DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus Virginianus Couesi) Habitats and Foods in Southern Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus Virginianus Couesi) Habitats and Foods in Southern Arizona An evaluation of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi) habitats and foods in Southern Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors White, Robert Wesley, 1928- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 24/09/2021 17:41:31 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553903 AN EVALUATION OF WHITE-TAILED DEER (ODOCOILSUS VIRGINIANUS COUESl) HABITATS AiiD FOODS IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA by Robert W, White A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 5 7 19791 1957 5 I STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to bor­ rowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: Zoology This study was financed by the Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, which is cooperatively main­ tained by the following organizations: The University of Arizona, The Arizona Game and Fish Department, The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Wildlife Manage­ ment Institute* TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------- 1 Description of study areas-----------------— 2 Climate----- -------------------------------- 3 Chapter II CLASSIFICATION Aim DISTRIBUTION OF ARIZONA WHITE-TAILED DEER— — — — ---------------------- 6 Altitudinal distribution ——— ———————— — — —— 11 Distribution by plant associations — -------- 11 Chapter III ANALYSIS OF FEEDING HABITS — --- ------------------ 13 The feeding-minute technique ---------------— 14 Methods-------------- 14 Advantages of the technique -- ----— --------- 1$ Disadvantages of the technique --------------- 16 Results of feeding-minute method ----— — — — 16 Summary of the feeding-minute technique --------- 28 Collection and analysis of stomach samples — — 29 Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF RANGE CONDITIONS------------------------- 35 Browse transects-------------- 35 Index for acorn production------------------- . 38 Comparison of deer ranges by pace-transect and pellet-group counts ---------------------- 47 Salts and minerals — -------------------------- 47 Importance of open wa t e r ------------------------ 48 Dense chaparral---------- 49 High altitude parks -— ------------ 49 Effects of fire on deer range------------------- 50 Cattle-deer competition -----— --------------- 51 Chapter V PRODUCTIVITY ----------------------------------------- 53 Breeding season--------------------------------- 53 Analysis of ovaries----------------------------- 54 Buck:doe and doe:fawn ratios ----------------- 56 SUMMARY---------- i--- ------------------------------------------ 58 LITERATURE CITED-------------------------------------------------- 59 LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1* Use of noil-leguminous browse species in the low-altitude study areas (4,000 - 5,500 ft.) June 15, 1955-February 1, 1956- 21 2. Use of leguminous browse species in the low-altitude study areas (4,000 - 5,500 ft.) June 15, 1955 - February 1, 1956---- 22 3. Use of forbs and grasses in the low-altitude study areas (4,000 - 5,500 ft.) June 15, 1955 - February 1, 1956.---------- 23 4. Use of browse species in high altitude study area (8,000 - 9,000 ft.) July 1 - December 1, 1955--------------------------- 24 5. Use of forb and grass species in the high altitude study area (8,000 - 9,000 ft.) July 1 - December 1, 1955.------------ 24 6. Per cent of total observed feeding time spent on browsing of Fouquieria splendens and rainfall record for Florida Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, 1955*------------------------------------ 25 7. Percentage of total feeding time on browse, forbs and grasses Florida Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, August-Dec ember, 1955.--- 2? 8. Morning versus evening feeding habits by percentage of browse, forbs and grasses taken, Florida Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, 1955-1956.------------------------------------------ 27 9. Upper versus lower range differences in feeding habits in percentage of browse, forbs and grasses taken, August - October, 1955.---- 28 10. Contents of twelve stomachs collected near the junction of the desert-shrub and oak-woodland associations, November 1954 and November 1955•-----— ----- — -------------— ------------- 30 11. Contents of fourteen stomachs collected near the junction of the desert-grassland and oak-woodland or pinyon-juniper associations, November 1955.----------------------------------- 31 12. Contents of two stomachs collected in the yellow pine association,- November 1955.------------------------------------ 32 13. Volumetric analysis of seventeen stomachs collected in November 1955.------------------------------------------------- 33 Number Page 14• Summary of use and growth of plants located in browse transects in the Chiricahua Mountains (8,000 - 9,000 ft.) 1955.-------------------------------------------------------- 45 15. Summary of utilization and net gain or loss to plants from browse transects in Canelo Hills (5,000 ft.).---------------- 45 16. Acorn count on oak transects, 8,000 to 8,500 feet, Chiricahua Mountains, September 1954 and September 1955.------ 46 17. Plant composition of Antler Park, Chiricahua Mountains, September 1954.----------------------------------- 50 18. Results of ovary analysis from does taken in the Chiricahua Mountains, November 1955.--------------------------- 55 19. Buck-doe ratios, Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, August-Dec ember 1955, inclusive.----------------------------- 56 20. Doe-fawn ratio in the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, September-December 1955, inclusive.