|
|
FEIS Home Page |
|
 |
| R.E. Rosiere, Tarleton State University |
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Quercus havardii.
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/quehar/all.html
[].
FEIS ABBREVIATION:
QUEHAV
SYNONYMS:
none
NRCS PLANT CODE [91]:
QUHA3
COMMON NAMES:
Havard oak
sand shinnery oak
shinnery oak
shin oak
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of Havard oak is Quercus havardii Rydb. (Fagaceae)
[33,34,43,49,97]. Havard oak belongs to the white oak group (Leucobalanus) [19]. Some
[43,91,97] recognize 2 varieties, Q. h. Rydb. var.
havardii and Q. h. Rydb. var. tuckeri Welsh,
but other taxonomic authorities do not [33].
Havard oak populations in the Navajo Basin of Utah and Arizona are considered pure Havard oak (Q. havardii var. tuckeri) by some [97], but introgression with Gambel oak (Q. gambelii) and perhaps shrub live oak (Q. turbinella) make taxonomic identification of Utah and adjacent Arizona Havard oak populations difficult [90].
Havard oak also hybridizes with Mohr oak (Q. mohriana) and post oak (Q. stellata) [59,70,95]. Post oak × Havard oak hybrids are likely a result of post oak's historic range, which extended more westerly than it does today. Mohr oak × Havard oak hybrids are restricted to habitats intermediate to those occupied by the 2 species. Mohr oak inhabits limestone soils, and Havard oak occurs on deep sand soils [59].
LIFE FORM:
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Havard oak is best represented in southeastern and south-central New
Mexico, the panhandle of Texas, and western Oklahoma. Other
populations occur in southern Utah, western Colorado, northeastern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico [59,70,97].
Freeman [31] reports that a native Havard oak population occurs in
southwestern Kansas, and a herbarium specimen from Comanche County exists [43].
For additional information on the taxonomy of Havard oak and hybrid populations, see
Taxonomy.
 |
|
 |
 |
| Distributions of Q. h. var. havardii and Q. h. var. tuckeri, respectively. | |
| Maps courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2017. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC [91]. | |
A review reports that Havard oak occupies 5 to 7 million acres (2-3 million ha) in the southern Great Plains [65]. A majority of Havard oak vegetation occurs on private land utilized for agriculture and/or livestock production. It is considered undesirable on grazing lands, and the use of chemical and mechanical control methods has been extensive (see Control), making it unlikely that the Havard oak range is expanding [56].
ECOSYSTEMS [32]:| AZ | KS | NM | OK | TX | UT |
|
 |
| R.E. Rosiere, Tarleton State University |
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for
identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g. [34,49,95,97]).
Aboveground description: Havard oak is a deciduous, low-growing, thicket-forming, rhizomatous shrub. Shrubs are less than 7 feet (2 m) tall and often less than 3 feet (1 m) tall. Havard oak hybrids measure as tall as 10 feet (4 m) [34,67,70,95,97]. Havard oak is slow growing and long lived [29]. Clones may reach hundreds to thousands of years old [65]. Aboveground Havard oak stems, however, live only 11 to 15 years. Hybrid stems may live longer than 80 years [69,98]. The oldest stems of clones in Ward and Wheeler counties of Texas were 11 years of age [58]. Canopy coverage of Havard oak can be as high as 90% but averages 20% to 30% throughout its range. Biomass production averages 1,000 to 2,200 lbs/acre throughout Havard oak's range [67], although annual production as high as 4,500 lbs (2,000 kg) of air-dry forage/acre has been reported [65].
Leaves, stems, and acorns are highly variable in color, size, shape, and/or texture, and no character is readily associated with another [98]. Stems are rarely larger than 0.8 inch (2 cm) in diameter [58]. Bark becomes rough and scaly with age [49,60]. Leaves are leathery, rippled, entire, alternate, and toothed or lobed. Leaves measure 0.75 to 4 inches (2-10 cm) long and 0.75 to 1.5 inches (2-3.8 cm) wide. Number of lobes or teeth is typically 6 to 10 [34,49,70,95,97]. Male and female catkins occur on the same plant. Male catkins are 0.5 to 1.5 inches (1.5-3.8 cm) long and densely flowered. Pistillate catkins measure 0.1 to 0.3 inch (3-7 mm) long and contain 1 to 5 flowers [60,95,97]. Havard oak acorns mature in 1 year [19,34]. Acorns occur alone or in clusters of 2 or 3. Acorns are 0.5 to 1 inch (12-25 mm) long by 0.55 to 0.71 inch (14-18 mm) wide. The cups enclose 33% to 66% of the acorn [49,70,95,97].
Belowground description: The Havard oak root and rhizome system is extensive. Nellessen [60] reports that rhizomes range from 1 to 6 inches (3-15 cm) in diameter and are concentrated in the top 20 inches (60 cm) of soil, although 30-foot (9 m) penetration depths are possible. Lateral roots and woody rhizomes are widespread near the soil surface. Taproots extend 15 to 20 feet (4.6-6.1 m) deep [20,52,53]. Taproots with a diameter "equal to that of a man's thigh" are not uncommon [52]. Rhizome length is typically from 4 to 40 inches (10-100 cm) [58].
Ninety percent or more of Havard oak's biomass is under ground, and root grafting is common [66]. The mass of Havard oak roots and rhizomes is typically 10 to 16 times greater than that of the aboveground stems [69]. In a Havard oak community in Cochran and Yoakum counties of Texas, an average of 67% of the total Havard oak biomass was below ground. The root:shoot ratio was 11 for Havard oak shrubs measured in July [80].
Drought adaptations: An extensive root and rhizome network as well as physiological and morphological aboveground adaptations make Havard oak highly drought tolerant. Leaves mitigate water loss through a thick, waxy leaf epidermis [65,69]. Leaves may be dropped or leaf out postponed in adverse conditions. The extensive root system is important for water storage and utilization of available water [65].
RAUNKIAER [71] LIFE FORM:Work in western Texas and western Oklahoma suggests that sexual regeneration is rare. Researchers conducting studies in the Llano Estacado area of western Texas found no seedlings in a year-long study of Havard oak communities, and later in the same area no viable acorns were found [20]. In observational studies of Havard oak communities in western Oklahoma, Wiedman [98] encountered no seedlings.
Pollination: Oak (Quercus spp.) flowers are wind pollinated. Catkin morphology aids in successful wind dispersal of pollen [82].
