Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Salsola kali
Introductory
SPECIES: Salsola kali
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Salsola kali. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/forb/salkal/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
SALKAL
SYNONYMS :
Salsola australis R. Br. [21,57]
Salsola iberica Sennen & Pau [28,58]
Salsola pestifer A. Nels [65]
Salsola tragus L. [65]
SCS PLANT CODE :
SAKA
SAKAT
COMMON NAMES :
Russian-thistle
tumbleweed
TAXONOMY :
Several specific epithets for Russian-thistle are used in current
literature. Salsola kali L. is most widely used [7,37,39,43,47,50], and
will be used in this write-up. There are three varieties of S. kali in
North America, with varietal differences based upon degree of pubescence
of stems [50] and size of leaves and fruits [53]. Recognized varieties
are as follows [25,36,50]:
Salsola kali var. caroliniana (Walter) Nutt.
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia G. F. Meyer
Salsola kali var. kali
S. kali hybridizes with S. paulsenii (barbwire Russian-thistle) [9], and
may hybridize with S. collina (no common name in current use) [28].
LIFE FORM :
Forb
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Salsola kali
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Native to Eurasia, Russian-thistle is distributed throughout most arid
and semiarid regions of the world. In North America Russian thistle
occurs from British Columbia east to Labrador and south through the
conterminous United States to northern Mexico [18,34]. It is most
common in central and western regions of Canada and the United States,
and along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Limited southern and eastern
inland populations occur along waste areas and railroad tracks [61].
Russian-thistle is adventitious in Hawaii [66].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI
ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA
MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NJ NM NY
NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN
TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY AB BC
LB MB NF ON PQ SK MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
Common in many Kuchler Plant Associations
SAF COVER TYPES :
Common in many SAF Cover Types
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Russian-thistle occurs in many communities. It is most common along
seabeaches and in disturbed grassland and desert communities, with the
largest populations occurring in semiarid regions [50,61]. Pure stands
occur in southern Nevada between elevations of 4,000 and 6,000 feet
(1,219-1829 m) [9]. A published classification listing Russian-thistle
as dominant is:
Valley grassland [32]
Russian-thistle associates are too numerous to list due to its
widespread distribution.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Salsola kali
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Cattle and sheep eat Russian-thistle, and it is a minor component (less
than 10%) in bison, mule deer, and elk diets [18,45,51,53]. It is an
important prairie dog food [13], and pronghorn show high preference
for the summer growth in years of high precipitation [8].
Russian-thistle seeds are eaten by at least eight species of granivorous
birds, including scaled and Gambel's quail [5,18,20]. Small mammals
also consume the seeds [18].
PALATABILITY :
Russian-thistle is preferred by prairie dogs [13]. It is palatable to
sheep and cattle from early spring until flowering, at which time sharp
spines form, and again during winter when spines are softened by
moisture [53]. Foliage is palatable to pronghorn in summer and fall,
and is palatable year-round in wet years. Pronghorn find it low in
palatability in dry years and in spring [8].
The palatability of Russian-thistle for livestock and wildlife species
is rated as follows [19]:
CO MT ND UT WY
Cattle fair fair fair fair fair
Sheep, domestic fair good good good fair
Horses fair poor fair poor fair
Pronghorn ---- ---- ---- poor poor
Elk ---- ---- ---- good good
Mule deer ---- ---- ---- good good
White-tailed deer ---- ---- ---- ---- good
Small mammals ---- ---- ---- fair good
Small nongame birds ---- ---- ---- fair fair
Upland game birds ---- ---- ---- fair good
Waterfowl ---- ---- ---- poor poor
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
The nutritional value of Russian-thistle varies by season. In spring
Russian-thistle provides fair nutrition for livestock and wildlife. The
nutritional value of fresh, immature Russian-thistle leaves and stems
was as follows [44]:
Composition (%) Digestible Protein (%)
ash 12.0 cattle 8.5
crude fiber 12.4 goats 8.6
protein 11.5 horses 8.3
rabbits 8.1
The nutritional value of winter forage, after the plant has dried, is
higher. It is a good source of vitamin A and phosphorus. Dry
Russian-thistle from a western Utah rangeland had the following
nutritional value for sheep [15]:
digestible protein (%) 12.4
digestible energy (cal/lb) 997
ash (%) 22.8
calcium (%) 2.47
phosphorus (%) 0.22
carotene (mg/lb) 4.1
Russian-thistle contains small amounts of oxalate that are probably not
harmful to livestock [12].