— ---------- ---------- 56 LIST OF FIGURES Number . Page 1. Bar Foot Park area, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.---------- :— 5 2 . Foothills on western slope of the Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.---------------------------------------------------- B 3. Scene from Rustler Park road, Chiricahua Mts. looking eastward into New Mexico. January 1956.----------------------9 4* Juniper encroachment over grassland Pinery Canyon, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.---------------------------- — — — 10 5. Single plant of Mimosa dysocarpa. Santa Rita Mbs. January 1956.------------------------------------------------- 19 6. False mesquite (Calliandra eriophylla). Santa Rita Mts. January 1956.------------------------------------------------- 20 7. Heavily browsed deerbrush (Ceanothus Fendleri). Bar Foot Park.Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.-------------------- 26 8 . Heavily browsed mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides). Bar Foot Park, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.----------------- 37 9. Heavily browsed young juniper (Juniperus Deppeana) January 1956.------------------ :---------------------------- — 39 10. Ocean spray plant (Holodiscus dumosus). Rustler Park, Chiricahua Mbs. January 1956.------ 40 11. Heavily browsed ponderosa pine. Rustler Park, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.----------- ----------------------- -------------- 41 12. Heavily browsed silverleaf oak (Quercus hypoleucoides). Bar Foot Park. January 1956.-------------------------------- 42 13. Heavily browsed white fir (Abies concolor). Rustler Park, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956*-------------------------------- 43 14. Heavily browsed mock orange (Philadelphus microphyllus). Rustler Park Road, Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.------------- 44 15. Heavily browsed silk tassel (Garrya Wrightii). Pinery Canyon. Chiricahua Mts. January 1956.--- -— ------------------------- 52 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to the Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit for making available to me the fellowship which enabled me to carry out this project. I wish also to extend my sincerest thanks to Dr. Lyle K. Sowls, Leader of the Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, for his help and encouragement and his valuable assistance in preparing and editing the manuscript. I am indebted to Charles R. Hungerford, Assistant Leader of the Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, who was always ready to come into the field and assist me in any way possible* Thanks are also due the following members of the university faculty: Dr. E. Lendell Cockrum, assistant professor of zoology for advice on the taxonomy of the white-tailed deer and criticism of the manuscript. Dr. Charles M. Mason, assistant professor of botany for assistance with plant identification and for verification of plant names. Dr. William J. Pistor, for advice on deer diseases and parasites. Dr. Robert R. Humphrey for criticism of the manuscript. To Mr. John W. Bohning, Range Conservationist, United States Forest Service, I extend my thanks for his many kindnesses. This study
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Coronado Revised Plan
    Coronado National United States Forest Department of Agriculture Forest Draft Land and Service Resource Management August 2011 Plan The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – Month and Year Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For more information contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] ii Draft Land and Management Resource Plan Coronado National Forest Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Land and Resource Management Plan ......................................... 1 Overview of the Coronado National Forest .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CDFG Natural Communities List
    Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database September 2003 Edition Introduction: This document supersedes all other lists of terrestrial natural communities developed by the Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). It is based on the classification put forth in “A Manual of California Vegetation” (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995 and upcoming new edition). However, it is structured to be compatible with previous CNDDB lists (e.g., Holland 1986). For those familiar with the Holland numerical coding system you will see a general similarity in the upper levels of the hierarchy. You will also see a greater detail at the lower levels of the hierarchy. The numbering system has been modified to incorporate this richer detail. Decimal points have been added to separate major groupings and two additional digits have been added to encompass the finest hierarchal detail. One of the objectives of the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) was to apply a uniform hierarchical structure to the State’s vegetation types. Quantifiable classification rules were established to define the major floristic groups, called alliances and associations in the National Vegetation Classification (Grossman et al. 1998). In this document, the alliance level is denoted in the center triplet of the coding system and the associations in the right hand pair of numbers to the left of the final decimal. The numbers of the alliance in the center triplet attempt to denote relationships in floristic similarity. For example, the Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita alliance (37.106.00) is more closely related to the Chamise- Cupleaf Ceanothus alliance (37.105.00) than it is to the Chaparral Whitethorn alliance (37.205.00).
