Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
Introductory
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Griffith, Randy Scott. 1991. Krameria erecta. 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/shrub/kraere/all.html [].
Revisions: On June 30, 2014, the common and scientific names of this species were changed
from: Krameria parvifolia, range ratany
to: Krameria erecta, littleleaf ratany
The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service [32] citation was add.
ABBREVIATION :
KRAERE
SYNONYMS :
Krameria glandulosa Rose & Painter
Krameria imparata (J.F. Macbr.) Britton
Krameria parvifolia Benth.
Krameria parvifolia Benth. var. glandulosa (Rose & Painter) J.F. Macbr.
Krameria parvifolia Benth. var. imparata J.F. Macbr.
NRCS PLANT CODE [32]:
KRER
COMMON NAMES :
littleleaf ratany
littleleaf krameria
little-leaf krameria
range ratany
spiny little-leaf krameria
sticky little-leaf krameria
wood ratany
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of littleleaf ratany is Krameria
erecta Willd. ex Schult. (Krameriaceae) [32].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Littleleaf ratany is found in the arid regions of the southwestern United
States and northern Mexico. It occurs from southern California east to
western Texas and from southern Nevada and Utah south to northern Mexico
[17,34].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA NV NM TX UT MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
KO23 Juniper - pinyon woodland
KO31 Oak - juniper woodland
KO33 Chaparral
KO39 Blackbrush
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush - bursage
K043 Paloverde - cactus shrub
KO44 Creosote bush - tarbush
KO45 Ceniza shrub
KO58 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
KO59 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Littleleaf ratany commonly occurs in the understory of catclaw acacia (Acacia
greggii), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), juniper (Juniperus spp.),
pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), and shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella)
[9,28,31]. In the shrub layer, littleleaf ratany is associated with
creosotebush (Larrea spp.) and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) [5].
Littleleaf ratany is listed as a dominant in the chaparral plant association
classification of Arizona by Carmichael and others [9].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Littleleaf ratany is an important forage species for all classes of livestock
and for deer (Odocoileus spp.) [6]. It also provides cover for small
mammals and reptiles [25,26].
In Arizona littleleaf ratany is an important component in the diet of deer.
It comprises approximately 10 percent of white-tailed deer's (O.
virginianus) diet and 23 percent of mule deer's (O. hemionus) diet
[2,3].
PALATABILITY :
Palatability of littleleaf ratany is rated fair to good for cattle and sheep
[16]. Mule and white-tailed deer browse littleleaf ratany year-long with
seasonal peaks. Mule deer peak use is from February to April and from
August to October, and white-tailed deer peak use is from August to
October [2,3].
The relish and degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for
littleleaf ratany in several western states is rated as follows
[2,16,24,29,30]:
AZ NM NV TX UT
Cattle fair fair fair fair fair
Sheep good good good good good
Mule deer good good good good good
White-tailed deer fair fair fair fair fair
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Krausman and others [18] reported the bimonthly nutritional value
(percent composition) of littleleaf ratany as follows:
Dry Cell Hemi-
matter Protein Lignin soluble Cellulose cellulose
Jan. 66.11 5.81 10.33 37.63 31.60 20.62
March 58.75 5.79 9.63 39.14 29.65 21.62
May 58.42 6.58 9.36 45.64 23.69 21.09
July 62.35 7.87 11.74 40.68 27.84 19.57
Sept. 52.37 7.30 11.16 39.46 29.67 19.86
Nov. 60.63 6.28 11.16 39.34 24.52 23.28
The in-vitro digestibility of littleleaf ratany varies with the species of
deer. Mule deer are able to utilize 40 percent of it while white-tailed
deer only utilize 31 percent [30].
COVER VALUE :
Littleleaf ratany provides thermal cover for rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.) and
the western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) [25]. Small mammals, such
as the Bailey's pocket mouse (Perognathus baileyi), use littleleaf ratany for
hiding cover [26]. For large mammals it provides poor to fair hiding
cover.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The Papago Indians used an infusion of the twigs externally for treating
sore eyes and internally for dysentery. The roots provided them with a
red dye for wool and other materials. The dye was also used as an ink
[19,24].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Littleleaf ratany decreases in response to heavy grazing [7]. Judd [16]
suggests that 25 to 50 percent of the current year's growth be used on a
well-grazed range. Beyond 50 percent littleleaf ratany is receiving too much
grazing pressure.
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Littleleaf ratany is a native, long-lived, deciduous, perennial shrub that
grows from 12 to 24 inches (30-60 cm) tall. It is densely branched,
thorny, and drought resistant. The leaves are alternate and pubescent;
flowers are irregular and purple in color; and the fruit is globose,
indehiscent, thick walled, and spiny [14,17,22,33].
The root system is shallow, with 40 percent of the root mass in the top
4 inches (10 cm) of the soil, and spreads horizontally and radially
[36]. The roots form grafts with members of the same or different
species forming protocooperation or a parasitic relationship. These
relationships and the hypothesis that littleleaf ratany obtains atmospheric
moisture through its foliage may explain how it can maintain active
growth after soil moisture has dropped below 3 percent [35].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Littleleaf ratany reproduces sexually by seed. In years with high soil
moisture it will flower twice, in the spring and again in the fall
[31].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Littleleaf ratany's habitat is the desert environs, where it occupies open,
sandy to rocky flats, bajadas, and playas [17,31].
Soil: Littleleaf ratany occurs in Alfisol, Aridisol, and Entisol soil orders
[12].
