Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
Introductory
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott. 1991. Panicum obtusum. 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/graminoid/panobt/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
PANOBT
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
PAOB
COMMON NAMES :
vine-mesquite
panic grass
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of vine-mesquite is Panicum obtusum H.B.K.
(Poaceae) [12,42].
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Vine-mesquite is found in shortgrass prairie, pinyon-juniper woodlands,
and desert grasslands of the southern United States and northern Mexico
[23]. It occurs from southern Missouri west to southern Utah, and south
to Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and northern Mexico [18].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ AR CO HI KS MO NE NM OK TX
UT MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K027 Mesquite bosque
K031 Oak - juniper woodlands
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush - bursage
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K053 Grama - galleta steppe
K054 Grama - tobosa prairie
K057 Galleta - threeawn shrubsteppe
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
K061 Mesquite - acacia savanna
K062 Mesquite - live oak savanna
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K069 Bluestem - grama prairie
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K071 Shinnery
K076 Blackland prairie
K084 Cross Timbers
K085 Mesquite - buffalograss
K086 Juniper - oak savanna
K087 Mesquite - oak savanna
K088 Fayette prairie
SAF COVER TYPES :
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
235 Cottonwood - willow
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Vine-mesquite is commonly found in the understory of soapberry (Sapindus
saponaria), gray oak (Quercus grisea), juniper (Juniperus spp.), and
mesquite (Prosopis spp.) communities [4,28,29,30]. In the understory
vine-mesquite is associated with curlymesquite (Hilaria belangeri),
side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) [9], buffalograss (Buchloe
dactyloides), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and galleta
(Hilaria jamesii) [7].
Vine-mesquite is listed as an indicator or dominant species in the
following vegetation and community type classifications:
Zonation of herbaceous vegetation associated with honey mesquite in
northcentral Texas [45]
Riparian plant communities of the Fort Bayard watershed in southwestern
New Mexico [28]
Woodland communities and soils of Fort Bayard, southwestern New Mexico [29].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Vine-mesquite is an important forage species for a variety of wildlife
[7,19,27] and all classes of livestock [23]. Livestock graze the
foliage and inflorescence [31].
The use of vine-mesquite by wildlife is varied. The seed, where locally
available, comprises 5 to 10 percent of the diet of northern bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus) [27] and is important in the diets of scaled
quail, Gambel's quail, and mourning doves [19]. The foliage and
inflorescence are consumed by deer, elk [33], jackrabbits, ground
squirrels, prairie dogs, and pronghorn [7].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of vine-mesquite to livestock varies seasonally. When
vine-mesquite is green and succulent, palatability is rated as good; but
as the grass matures and cures, it becomes coarse, and its palatability
decreases to fair [21]. In pinyon-juniper woodlands vine-mesquite
is considered an "ice cream" species. Cattle seek out the inflorescence
first, then graze the cured as well as the green vine-mesquite [31].
The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for
vine-mesquite in several western states is rated as follows
[7,19,27,31,33]:
AZ CO NM TX UT
Cattle fair fair good good fair
Sheep fair fair good good fair
Horses fair fair good good fair
Pronghorn fair fair good good fair
Elk good fair good ---- fair
Mule deer good ---- good ---- ----
White-tailed deer good good good good ----
Small mammals good good good good good
Upland game birds good good good good good
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Vine-mesquite provides good overall nutrition for cattle [22]. Huston
and others [22] reported the following nutritional values for
vine-mesquite in the summer and fall:
Percent Composition
Date Water Ash Cellwall Phosphorus Protein DOM*
7/27/73 53 8 70 0.14 7 53
10/25/73 57 10 71 0.10 7 42
* DOM - digestible organic matter (a measure of the digestible energy
value of feeds)
COVER VALUE :
Due to its dense stand characteristics vine-mesquite provides hiding
cover for various rodents and upland game birds [7,19,27].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Vine-mesquite provides effective erosion control due to its rhizomatous
and stoloniferous characteristics [21,23].
Dahl and other [13] looked at the establishment of new stands of
vine-mesquite. Their findings showed that the ease of establishing a
stand was rated as only fair, but once established, stand maintenance
was rated as good. Vine-mesquite readily established on silt and clay
soils, whereas establishment on sandy soils was only fair. Site
preparation involved disc plowing and rolling. Rolling increased the
moisture-holding capabilities of the soil and improved seed placement
when planted. The seed drill was set at a depth 0.5 inch (1 cm) with a
seeding rate of 6.1 pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre (6.9 kg PLS
/ha).