    [Show full text]
  • Saddlebrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description
    SaddleBrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description AZ Trail B Arizona Trail: Alamo Canyon This passage begins at a point west of the White Canyon Wilderness on the Tonto (Passage 17) National Forest boundary about 0.6 miles due east of Ajax Peak. From here the trail heads west and north for about 1.5 miles, eventually dropping into a two- track road and drainage. Follow the drainage north for about 100 feet until it turns left (west) via the rocky drainage and follow this rocky two-track for approximately 150 feet. At this point there is new signage installed leading north (uphill) to a saddle. This is a newly constructed trail which passes through the saddle and leads downhill across a rugged and lush hillside, eventually arriving at FR4. After crossing FR4, the trail continues west and turns north as you work your way toward Picketpost Mountain. The trail will continue north and eventually wraps around to the west side of Picketpost and somewhat paralleling Alamo Canyon drainage until reaching the Picketpost Trailhead. Hike 13.6 miles; trailhead elevations 3471 feet south and 2399 feet north; net elevation change 1371 feet; accumulated gains 1214 northward and 2707 feet southward; RTD __ miles (dirt). AZ Trail A Arizona Trail: Babbitt Ranch This passage begins just east of the Cedar Ranch area where FR 417 and FR (Passage 35) 9008A intersect. From here the route follows a pipeline road north to the Tub Ranch Camp. The route continues towards the corrals (east of the buildings).
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Water Sources by Passage 5.27.20-Sheet1
    Water Sources on the Arizona Trail by Passages Arizona Trail Water Reports 5/27/20 Water reports are compiled from personal experiences, hikers, e-mails, and phone calls. Check regularly for updates. Please send any current water reports to Fred Gaudet at [email protected] or call (480) 983-0112 Trail users are posting current water conditions on the Arizona Trail APP. These postings will be more recent than most Water Reports. Mileage -- south to north -- agrees with Arizona Trail Segment Passages and GPS data at www.aztrail.org. Information in this report is provided as a service to the community. Information in this report may not be accurate. Natural water sources in Arizona can and do rapidly change. Resupply box may be empty. The user of this information is solely responsible for their own safety. Hike your own hike. Man made water sources are listed as TOWN or other facility. Some locations may be closed and no water available. The LOCATION will indicate if a water source is off trail with a note, such as 0.5m E Abbreviations: m - mile; N - north; E -east; S - south; W - west. "~" means "approximately" Water Codes: w0-not reliable or none; w1-seasonal or "iffy"; w2-probable; w3-fairly reliable; w4-very reliable source It is recommended that water sources be verified with local sources, such as Forest Service Ranger Stations, National Park Service, BLM offices, or AZA Trail Stewards. Water quality may vary greatly and it is recommend that water sources be treated to reduce risk of water borne diseases. Historic PassageS-N Location
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Vegetation of Central Southwest Oregon, Based on GLO
    HISTORICAL VEGETATION OF CENTRAL SOUTHWEST OREGON, BASED ON GLO SURVEY NOTES Final Report to USDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Medford District October 31, 2011 By O. Eugene Hickman and John A. Christy Consulting Rangeland Ecologist Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Retired, USDA - NRCS Portland State University 61851 Dobbin Road PSU – INR, P.O. Box 751 Bend, Oregon 97702 Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 (541, 312-2512) (503, 725-9953) [email protected] [email protected] Suggested citation: Hickman, O. Eugene and John A. Christy. 2011. Historical Vegetation of Central Southwest Oregon Based on GLO Survey Notes. Final Report to USDI Bureau of Land Management. Medford District, Oregon. 124 pp. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 SW OREGON PRE-GLO SURVEY HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 7 THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE, ITS FUNCTION AND HISTORY...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Heteromeles Arbutifolia (Lindl.) M. Roemer NRCS CODE: Subfamily: Maloideae Family: Rosaceae (HEAR5) Photos: A
