Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Arabic (1) (learn more)

Overview

Distribution

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

States or Provinces


(key to state/province abbreviations)


AZCACONV
NMTXUT



MEXICO



B.C.N.B.C.S.Chih.Coah.
N.L.Son.Tamps.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

California, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Mexico, New Mexico, and Arizona contain
populations of catclaw acacia [49,161]. Catclaw acacia is common in southern California,
Arizona, western Texas, Baja California, and northern Mexico. Distributions in Nevada, Utah,
and New Mexico are limited [76,121,157]. Catclaw acacia occurs only in the most southwestern
portion of Utah [32,121,157]. Some authors describe catclaw acacia in southern Colorado as
well [49,76,161].

The 2 catclaw acacia varieties have partially overlapping ranges.
Arizona acacia occurs throughout the entire range of catclaw acacia, while Wright acacia
is restricted to New Mexico, western Texas, and Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo
Leon, Mexico [76].

A distributional map of catclaw acacia can be accessed through the U.S. Geological Survey.
  • 121. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]
  • 157. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1998. Inventory of sensitive species and ecosystems in Utah. Endemic and rare plants of Utah: an overview of their distribution and status. Central Utah Project Completion Act: Title III, Section 306(b). Cooperative Agreement No. UC-95-0015: Section V.A.10.a. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. 566 p. (+ Appendices). [42066]
  • 161. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
  • 32. Erdman, Kimball S. 1961. Distribution of the native trees of Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11: 1-34. [35781]
  • 49. Hastings, James R.; Turner, Raymond M.; Warren, Douglas K. 1972. An atlas of some plant distributions in the Sonoran Desert. Technical Reports on the Meteorology and Climatology of Arid Regions: No. 21. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Institute of Atmospheric Physics. 255 p. [10534]
  • 76. Ladyman, Juanita A. R. 2004. Acacia greggii. 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, and Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 16-17. [52083]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [11]:

6 Upper Basin and Range

7 Lower Basin and Range

11 Southern Rocky Mountains

12 Colorado Plateau

13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
  • 11. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

More info for the terms: shrub, shrubs, tree

This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology,
and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available
[28,54,71,90,104,122,167,172].

Catclaw acacia is a native, long-lived, deciduous, spreading shrub or small tree
[31,104,161]. Depending on the harshness of site conditions, catclaw acacia typically
ranges from 3.3 to 29.5 feet (1-9 m) tall [104,161]. On the Lower Rio Grande River,
catclaw acacia trees measured 35 feet (10.7 m) [50]. The main trunk can be 12 inches
(30.5 cm) in diameter; the bark is commonly 3.2 mm thick, developing cracks and becoming
scale-like with age [161]. Catclaw acacia is heavily armed with stout, curved spines (3-4
mm long) distributed along branches at the internodes [28,71,90,104,167].

Alternate leaves are bipinnate with 4 to 7 leaflet pairs. Leaves measure 0.8 to 2 inches
(2-5 cm) long. Leaflets are between 2 and 12 mm long and are normally hairy
[28,104,167]. Catclaw acacia has extrafloral nectaries on the primary rachis that are
thought to promote mutualistic interactions between catclaw acacia and insects, commonly ants.
The ants provide protection from other insect herbivores, while the extrafloral nectaries provide
the ant with food and water [116]. Catclaw acacia's legume fruits are straight to
twisted, constricted between the seeds, and measure 2 to 4.7 inches (5-12 cm) long by
0.4 to 0.8 inches (1-2 cm) wide [28,54,71,90,104]. Seeds are round and typically 5-7 mm
in size [167]. Although catclaw acacia is a legume, in controlled experiments nodulation has
not occurred [33,178].

Catclaw acacia is highly adapted to harsh desert conditions. A deep root
system, high water use efficiency, high photosynthetic capacity, and use of the
C3 photosynthetic pathway allow catclaw acacia to thrive in harsh desert
climates [12,31,42,65,81]. Zimmerman [176] observed catclaw acacia roots greater
than 18 feet (5.5 m) deep in southeastern Arizona. On a wash site in the Gold Valley of
the Mohave Desert, 55% of the total catclaw acacia dry weight was root
[40].