Breeding system: Havard oak is a monoecious shrub [34], and the existence of hybrids suggests that outcrossing is common. Self compatibility of flowers was not described in current (up to 2006) literature.
Seed production: On average acorn crops are produced in 3 of 10 years [69]. Nellessen [60] reports that although acorn crops are produced in 3 of every 10 years per clone, acorns are likely found within a community each year. Hanson [35] reported that Havard oak produced large quantities of large-sized acorns during his study of northern bobwhites in 1951 and 1952 in northwestern Oklahoma.
Peterson and Boyd [65] report that "heavy local crops occurred somewhere every year," but within a community, acorn crops were not produced more than 2 years in 5 from 1977 to 1997 in New Mexico. If shrubs experience a freeze after flowering, no acorns are produced [69].
Seed dispersal: Small mammals and birds may aid in the dispersal of oak acorns by abandoning caches. American and European jays often cache acorns a few meters apart in open environments and cover them with debris or soil [26].
Seed banking: Havard oak acorns rarely survive after early January because of heavy predation by insects and other animals [35], suggesting that a seed bank is unlikely. Acorns of the white oak group have little or no dormancy and are capable of germination immediately after falling. It is likely that acorns that survived predation would not persist in the seed bank [9].
Germination: Moisture at the time of seed fall and successful avoidance of predators are necessary for germination of Havard oak acorns [60,69]. Seed viability is lost when acorn moisture levels drop below 30% to 50% [60]. Late July and/or early August moisture is required for successful Havard oak germination [69].
Germinating acorns 1st produce root tissue. The initial root may be 12 inches (30 cm) long before the 1st leaves emerge [69].
Seedling establishment/growth: Havard oak growth rates above and below ground are often greater with increased moisture. Monitoring the root growth of acorns with approximately 0.8 inch (2 cm) radicle emergence using glass-front growth chambers revealed that growth is more dependent on soil moisture than soil temperature. Just 2 of 15 seedlings survived cool-dry treatments, and root extension stopped after 2 weeks in dry-warm treatments. Regardless of temperature, moist and wet treatments produced root extension rates of 0.080 to 0.094 inch (0.20 to 0.24 cm)/day throughout the 52-day study. Researchers suggest that Havard oak regeneration from acorns is likely restricted to long wet periods [84].
Growth rates of Havard oak in Ellis County, Oklahoma were 1.1 mm/year and in hybrid populations in Harmon County were 0.2 inch (5.2 mm)/year [98]. Havard oak ? post oak hybrids in Texas grew at an extremely slow rate. Tree-shrubs over 50 years old were developing a "heart rot like condition," and ring growth was less than 0.2 mm/year. Two growth rings revealed more rapid growth rates that likely coincided with above-average precipitation levels [68].
Asexual regeneration: Havard oak spreads by rhizome growth and sprouts from rhizomes following aboveground stem damage. Lateral woody rhizomes are capable of sprouting along their entire length [52,53]; however, spread by rhizomes is slow. Studies in Oklahoma showed a spread of just 30 feet (9 m) in 50 years [69]. Sprouting after destruction of aboveground stems is quick. New stem growth is typically visible within 1 to 2 months after removal of or damage to aboveground stems [65]. Shoot regeneration rates of 10 to 20 inches (30-60 cm) per year were reported following aboveground kill or damage [60].
Clone size can be very large. In Yoakum County, Texas, 2 acres (1 ha) contained an average of 15 distinct Havard oak clones. Researchers speculated that vegetative reproduction was important in horizontal spread but was not a substitute for sexual reproduction, which may occur only episodically. Clonal shape was variable. Some were densely clumped and circular, others were long and narrow or meandering, and others were convoluted and fragmented by other clones. Clone size ranged from ~100 to 7,000 m? [51]. Clone size in Ward and Wheeler counties of Texas ranged from 10 to 49 feet (3-15 m) in diameter [58]. Havard oak ? post oak hybrid clones in Texas were a product of extensive asexual regeneration. Eighty nine tree-shrubs were determined to be a single clone. Havard oak ? post oak and Havard oak seedlings were rare in the field [68].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:Elevation: Havard oak occupies relatively low elevation sites.
| State/region | Elevation (feet) |
| NM | 3,500-4,000 [49] |
| TX, Trans-Pecos | 2,300-3,400 [70] |
| UT | 3,690-7,000 [97] |
Soils: Habitats occupied by Havard oak have sandy loam or loamy sand soils. Characteristics of these soils were summarized in a review [65]. Infiltration rates are rapid and pH is neutral or slightly basic. Soils are highly susceptible to erosion and low in organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus. A caliche layer more than 3 feet (1 m) below the soil surface is possible. Most sandy soils occupied by sand shinnery oak have a thin clay layer near the surface according to McIlvain [53].
Soils underneath Havard oak shrubs were sampled, analyzed, and compared with soils underneath other vegetation in the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico. Soil samples were taken from 0 to 5.9 inches (0-15 cm) deep. Soil moisture, organic matter, nitrate, and phosphorus were all much lower in the Havard oak-sand sagebrush community type than in the honey mesquite-javelin bush (Condalia ericoides) community type. Average summer soil moisture beneath Havard oak ranged from 2.29% to 2.99% for a 2-year period, and organic matter averaged 0.36%. Below is a summary of the nutrient levels in the soil underneath Havard oak shrubs [81].
| Nitrate | Ammonium | Phosphorus | Calcium | Magnesium | ||||||||||
|
ppm |
||||||||||||||
| June | July | Aug. | June | July | Aug. | June | July | Aug. | June | July | Aug. | June | July | Aug. |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 18.9 | 35.1 | 21.6 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.1 |
Researchers found that the abundance of galls on Havard oak was greatest on sites with the highest salt levels. Shrubs were studied at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Researchers speculated that salt stress may have made Havard oak more susceptible to insect attacks [24].
Climate: Havard oak occurs in semiarid warm temperate and continental climates. Researchers summarized the climate data for 3 areas where Havard oak is common. The table below provides these data [65].
| NM, Eddy Co. | OK, Roger Mills Co. | TX, Yoakum Co. | |
| Mean annual precipitation (mm) | 316 | 651 | 404 |
| Mean date of last frost | 31 March | 2 April | 13 April |
| Mean date of first frost | 7 November | 28 October | 1 November |
| Mean January temperature (? C) | 6.7 | 2.7 | 5.6 |
| Mean July temperature (? C) | 27.5 | 28.2 | 26.4 |
Droughts lasting from 2 years to decades are possible in Havard oak habitats. In the northern and southern parts of Havard oak's range, 1 to 2 years and 2 to 3 years, respectively, with precipitation levels of 75% below average are common within a 10-year period [65].