    I. SPECIES Heteromeles arbutifolia (Lindl.) M. Roemer NRCS CODE: Subfamily: Maloideae Family: Rosaceae (HEAR5) photos: A. Montalvo Order: Rosales Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida Fruits (pomes) in late fall and winter. A. Subspecific taxa None recognized by Phipps (2012, 2016) in Jepson Manual or Jepson e-Flora. B. Synonyms Photinia arbutifolia (Ait.) Lindl.; Crataegus arbutifolia Ait. (McMinn 1939) Heteromeles (Lindl.) M. Roemer arbutifolia var. arbutifolia ; H. a. var. cerina (Jeps.) E. Murray; H. a. var. macrocarpa (Munz) Munz; H. salicifolia (C. Presl) Abrams (Phipps 2016) (but see I. F. Taxonomic issues). C. Common name toyon, California Christmas berry, California-holly (Painter 2016); Christmas berry (CalFlora 2016). D. Taxonomic relationships Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data confirm thatPhotinia is the most closely related genus (Guo et al. 2011). Photinia differs in having 20 stamens, fused carpels, and stone cells in the testa as well as occurring in summer-wet environments (Phipps 1992). E. Related taxa in region None. There is only one species of Heteromeles. The closely related Photinia is primarily tropical (Meyer 2008) and not in California. Toyon's taxonomic stability may be in part related to its reproductive mode (Wells 1969). F. Taxonomic issues The three varieties of H. arbutifolia listed above in cell I. B. are currently recognized in the USDA PLANTS (2016) database. G. Other One of the most widely distributed California shrubs. Also widely planted and well-known for its bright red fruits in winter. McMinn (1939) noted it had been planted widely in parks and gardens since about 1914. From the Greek words 'heter' for different and 'malus' for apple (Munz 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Low Water Arboretum All Stars
    LOW-WATER ARBORETUM OF THE ONE HUNDRED ARBORETUM ALL-STARS, THIS LIST INCLUDES THOSE WITH THE LOWEST WATER NEEDS Fragrant yellow flowers add color to the winter garden; very Acacia boormanii adaptable and hardy, grows best in well-drained soils; heat and Snowy River wattle drought tolerant. Acca sellowiana Attractive spring flowers are edible and sweet; large green berries have a pineapple-like flavor; can be used as hedging or (Feijoa sellowiana) as a screen; attracts hummingbirds. pineapple guava California native plant; known for its smooth, wine-red bark; Arctostaphylos densiflora one of the few manzanitas that tolerates our clay-loam soils; ‘Howard McMinn’ attracts hummingbirds and beneficial insects. Vine Hill manzanita Aristolochia californica California native plant; leaves provide food for pipevine swallowtail butterfly larvae; versatile plant that can be used as a California pipevine climbing vine or a groundcover. Bulbine frutescens Small, evergreen perennial is a wonderful addition to dry perennial borders with its long-blooming spikes of delicate, Cape balsam star-shaped yellow flowers; fleshy, bright green foliage adds a sculptural element to the garden; tolerates drought and poor soils. ‘Violaceus’ Rosy-purple “bottlebrush” flowers bloom in early winter and Callistemon spring, and sporadically year round; medium to large evergreen purple bottlebrush shrub that is tough and adaptable; grows best in full sun and tolerates infrequent watering; attracts hummingbirds and beneficial insects. California native plant; best small ceanothus for Central Valley Ceanothus maritimus gardens; clusters of dark-violet flowers bloom in spring; attracts ‘Valley Violet’ beneficial insects. valley violet maritime ceanothus Cercis occidentalis California native plant; early spring bloom before leaves appear; attractive reddish seed pods in summer; new stems, cut in western redbud winter, are used to add color to Native American baskets; attracts beneficial insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report
    United States Department of Agriculture Coronado National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest July 2017 Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FLORISTICS of the CALIFORNIA ISLANDS Peter H