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Vine-mesquite decreases in response to moderate or heavy grazing
pressure [37]. Therefore, stands growing in areas subject to erosion
should be lightly grazed [21]. After fire, vine-mesquite should be
protected from grazing for 3 to 4 months [44].
Vine-mesquite is susceptible to broad-spectrum dicot herbicides such as
picloram and dicamba. These herbicides reduce the growth and
development of its root system [36].
When reestablishing vine-mesquite on a site, one should plant in the
spring when soil temperature regimes are cool to warm, and soil moisture
is adequate. Planting at this time aids in germination and seedling
establishment [38].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Vine-mesquite is a native, perennial, warm season grass from 12 to 24
inches (35-70 cm) tall that produces rhizomes and stolons. The rhizomes
are short and fibrous, whereas the stolons can be up to 10 feet (3 m) in
length. The stolons have many rooting points at their swollen nodes.
The inflorescence is a densely flowered, narrow panicle up to 5 inches
(12 cm) in length; as it matures the seed turns brown [20,21,23].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
Geophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Vine-mesquite reproduces by seed, rhizomes, and stolons [18]. To
achieve germination rates of approximately 30 percent vine-mesquite
requires a cool to warm soil temperature regime of 65 to 100 degrees
Fahrenheit (18-39 deg C). Soil temperatures above this range result in
a germination rate of only 6 percent and a reduction of average shoot
height from 3 inches (7 cm) to 0.75 inches (1.8 cm) [38,39].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Vine-mesquite is an indicator of moist microsites in arid environments.
It is found along streams, roads, gullies, swales, playas, and arroyos
[2,5,10,16].
Soils: Vine-mesquite occurs in the Alfisol, Entisol, Inceptisol,
Mollisol, and Vertisol soil orders [30].
Climate: Vine-mesquite inhabits areas where the winters are short and
mild, and the summers are characterized by long periods of high
temperatures [4]. The average annual precipitation is 10 to 18 inches
(25-45 cm) [8].
Elevation: Vine-mesquite generally grows in an elevational range of
1,000 to 6,000 feet (305-1,800 m) [24].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Vine-mesquite is a component of the climax vegetation in a mixed- grass
prairie association [6]. It decreases in response to grazing but
increases in response to fire [44].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Vine-mesquite is warm-season grass; thus it is summer active. It is
actively growing from May to October [24]; it flowers from July to
August, depending on latitude and elevation [14].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Vine-mesquite occupies burns by sending out rhizomes and stolons from
adjacent unburned areas [44].
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 :
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire destroys the aboveground vegetation of vine-mesquite. A wildfire
during drought conditions with fuel buildup will remove all humus and
may have an adverse effect on some of the rhizomes. A prescribed burn
during moist years with sufficient vegetation to carry the burn will
leave humus in the center of the plant protecting the regenerative
features [34,35].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Following fire, long stolons occupy burned areas [43]. Productivity
after fire can increase by as much as 112 percent if soil moisture is
adequate [3,11,35,40]. Wright [44] found that vine-mesquite thrives and
produces more herbage on burns than on controls for several years
following a fire.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
The Research Project Summary, Response of herbaceous vegetation to winter
burning in Texas oak savanna provides information on postfire response of
vine-mesquite and associated herbaceous species that was not available when
this species review was originally written.
An extensive body of research has been published on fire effects in
semidesert grassland, oak savanna, and Madrean oak woodlands of southeastern
Arizona, including the response of vine-mesquite to fire. See the
Research Project Summary of this work for more information on
vine-mesquite and more than 100 additional species of herbaceous and
woody plant species, birds, small mammals, and grasshoppers.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
When planning a prescribed burn on the shortgrass prairie, soil
moisture should be high, the relative humidity greater than 70 percent,
and wind speed should be less than 10 miles per hour (17 km/hr) [35].
Ueckert [40] found that production and vigor of vine-mesquite was
enhanced by a late winter fire. Burning during dry years increases the
drought stress on the plants, which lowers overall production in the
community. Lower production subjects the soil to wind and water erosion
for longer periods of time [43].
FIRE CASE STUDY
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott, compiler. 1991. Effects of fire on vine-mesquite in a central
Texas mixed-grass community. In: Panicum obtusum. 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/ [].
REFERENCE :
Wink, Robert L.; Wright, Henry A. 1973. Effects of fire on an ashe
juniper community. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 326-329. [2582] [43].
SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION :
Spring 1970/light
Spring 1971/moderate
STUDY LOCATION :
The study occurred on 2,632 acres (1,053 ha) of the Beckham Ranch in
Callahan County, 15 miles (24 km) southeast of Baird, Texas.
PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY :
The vegetative community is a mixed-grass prairie interspersed with Ashe
juniper (Juniperus ashei) and several species of oak (Quercus spp.).
The major grass species are little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium),
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), buffalograss (Buchloe
dactyloides), vine-mesquite, Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), and
tall grama (Bouteloua pectinata). The large junipers were dozed in
1965.
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
Vine-mesquite was dormant.
SITE DESCRIPTION :
The site is level to undulating with a few slopes greater than 20
percent. Elevation is 1,205 to 1,405 feet (365-425 m). The soils are
sandy loams which are slowly to moderately permeable. Moisture
retention is moderate, and soils are fertile enough to provide good
grass production. The limestone bedrock is cracked, forming deep
pockets capable of supporting deep-rooted grasses. The average
precipitation is 24 to 28 inches (60-70 cm) per year. During the course
of the study the precipitation varied from a near normal year in 1970,
with 23 inches (58.2 cm) falling from November 1969 to May 1970, to a
dry year in 1971, with 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) falling from November 1970
to May 1971.
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
The amount of heavy fuels on the site varied from 40,000 to 60,000
pounds per acre (44,800-67,200 kg/ha). Light fuels varied from
685 to 3,185 pounds per acre (768-3,568 kg/ha). The leeward sides were
ignited prior to the start of the headfires.
Atmospheric conditions at the time of the ignition of the headfires were
as follows:
25 March 1970 27 March 1971
air temperature 75 degs F 86 degs F
(24 degs C) (30 degs C)
humidity 35% 25%
wind speed 10 mi/hr 15 mi/hr
(16 km/hr) (25 km/hr)
Fire intensity depended on the amount of fuels. A cool to moderate fire
was carried in areas with 1,000 pounds per acre (1,120 kg/ha) of light
fuels. Those areas with heavy fuels yielded hot fires.
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
During the dry year (1971) vine-mesquite opportunistically used the
higher soil temperatures and litter removal to produce twice the
vegetative growth of the control. During the wet year (1970)
vine-mesquite had a significant growth increase, but not as dramatic as
in the dry year. The production of vine-mesquite (kg/ha) was as
follows:
Year Burned Unburned Difference
1970 4458 3434 +30%
1971 7777 3669 +112%
The burn in the dry year (1971) resulted in the increased growth of
vine-mesquite because it occupies mesic microsites, but resulted in the
reduced growth of little bluestem, tall grama, and side-oats grama. This
reduced growth resulted from increased drought stress brought on by the
fire. Because vegetative recovery was slow, the soil was exposed to
wind and water erosion for several months, thus increasing soil loss.
The burn in the wet year (1970) resulted in an increase in growth of all
species but one, side-oats grama. With good soil moisture the plants
recovered rapidly, and soil loss was negligible.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
When planning a prescribed burn, soil moisture should be a primary
concern for the land manager. With high soil moisture, the vegetation
recovers rapidly, and the loss of soil from wind and water erosion is
minimal.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Panicum obtusum
REFERENCES :
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. Bock, Jane H.; Bock, Carl E. 1986. Habitat relationships of some native
perennial grasses in southeastern Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(1): 3-14.
[478]
3. Box, Thadis W.; White, Richard S. 1969. Fall and winter burning of south
Texas brush ranges. Journal of Range Management. 22(6): 373-376.
[11438]
4. Box, Thadis W. 1961. Relationships between plants and soils of four
range plant communities in south Texas. Ecology. 42: 794-810. [10494]
5. Bridges, J. O. 1942. Reseeding practices for New Mexico ranges. Bull.
291. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station. 48 p. [5204]
6. Brock, John H.; Haas, R. H.; Shaver, J. C. 1978. Zonation of herbaceous
vegetation associated with honey mesquite in Northcentral Texas. In:
Hyder, Donald N., editor. Proceedings of the first international
rangeland congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society
for Range Management: 187-189. [5494]
7. Brown, David E. 1982. Plains and Great Basin grasslands. In: Brown,
David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United
States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 115-121. [536]
8. Brown, David E. 1982. Semidesert grassland. In: Brown, David E., ed.
Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 123-131. [3603]
9. Brown, David E. 1982. Sonoran savanna grassland. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 137-141. [8897]
10. Brunt, James W.; Conley, Marsha R.; Cunningham, Gary L. 1988. Sex in
Ephedra trifurca (Ephedraceae) with relation to Chihuahuan Desert
habitats. American Midland Naturalist. 119(1): 137-142. [3672]
11. Clary, Warren P.; Jameson, Donald A. 1981. Herbage production following
tree and shrub removal in the pinyon-juniper type of Arizona. Journal of
Range Management. 34(2): 109-113. [642]
12. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others].