Catclaw acacia is long lived. Catclaw acacia shrubs were aged from repeat photographs
of Grand Canyon sites. Photographs indicate that 85% of the plants on the sites were at
least 104 years old. Other pictures showed that 5 of 6 plants were at least 120 years old.
Researchers estimated 15% mortality and 27% recruitment in 100 years from the photographs
[17].
  • 104. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
  • 116. Pemberton, Robert W. 1988. The abundance of plants bearing extrafloral nectaries in Colorado and Mojave Desert communities of southern California. Madrono. 35(3): 238-246. [6163]
  • 12. Blake-Jacobson, M. E. 1987. Stomatal conductance and water relations of shrubs growing at the chaparral-desert ecotone in California and Arizona. In: Tenhunen, J. D.; Catarino, F. M.; Lange, O. L.; Oechel, W. C., eds. Plant response to stress: Functional analysis in Mediterranean ecosystems. NATO ASI Series. Vol. G15: 223-245. [49100]
  • 122. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & 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]
  • 161. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
  • 167. 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]
  • 17. Bowers, Janice E.; Webb, Robert H.; Rondeau, Renee J. 1995. Longevity, recruitment and mortality of desert plants in Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 6(4): 551-564. [42371]
  • 172. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1025 p. [21993]
  • 176. Zimmermann, Robert C. 1969. Plant ecology of an arid basin: Tres Alamos-Redington Area, southeastern Arizona. Geological Survey Professional Paper 485-D. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 51 p. [4287]
  • 178. Zitzer, S. F.; Archer, S. R.; Boutton, T. W. 1996. Spatial variability in the potential for symbiotic N2 fixation by woody plants in a subtropical savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology. 33(5): 1125-1136. [48999]
  • 28. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 31. Ehleringer, James R.; Cooper, Tamsie A. 1988. Correlations between carbon isotope ratio and microhabitat in desert plants. Oecologia. 76: 562-566. [30909]
  • 33. Eskew, D. L.; Ting, J. P. 1978. Nitrogen fixation by legumes and blue-green algal-lichen crusts in a Colorado desert environment. American Journal of Botany. 65(8): 850-856. [49004]
  • 40. Garcia-Moya, Edmondo; McKell, Cyrus M. 1970. Contribution of shrubs to the nitrogen economy of a desert-wash plant community. Ecology. 51(1): 81-88. [52371]
  • 42. Gibson, Arthur C. 1998. Photosynthetic organs of desert plants. BioScience. 48(11): 911-913, 916-920. [29240]
  • 50. Havard, V. 1885. Report on the flora of western and southern Texas. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 8(29): 449-533. [5067]
  • 54. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 65. Johnson, Hyrum B. 1976. Vegetation and plant communities of southern California deserts--a functional view. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 125-164. [1278]
  • 71. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
  • 81. Levin, Geoffrey A. 1988. How plants survive in the desert. Environment Southwest. Summer: 20-25. [9239]
  • 90. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Perennial, Shrubs, Woody throughout, Nodules present, Stems erect or ascending, Stems or branches arching, spreading or decumbent, Stems less than 1 m tall, Stems 1-2 m tall, Trunk or stems armed with thorns, spines or prickles, Stems solid, Stems or young twigs glabrous or sparsely glabrate, Stems or young twigs sparsely to densely hairy, Leaves alternate, Leaves petiolate, Extrafloral nectary glands on petiole, Stipules inconspicuous, absent, or caducous, Stipules free, Leaves compound, Leaves bipinnate, Leaf or leaflet margins entire, Leaflets opposite, Leaflets 10-many, Leaves glabrous or nearly so, Inflorescences spikes or spike-like, Inflorescence axillary, Bracts very small, absent or caducous, Flowers actinomorphic or somewhat irregular, Calyx 5-lobed, Calyx glabrous, Petals united, valvate, Petals white, Stamens numerous, more than 10, Stamens completely free, separate, Stamens long exserted, Filaments glabrous, Style terete, Fruit a legume, Fruit unilocular, Fruit freely dehiscent, Fruit tardily or weakly dehiscent, Fruit oblong or ellipsoidal, Fruit strongly curved, falcate, bent, or lunate, Fruit twisted, Fruit spirally coiled or contorted, Fruit exserted from calyx, Fruit glabrous or glabrate, Fruit 3-10 seeded, Seed with elliptical line or depression, pleurogram, Seeds ovoid to rounded in outline, Seed surface smooth, Seeds olive, brown, or black, Seeds with appendage - aril, caruncle, funiculus, or strophiole.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Dr. David Bogler

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat characteristics

More info for the term: caliche

Catclaw acacia occupies dry gravelly mesas, canyons, arroyo banks,
rocky hillsides, desert flats, washes, floodplains, and riparian areas in arid
to semiarid southwestern regions [15,86,98,161,172].

Elevation:

Arizonabelow 4,500 feet (1,372 m) [15,71]
Californiabelow 6,000 feet (1,829 m) [104]
New Mexico3,500 to 5,000 feet (1,067-1,524 m) [90]
Texas 1,000 to 6,000 feet (305-1,829 m) [25,122,161,166]
Utah2,490 to 2,850 feet (760-870 m) [32,167]


Soils: The desert soils typical of catclaw acacia habitat are low in organic matter, can
be slightly acidic to slightly alkaline, are often shallow (< 12 inches (30.5 cm) deep),
and commonly contain calcium carbonate in the upper 6.6 feet (2 m) of soil. The caliche layer
can be thick and impenetrable [87,89].



Climate: The climate regimes described for catclaw acacia habitats range from
mild to severe. In southwestern semiarid deserts, winters are often mild and
summers are warm to hot. Annual average precipitation predominantly ranges
from 8 to 20 inches (203-508 mm) [89]. Precipitation levels can be much lower in the
Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts where annual precipitation levels range from 2 to 12
inches (51-305 mm) and 3 to 16 inches (76-406 mm), respectively [60].