In northwestern Oklahoma, Havard oak rangelands receive an average of 22 inches (560 mm) of precipitation annually, but the range of annual precipitation is 10 to 40 inches (250-1,000 mm). Wind speeds and water evaporation rates are high in this area [54]. In Oklahoma's Black Kettle National Grasslands, where Havard oak dominates some communities, precipitation is variable, with peaks common in May and June, and in August and September [37]. In north-central Yoakum County, Texas, 80% of the annual precipitation is delivered in brief intense storms from May through October [94].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:Havard oak's response to grazing pressure is mixed. Some have labeled Havard oak as an "increaser" on grazed sites, while others have reported no change or a decrease in Havard oak on grazed sites [65].
Havard oak does not readily colonize open sites. If removed from a site,
reinvasion is slow. Old field sites in Oklahoma, abandoned in the early 1900s,
were dominated by grasses 50 years later, although Havard oak communities
surrounded the sites [53].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Havard oak buds break in mid-March, and leaves and flowers appear in April
and May [49,92]. Flowers appear before the
leaves [52]. Acorns are
mature by mid-July or September [60]. Shrubs are typically
physiologically active until October or late November [92].
Fire regimes: The presettlement fire frequency is estimated at less than 35 years for Havard oak communities. Since the late 1800s, however, fire frequency and fire size have decreased as a result of European settler's farming, grazing, and fire exclusion practices.
Presettlement fire frequency: While some have estimated the presettlement fire return interval for Havard oak communities, fire scar records are unavailable, so the fire regime in Havard oak vegetation is largely unknown [11]. Fire frequency estimates of neighboring southern Great Plains grasslands in areas with rolling topography range from 5 to 10 years. In the Rolling Plains and Edward Plateau regions, vegetation is often fragmented by breaks and rivers, and fires likely burned every 20 to 30 years [99].
Researchers report that Native Americans may have burned sand shinnery oak habitats in western Oklahoma as often as every year [65]. Paysen and others [64] suggest that shinnery, Texas savannah, and pinyon-juniper vegetation types experienced a mixture of understory and stand-replacing fires at intervals of less than 35 years.
Changes since settlement: Repeated fires in grasslands were typical in presettlement times; however, since the late 1800s fire occurrence has declined substantially. Together with successful fire exclusion by settlers, heavy livestock grazing in the Southwest removed much of the fire-carrying fuels and reduced the fire incidence in grasslands [30]. In presettlement times, large grassland fires were typical in drought years that followed 2 or 3 years of above average precipitation. However, since most grassland vegetation occurs in patches between agricultural and private lands today, large fires are more rare [101].
"Recurrent fires were a primary influence on stabilizing grassland or savannah vegetation composition" in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas. Most fires burned in the summer. Warm-season grasses of the Edwards Plateau have completed at least 60% of their annual growth by 1 August. Hot, dry conditions in July and August typically coincide with lightning strikes, making summer fires likely. Tall grasses were overgrazed by the late 1800s, reducing fine fuels and fire frequency. Shortly thereafter laws were enacted that successfully excluded fire from the landscape. In the late 1990s, landowners formed the Edwards Plateau Prescribed Burning Association (EPPBA). The EPPBA has restored fire to parts of the Edwards Plateau. The EPPBA provides members with fire safety training, a pool of necessary equipment, and an educated labor force. Prescription fires set by the EPPBA burn mostly in the summer to mimic the area's natural fire regime. Since the founding of the association they have burned approximately 40,000 acres (20,000 ha) [88].
The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where Havard oak is important. 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".
| Community or ecosystem | Dominant species | Fire return interval range (years) |
| bluestem prairie | Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium | <10 [45,64] |
| plains grasslands | Bouteloua spp. | <35 [64,100] |
| blackbrush | Coleogyne ramosissima | <35 to <100 |
| juniper-oak savanna | Juniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana | <35 |
| Ashe juniper | Juniperus ashei | <35 |
| Rocky Mountain juniper | Juniperus scopulorum | <35 |
| pinyon-juniper | Pinus-Juniperus spp. | <35 [64] |
| mesquite | Prosopis glandulosa | <35 to <100 [55,64] |
| Texas savanna | Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa | <10 |
| oak-juniper woodland (Southwest) | Quercus-Juniperus spp. | <35 to <200 [64] |
| oak savanna | Quercus macrocarpa/Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium | 2-14 [64,96] |
| shinnery | Quercus mohriana | <35 |
| little bluestem-grama prairie | Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua spp. | <35 [64] |
In Kent County, Texas, Havard oak coverage decreased following a fire on 11 March. Fire characteristics were not provided. The prefire coverage of Havard oak was 95%; coverage the 1st and 2nd postfire years was 63.3% and 66.9%, respectively [85].
In Havard oak-dominated areas of the Black Kettle National Grassland in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, Havard oak stem density increased on spring- ( April), fall- (October), and winter- (February) burned sites, but flower and acorn production were typically lower on burned than unburned sites. Sites had not burned for at least 10 years. Havard oak leaf litter was approximately 3 inches (8 cm) deep before the prescribed fires. Strip headfires were set when relative humidity was below 20%, air temperature was below 84 °F (29 °C), and surface wind speed was under 9.9 miles/hour (16 km/hr). The burning conditions and fire behavior characteristics are summarized below for the fall, winter, and spring fires [11,13].
| Fall | Winter | Spring | |
| Burn date | 1-24 October | 27 January-5 February | 28 April-1 May |
| Air temperature (° C) | 16-30 | -1-16 | 18-29 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 21-50 | 24-72 | 20-59 |
| Wind speed (km/hr) at 2 m above ground | 6-11 | 5-16 | 3-16 |
| 1-hour live fuel (kg/m²); fuel moisture (%) | 0.14; 66.6 | 0 | 0.013; 34.6 |
| 1-hour dead fuel (kg/m²); fuel moisture (%) | 1.08; 17 | 1.3; 18.9 | 1.3; 14.7 |
| 10-hour dead fuel (kg/m²); fuel moisture (%) | 0.15; 27.4 | 0.09; 34.3 | 0.08; 21.3 |
| Flame depth (m) | 1.3 | 2.8 | 2.4 |
| Rate of spread (m/sec) | 0.2 | 0.22 | 0.27 |
| Fireline intensity (kW/m) | 2,988 | 2,562 | 4,335 |
| Heat per unit area (kJ/m²) | 15,924 | 11,966 | 16,132 |
| Fuel consumption (kg/m²) | 0.94 | 0.70 | 0.95 |
| Reaction intensity (kW/m²) | 1,939 | 974 | 1,680 |
Fires top-killed nearly 100% of sand shinnery oak on all burned plots. Four months following spring fires oak sprouts were 10 to 20 inches (30-40 cm) tall. Havard oak stem density was greater on burned plots, and increases were greatest on winter- and spring-burned sites. Havard oak coverage and height decreased following all seasons of burns, and decreases were greatest on spring-burned sites. As time since fire increased, however, so did Havard oak coverage. Havard oak coverage was 55.6% on control sites and 49.5% , 45.1% , and 29.1% on winter-, fall-, and spring-burned sites in the 1st postfire growing season, respectively. Average Havard oak coverage was 36.4% for all seasons in the 1st postfire year and 52.0% in the 2nd postfire year [11,13].