1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West,
U.S.A. Vol. 6. The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press.
584 p. [719]
13. Dahl, Bill E.; Cotter, Paul F.; Wester, David B.; Britton, Carlton M.
1986. Grass seeding in west Texas. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton
M., eds. Research highlights--1986 Noxious brush and weed control; range
and wildlife management. Volume 17. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University:
8-15. [3659]
14. 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]
15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
16. Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing
in desert grassland. Ecology. 31(1): 44-50. [4423]
17. 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]
18. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
19. Herbel, C. H.; Steger, R.; Gould, W. L. 1974. Managing semidesert ranges
of the Southwest. Circular 456. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State
University, Cooperative Extension Service. 48 p. [4564]
20. Herzman, Carl W.; Everson, A. C.; Mickey, Myron H.; [and others]. 1959.
Handbook of Colorado native grasses. Bull. 450-A. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University, Extension Service. 31 p. [10994]
21. Humphrey, Robert R. 1970. Arizona range grasses: Their description,
forage value and management. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona
Press. 159 p. [5567]
22. Huston, J. E.; Rector, B. S.; Merrill, L. B.; Engdahl, B. S. 1981.
Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region of
Texas. Report B-1375. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University System,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [4565]
23. Judd, B. Ira. 1962. Principal forage plants of southwestern ranges. Stn.
Pap. No. 69. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 93 p.
[1302]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
27. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
28. Medina, Alvin L. 1986. Riparian plant communities of the Fort Bayard
watershed in southwestern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 31(3):
345-359. [1629]
29. Medina, Alvin L. 1987. Woodland communities and soils of Fort Bayard,
southwestern New Mexico. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of
Science. 21: 99-112. [3978]
30. Moir, W. H.; Carleton, J. O. 1987. Classification of pinyon-juniper
(p-j) sites on National Forests in the Southwest. In: Everett, Richard
L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January
13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 216-226.
[6852]
31. Pieper, Rex D. 1970. Species utilization and botanical composition of
cattle diets on pinyon-juniper grassland. Bulletin 566. Las Cruces, NM:
New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p.
[4519]
32. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
33. Reynolds, Hudson G. 1964. Elk and deer habitat use of a pinyon-juniper
woodland in southern New Mexico. In: Trefethen, James B., ed.
Transactions, 29th North American wildlife and natural resources
conference; 1964 March 9-11; Las Vegas, NV. Washington, DC: Wildlife
Management Institute: 438-444. [10733]
34. Schmidt, Harold. 1980. Improving shinoak range with prescribed fire. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 45-47. [11432]
35. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Fire and range vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains.
In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Rio Grande
Plains of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1979 November 7; Carrizo
Springs, TX. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service: 6-11. [11458]
36. Scifres, C. J.; Bovey, R. W.; Fisher, C. E.; Baur, J. R. 1973. Chemical
control of mesquite. In: Mesquite: Growth and development, management,
economics, control, uses. Research Monograph 1. College Station, TX:
Texas A&M University, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station: 24-32.
[4682]
37. Scifres, C. J.; Brock, J. H.; Hahn, R. R. 1971. Influence of secondary
succession on honey mesquite invasion in north Texas. Journal of Range
Management. 24: 206-210. [10560]
38. Sosebee, R. E.; Herbel, C. H. 1969. Effects of high temperatures on
emergence and initial growth of range plants. Agronomy Journal. 61:
621-624. [4036]
39. Sosebee, R. E.; Wan, C. 1989. Plant ecophysiology: a case study of honey
mesquite. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall
R., compilers. 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: 103-118. [5931]
40. Ueckert, Darrell N. 1980. Manipulating range vegetation with prescribed
fire. In: White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards
Plateau of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction,
TX. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas
A&M University System: 27-44. [11431]
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. Wink, Robert L.; Wright, Henry A. 1973. Effects of fire on an ashe
juniper community. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 326-329. [2582]
44. Wright, Henry A. 1974. Effect of fire on southern mixed prairie grasses.
Journal of Range Management. 27(6): 417-419. [2614]
45. Brock, John H.; Haas, R. H.; Shaver, J. C. 1978. Zonation of herbaceous
vegetation associated with honey mesquite in Northcentral Texas. In:
Hyder, Donald N., editor. Proceedings of the first international
rangeland congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society
for Range Management: 187-189. [5494]
46. 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]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/panobt/all.html