In the lower Colorado Desert of southern California, precipitation is between 2.5 and
4 inches (63.5-102 mm) annually, relative humidity is extremely low, and high
summer temperatures can reach 120 °F (49 °C) [88]. The chaparral-desert ecotone of southern
California on average receives 12.6 inches (321 mm) of precipitation annually, 69-78% of which
falls from October through April [12]. A bimodal rain pattern is typical for Arizona deserts.
The 14.5 to 17 inches (368-434 mm) of annual rain falls in the winter and early spring and again
in mid- to late summer; late spring and early summer are arid [1,12]. April
through June in Tucson received little over 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) for a recorded 27 year
average [147]. In central Arizona, winter temperatures are between 32
°F and 68 °F (0 °C-21 °C) and summer temperatures range from 70 °F to 109 °F (21 °C-43 °C).
Southern Nevada weather is also characterized by bimodal precipitation with widespread
winter rain and intense summer monsoons [79]. Maximum high and low temperatures in Clark County,
Nevada, are wide ranging. The winter minimum can be 32 °F (0 °C) and summer maximums are often
as high as 102 °F (39 °C) [47]. Temperatures are more extreme for the Desert Plains of
Brewster County, Texas, where lows and highs range from 10 °F (-12 °C) to 120 °F
(49 °C). This area receives less than 10 inches (254 mm) of precipitation/year
[25].
  • 1. Alford, Eddie J.; Brock, John H. 2002. The effects of fire on Sonoran Desert plant communities. Final Report: RMRS-99164-RJVA. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. [Alford's Dissertation]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [47514]
  • 104. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
  • 12. Blake-Jacobson, M. E. 1987. Stomatal conductance and water relations of shrubs growing at the chaparral-desert ecotone in California and Arizona. In: Tenhunen, J. D.; Catarino, F. M.; Lange, O. L.; Oechel, W. C., eds. Plant response to stress: Functional analysis in Mediterranean ecosystems. NATO ASI Series. Vol. G15: 223-245. [49100]
  • 122. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & 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]
  • 147. Thornber, J. J. 1910. The grazing ranges of Arizona. Bull. No. 65. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 360 p. [4555]
  • 15. Bowers, Janice E.; McLaughlin, Steven P. 1987. Flora and vegetation of the Rincon Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 8(2): 50-94. [495]
  • 161. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
  • 166. Wauer, Roland H. 1971. Ecological distribution of birds of the Chisos Mountains, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 16(1): 1-29. [24969]
  • 167. 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]
  • 172. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1025 p. [21993]
  • 25. Denyes, H. Arliss. 1956. Natural terrestrial communities of Brewster County, Texas, with special reference to the distribution of the mammals. The American Midland Naturalist. 55(2): 289-320. [10862]
  • 32. Erdman, Kimball S. 1961. Distribution of the native trees of Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin: Biological Series. 11: 1-34. [35781]
  • 47. Haigh, Sandra L. 1998. Stem diameter-age relationships of Tamarix ramosissima on lake shore and stream sites in southern Nevada. The Southwestern Naturalist. 43(4): 425-429. [29451]
  • 60. Humphrey, Robert R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 365-400. [14064]
  • 71. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
  • 79. Lei, Simon A.; Walker, Lawrence R. 1997. Classification and ordination of Coleogyne communities in southern Nevada. The Great Basin Naturalist. 57(2): 155-162. [27721]
  • 86. Lowe, Charles H., Jr. 1961. Biotic communities in the sub-Mogollon region of the Inland Southwest. Arizona Academy of Science Journal. 2: 40-49. [20379]
  • 87. MacMahon, James A. 1988. Warm deserts. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 231-264. [19547]
  • 88. Marks, John Brady. 1950. Vegetation and soil relations in the Lower Colorado desert. Ecology. 31: 176-193. [44004]
  • 89. Martin, S. Clark. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grass-shrub ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-156. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p. [1538]
  • 90. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
  • 98. Minckley, W. L. 1992. Three decades near Cuatro Cienegas, Mexico: photographic documentation and a plea for area conservation. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 26(2): 89-118. [20092]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: association, cover, forb, presence, shrub, shrubs, strigose, suffrutescent

Southern California:

Catclaw acacia, desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), and smoketree (Psorothamnus spinosus)
are typical of southern California's Mohave wash scrub and Mohave Desert wash scrub habitat types.
Wash scrub vegetation also includes cattle saltbrush (Atriplex polycarpa), mesquite
(Prosopis spp.), Mohave rabbitbrush (Ericameria paniculata), white burrobrush
(Hymenoclea salsola), Schott's pygmycedar (Peucephyllum schottii), desert almond
(Prunus fasciculata), and skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata var. anisophylla).
Associated with desert wash scrub habitats are California jointfir (Ephedra californica),
stretchberry (Forestiera pubescens var. pubescens), and red barberry (Mahonia haematocarpa) [55].

