Zigadenus paniculatus, foothill deathcamas
Howard, Janet L. 1993. Zigadenus paniculatus, foothill deathcamas. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/zigpan
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| ZIGPAN | foothill deathcamas | Zigadenus paniculatus | Life Form: Plants/Forb Kingdom: Plantae Class: Monocot Order: Liliales Family: Liliaceae Genus: Zigadenus | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Native Invasiveness: Noninvasive |
Taxonomy
The currently accepted scientific name of foothill deathcamas is Zigadenus paniculatus (Nutt.) Wats. (Liliaceae). There are no subspecies, varieties, or forms [5,6,7,8,21].
Synonyms
Zygadenus paniculatus (Nutt.) Wats.
Other Common Names
sandcorn, panicled deathcamas, deathcamas
General Distribution
Foothill deathcamas is distributed from Washington east to Montana and south to California, northern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico [7,8].
States and Provinces
- United States: AZ CA CO ID NV MT NM OR UT WA WY
Site Characteristics
Foothill deathcamas grows in dry, loamy to gravelly soils. It is found at 4,000 to 7,500 feet (1,300-2,600 m) in elevation throughout its range [11,13].
Plant Communities
See the Appendix for plant communities and cover types in which foothill deathcamas may occur.
Species named as foothill deathcamas associates in the big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) plant community include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), and low larkspur (Delphinium bicolor) [13]. Associates in the true pinyon-Utah juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus osteosperma) community include Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), Fendler bluegrass (Poa fendleriana), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and hairy telegraphplant (Heterotheca villosa) [2].
Botanical Description
Foothill deathcamas is a native, cool-season, perennial forb. Its peduncle is from 8 to 21 inches (20-60 cm) long; acaulescent leaves are from 12 to 20 inches (30-50 cm) long [6,11,13]. The roots are fibrous, growing from the base of a "deep-set" underground bulb [13,19]. The inflorescence is a raceme of polygamous flowers. The fruit is a capsule [7,11,13].
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Geophyte
Seasonal Development
Foothill deathcamas begins growth in early spring and flowers from May to June [11,13].
Regeneration Processes
Foothill deathcamas reproduces from seed, with pollination effected by syrphid flies and solitary bees [16]. It reproduces vegetatively by bulb offsets [9].
Successional Status
No entry.
Immediate Fire Effects
Late spring, summer, or fall fire probably top-kills foothill deathcamas. Early spring fire that completely consumes aboveground portions of the plant may kill foothill deathcamas [17].
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
Fire Adaptations
Information on the fire adaptations of foothill deathcamas is lacking in the literature. It probably survives most fires because its bulb and growing points are located below ground.
Plant Response to Fire
Foothill deathcamas recovery following fire has not been documented in the literature. Late spring, summer, or fall fire probably does no lasting damage to deathcamas. It has been listed as one the of the plant species that is undamaged by fire in the big sagebrush plant community [23]. Early spring fire, however, is probably harmful to this cool-season plant. It has been experimentally demonstrated that foothill deathcamas cannot produce a new set of leaves following defoliation, which could occur during early spring fire. Springtime fire may kill some plants. Tepedino [17] stated that following defoliation in early spring, foothill deathcamas may perish because photosynthate reserves are insufficient to support growth the following spring. Flowering is also affected by defoliation. In Cache County, Utah, 60 percent of plants defoliated prior to the flowering period produced no flowers, as opposed to only 17 percent of control plants. Defoliated plants that did bloom produced fewer flowers per raceme than did intact plants. Tepedino has hypothesized that flowering may be delayed for 1 to several years after defoliation.
Fire Regimes
For fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name or acronym on the home page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.
Fire Management Considerations
No entry.
Federal Status
None
Other Status
No entry.
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
All parts of foothill deathcamas are poisonous to livestock and wildlife at all times of the year [13,18,19].
Palatability and Nutritional Value
Foothill deathcamas is unpalatable to all classes of livestock [13,19].