Weanling mice showed favorable growth responses when fed a diet of
Russian-thistle seed meal. The nutritional value of Russian thistle
seed meal from Saskatchewan, Canada was as follows [16]:
protein (%) 49.9
ash (%) 7.4
fiber (%) 10.4
oxalate (%) 2.2
COVER VALUE :
Russian-thistle provides hiding cover for small mammals, songbirds,
upland game birds, and waterfowl [19]. Seven percent of sage grouse in
a southeastern Idaho big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) community used
Russian-thistle for nesting cover [35].
The degree to which Russian-thistle provides environmental protection
to wildlife has been rated as follows [19]:
MT ND UT WY
Pronghorn ---- good poor poor
Elk ---- ---- poor poor
Mule deer ---- good poor poor
White-tailed deer ---- good ---- poor
Small mammals fair ---- fair fair
Small nongame birds fair ---- fair fair
Upland game birds ---- good fair fair
Waterfowl good ---- poor poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Russian-thistle is beneficial when rehabilitating disturbed sites. It
is frequently an unwanted weed on such sites, but disturbed sites often
recover more quickly when Russian-thistle is left on-site because its
presence accelerates the rate of revegetation [2,18, 29]. If topsoil
remains on the site, Russian-thistle roots are readily invaded by
mycorrhizal fungi harbored in the soil [4]. Russian-thistle does not
form mycorrhizal associations, and fungal invasion results in the death
of the infected root. The fungi consequently invade other
Russian-thistle roots. Russian-thistle populations decline, but
mycorrhizal fungus populations increase and subsequently invade the
mycorrhizal association-forming species which comprise the next stage of
plant succession. These species usually flourish as a consequence of
increased mycorrhizal fungus populations [2]. Dead Russian-thistle
plants provide microshading for other establishing plant species [29].
If topsoil is gone, however, Russian-thistle can dominate disturbed
sites for up to 10 years. Such sites benefit more from the addition of
topsoil than the removal of Russian-thistle [3].
Dry Russian-thistle foliage has been used as an inexpensive mulch on
replanted coal mine spoils in Arizona [17].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Agricultural: Russian-thistle is sometimes harvested for hay and
silage. Russian-thistle hay is credited with saving the beef cattle
industry in Canada and the United States during the Dust Bowl era, when
conventional hay crops failed and no other feed was available for
starving animals [18,61].
Russian-thistle is sometimes used for Christmas decoration [7].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Range: Lambs entering winter ranges for the first time sometimes
develop mouth ulcerations from eating dry Russian-thistle. The
ulcerations usually persist for 2 to 3 weeks. Additionally, rain- or
snow-softened Russian-thistle often has a laxative effect upon
livestock, which may harm already weakened animals [15,53].
Livestock ranges that have deteriorated from drought or overgrazing are
frequently invaded and dominated by Russian-thistle [41,52].
Agricultural: Russian-thistle competes with crop plants for space,
water, and nutrients [55]. In Washington, Russian-thistle ranked
seventh in importance when compared to other crop weeds based upon
hectares infested [60]. Russian-thistle is the primary host for the
beet leafhopper (Circulifera tenellus) that vectors the curly-top virus
of sugar beets, tomatoes, and curcubits (Cucurbita spp.) [18,53].
Russian-thistle shows promise as a hay crop in semiarid regions. When
irrigated and fertilized, Russian-thistle grown on a New Mexican site
produced 73 percent as much total dry weight matter per year per
hectare as alfalfa, and contained 65 percent as much protein, while
requiring only half as much water [30].
Other: Russian-thistle is often considered a troublesome weed because
it obstructs roadways and stream channels, buries fence lines, and
causes fire hazards [55].
Control: Burrill and others [14] reported that either 2,4-D or
bromoxynil used in combination with dicamba was 80 to 94 percent
effective in controlling Russian-thistle, and metribuzin used in
combination with chlorsulfuron gave 95 to 100 percent control. Young
and Whitesides [60] reported only 12 percent control of Russian-thistle
with 2,4-D.
Insects from the genera Celeophora, Microlarinus, and Trichosirocalus
are being tested as biological contol agents of Russian-thistle. Insect
populations of these genera have established in California, but
preliminary results suggest that of the three genera, only
Trichosirocalus is able to establish in cold climates. Trichosirocalus
horridis has been successfully introduced in Canada for Russian-thistle
control [40]. To date, there are no data regarding the effectiveness of
these insects as control agents.