In drainages and minor waterways of the Lower Colorado Desert and parts of
the Mohave Desert, catclaw acacia occurs in burrobush (Hymenoclea spp.)-dominated communities with
Anderson wolfberry (Lycium andersonii), desertbroom (Baccharis sarothroides),
cattle saltbush, and Mohave rabbitbrush [65,152].

Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata)-dominated communities are also typical in southern California.
White bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), desert ironwood (Olneya tesota), blue paloverde
(Parkinsonia florida), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), and catclaw acacia typify these communities
[88,175]. Catclaw acacia is also typical of desert microphyll woodlands. Blue paloverde, smoketree,
honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), screwbean mesquite (P. pubescens), desert lavender
(Hyptis emoryi), and creosotebush are typical of microphyll woodlands [148].

The Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub vegetation often includes catclaw acacia as well as desert agave
(Agave deserti), brittle bush (Encelia farinosa), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), Schott's
pygmycedar, Mohave yucca (Yucca schidigera), and prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.) [55].

Nevada:

Desert shrub communities of Nevada are dominated by smoketree, desert willow, Mohave desertrue
(Thamnosma montana), brittle bush, triangle goldeneye (Viguiera deltoidea), pale
wolfberry (Lycium pallidum), and catclaw acacia. Typical forb associates are strigose bird's-foot
trefoil (Lotus strigosus var. tomentellus), foothill deervetch (L. humistratus),
whitemargin sandmat Chamaesyce albomarginata, and desert globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua) [45].

Catclaw acacia occurs with desert wash vegetation. Common desert wash shrubs are desert willow,
pale wolfberry, desertsenna (Senna armata), white burrobrush, bladdersage (Salazaria mexicana),
and desert almond [45].

In Clark County, riparian areas are characterized by saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissma), velvet
mesquite (P. velutina), desertbroom, and catclaw acacia [47].

Texas:

Catclaw acacia is typical of several juniper (Juniperus spp.)-dominated communities.
In Pinchot juniper (J. pinchotii) communities of western and north-central Texas,
catclaw acacia, velvet mesquite, and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) are common.
In the Rolling Plains of western Texas, common associates are prickly-pears, soapweed yucca
(Y. glauca var. glauca), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), catclaw mimosa
(Mimosa biuncifera), Texas tussockgrass (Nassella leucotricha), and Arizona cottontop
(Digitaria californica) [94,95]. A similar community in the Rolling Plains of north-central Texas
includes fragrant sumac (R. aromatica), littleleaf sumac (R. microphylla), agarito
(Mahonia trifoliolata), lotebush, threeawn grasses (Aristida spp.), and little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium) [142].

In the Big Bend region of Texas, catclaw acacia is interspersed in sotol (Dasylirion spp.)-
juniper-lechuguilla (Agave lechuguilla) and shortgrass/juniper communities characterized by the
presence of oneseed juniper (J. monosperma). Other vegetation can include ocotillo, oaks
(Quercus spp.), sumacs (Rhus spp.), gramas (Bouteloua spp.), and threeawns [25].

Northwest of Uvalde, Texas, catclaw acacia occurs with Ashe juniper (J.
ashei), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), mescalbean sophora
(Sophora secundiflora), agarito, and coyotillo (Karwinskia humboldtiana) [111].

Catclaw acacia also occurs in several mesquite-dominated communities. In the
southern Texas Plains, catclaw acacia is found in mesquite-bunchgrass-annual forb
savannas, mesquite-bristlegrass (Setaria spp.)-forb woodland communities,
and mesquite-granjeno (Celtis pallida)-dominated communities [29,146]. The
mesquite-granjeno community, considered indicative of disturbance, commonly includes
ocotillo, Brazilian bluewood (Condalia hookeri var. hookeri), lime pricklyash
(Zanthoxylum fagara), and sweet acacia (Acacia farnesiana) [146]. In the Chisos
Mountains, the arroyo-mesquite-acacia association includes catclaw acacia, mesquite, mule's fat
(Baccharis salicifolia), and desert willow [166].

Desert chaparral communities of the Rio Grande Plains and Texano-Mexican desert regions
of Texas also include catclaw acacia [39,50]. Other species common to these desert chaparral
communities are whitethorn acacia (A. constricta), fragrant mimosa (Mimosa borealis), catclaw mimosa, featherplume (Dalea formosa), Brazilian bluewood, knifeleaf condalia
(C. spathulata), and ocotillo [50].

Tarbush (Flourensia cernua) is often associated with catclaw acacia. In the
creosote-tarbush association in Big Bend, catclaw acacia occurs with mariola
(Parthenium incanum), white ratany (Krameria grayi), Big
Bend barometerbush (Leucophyllum minus), longleaf jointfir (Ephedra trifurca),
crown of thorns (Koeberlinia spinosa), yuccas, and javelin bush (C. ericoides).
In the tobosa (Pleuraphis mutica)-tarbush habitat of Big Bend, grass cover
is sparse. Acacias, velvetpod mimosa (M. dysocarpa), barometerbushes (Leucophyllum spp.),
and snakeweeds (Gutierrezia spp.) dominate the community [25].

