada. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 369 p. [61799]

136. Sanford, Monte P.; Huntly, Nancy. 2009. Selective herbivory by the desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) on Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia). Western North American Naturalist. 69(2): 165-170. [99899]

137. Scheibe, John S. 1984. Differences in the home ranges of Peromyscus truei and Dipodomys panamintinus (Rodentia). The Southwestern Naturalist. 29(1): 7-13. [94286]

138. Shafer, Sarah L.; Bartlein, Patrick J.; Thompson, Robert S. 2001. Potential changes in the distribution of western North America tree and shrub taxa under future climate scenarios. Ecosystems. 4(3): 200-215. [91465]

139. Shryock, Daniel; Defalco, Lesley; Esque, Todd. 2014. Life-history traits predict perennial species response to fire in a desert ecosystem. Ecology and Evolution. 4(15): 3046-3059. [99803]

140. Simonin, Devin A. 2001. Bromus madritensis, Bromus rubens. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.usda.gov /database/feis/plants/graminoid/brospp/all.html [2024, January 12]. [98867]

141. Simpson, Philip George. 1975. Anatomy and morphology of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia): An arborescent monocot. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. 524 p. Dissertation. [6280]

142. Smith, Christopher I.; Drummond, Christopher S.; Godsoe, William; Yoder, Jeremy B.; Pellmyr, Olle. 2009. Host specificity and reproductive success of yucca moths (Tegeticula spp. Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae) mirror patterns of gene flow between host plant varieties of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia: Agavaceae). Molecular Ecology. 18(24): 5218–5229. [99823]

143. Smith, Christopher Irwin; Godsoe, William K. W.; Tank, Shantel; Yoder, Jeremy B.; Pellmyr, Olle. 2008. Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: Asynchronous divergence in Joshua tree and its pollinators. Evolution. 62(10): 2676-2687. [99822]

144. Smith, Christopher; Sweet, Lynn; Yoder, Jeremy; McKain, Michael; Heyduk, Karolina; Barrows, Cameron. 2023. Dust storms ahead: Climate change, green energy development and endangered species in the Mojave Desert. Biological Conservation. 277(1): 109819. [99811]

145. Smith, Stanley D.; Hartsock, Terry, L.; Nobel, Park S. 1983. Ecophysiology of Yucca brevifolia, an arborescent monocot of the Mojave Desert. Oecologia. 60(1): 10-17. [5759]

146. Snyder, Sarah J. 2014. Effects of fire on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) thermal ecology. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Reno. 164 p. Dissertation. [88541]

147. St. Clair, Sam B.; Hoines, Josh. 2018. Reproductive ecology and stand structure of Joshua tree forests across climate gradients of the Mojave Desert. PLOS ONE. 13(2): e0193248. [99837]

148. St. Clair, Seth B.; St. Clair, Elijah A.; St. Clair, Samuel B. 2022. Spatio-temporal patterns of Joshua tree stand structure and regeneration following Mojave Desert wildfires. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 9: 667635. [99804]

149. Stanton, Rebekah; Saunders, Carrie; Bishop, Tara; St. Clair, Sam. 2025. Rodent herbivory preferences and their implications for plant community assembly and invasion in a post-fire desert ecosystem. Biological Invasions. 27(1): 30. [99812]

150. Stark, N. 1966. Review of highway planting information appropriate to Nevada. Bulletin No. B-7. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Desert Research Institute. In cooperation with: Nevada State Highway Department. 209 p. [47]

151. Starr, Tyler N.; Gakek, Katherine E.; Yoder, Jeremy B.; Flatz, Ramona; Smith, Christopher I. 2013. Asymmetric hybridization and gene flow between Joshua trees (Agavaceae: Yucca) reflect differences in pollinator host specificity. Molecular Ecology. 22(2): 437–449. [99825]

152. 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]

153. Sweet, Lynn; Green, Tyler; Heintz, James; Frakes, Neil; Graver, Nicolas; Rangitsch, Jeff; Rodgers, Jane; Heacox, Scott; Barrows, Cameron. 2019. Congruence between future distribution models and empirical data for an iconic species at Joshua Tree National Park. Ecosphere. 10(6): e02793. [99813]

154. Takeda, Donald. 1971. Effects of fire on the Joshua tree/pinyon-juniper ecotone in southern California. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. 42 p. Thesis. [63129]