Spring fires occurred when Havard oak leaf expansion was approximately 50% and underground carbohydrate storage was greatest. There was a significant (p<0.05) correlation between Havard oak postfire growth and postfire soil phosphorus levels. Researchers suggested that phosphorous may promote growth and/or sprouting. Average Havard oak density and height on spring-, fall-, winter-, and twice-burned sites are provided below for the 1st and 2nd postfire growing seasons [11,13].
|
Stem density (stems/m²) |
Canopy height (cm) |
|
| 1st postfire growing season | ||
| Control | 22.3 | 66.5 |
| Fall | 49.5 | 42.0 |
| Winter | 39.5 | 44.3 |
| Spring | 37.5 | 38.3 |
| Twice-burned sites | 38.7 | 39.6 |
| 2nd postfire growing season | ||
| Control | 17.8 | |
| Fall | 42.3 | 46.2* |
| Winter | 36.9 | |
| Spring | 34.2 | |
In the 1st postfire summer, no catkins or acorns were produced on burned sites. In the 2nd postfire growing season, however, the greatest density of acorns was produced on fall-burned plots. The density of catkins and acorns was lowest on spring-burned plots. Density of catkins and acorns on burned and unburned sites is summarized below [10]. For information on the nutritional quality of buds and catkins on burned and unburned sites see Palatability/nutritional value.
| Catkin density (no./m²) |
Mast density (no. of acorns/m²) |
|
| Unburned | 517.4 | 8.0 |
| Fall burned | 249.4 | 11.5 |
| Winter burned | 290.2 | 5.8 |
| Spring burned | 13.6 | 0.1 |
In the same area, the effect of fire on Havard oak was monitored for 2 growing seasons after 2 consecutive spring fires and for 4 growing seasons following a single spring fire. Frequency of Havard oak was relatively the same on unburned and burned sites evaluated 1, 2, and 4 growing seasons after a single spring fire. The percent frequency of Havard oak was 96% on unburned plots, and 94%, 98%, and 96% on burned sites visited in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th postfire growing seasons, respectively. Havard oak was the dominant shrub on all plots. Shrub coverage (dominated by Havard oak, but including sand sagebrush, fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica), sand plum (Prunus spp.), soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), leadplant (Amorpha canescens), wait-a-minute (Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera), and/or honey mesquite) on unburned sites was 51%. Shrub coverage was significantly less (p<0.01), 38%, in the 1st postfire growing season. On 2- and 4-year-old burned sites, shrub coverage was 56%. On twice-burned sites, coverage of shrubs was 53% in the 1st postfire growing season and 71% in the 2nd postfire growing season. Researchers noted that 4 growing seasons were required for litter coverage to equal that of prefire levels [37].
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:Livestock: Havard oak is poisonous to horses, domestic sheep, goats, and cattle. Tannic acid is considered the poisoning agent, but other compounds may contribute [1]. Cattle consuming high levels of sand shinnery oak develop rumen ulceration and eventually suffer liver and kidney failure. Domestic goats tolerate a diet with more Havard oak than cows; however, a diet of just Havard oak kills goats [69]. Livestock poisoning is most common in the spring when Havard oak buds and immature leaves are consumed readily and other food is scarce. Without treatment livestock death rates can be as high as 85%. Removing livestock from Havard oak-dominated sites or providing additional feed may reduce the chance of poisoning [1]. For additional information on tips for avoidance and symptoms of poisoning, see James and others [41].
When oak species make up greater than 50% of the forage, livestock poisoning may occur. If diets exceed 75% Havard oak, animals may die [36]. The 50% and 75% consumption estimates, however, are based on consumption of plants with 2% to 6% tannin concentrations. Early in the spring tannin levels can be as high as 18% to 20%, meaning that consumption levels much lower than 50% could cause illness or death [92]. For additional information on stocking rates and rotational grazing patterns that may decrease the chances of poisoning in Havard oak habitats, see Peterson and Boyd [65].
Cattle may be poisoned by consuming Havard oak. Havard oak is most toxic in the spring growing season [56] and if consumed without other forage [57]. Poisoned cattle initially excrete dark, dry feces with mucus and blood and have a decreased appetite. Without supplemental feeding or treatment, cattle have bloody diarrhea, urinate frequently, and drink water excessively. A rough coat, dry muzzle, and reddish urine are typical in the late stages of poisoning. Nursing calves may be the most susceptible. Tannins consumed by the mother concentrate in the milk. Havard oak poisoning is considered a "symptom of overstocking and poor range condition" [92].
Cattle browse high levels of Havard oak when other forage is unavailable, during drought conditions, or in heavily grazed areas. Researchers suggest that animals should be kept off oak-dominated ranges until foliage is at least 30 days old [36]. In sandhills communities in the Texas panhandle, researchers found that Havard oak made up 15.3% of spring, 16.2% of summer, and 23.8% of fall cattle diets. Diet was determined through fecal analysis and observations. Havard oak abundance rather than preference was responsible for cattle consumption levels [77].
Domestic goats: Angora and Spanish goats browse Havard oak extensively without suffering the poisoning described above. Havard oak made up 31.7%, 45.0%, and 55.1% of Angora and Spanish goat diets in June, July, and August, respectively. Goats were in north-central Yoakum County, Texas, where Havard oak made up 80% of the available forage. Tannin content did not change much from June to September and averaged 36.7 mg/g in leaves and 37.6 mg/g in stems [93,94]. A review reports that domestic goats that continually browse Havard oak lose weight [60].