Cover Value
No entry.
Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites
No entry.
Other Uses
No entry.
Other Management Considerations
Rangeland: Foothill deathcamas is one of the first plants to produce growth in spring. Livestock poisonings usually occur when animals are put on the range in early spring before more palatable plant species are available [13,19]. Sheep are most commonly poisoned: 336 grams of foothill deathcamas (dry weight) was lethal to experimentally fed ewes (weight of the ewes averaged 51 kilograms) [12]. Foothill deathcamas is an increaser under heavy grazing; an abundance of foothill deathcamas indicates a need for rangeland improvement practices [13].
Control: Foothill deathcamas can be controlled by 2 successive years of spraying with 2,4-D before flowering, when plants are in the three-leaf stage [13,24,25].
Other: Humans are occasionally poisoned after consuming foothill deathcamas bulbs. The bulbs are sometimes mistaken for edible bulbs of wild onion (Allium spp.), hyacinth (Brodiaea spp.), or camas (Camassia spp.) [13,19].
Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.
Forest and Range Ecosystems (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES20 Douglas-fir
- FRES21 Ponderosa pine
- FRES26 Lodgepole pine
- FRES29 Sagebrush
- FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- 1 Northern Pacific Border
- 2 Cascade Mountains
- 4 Sierra Mountains
- 5 Columbia Plateau
- 6 Upper Basin and Range
- 8 Northern Rocky Mountains
- 9 Middle Rocky Mountains
- 10 Wyoming Basin
- 11 Southern Rocky Mountains
- 12 Colorado Plateau
Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)
- K005 Mixed conifer forest
- K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
- K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
- K011 Western ponderosa forest
- K012 Douglas-fir forest
- K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
- K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
- K024 Juniper steppe woodland
- K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
- K029 California mixed evergreen forest
- K038 Great Basin sagebrush
- K055 Sagebrush steppe
- K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 210 Interior Douglas-fir
- 218 Lodgepole pine
- 220 Rocky Mountain juniper
- 229 Pacific Douglas-fir
- 230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
- 234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
- 237 Interior ponderosa pine
- 238 Western juniper
- 239 Pinyon - juniper
- 244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
- 245 Pacific ponderosa pine
- 247 Jeffrey pine
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry
1. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
2. Erdman, James A. 1970. Pinyon-juniper succession after natural fires on residual soils of Mesa Verde, Colorado. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin. Biological Series. 11(2): 1-26. [11987]
3. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
4. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
5. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p. [6851]
6. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
7. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptograms, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 914 p. [1169]
8. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
9. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1982. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 252 p. [9980]
10. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
11. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
12. Panter, K. E.; Ralphs, M. H.; Smart, R. A.; Duelke, B. 1987. Death camas poisoning in sheep: a case report. Veterinary and Human Toxicology. 29(1): 45-48. [4906]
13. Parker, Karl G. 1975. Some important Utah range plants. Extension Service Bulletin EC-383. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 174 p. [9878]
14. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
15. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
16. Tepedino, V. J. 1981. Notes on the reproductive biology of Zigadenus paniculatus, a toxic range plant. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(4): 427-430. [2311]
17. Tepedino, V.J. 1982. Effects of defoliation on reproduction of a toxic range plant, Zigadenus paniculatus. Great Basin Naturalist. 42(4): 524-528. [2312]
18. Benedict, W. V.; Harris, T. H. 1931. Experimental Ribes eradication Stanislaus National Forest. Journal of Forestry. 29(5): 709-720. [427]
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
21. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
22. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
23. Pechanec, Joseph F.; Stewart, George; Blaisdell, James P. 1954. Sagebrush burning good and bad. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [1859]
24. Blaisdell, James P.; Mueggler, Walter F. 1956. Effect of 2,4-D on forbs and shrubs associated with big sagebrush. Journal of Range Management. 9: 38-40. [465]
25. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 1985. Final Northwest Area noxious weed control program environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. 295 p. [12796]