Climate: Littleleaf ratany inhabits areas where the winters are short and
mild, and the summers are long and hot. Precipitation is received
primarily in the fall and winter in the northern portion of its range
and in the summer in the southern portion. The annual precipitation is
8 to 25 inches (20-65 cm) [8,9].
Elevation: Littleleaf ratany generally grows at elevations ranging from 500
to 5,000 feet (150-1,500 m) [34].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Littleleaf ratany is a component of some climax desert shrub communities
[37]. It is a dominant in the shrub live oak-mixed shrub and shrub live
oak-birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber) plant
associations [9].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Compared to associated species, littleleaf ratany remains dormant for at
least a month longer in the spring and retains its leaves for up to 2
months longer in the fall [1,35].
The mean dates and one standard deviation [(SD) in days] of the
phenological development of littleleaf ratany are as follows [27]:
Development Date SD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leaf budding April 7 +/- 4.5
flowering May 5 +/- 4.6
Fruiting May 22 +/- 4.6
The phenological development of littleleaf ratany is based primarily on the
temperature regime and secondarily on the moisture regime [4,27]. It
does not go dormant during the summer no matter how dry the soil. Range
ratany can photosynthesize when its water potential is at negative 72
bars. Dormancy starts when night temperatures consistently drop below
40 degrees F (4 deg C) [1].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Littleleaf ratany sprouts from the root crown after fire [9].
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 :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Littleleaf ratany is top-killed by fire [9]. Information on fire effects on
this species is lacking.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Littleleaf ratany sprouts from the root crown following top-kill by fire
[9].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Krameria erecta
REFERENCES :
1. Ackerman, T. L.; Romney, E. M.; Wallace, A.; Kinnear, J. E. 1980.
Phenology of desert shrubs in southern Nye County, Nevada. In: Great
Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 4. Nevada desert ecology. Provo, UT:
Brigham Young University: 4-23. [3197]
2. Anthony, Robert G. 1976. Influence of drought on diets and numbers of
desert deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(1): 140-144. [11558]
3. Anthony, Robert G.; Smith, Norman S. 1977. Ecological relationships
between mule deer and white-tailed deer in southeastern Arizona.
Ecological Monographs. 47: 255-277. [9890]
4. Bamberg, Samuel A.; Vollmer, Arthur T.; Kleinkopf, Gale E.; Ackerman,
Thomas L. 1976. A comparison of seasonal primary production of Mojave
Desert shrubs during wet and dry years. American Midland Naturalist.
95(2): 398-405. [4190]
5. Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. 1988. North American
terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
434 p. [13876]
6. 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]
7. Brown, Albert L. 1950. Shrub invasion of southern Arizona desert
grassland. Journal of Range Management. 3: 172-177. [4452]
8. Brown, David E. 1982. Chihuahuan desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed.
Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 169-179. [3607]
9. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona
chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
10. Dhillon, M. 1976. Vascular anatomy of the flower of Krameria parvifolia
var. glandulosa Macbr. and its bearing on its taxonomic status. Journal
of Research. 13(2): 197-201. [14009]
11. 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]
12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
13. 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]
14. Goldberg, Deborah E.; Turner, Raymond M. 1986. Vegetation change and
plant demography in permanent plots in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology.
67(3): 695-712. [4410]
15. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Krausman, Paul R.; Ordway, Leonard L.; Whiting, Frank M.; Brown, William
H. 1990. Nutritional composition of desert mule deer forage in the
Picacho Mountains, Arizona. Desert Plants. 10(1): 32-34. [7259]
19. Krochmal, A.; Paur, S.; Duisberg, P. 1954. Useful native plants in the
American Southwestern deserts. Economic Botany. 8: 3-20. [2766]
20. 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]
21. 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]
22. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
24. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North
American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press. 465 p. [2270]
25. Szaro, Robert C.; Belfit, Scott C. 1986. Herpetofaunal use of a desert
riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 50(4): 752-761. [3773]
26. Szaro, Robert C.; Belfit, Scott C. 1987. Small mammal use of a desert
riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. Res. Note RM-473. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. [3843]
27. Turner, Frederick B.; Randall, David C. 1987. The phenology of desert
shrubs in southern Nevada. Journal of Arid Environments. 13: 119-128.
[2764]
28. 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]
29. Urness, P. J.; McCulloch, C. Y. 1973. Part III: Nutritional value of
seasonal deer diets. In: Special Report 3. Deer nutrition in Arizona
chaparral and desert habitats. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish
Department: 53-68. [12223]
30. Urness, Philip J. 1973. Part II: Chemical analyses and in vitro
digestibility of seasonal deer forages. In: Deer nutrition in Arizona
chaparral and desert habitats. Special Report 3. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Game and Fish Department: 39-52. [93]
31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant
handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2014. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov
/. [34262]
33. Vasek, Frank C. 1979. Early successional stages in Mojave Desert scrub
vegetation. Israel Journal of Botany. 28: 133-148. [4579]
34. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
35. 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]
36. Wallace, A.; Romney, E. M.; Cha, J. W. 1980. Depth distribution of roots
of some perennial plants in the Nevada Test Site area of the northern
Mojave Desert. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 4: 201-207. [4210]
37. Wells, Philip V. 1961. Succession in desert vegetation on streets of a
Nevada ghost town. Science. 134: 670-671. [4959]
FEIS Home Page