Sheep: In the Palo Duri Canyon of Texas, fecal samples were collected for approximately 2 years. Researchers found that Havard oak made up 31.0% of the relative density of Barbary sheep diets. Diets of mule deer and Barbary sheep in the area had a high degree of overlap [44]. Peterson and Boyd [65] speculate that this study may have mistaken Havard oak for Mohr oak.
Native animals: Native ungulates, small mammals, birds, insects, and lizards utilize Havard oak habitats and/or consume Havard oak.
Pronghorn: Spring, summer, fall, and winter pronghorn diets were 7.8%, 20.8%, 21.4%, and 3.6% Havard oak in sandhill communities of the Texas panhandle. Pronghorn diets had a high degree of overlap with cattle in the same area in the summer and fall months [77].
Deer: Havard oak is important deer browse. In the Palo Duri Canyon of Texas, fecal samples were collected for approximately 2 years. Researchers found that Havard oak made up 37.2% of the relative density of mule deer diets. Armstrong [3] reports that the occurrence of heavily browsed plants in July and August indicates overutilized white-tailed deer range.
Lesser prairie-chickens: Havard oak is important in lesser prairie-chicken habitats and diets. Lesser prairie-chickens are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered throughout their range. For more on the lesser prairie-chicken and its current status, see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website.
Havard oak was a major component of the lesser prairie-chicken's spring and summer diets in the Mescalero Sands of eastern New Mexico. Based on a 2-year study, lesser prairie chicken diets were 15.2% Havard oak acorns, 31.8% catkins, and 2.1% leaves in the spring (March-May) and 21.2% acorns and 0.2% leaves in the summer (Jan-April). In the study area, Havard oak made up 29.1% to 48.8% of the vegetation composition [18]. In Chaves County, New Mexico, Havard oak acorns comprised 17% to 61% of fall diets and 69% of winter diets. Havard oak insect galls made up 5% of winter and 14% of fall diets based on crops collected over a 2-year period. Researchers indicated that Havard oak is the most heavily utilized year-round food source for lesser prairie-chickens [74].
In Cochran County, Texas, 90 lesser prairie-chicken crops were collected and analyzed over a period of 3 years. The frequency of Havard oak leaves, acorns, and galls were 8.0%, 15.9%, and 39.7%, respectively. Percentage of Havard oak leaves, acorns, and galls by volume were 0.3%, 5.0%, and 15.3%, respectively [15]. The percentage of lesser prairie-chicken body fat was significantly (p<0.05) greater on untreated than on herbicide (tebuthiuron)-treated sites in Cochran and Yoakum counties of Texas and Lea and Roosevelt counties of New Mexico. Treated sites had significantly less (p<0.01) Havard oak based on basal composition percentages than untreated sites [61].
Lesser prairie-chicken populations in Havard oak communities in New Mexico and Oklahoma's Sutton Avian Research Centers utilized sites with increased coverage and density of shrubs. Survivorship of the lesser prairie-chicken was greater when sites had over 20% shrub cover than when sites had less shrub cover. Havard oak dominated the shrub layer in New Mexico, but its importance decreased in Oklahoma [63]. In Cochran and Yoakum counties of Texas, fewer lesser prairie-chicken nests were located in herbicide-treated than in untreated Havard oak sites. Of 10 nesting females, 8 nested in untreated sites, and 2 nested in treated sites. Researchers indicated that Havard oak stems and foliage provided important vertical screening cover for nests [38]. However, in high plains bluestem vegetation in southeastern New Mexico nests were more successful when tall grasses provided the principal nest cover. Of the 4 nests with Havard oak as the principal cover, none were successful (hatched at least 1 young) [75].
Other birds: Hawks, mourning doves, and scaled quail occupy Havard oak habitats. Harris' and Swainson's hawks utilize Havard oak shrublands of southeastern New Mexico [4,5]. Mourning doves occupy Havard oak habitats in southeastern New Mexico [7]. Havard oak habitats in northwestern Oklahoma supported 0.035 mourning dove breeding pairs, and ground nesting success was 33% based on data collected for a single nesting season [25]. In southeastern New Mexico, Havard oak was 2.6% of the average volume of foods in 50 scaled quail crops collected in 1971. Crops collected in 1970, 1972, and 1973 did not contain Havard oak. Havard oak was abundant in part of the study area, but abundance values were not reported [17]. The crops of northern bobwhites harvested from Havard oak habitats in northwestern Oklahoma contained 10.9% Havard oak by volume [35].
Small mammals: Havard oak communities provide important habitat and cover and an occasional food source for a variety of small mammals. The following rodents were trapped in Havard oak-dominated sites of Yoakum County, Texas: Ord's kangaroo rat, plains pocket, hispid pocket mouse, deer mouse, western harvest mouse, plains harvest mouse, northern grasshopper mouse, hispid cotton rat, southern plains woodrat, house mouse, and spotted ground squirrel [14]. Based on stomach content analyses, a single Ord's kangaroo rat consumed Havard oak. Havard oak was not recovered from northern grasshopper mouse, southern plains woodrat, or spotted ground squirrel stomachs. All trappings occurred in Havard oak-mesquite grasslands of southeastern New Mexico from March 1978 to December 1979 [8]. Ringtails are also common in Havard oak communities [86].
Herptiles: Snell (personal communication in [79]) indicates that dune lizard populations declined by 70% to 94% in New Mexico when Havard oak was removed.
Insects: Weevils, caterpillars, and grasshoppers utilize Havard oak as a food source or as habitat. Likely the diversity of insects utilizing Havard oak is greater than current research suggests. A puss caterpillar of Oklahoma feeds extensively on Havard oak. Tannins of the leaves are used in their venomous hairs or spines [47]. Havard oak is a primary component of spotted bird grasshopper diets in New Mexico. Levels of grasshopper herbivory were greatest on plots where Havard oak had the fewest galls [24]. Boll weevils overwinter in Havard oak litter, which is considered prime overwintering habitat [85].