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Salsola kali
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Russian-thistle is an exotic, annual, erect, xerohalophytic forb
[2,6,34]. It is highly branched and rounded in form, growing from 1 to
3 feet (0.3-1 m) in height and from 1 to 5 feet (0.3-1.5 m) in diameter.
The awl-shaped, spiny-tipped leaves bear small, inconspicuous flowers in
the leaf axils. The small, winged seed, retained in the leaf axils
until after plant death, contains no endosperm tissue, but is instead
comprised of a spirally-coiled, complete embryo [34] already containing
some chlorophyll [56]. The root system consists of a taproot, reaching
0.3 foot (1 m) or more in depth, and extensive lateral roots. Under
crowded conditions, roots are shallow [1].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Therophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Russian-thistle is a highly effective reproducer. After seeds mature in
late fall the plant stem separates from the root [61]. The plant is
then blown by wind. Seeds, held in the leaf axils, fall to the ground
as the plant tumbles [18]. Further dispersal is accomplished when wind
scatters the winged seeds. The seed wings may aid in seed germination
by absorbing soil moisture. One plant typically produces about 250,000
seeds, which remain viable for less than a year [61]. Fresh seed will
germinate at a very limited range of alternating day/night seedbed
temperatures: 68/41 degrees Fahrenheit (20/5 deg C) [62]. Over winter,
temperature restrictions disappear. In spring, Russian thistle seeds
will germinate at virtually any conceivable seedbed temperature,
including alternating day/night temperatures of 122/29 degrees
Fahrenheit (50/-2 deg C) [63]. In tests conducted in a big sagebrush
community in Nevada, Evans and Young [23] noted the following
germination percentages at various nighttime minimum temperatures:
Temperature (deg C) Germination (%)
-3 0
0 26
3 43
5 56
7 88
9 78
10 88
15 78
20 66
25 29
At optimum temperatures (44 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit [7-10 deg C]),
germination is accomplished within minutes [55]. This extremely short
germination time aids in establishment in desert environments.
Germination is epigeal or hypogeal [63]. The spirally-coiled embryo
unwinds and pushes the root into the soil. Embryos do not survive if
they germinate on compacted soil, or at a soil depth of greater then 5
inches (13 cm) [55]. Russian-thistle seedlings are poor competitors,
and do not establish well in crowded communities [61].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Russian-thistle grows in disturbed or unoccupied sites at elevations
from below sea level (in Death Valley, California) to 8,550 feet (2,600
m) [61]. It grows in any type of well-drained, uncompacted soil with a
sunny exposure [55,61]. It is most frequent, however, in alkaline or
saline soils due to reduced competition. Russian-thistle cannot
tolerate saturated soil for extended periods of time [61].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Russian-thistle is a shade-intolerant initial colonizer in primary and
secondary succession. It colonizes barren desert areas that cannot
support other flora [61], and invades many different disturbed plant
communities [9]. In disturbed big sagebrush communities,
Russian-thistle dominates for the first 2 years. After this time plants
become overcrowded and stunted [49] and are often replaced by mustards
(Descurainia and Sisymbrium spp.) [46].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
The following seasonal development has been reported for
Russian-thistle:
germinates: late April - August [62]
flowers: June - August [31,34,61]
seeds mature: August - November [42,61]
plant dies: first fall frost [10,31]
seeds disseminate: late fall [10,61]
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Salsola kali
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Fire ecology: Russian-thistle aids in spreading fire. It burns easily
because the stems are spaced in an arrangement that allows for maximum
air circulation [61]. Also, dead plants contribute to fuel load by
retaining their original shape for some time before decomposing [23].
The rolling action of the plant spreads prairie wildfire quickly.
Fire adaptations: Russian-thistle colonizes a burn when off-site,
abscised plants blow across it, spreading seed [61].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Salsola kali
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The immediate effects of fire upon Russian-thistle were not found in the
literature. Fire presumably kills Russian-thistle and kills at least
some of the seed retained in leaf axils.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Russian-thistle colonizes a burn site within 1 to 3 years. It dominated
a big sagebrush community in Idaho at postfire year 2, contributing 58
percent of the total community biomass [26]. On the Mesa Verde Plateau
of Colorado, it codominated a burned area with Bigelow aster
(Machaeranthera bigelovii) at postfire year 3 [22]. Once dominant,
Russian-thistle retains dominance for an average of 1 more year. At
postfire year 3 or 4, populations decline until further disturbance
[61].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
The tendency of dead plants to aggregate against fencelines and
buildings creates a fire hazard. Tumbling, ignited plants can spread
fire, and may bounce across fire lines [61].