Catclaw acacia is also described with shortgrass-yucca communities. The shortgrasses are
typically sideoats grama, muhly grasses (Muhlenbergia spp.), lovegrasses (Eragrostis
spp.), and bluestems (Andropogon spp.) [25].

Northern Mexico/Texas:

Catclaw acacia is typical in Chihuahuan desert scrub and woodlands. Creosote, tarbush, viscid acacia
(Acacia neovernicosa), barometerbushes, mesquite, desert honeysuckles (Anisacanthus spp.),
and catclaw acacia characterize the creosote scrub vegetation. Apacheplume (Fallugia paradoxa),
splitleaf brickellbush (Brickellia laciniata), granjeno, guajillo (Acacia berlandieri),
little walnut (Juglans microcarpa), and American pistachio (Pistacia mexicana) characterize
sandy arroyo scrub vegetation [51].

Mexico:

In both mesquite scrub and creosotebush desert communities catclaw acacia is
characteristic [80].

New Mexico:

Catclaw acacia is associated with desert shrub, desert grassland, and arroyo riparian vegetation
[18,26,169]. In the Guadalupe Mountains, catclaw acacia occurs with Pinchot juniper,
lechuguilla, smooth sotol (Dasylirion leiophyllum), mariola, featherplume, threeawns,
sideoats grama, and purple muhly (M. rigida) [169]. In the southern Great Plains of Lea
County, black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), tobosa, mesquite, whitethorn acacia,
snakeweeds, and catclaw acacia are common [18].

Arizona/New Mexico:

In the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts, catclaw acacia populates the edges of secondary
and lesser riparian systems [110].

In the Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)/tobosa and redberry juniper (J.
coahuilensis/shrub live oak (Q. turbinella) vegetation types of the
Mogollon Rim, mesquite, redberry juniper, Utah juniper, and catclaw acacia are common.
Singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), catclaw mimosa, broom snakeweed
(G. sarothrae), and sacahuista (Nolina microcarpa) characterize the
Utah juniper/tobosa community. Yellow paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla), red
barberry, and Fremont mahonia (Mahonia fremontii) occur in the redberry juniper/shrub live oak community [142].

Arizona:

Catclaw acacia is recognized in many grassland and shrub/grassland community
types [23,56]. Grass-dominated communities include grassland-mesquite and grassland-desert
shrub vegetation types. Typical grass species in both the grass and shrub dominated vegetation
include gramas, threeawns, bullgrass (Muhly emersleyi), needlegrasses (Achnatherum spp.),
dropseeds, and sacatons (both are Sporobolus spp.). Mesquite-grassland, desert shrub,
desert shrub grassland, and desert shrub-half shrub vegetation types represent the shrub
dominated communities. Mesquite, ocotillo, and acacias can be present in all the aforementioned
shrub-dominated communities. The desert shrub-half shrub community has an understory of
snakeweeds [23,48].

Desert wash and riparian vegetation described for south-central Arizona commonly includes
catclaw acacia, paloverde, and mesquite [59,165,171]. Desert riparian communities are also habitat for
whitethorn acacia, bursage (Ambrosia spp.), Berlandier's wolfberry, desert
ironwood, Drummond's clematis (Clematis drummondii), and fingerleaf gourd
(Cucurbita digitata) [171].

In central Arizona, catclaw acacia is associated with juniper- and shrub live oak-dominated
vegetation. In the Coconino National Forest, catclaw acacia is found with Utah juniper, shrub
liveoak, manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.), bitterbrushes (Purshia spp.), desert
ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), and mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.) [106].
Catclaw acacia is also present in shrub live oak-birchleaf mountain mahogany (C. betuloides),
shrub live oak-mixed shrub, and pointleaf manzanita (A. pungens) communities [19].