Palatability/nutritional value: In western Oklahoma, researchers evaluated the nutritional quality of Havard oak leaf buds and catkins on unburned, ungrazed, grazed, and fall-, winter-, and spring-burned sites. Values were reported for the 2nd postfire year, and ungrazed sites were free of cattle for a single growing season. Nutritional quality of buds and catkins on burned, unburned, grazed, and ungrazed sites were similar. The percentage of phenolics was greater on burned and grazed than unburned and ungrazed sites. Comparisons of catkin nutrition were not made on grazed and ungrazed sites because catkins were too few on grazed sites. The nutritional quality of buds and catkins on burned and unburned sites is summarized below [12].
| Crude protein (%) | Phenolics (%) | Acid-detergent fiber (%) | Ash (%) | |
| Buds | ||||
| Unburned | 22.4 | 16.1 | 23.5 | 4.6 |
| Fall burned | 23.2 | 18.1 | 20.9 | 4.3 |
| Winter burned | 22.9 | 15.3 | 22.5 | 4.1 |
| Spring burned | 24.1 | 18.6 | 22.6 | 4.2 |
| Catkins | ||||
| Unburned | 20.7 | 12.2 | 18.2 | 4.4 |
| Fall burned | 21.1 | 15.2 | 18.9 | 4.3 |
| Winter burned | 21.5 | 15.0 | 18.2 | 4.2 |
| Spring burned | 21.7 | 15.1 | 21.2 | 3.9 |
Cover value: The importance of Havard oak as cover and in the habitats of wildlife species has been integrated into the above sections. For additional information on the importance of Havard oak in wildlife habitats, see the species group of interest within Importance to Livestock and Wildlife.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:Competition/allelopathy: Studies found that extracts of sand shinnery oak leaves significantly (p<0.05) suppressed the initial root elongation of 'Ermelo' weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) seeds. Germination percentage and shoot elongation of seeds kept moist with Havard oak leaf extracts were not reduced. Weeping lovegrass seed produced roots that were 1.2 inches (31 mm) in distilled water, but roots were 0.08 inch (2 mm) long in Havard oak extracts [50].
Control: The following references include information on a variety of control methods and may prove useful in the quest for additional information [27,39,42,65,85]. Herbel and others [39] provide information on the timing of Havard oak control. They do not recommend complete eradication of sand shinnery oak and indicate that forage production is typically greater if some sand shinnery oak remains in the community. Peterson and Boyd [65] present information on stocking rates and rotational grazing patterns that may reduce the incidence of sand shinnery oak poisoning of cattle.1. Allison, C. D. 1994. Symposium on poisonous and noxious range plants: other poisonous plants. In: Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science; 1994 June 22-24; [Location unknown]. Champaign, IL: American Society of Animal Science. 45: 115-117. [62369]
2. Allred, B. W.; Mitchell, Homer C. 1955. Major plant types of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas and their relation to climate and soils. Texas Journal of Science. 7: 7-19. [61664]
3. Armstrong, W. E. 1980. Impact of prescribed burning on wildlife. 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: The Texas A&M University System, Texas Agricultural Extension Service: 22-26. [11430]
4. Bednarz, James C. 1988. A comparative study of the breeding ecology of Harris' and Swainson's hawks in southeastern New Mexico. The Condor. 90(2): 311-323. [62381]
5. Bednarz, James C.; Hoffman, Stephen W. 1988. The status of breeding Swainson's hawks in southeastern New Mexico. In: Glinski, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; LeFranc, M. N., Jr.; Millsap, B. A.; Hoffman, S. W., eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 253-259. [22651]
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. Best, Troy L.; Garrison, Tom E.; Schmitt, C. Gregory. 1992. Availability and ingestion of lead shot by mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) in southeastern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 37(3): 287-292. [19694]
8. Best, Troy L.; Skupski, Marian P.; Smartt, Richard A. 1993. Food habits of sympatric rodents in the shinnery oak - mesquite grasslands of southeastern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 38(3): 224-235. [22136]
9. Bonner, Franklin T. 2008. Quercus L.: oak. 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: 928-938. [62581]
10. Boyd, Chad S.; Bidwell, Terrence G. 2001. Influence of prescribed fire on lesser prairie-chicken habitat in shinnery oak communities in western Oklahoma. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(3): 938-947. [44999]
11. Boyd, Chad S.; Bidwell, Terrence G. 2002. Effects of prescribed fire on shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) plant communities in western Oklahoma. Restoration Ecology. 10(2): 324-333. [42260]
12. Boyd, Chad S.; Vermeire, Lance T.; Bidwell, T. G.; Lochmiller, R. L. 2001. Nutritional quality of shinnery oak buds and catkins in response to burning or herbivory. The Southwestern Naturalist. 46(3): 295-301. [40122]
13. Boyd, Chad Stephen. 1993. The effects of burning season and frequency on the vegetative character and insect abundance of sand shinnery oak range in western Oklahoma. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. 133 p. Dissertation. [62539]
14. Cramer, Michael J.; Willig, Michael R. 2002. Habitat heterogeneity, habitat associations, and rodent species diversity in a sand--shinnery-oak landscape. Journal of Mammalogy. 83(3): 743-753. [61673]
15. Crawford, John A.; Bolen, Eric G. 1976. Fall diet of lesser prairie chickens in west Texas. The Condor. 78(1): 142-144. [62384]
16. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Noel H.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1997. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part A: Subclass Rosidae (except Fabales). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 446 p. [28652]
17. Davis, Charles A.; Barkley, Robert C.; Haussamen, Walter C. 1975. Scaled quail foods in southeastern New Mexico. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 496-502. [10491]
18. Davis, Charles A.; Riley, Terry Z.; Smith, Randall A.; Wisdom, Michael J. 1980. Spring-summer foods of lesser prairie chickens in New Mexico. In: Proceedings, prairie grouse symposium; 1980 September 17-18; Stillwater, OK. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Publishing and Printing: 75-80. [18419]
19. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ. No. 101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
20. Dhillion, Shivcharn S.; McGinley, Mark A.; Friese, Carl F.; Zak, John C. 1994. Construction of sand shinnery oak communities of the Llano Estacado: animal disturbances, plant community structure, and restoration. Restoration Ecology. 2(1): 51-60. [62412]
21. Dhillion, Shivcharn S.; Mills, Michele H. 1999. The sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) communities of the Llano Estacado: History, structure, ecology, and restoration. In: Anderson, Roger C.; Fralish, James S.; Baskin, Jerry M., eds. Savannas, barrens, and rock outcrop plant communities of North America. New York: Cambridge University Press: 262-274. [62410]
22. Diamond, David D.; Riskind, David H.; Orzell, Steve L. 1987. A framework for plant community classification and conservation in Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 39(3): 203-221. [24968]
23. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097]
24. Dodson, Gary. 1987. Xanthoteras sp. (Hymenoptera: Cunipidae) gall abundance on shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) in New Mexico: an indicator of plant stress? The Southwestern Naturalist. 32(4): 463-468. [2971]