Prescribed burning will not control Russian-thistle, since it colonizes
from off-site and thrives in disturbed communities.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Salsola kali
REFERENCES :
1. Allen, Edith Bach. 1982. Water and nutrient competition between Salsola
kali and two native grass species (Agropyron smithii and Bouteloua
gracilis). Ecology. 63(3): 732-741. [2877]
2. Allen, Edith B.; Allen, Michael F. 1988. Facilitation of succession by
the nonmycotrophic colonizer Salsola kali (Chenopodiaceae) on a harsh
site: effects of mycorrhizal fungi. American Journal of Botany. 75(2):
257-266. [2921]
3. Allen, Michael F. 1989. Mycorrhizae and rehabilitation of disturbed arid
soils: processes and practices. Arid Soil Research. 3: 229-241. [9198]
4. Allen, Michael F.; Allen, Edith B.; Friese, Carl F. 1989. Responses of
the non-mycotrophic plant Salsola kali to invasion by
vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist. 111(1): 45-49.
[13033]
5. Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1984. Avian use of revegetated
riparian zones. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds.
California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive
management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis,
CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 626-631. [5865]
6. Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. 1988. North American
terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
434 p. [13876]
7. Bare, Janet E. 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: The
Regents Press of Kansas. 509 p. [3801]
8. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption,
and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
9. Beatley, Janice C. 1973. Russian-thistle (Salsola) species in western
United States. Journal of Range Management. 26(3): 225-226; 1973. [410]
10. Beatley, Janice C. 1974. Phenological events and their environmental
triggers in Mojave Desert ecosystems. Ecology. 55: 856-863. [4165]
11. 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]
12. Blaisdell, James P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 1984. Managing Intermountain
rangelands--salt-desert shrub ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-163. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [464]
13. Bonham, Charles D.; Lerwick, Alton. 1976. Vegetation changes induced by
prairie dogs on shortgrass range. Journal of Range Management. 29(3):
221-225. [3994]
14. Burrill, Larry C.; Braunworth, William S., Jr.; William, Ray D.; [and
others], compilers. 1989. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Agricultural
Communications. 276 p. [6235]
15. Cook, C. Wayne; Stoddart, L. A.; Harris, Lorin E. 1954. The nutritive
value of winter range plants in the Great Basin as determined with
digestion trials with sheep. Bulletin 372. Logan, UT: Utah State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. [682]
16. Coxworth, E. C. M.; Bell, J. M.; Ashford, R. 1969. Preliminary
evaluation of Russian thistle, Kochia, and garden atriplex as potential
high protein content seed crops for semiarid areas. Canadian Journal of
Plant Science. 49: 427-434. [7]
17. Day, A. D.; Ludeke, K. L. 1987. Effects of soil materials, mulching
treatments, and soil moisture on the growth and yield of western
wheatgrass for coal mine reclamation. Desert Plants. 8(3): 136-139.
[223]
18. DeLoach, C. Jack; Boldt, Paul E.; Cjordo, Hugo A.; [and others]. 1986.
Weeds common to Mexican and U.S. rangelands: proposals for biological
control and ecological studies. In: Patton, David R.; Gonzales V.,
Carlos E.; Medina, Alvin L.; [and others], technical coordinators.
Management and utilization of arid land plants: Symposium proceedings;
1985 February 18-22; Saltillo, Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-135. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 49-68. [776]
19. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information
network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
20. Disano, John; Anderson, Bertin W.; Meents, Julie K.; Ohmart, Robert D.
1984. Compatibility of biofuel production with wildlife habitat
enhancement. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds.
California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive
management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 739-743.
[5872]
21. Dorn, Robert D. 1988. Vascular plants of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain
West Publishing. 340 p. [6129]
22. Hess, Wilford M.; Nelson, David L.; Sturges, David L. 1985. Morphology
and ultrastructure of a snowmold fungus on sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata). Mycologia. 77(4): 637-645. [1143]
23. Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 1970. Plant litter and establishment
of alien annual weed species in rangeland communities. Weed Science.
18(6): 697-703. [877]
24. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
25. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
26. Fraley, L., Jr. 1978. Revegetation following a 1974 fire at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Site. In: Markham, O. D., ed. Ecological
studies on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site: 1978 Progress
Report. IDO-12087. Idaho Falls, ID: U.S.Dept. of Energy, Environ.
Sciences Branch, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Lab: 194-199.