    THE FLORISTICS OF THE CALIFORNIA ISLANDS Peter H. Raven Stanford University The Southern California Islands, with their many endemic spe­ cies of plants and animals, have long attracted the attention of biologists. This archipelago consists of two groups of islands: the Northern Channel Islands and the Southern Channel Islands. The first group is composed of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa islands; the greatest water gap between these four is about 6 miles, and the distance of the nearest, Anacapa, from the mainland only about 13 miles. In the southern group there are also four islands: San Clemente, Santa Catalina, Santa Bar­ bara, and San Nicolas. These are much more widely scattered than the islands of the northern group; the shortest distance be­ tween them is the 21 miles separating the islands of San Clemente and Santa Catalina, and the nearest island to the mainland is Santa Catalina, some 20 miles off shore. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the complex floristics of the vascular plants found on this group of islands, and this will be done from three points of view. First will be considered the numbers of species of vascular plants found on each island, then the endemics of these islands, and finally the relationship between the island and mainland localities for these plants. By critically evaluating the accounts of Southern California island plants found in the published works of Eastwood (1941), Mill¬ spaugh and Nuttall (1923), Munz (1959), and Raven (1963), one can derive a reasonably accurate account of the plants of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E - Plants and Wildlife
    Appendix E - Plants and Wildlife Blue Ridge NWR Plant Lists Table E-15. Blue Ridge NWR – Plants Scientific Name Common Name Family Abies concolor white fir Pinaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Rosaceae Amsinckia sp. fiddleneck Boraginaceae Arctostaphylos patula greenleaf manzanita Ericaceae Arctostaphylos viscida viscid manzanita Ericaceae Asclepias californica California milkweed Apocynaceae Asclepias fascicularis narrow-leaf milkweed Apocynaceae Bromus diandrus ripgut grass Poaceae Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Poaceae Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens red brome Poaceae Calocedrus decurrens California incense-cedar Cupressaceae Ceanothus leucodermis chaparral whitethorn Rhamnaceae Cercocarpus betuloides birch-leaved cercocarpus Rosaceae Chamaebatia foliolosa mountain misery Rosaceae Chlorogalum pomeridianum wavy-leaved soap-plant Agavaceae Cirsium sp. thistle Asteraceae Clarkia sp. clarkia Onagraceae Cynosurus echinatus bristly dogtail grass Poaceae Dendromecon rigida bush poppy Papaveraceae Dudleya sp. dudleya Crassulaceae Boraginaceae Eriodictyon californicum California yerba santa [Hydrophyllaceae] Eriogonum sp. wild buckwheat Polygonaceae Frangula californica subsp. cuspidata California coffee-berry Rhamnaceae Juncus sp. rush Juncaceae Lonicera sp. honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae Marah fabacea California man-root Cucurbitaceae Phrymaceae Mimulus viscidus viscid monkeyflower [Scrophulariaceae] Orobanche sp. broomrape Orobanchaceae Pinus lambertiana sugar pine Pinaceae Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine Pinaceae Populus fremontii Fremont’s
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County
    DRAFT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California” prepared by Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. for State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game (October 1986) Codes revised by Thomas Oberbauer (February 1996) Revised and expanded by Meghan Kelly (August 2006) Further revised and reorganized by Jeremy Buegge (March 2008) March 2008 Suggested citation: Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March 2008 Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County Introduction San Diego’s vegetation communities owe their diversity to the wide range of soil and climatic conditions found in the County. The County encompasses desert, mountainous and coastal conditions over a wide range of elevation, precipitation and temperature changes. These conditions provide niches for endemic species and a wide range of vegetation communities. San Diego County is home to over 200 plant and animal species that are federally listed as rare, endangered, or threatened. The preservation of this diversity of species and habitats is important for the health of ecosystem functions, and their economic and intrinsic values. In order to effectively classify the wide variety of vegetation communities found here, the framework developed by Robert Holland in 1986 has been added to and customized for San Diego County. To supplement the original Holland Code, additions were made by Thomas Oberbauer in 1996 to account for unique habitats found in San Diego and to account for artificial habitat features (i.e., 10,000 series).
    [Show full text]