25. Downing, Robert L. 1957. An evaluation of ground nesting by mourning doves in northwestern Oklahoma. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. 33 p. Thesis. [62428]
26. Ducousso, A.; Michaud, H.; Lumaret, R. 1993. Reproduction and gene flow in the genus Quercus L. Annales des Sciences Forestieres. 50(Suppl. 1): 91s-106s. [52469]
27. Ethridge, D. E.; Pettit, R. D.; Suddeth, R. G.; Stoecker, A. L. 1987. Optimal economic timing of range improvement alternatives: Southern High Plains. Journal of Range Management. 40(6): 555-559. [3795]
28. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
29. Fletcher, Reggie; Robbie, Wayne A. 2004. Historic and current conditions of southwestern grasslands. In: Finch, Deborah M., ed. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 120-129. [52290]
30. Ford, Paulette L.; McPherson, Guy R. 1996. Ecology of fire in shortgrass prairie communities of the Kiowa National Grassland. In: Warwick, Charles, ed. Fifteenth North American prairie conference: Proceedings; 1996 October 23-26; St. Charles, IL. Bend, OR: The Natural Areas Association: 71-76. [30254]
31. Freeman, Craig C. 2000. Vascular plants new to three states in the central United States. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 103(1-2): 51-54. [62388]
32. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 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]
33. Govaerts, Rafael; Frodin, David G. 1998. World checklist and bibliography of Fagales (Betulaceae, Corylaceae, Fagaceae and Ticodendraceae). Kew, UK: The Royal Botanic Gardens. 497 p. [60947]
34. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
35. Hanson, William R. 1957. Plants for improving bobwhite habitat in northwestern Oklahoma. Arts and Sciences Studies: Biological Series Publication No. 7. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. 88 p. [62426]
36. Harper, Kimball T.; Ruyle, G. B.; Rittenhouse, L. R. 1988. Toxicity problems associated with the grazing of oak in intermountain and southwestern U.S.A. In: James, Lynn F.; Ralphs, Michael H.; Nielsen, Darwin B., eds. The ecology and economic impact of poisonous plants on livestock production. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 197-206. [61677]
37. Harrell, Wade C.; Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Bidwell, Terrence G. 2001. Effects of prescribed fire on sand shinnery oak communities. Journal of Range Management. 54(6): 685-690. [40162]
38. Haukos, D. A.; Smith, L. M. 1989. Lesser prairie chicken nest site selection and vegetation characteristics in tebuthiuron-treated and untreated shinnery oak in Texas. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 624-626. [10509]
39. 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]
40. Hoagland, Bruce. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(4): 385-420. [41226]
41. James, L. F.; Keeler, R. F.; Johnson, A. E.; Williams, M. C.; Cronin, E. H.; Olsen, J. D. 1980. Plants poisonous to livestock in the western states. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 415. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration. 90 p. [1243]
42. Jones, V. E.; Meadors, C. H.; Jacoby, P. W.; Fisher, C. E. 1978. Effect of pelleted herbicides on six hard to control brush species. In: Herbicides: the cost/benefit ratio: 31st annual meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society; 1978 January 17-19; New Orleans, LA. In: Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. Auburn, AL: Southern Weed Science Society; 31: 191. [49106]
43. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
44. Krysl, Leslie J.; Simpson, C. David; Gray, Gary G. 1979. Dietary overlap of sympatric barbary sheep and mule deer in Palo Duri Canyon, Texas. In: Sosebee, Ronald E.; Wright, Henry A.; eds. Research highlights--1979: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 10. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 51-52. [39006]
45. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. [4389]
46. 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. 166 p. [1384]
47. Lamdin, J. M.; Howell, D. E.; Kocan, K. M.; Murphey, D. R.; Arnold, D. C.; Fenton, A. W.; Odell, G. V.; Ownby, C. L. 2000. The venomous hair structure, venom and life cycle of Lagoa crispata, a puss caterpillar of Oklahoma. Toxicon. 38(9): 1163-1189. [61682]
48. Martin, Brian Harvey. 1990. Avian and vegetation research in the shinnery oak ecosystem of southeastern New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 116 p. Thesis. [62420]
49. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
50. Matizha, William; Dahl, Bill E. 1991. Factors affecting weeping lovegrass seedling vigor on shinnery oak range. Journal of Range Management. 44(3): 223-227. [61683]
51. Mayes, Steven G.; McGinley, Mark A.; Werth, Charles R. 1998. Clonal population structure and genetic variation in sand-shinnery oak, Quercus havardii (Fagaceae). American Journal of Botany. 85(11): 1609-1617. [61684]
52. McIlvain, E. H. 1954. Interim report on shinnery oak control studies in the southern Great Plains. In: Proceedings, 11th annual meeting of the North Central Weed Control Conference; 1954 December 6-9; Fargo, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: North Central Weed Control Conference: 95-96. [62430]
53. McIlvain, E. H. 1956. Shinnery oak can be controlled. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 9: 95-98. [62341]
54. McIlvain, E. H.; Armstrong, C. G. 1966. A summary of fire and forage research on shinnery oak rangelands. In: Proceedings, 5th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1966 March 24-25; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 127-129. [16949]
55. McPherson, Guy R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. In: McClaran, Mitchel P.; Van Devender, Thomas R., eds. The desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press: 130-151. [26576]
56. McWilliams, William H.; O'Brien, Renee A.; Reese, Gordon C.; Waddell, Karen L. 2002. Distribution and abundance of oaks in North America. In: McShea, William J.; Healy, William M., eds. Oak forest ecosystems: Ecology and management for wildlife. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 13-33. [43465]
57. Mueggler, W. F. 1970. Objectionable characteristics of range plants. In: Range and wildlife habitat evaluation--a research symposium: Proceedings; 1968 May; Flagstaff, AZ; Tempe, AZ. Misc. Publ. 1147. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 63-70. [12986]
58. Muller, Cornelius H. 1951. The significance of vegetative reproduction in Quercus. Madrono. 2: 129-137. [1718]
59. Muller, Cornelius H. 1952. Ecological control of hybridization in Quercus: a factor in the mechanism of evolution. Evolution. 6(2): 147-161. [10666]
60. Nellessen, James E. 2004. Quercus havardii. In: Francis, John K., ed. Wildland shrubs of the United States and its territories: thamnic descriptions: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-26. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 613-616. [52231]
61. Olawsky, Craig Donald. 1987. Effects of shinnery oak control with tebuthiuron on lesser prairie-chicken populations. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 83 p. Thesis. [10409]
62. Panciera, R. J. 1978. Oak poisoning in cattle. In: Keeler, Richard F.; Van Kampen, Kent R.; James, Lynn F., eds. Effects of poisonous plants on livestock. New York: Academic Press: 499-506. [61685]
63. Patten, Michael A.; Wolfe, Donald H.; Shochat, Eyal; Sherrod, Steve K. 2005. Effects of microhabitat and microclimate selection on adult survivorship of the lesser prairie-chicken. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(3): 1270-1278. [61686]