[953]
27. 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]
28. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
29. Grilz, P.; Delanoy, L.; Grismer, G. 1988. Site preparation, seeding,
nurse crop methods tested in dune restoration (Saskatchewan).
Restoration & Management Notes. 6(1): 47-48. [4696]
30. Hageman, J. H.; Fowler, J. L.; Schaefer, D. A. 1978. Nitrogen
fertilization of irrigated Russian-thistle forage. II. Some nutritional
qualities. Agronomy Journal. 70: 992-995. [1056]
31. Hamilton, K. C.; Arle, H. F.; McRae, G. N. 1960. Control and
identification of crop weeds in southern Arizona. Bulletin 296. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 67 p.
[5096]
32. Heady, Harold F. 1977. Valley grassland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
and Sons: 491-514. [7215]
33. Hironaka, M.; Tisdale, E. W. 1963. Secondary succession in annual
vegetation in southern Idaho. Ecology. 44(4): 810-812. [1160]
34. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1964. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest. Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 597 p. [1166]
35. Hulet, Brian V.; Flinders, Jerran T.; Green, Jeffrey S.; [and others].
1986. Seasonal movements and habitat selection of sage grouse in
southern Idaho. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus;
1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 168-175. [1206]
36. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central
Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 648 p. [13798]
40. Leen, Rosemary. 1991. Climatic associations and establishment of
biological control of weed insects. In: Center, Ted D.; Doren, Robert
F.; Hofstetter, Ronald L.; Myers, Ronald L.; Whiteaker, Louis D, eds.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants; 1988 November 2 -
November 4; Miami, FL. Tech. Rep. NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 189-195.
[17866]
41. Lohmiller, Robert George. 1963. Drought and its effect on condition and
production of a desert grassland range. University Park, NM: New Mexico
State University. 57 p. M.S. thesis. [2715]
42. Monsen, Stephen B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1985. Factors influencing
establishment of seeded broadleaf herbs and shrubs following fire. In:
Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: a symposium:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State
Office: 112-124. [1682]
43. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
44. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United
States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
772 p. [1731]
45. Peden, D. G.; Van Dyne, G. M.; Rice, R. W.; Hansen, R. M. 1974. The
trophic ecology of Bison bison L. on shortgrass plains. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 11: 489-497. [1861]
46. Chapman, Joseph A.; Henny, Charles J.; Wight, Howard M. 1969. The
status, population dynamics, and harvest of the dusky Canada goose.
Wildlife Monographs No. 18. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 48 p.
[1889]
47. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
48. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
49. Schmidt, S. K.; Reeves, F. B. 1989. Interference between Salsola kali L.
seedlings: implications for plant succession. Plant and Soil. 116:
107-110. [9300]
50. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed.
Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L.
Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
51. Short, Henry L. 1979. Deer in Arizona and New Mexico: their ecology and
a theory explaining recent population decreases. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-70.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 25 p. [4489]
52. Figley, William K.; VanDruff, Larry W. 1982. The ecology of urban
mallards. Wildlife Monographs No. 81. Washington, DC: The Wildlife
Society. 40 p. [2041]
53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
54. 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]
55. Wallace, A.; Rhods, W. A.; Frolich, E. F. 1968. Germination behavior of
Salsola as influenced by temperature, moisture, depth of planting, and
gamma irradiation. Agronomy Journal. 60: 76-78. [2441]
56. 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]
57. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO:
Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. [7706]
58. 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]
59. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake
River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: Mcarthur, E.
Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other
aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 4-10. [12729]
60. Young, Frank L.; Whitesides, Ralph E. 1987. Efficacy of postharvest
herbicides on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) control and seed
germination. Weed Science. 35: 554-559. [59]
61. Young, James A. 1991. Tumbleweed. Scientific American. 264(3): 82-87.
[14143]
62. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1972. Germination and establishment of
Salsola in relation to seedbed environ. I. Temperature, afterripening,
and moisture relations of Salsola seeds as determined by lab studies.
Agronomy Journal. 64: 214-218. [2650]
63. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A.; Cluff, Greg J. 1987. Seedling on or
near the surface of seedbeds in semiarid environments. In: Fasier, Gary
W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Proceedings of symposium: "Seed and seedbed
ecology of rangeland plants"; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service:
57-61. [3746]
64. 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]
65. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
[21992]
66. St. John, Harold. 1973. List and summary of the flowering plants in the
Hawaiian islands. Hong Kong: Cathay Press Limited. 519 p. [25354]
FEIS Home Page