155. The Jepson Herbarium. 2025. Jepson online interchange for California floristics, [Online]. In: Jepson Flora Project. Berkeley, CA: University of California, The University and Jepson Herbaria (Producers). Available: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html [70435]

156. Thomas, Kathryn A.; Keeler-Wolf, Todd; Franklin, Janet; Stine, Peter. 2004. Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program: Central Mojave vegetation database. Final Report. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center & Southwest Biological Science Center. 265 p. [98862]

157. Thorne, Robert F.; Prigge, Barry A.; Henrickson, James. 1981. A flora of the higher ranges and the Kelso Dunes of the eastern Mojave Desert in California. Aliso. 10(1): 71-186. [3767]

158. Trelease, William. 1893. Further studies of yuccas and their pollination. In: Board of trustees of the Missouri Botanical Garden. Fourth annual report of the Missouri Botanical Garden. St. Louis, MO: Missouri Botanical Garden: 181-226. [84116]

159. Tueller, P. T.; Tausch, R. J.; Bostick, V. 1991. Species and plant community distribution in a Mojave-Great Basin desert transition. Vegetatio. 92(2): 133-150. [15366]

160. 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]

161. Turner, Raymond M. 1982. Mohave desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 157-168. [2374]

162. U.S. Department of the Navy. 2015. Final environmental impact statement/legislative environmental impact statement for renewal of the naval air weapons station China Lake public land withdrawal. San Diego, CA: U.S. Dept. of Defense, Dept. of the Navy. 1340 p. [99816]

163. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2025. Western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). In: Environmental Conservation Online System, Species Profile. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10407. [99901]

164. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Joshua Tree species status assessment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p. [+appendices A-C]. [99900]

165. USDA, NRCS. 2025. The PLANTS database, [Database]. Greensboro, NC: U.S. National Plant Data Team, (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]

166. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Endangered Species Program, [Online]. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Producer). Available: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. [86564]

167. USFWS, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 2023. Species status assessment report for Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia and Y. jaegeriana). Version 2.0. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 189 p. [99835]

168. Vamstad, M. S.; Rotenberry, J. T. 2010. Effects of fire on vegetation and small mammal communities in a Mojave Desert Joshua tree woodland. Journal of Arid Environments. 74(10): 1309-1318. [81191]

169. Van Buren, Renee; Cooper, Janet G.; Shultz, Leila M.; Harper, Kimball T. 2011. Woody plants of Utah. A field guide with identification keys to native and naturalized trees, shrubs, cacti, and vines. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. 513 p. [93924]

170. Vander Wall, Stephen B.; Esque, Todd; Haines, Dustin; Garnett, Megan; Waitman, Ben A. 2006. Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) seeds are dispersed by seed-caching rodents. Ecoscience. 13(4): 539-543. [67384]

171. Vaughan, Terry A. 1954. Mammals of the San Gabriel Mountains of California. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 7(9): 513-582. [60582]

172. Vogl, Richard J. 1968. Fire adaptations of some southern California plants. In: Proceedings, California Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967 November 9-10; Hoberg, CA. No. 7. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 79-109. [6268]

173. Waitman, B. A.; Wall, S. B.; Esque, Todd. 2012. Seed dispersal and seed fate in Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). Journal of Arid Environments. 81: 1–8. [99821]

174. Wallace, A.; Romney, E. M. 1972. Radioecology and ecophysiology of desert plants at the Nevada Test Site. Rep. TID-25954. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Information Services. 439 p. [15000]

175. Wallace, Arthur; Romney, Evan M.; Ashcroft, Rulon T. 1970. Soil temperature effects on growth of seedlings of some shrub species which grow in the transitional area between the Mojave and Great Basin Deserts. BioScience. 20(21): 1158-1159. [64803]

176. Webb, Merrill. 1999. Occurrence of birds on a Great Basin-Mohave Desert ecotone in southwestern Utah. 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: 35-39. [36059]

177. Webb, Robert H.; Murov, M. B.; Esque, T. C.; Boyer, D. E.; DeFalco, L. A.; Haines, D. F.; Oldershaw, D.; Scoles, S. J.; Thomas, K. A.; Blainey, J. B.; Medica, P. A. 2003. Perennial vegetation data from permanent plots on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Open-File Report 03-336. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Geological Survey. 257 p. [98858]