Catclaw acacia in southeastern Arizona associates with desert scrub vegetation types. In the Santa
Catalina Mountains, low densities of catclaw acacia are found in creosotebush desert scrub communities.
Bursage desert scrub vegetation includes fishhook pincushion (Mammillaria grahamii var. grahamii),
triangle bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), and catclaw acacia. The arroyo margin woodland vegetation is
often characterized by the presence of singlewhorl burrobush (Hymenoclea monogyra), honey mesquite,
and catclaw acacia. Increased densities of catclaw acacia occur in disturbed desert scrub communities with
burroweed (Isocoma tenuisecta) and brittle brush and in spinose suffrutescent desert
scrub communities with slender janusia (Janusia gracilis), yellow paloverde,
and ocotillo [107].
  • 106. Neff, Don J. 1974. Forage preferences of trained deer on the Beaver Creek watersheds. Special Report No. 4. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 61 p. [162]
  • 107. Niering, William A.; Lowe, Charles H. 1984. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains: community types and dynamics. Vegetatio. 58: 3-28. [12037]
  • 110. Ohmart, Robert D.; Anderson, Bertin W. 1982. North American desert riparian ecosystems. In: Bender, Gordon L., ed. Reference handbook on the deserts of North America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press: 433-479. [44018]
  • 111. Owens, M. K.; Schliesing, T. G. 1995. Invasive potential of Ashe juniper after mechanical disturbance. Journal of Range Management. 48: 503-507. [26601]
  • 142. Steuter, Allen A.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Spring burning effects on redberry juniper-mixed grass habitats. Journal of Range Management. 36(2): 161-164. [18716]
  • 146. 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]
  • 148. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
  • 152. Turner, Raymond M.; Brown, David E. 1982. Sonoran desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 181-221. [2375]
  • 165. Warren, Peter L.; Anderson, L. Susan. 1985. Gradient analysis of a Sonoran Desert wash. In: Johnson, R. Roy; [and others], technical coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting issues: Proceedings, 1st North American riparian conference; 1985 April 16-18; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 150-155. [17158]
  • 166. Wauer, Roland H. 1971. Ecological distribution of birds of the Chisos Mountains, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 16(1): 1-29. [24969]
  • 169. Wester, David B.; Wright, Henry A. 1987. Ordination of vegetation change in Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, USA. Vegetatio. 72: 27-33. [11167]
  • 171. Wiens, John F. 2000. Vegetation and flora of Ragged Top, Pima County, Arizona. Desert Plants. 16(2): 3-31. [39488]
  • 175. Zedler, Paul H. 1981. Vegetation change in chaparral and desert communities in San Diego County, California. In: West, D. C.; Shugart, H. H.; Botkin, D. B., eds. Forest succession: concepts and application. New York: Springer-Verlag: 406-430. [4241]
  • 18. Campbell, Howard; Martin, Donald K.; Ferkovich, Paul E.; Harris, Bruce K. 1973. Effects of hunting and some other environmental factors on scaled quail in New Mexico. Wildlife Monographs No. 34. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society. 49 p. [23082]
  • 19. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
  • 23. Darrow, Robert A. 1944. Arizona range resources and their utilization: 1. Cochise County. Tech. Bull. 103. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 311-364. [4521]
  • 25. Denyes, H. Arliss. 1956. Natural terrestrial communities of Brewster County, Texas, with special reference to the distribution of the mammals. The American Midland Naturalist. 55(2): 289-320. [10862]
  • 26. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097]
  • 29. Drawe, D. Lynn; Higginbotham, Ira, Jr. 1980. Plant communities of the Zachry Ranch in the south Texas plains. Texas Journal of Science. 32: 319-332. [10858]
  • 39. Foster, J. H.; Krausz, H. B.; Leidigh, A. H. 1917. General survey of Texas woodlands including a study of the commercial possibilities of mesquite. Bulletin of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. Bulletin 3: Department of Forestry. 3(9): 1-47. [11796]
  • 45. Gullion, Gordon W. 1960. The ecology of Gambel's quail in Nevada and the arid Southwest. Ecology. 41(3): 518-536. [49039]
  • 47. Haigh, Sandra L. 1998. Stem diameter-age relationships of Tamarix ramosissima on lake shore and stream sites in southern Nevada. The Southwestern Naturalist. 43(4): 425-429. [29451]
  • 48. Harris, Lisa K.; Ruther, Sherry. 2000. Ecological characteristics of riparian washes in southeastern Arizona, USA. Natural Areas Journal. 20(3): 221-226. [35751]
  • 50. Havard, V. 1885. Report on the flora of western and southern Texas. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 8(29): 449-533. [5067]
  • 51. Henrickson, James; Johnston, Marshall C. 1986. Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert. In: Barlow, Jon C.; Powell, A. Michael; Timmermann, Barbara N., eds. Chihuahuan Desert--U.S. and Mexico, II: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region; 1983 October 20-21; Alpine, TX. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University, Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute: 20-39. [12979]
  • 55. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
  • 56. Humphrey, R. R. 1950. Arizona range resources: II. Yavapai County. Bull. 229. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 55 p. [5088]
  • 59. Humphrey, Robert R. 1960. Forage production on Arizona ranges. V. Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz Counties. Bulletin 502. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 137 p. [4520]
  • 65. Johnson, Hyrum B. 1976. Vegetation and plant communities of southern California deserts--a functional view. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 125-164. [1278]
  • 80. Leopold, A. Starker. 1950. Vegetation zones of Mexico. Ecology. 31(4): 507-518. [43627]
  • 88. Marks, John Brady. 1950. Vegetation and soil relations in the Lower Colorado desert. Ecology. 31: 176-193. [44004]
  • 94. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1989. Direct effects of competition on individual juniper plants: a field study. Journal of Applied Ecology. 26(3): 979-988. [13032]
  • 95. McPherson, Guy R.; Wright, Henry A. 1990. Establishment of Juniperus pinchotii in western Texas: environmental effects. Journal of Arid Environments. 19(3): 283-287. [14105]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Rangeland Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following Rangeland Cover Types (as classified by the Society for Range Management, SRM):

More info for the terms: cover, shrub

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [139]:

206 Chamise chaparral

207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral

209 Montane shrubland

210 Bitterbrush

211 Creosote bush scrub

212 Blackbush

412 Juniper-pinyon woodland

416 True mountain-mahogany

502 Grama-galleta

503 Arizona chaparral

504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland

505 Grama-tobosa shrub

506 Creosotebush-bursage

507 Palo verde-cactus

508 Creosotebush-tarbush

611 Blue grama-buffalo grass

701 Alkali sacaton-tobosagrass

702 Black grama-alkali sacaton

703 Black grama-sideoats grama

704 Blue grama-western wheatgrass

705 Blue grama-galleta

706 Blue grama-sideoats grama

707 Blue grama-sideoats grama-black grama

708 Bluestem-dropseed

711 Bluestem-sacahuista prairie

713 Grama-muhly-threeawn

714 Grama-bluestem

716 Grama-feathergrass

718 Mesquite-grama

727 Mesquite-buffalo grass

728 Mesquite-granjeno-acacia

729 Mesquite

733 Juniper-oak

735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper
  • 139. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

More info for the term: cover

SAF COVER TYPES [36]:

66 Ashe juniper-redberry (Pinchot) juniper

68 Mesquite

239 Pinyon-juniper

241 Western live oak

242 Mesquite
  • 36. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Plant Associations

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

More info for the term: shrub

KUCHLER [75] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:

K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland

K027 Mesquite bosques

K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026

K031 Oak-juniper woodland

K033 Chaparral

K039 Blackbrush

K041 Creosote bush

K042 Creosote bush-bur sage

K043 Paloverde-cactus shrub

K044 Creosote bush-tarbush

K045 Ceniza shrub

K053 Grama-galleta steppe

K054 Grama-tobosa prairie

K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe

K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna

K060 Mesquite savanna

K061 Mesquite-acacia savanna

K062 Mesquite-live oak savanna

K085 Mesquite-buffalo grass

K086 Juniper-oak savanna

K087 Mesquite-oak savanna
  • 75. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

ECOSYSTEMS [41]:

FRES30 Desert shrub

FRES32 Texas savanna

FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe

FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub

FRES35 Pinyon-juniper

FRES38 Plains grasslands

FRES39 Prairie

FRES40 Desert grasslands
  • 41. 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: cover, fire management, fire-sensitive species, natural, nonnative species, shrub, shrubs

Much of the management regarding fire and catclaw acacia surrounds the reduction
of woody vegetation in once grassland-dominated communities. Also important, and
addressed to a lesser extent, is the fire management of altered ecosystems and
the postfire utilization of catclaw acacia.

Using fire to decrease shrub cover, increase herbaceous cover, and/or alter stream
flows requires repetitive burning and integrated management. Hibbert and others [53]
suggest prescription burns in chaparral-dominated brush communities alone do not
often significantly reduce shrub cover. Many shrubs in this community, including
catclaw acacia, sprout following fire, and likely only fire-sensitive species are killed.
A combination of fire and other control methods is necessary to substantially
reduce the shrub component from chaparral communities [53]. Humphrey [60] suggests
that fires every 5-10 years in desert grasslands could control woody vegetation
encroachment [60].

The effectiveness of fire as a tool to combat increases in nonnative species
is unknown for many desert areas. In saguaro-paloverde dominated Sonoran Desert
communities, postfire rehabilitation measures are necessary following any
prescription fires designed to control nonnative species, as these communities are
not fire adapted [1]. In southeastern Arizona, hawk's eye (Euryops multifidus)
displaced native grasses and shrubs (including catclaw acacia). The response
of hawk's eye monocultures to fire or other natural disturbance processes is
unknown [120].

When considering the postfire response of vegetation, postfire utilization is
important. In Anza-Borrego Desert State Park of California, researchers assessed
the utilization of catclaw acacia by herbivores following a July fire. The number
of catclaw acacia sprouts per hectare browsed by wildlife varied by season. For the
number of sprouts produced postfire, see the Fire alone
section above. The utilization of new sprouts was greatest in the fall and winter months.
Sprout browsing results are provided below [150]:

SiteSummerFallWinterSpring
Canyon2372,4162,060154
Site07421715
  • 1. Alford, Eddie J.; Brock, John H. 2002. The effects of fire on Sonoran Desert plant communities. Final Report: RMRS-99164-RJVA. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. [Alford's Dissertation]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [47514]
  • 120. Pierson, Elizabeth A.; McAuliffe, Joseph R. 1995. Characteristics and consequences of invasion by sweet resin bush into the arid southwestern United States. In: DeBano, Leonard F.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo; [and others], technical coordinators. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico: Proceedings; 1994 September 19-23; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GRT-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 219-230. [26239]
  • 150. Tratz, Wallace Michael. 1978. Postfire vegetational recovery, productivity, and herbivore utilization of a chaparral-desert ecotone. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. 133 p. Thesis. [5495]
  • 53. Hibbert, Alden R.; Davis, Edwin A.; Scholl, David G. 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: water yield response and effects on other resources. Res. Pap. RM-126. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [1144]
  • 60. Humphrey, Robert R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 365-400. [14064]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Broad-scale Impacts of Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: cover, density, prescribed fire, tree