64. 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]
65. Peterson, Roger S.; Boyd, Chad S. 1998. Ecology and management of sand shinnery communities: a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-16. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 44 p. [29148]
66. Pettit, Russ D.; Deering, Donald. 1971. Root-shoot studies in shin oak. In: International Center for Arid and Semi-arid Land Studies: Special Report No. 51; Noxious brush and weed control: Research highlights--1971. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 14. [62342]
67. Pettit, Russ. 1994. SRM 730: Sand shinnery oak. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 106. [62432]
68. Pettit, Russ; Kauffman, J. Boone. 1978. Stem growth of hybrid oak growing in mottes. In: Sosebee, Ronald E.; Wright, Henry A., eds. Research highlights--1977: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 8. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 10. [62425]
69. Pettit, Russell D. 1986. Sand shinnery oak: control and management. Management Note 8. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 5 p. [2882]
70. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees and shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas: Including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]
71. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
72. Reid, M.; Schulz, K.; Schindel, M.; Comer, P.; Kittel, G.; [and others], compilers. 2000. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the western United States--Chihuahuan Desert subset. Report from Biological Conservation Datasystem and working draft of April 23, 2000. Boulder, CO: Association for Biodiversity Information/The Nature Conservancy, Community Ecology Group. 154 p. In: Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (Producer). Available online: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/nm/Chihuahua.pdf [2005, May 6]. [52906]
73. Rice, Elroy L.; Penfound, William T. 1959. The upland forests of Oklahoma. Ecology. 40(4): 598-608. [61667]
74. Riley, Terry Z.; Davis, Charles A. 1993. Vegetative characteristics of lesser prairie-chicken brood foraging sites. Prairie Naturalist. 25(3): 243-248. [62347]
75. Riley, Terry Z.; Davis, Charles A.; Ortiz, Melchor; Wisdom, Michael J. 1992. Vegetative characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nests of lesser prairie chickens. Journal of Wildland Management. 56(2): 383-387. [18199]
76. Riley, Terry Z.; Davis, Charles A.; Smith, Randall A. 1993. Autumn and winter foods of the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) (Galliformes: Tetraonidae). Great Basin Naturalist. 53(2): 186-189. [62392]
77. Roebuck, Craig Moore. 1982. Comparative food habits and range use of pronghorn and cattle in the Texas Panhandle. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 109 p. Thesis. [62429]
78. Schneider, Rick E.; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Crawford, Rex C.; Weakley, Alan S. 1997. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation classification--Supplemental document 1. [Cooperative Agreement # X 007803-01-3]. In: Ostlie, Wayne R.; Schneider, Rick E.; Aldrich, Janette Marie; Faust, Thomas M.; McKim, Robert L. B.; Chaplin, Stephen J., comps. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Great Plains Program. 75 p. Available online: http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/02/greatplains_vegclass_97.pdf [2011, September 8]. [62020]
79. Scott, Norman J., Jr. 1996. Evolution and management of the North American grassland herpetofauna. In: Finch, Deborah M., ed. Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands: A symposium proceedings; 1994 September 22-26; Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-285. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 40-53. [27343]
80. Sears, W. E.; Britton, C. M.; Wester, D. B.; Pettit, R. D. 1986. Herbicide conversion of a sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) community effects on nitrogen. Journal of Range Management. 39(5): 403-407. [10405]
81. Secor, Jack B.; Shamash, Saied; Smeal, Daniel; Gennaro, Antonio L. 1983. Soil characteristics of two desert plant community types that occur in the Los Medanos area of southeastern New Mexico. Soil Science. 136(3): 133-144. [2103]
82. Sharp, Ward M.; Chisman, Henry H. 1961. Flowering and fruiting in the white oaks. I. Staminate flowering through pollen dispersal. Ecology. 42: 365-372. [3910]
83. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
84. Sikes, D. A.; Pettit, R. D. 1980. Soil temperature, oxygen, and water level effects on sand shinnery oak. Soil Science. 130(6): 344-349. [61658]
85. Slosser, J. E.; Jacoby, P. W.; Price, J. R. 1985. Management of sand shinnery oak for control of the boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the Texas rolling plains. Journal of Economic Entomology. 78(2): 383-389. [61660]
86. Spowart, Richard A.; Samson, Fred B. 1986. Carnivores. In: Cooperrider, Allen Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center: 475-496. [13526]
87. 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]
88. Taylor, Charles A., Jr. 2005. Prescribed burning cooperatives: empowering and equipping ranchers to manage rangelands. Rangelands. 27(1): 18-23. [52905]
89. Texas Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Plant communities of Texas (Series level). Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 26 p. [23810]
90. Tucker, John M. 1970. Studies in the Quercus undulata complex. IV. The contribution of Quercus havardii. American Journal of Botany. 57(1): 71-84. [2363]
91. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2017. PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
92. Vermeire, Lance T.; Wester, David B. 2001. Shinnery oak poisoning of rangeland cattle: causes, effects and solutions. Rangelands. 23(2): 19-21. [39458]
93. Villena, Francis; Pfister, James A. 1990. Sand shinnery oak as forage for Angora and Spanish goats. Journal of Range Management. 43(2): 116-122. [10408]
94. Villena-Rodriguez, Francis. 1987. Nutrition of goats grazing sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) ranges in west Texas. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 102 p. Thesis. [11416]
95. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
96. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; Grace, James B.; Hoch, Greg A.; Patterson, William A., III. 2000. Fire in eastern 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: 53-96. [36983]
97. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
98. Wiedman, Varley Earl. 1960. Preliminary ecological study of the shinnery oak area of western Oklahoma. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma. 46 p. Thesis. [62354]
99. Wright, Henry A. 1979. Use of fire to manage grasslands in west Texas. In: Sosebee, Ronald E.; Wright, Henry A., eds. Research highlights--1979: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 10. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 8-12. [4371]
100. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
101. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W.; Thompson, Rita P. 1978. The role and use of fire in the Great Plains: A-state-of-the-art-review. In: Linne, James M., ed. BLM guidelines for prairie/plains plant communities to incorporate fire use/management into activity plans and fire use plans. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: VIII-1 to VIII-39. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [13614]