178. Webb, Robert H.; Steiger, John W.; Turner, Raymond M. 1987. Dynamics of Mojave Desert shrub assemblages in the Panamint Mountains, California. Ecology. 68(3): 478-490. [2473]

179. Webber, John Milton. 1953. Yuccas of the Southwest. Agriculture Monograph No. 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p. [2474]

180. Wells, Philip V. 1961. Succession in desert vegetation on streets of a Nevada ghost town. Science. 134(3480): 670-671. [4959]

181. Wells, Philip V.; Woodcock, Deborah. 1985. Full-glacial vegetation of Death Valley, California: Juniper woodland opening to Yucca semidesert. Madrono. 32(1): 11-23. [2493]

182. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 2016. A Utah flora. 5th ed. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 987 p. [94185]

183. Went, F. W. 1948. Ecology of desert plants. I. Observations on germination in the Joshua Tree National Monument, California. Ecology. 29(3): 242-253. [12915]

184. Went, Frits W. 1957. Ecology. In: Went, Frits W. The experimental control of plant growth. Chronica Botanica Volume 17. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica: 237-257. [63222]

185. Went, Frits W. 1957. Miscellaneous wild plants. In: Went, Frits W. The experimental control of plant growth. Chronica Botanica Volume 17. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica: 171-183. [63220]

186. West Inc. 2021. Population size evaluation for the western Joshua tree. Prepared for: 8minute Solar Energy, EDF Renewables, Longroad Energy, and Terra-Gen. Cheyenne, WY: West, Inc. 19 p. [99818]

187. Wiesenborn, William D. 2015. Bagnalliella mojave (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) thrips inhabit small and isolated Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae) host plants. Florida Entomologist. 98(1): 384-386. [99902]

188. Wilder, Benjamin T.; Jarnevich, Catherine S.; Baldwin, Elizabeth; Black, Joseph S.; Franklin, Kim A.; Grissom, Perry; Hovanes, Katherine A.; Olsson, Aaryn; Maulsa, Jim; Kibria, Abu S. M. G.; Li, Yue M.; Lien, Aaron M.; Ponce, Alejandro; Rowe, Julia A.; Soto, Jose R.; Stahl, Maya R.; Young, Nicholas E.; Betancourt, Julio L. 2021. Grassification and fast-evolving fire connectivity and risk in the Sonoran Desert, United States. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 9: e955561 [+Supplement]. [96620]

189. Wildland Fire Interagency Geospatial Services. 2024. WFIGS Current Interagency Fire Perimeters, [Online]. National Interagency Fire Center, Wildland Fire Interagency Geospatial Services, (Producer). Available: https://data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/nifc::wfigs-current-interagency-fire-perimeters/explore?location=34.338606%2C-115.016811%2C8.00. [99799]

190. Wilkening, Jennifer L.; Hoffmann, Scott L.; Sirchia, Felicia. 2020. Examining the past, present, and future of an iconic Mojave Desert species, the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia, Yucca jaegeriana). The Southwestern Naturalist. 65(3-4): 216-229. [99903]

191. Woodbury, Angus M. 1947. Distribution of pigmy conifers in Utah and northeastern Arizona. Ecology. 28(2): 113-126. [64557]

192. Yeaton, R. I.; Yeaton, R. W.; Waggoner, J. P., III; Horenstein, J. E. 1985. The ecology of yucca (Agavaceae) over an environmental gradient in the Mohave Desert: distribution and interspecific interactions. Journal of Arid Environments. 8(1): 33-44. [281]

193. Yoder, J. B.; Smith, Christopher; Rowley, D. J.; Flatz, Ramona; Godsoe, W.; Drummond, C.; Pellmyr, Olle. 2013. Effects of gene flow on phenotype matching between two varieties of Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia; Agavaceae) and their pollinators. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 26(6): 1220-1233. [99833]

194. Yoder, Jeremy; Andrade, Ana; Defalco, Lesley; Esque, Todd; Carlson, Colin; Shryock, Daniel; Yeager, Ray; Smith, Christopher. 2024. Reconstructing 120 years of climate change impacts on Joshua tree flowering. Ecology Letters. 27(8): e14478. [99827]

195. Zembal, Richard; Gall, Cynthia. 1980. Observations on Mohave ground squirrels, Spermophilus mohavensis, in Inyo County, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 61(2): 347-350. [63168]

196. Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/brotec/all.html. [92768]

Last updated December 30, 2025