The majority of fire effects studies indicate that catclaw acacia recovery is rapid.
Postfire sprouting typically makes pre- and postburn densities and coverages similar
for catclaw acacia. However, following a 6,175 acre (2,500 ha) August fire that burned
the Mohave Desert in southern California, catclaw acacia did not recover by the
1st postfire sampling season. On unburned sites within a blackbrush (Coleogyne
ramosissima) community, catclaw acacia cover was 1.7%; on burned sites cover of
catclaw acacia was 0%. In a Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia)-desert needlegrass
(Achnatherum speciosa)-big galleta (Pleuraphis rigida) community, cover of
catclaw acacia was 0.8% on unburned sites and 0% on burned sites the 1st postfire year.
Below average temperatures were likely a factor in the poor postfire perennial vegetation
recovery [77].

Fire alone:
The following studies illustrate the more typical postfire response for catclaw
acacia. Following a fire in the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona, 90%
of catclaw acacia plants in wash areas were sprouting and 100% in the upland
sites were sprouting. The timing of this fire was not clear [145]. Following an
early May fire in a south-central Arizona giant saguaro community, the density
of catclaw acacia on burned and unburned sites was compared. Catclaw acacia
density (plant/0.5 ha) was 44 on unburned sites and 42 on burned sites [173].
In south-central Arizona following a June fire, the percentage of postfire catclaw
acacia sprouts ranged from 75% to 100% [130].

In a study of the recovery of Sonoran Desert vegetation following fire, burned areas
were sampled and compared to nearby unburned areas. Given below are the mean heights,
canopy covers, and densities for catclaw acacia on 21-year-old burns, repeatedly burned
sites (4 fires in 30 years), and unburned sites. Both canopy coverage and density
increased with repeated burning [1]:

Fire historyHeight (m)Canopy cover (%)Density (number/ha)
 UnburnedBurnedUnburnedBurnedUnburnedBurned
Repeated fires (4 in 30 yrs.)2.11.90.20.92857
21 year-old-burn------------03


After a July fire in Los Angeles County, California, the postfire recovery of
chaparral-desert ecotone vegetation was assessed. Catclaw acacia averaged 166
sprouts per plant following the fire, and survival by postfire sprouting
was high. Density on the ridge sites was lower than on canyon sites. The postfire
response for catclaw acacia is provided below [150]:

SiteEstimated prefire density (plants/ha)Postfire density (plants/ha)
Canyon121109
Ridge1110

Site2 months postfire (sprouts/ha)4 months postfire (sprouts/ha)7 months postfire (sprouts/ha)10 months postfire  (sprouts/ha)
Canyon3,51416,04214,47518,088
Ridge05581,809158


Fire in conjunction with other disturbances:
The following studies involve use of fire and other disturbances as a means
of reducing woody vegetation. The prescribed fire timing for these studies often
differs from presettlement FIRE REGIMES for the areas. In the Rolling Plains and Edwards
Plateau regions of Texas, sites chained then burned reduced catclaw acacia cover by 40%.
Chaining occurred 4 to 5 years prior to a late winter prescription fire, and coverage
change measurements occurred 2 years postfire [154].

In the San Simon Valley of southeastern Arizona, researchers assessed the effects of grazing
and fire in a shrub-invaded grassland. The average ground cover (number of counts/500 census
locations) for catclaw acacia on all plots was 3.7% prior to any treatments. Fires occurred on
the 20th or 21st of June 1993. Catclaw acacia coverage decreased on burned and grazed plots.
Coverage initially decreased on unburned grazed plots but decreases were short lived. The resulting
changes in ground cover for catclaw acacia are presented below (note: Burned, B; Unburned, UB;
Grazed, G; Ungrazed, UG) [158]:

Postburn sampling year19931995
TreatmentB/GB/UGUB/GUB/UGB/GB/UGUB/GUB/UG
Ground cover (%)1.86.20.40.63.07.813.68.4


Repeated fires:
Another method used to control woody vegetation is repetitive burning. Catclaw
acacia seems tolerant of repeated fires that allow for at least a year between fires;
however, fires that burn within the same year resulted in decreased catclaw acacia cover
and density. In the Rio Grande Plains of Texas, researchers annually and biennially burned
mesquite-acacia savannahs during the dormant (January-February) and growing (July-August)
seasons. Growing season fires burned when air temperatures were between 95
°F and 104 °F (35 °C-40 °C), wind speeds were 2.2 to 5.4 m/s, and relative humidity was
20% to 50%. Dormant season fires burned when air temperatures were 44.6 °F to 64.4 °F
(7 °C-18 °C), winds were 1.3 to 4.5 m/s, and relative humidity was 65% to
80%. For the biennial burning schedule, a total of 2 fires burned during the
study. The dormant season annual fires occurred for 4 consecutive years while
the growing season annual fires burned for 3 consecutive years. Regardless of
burn prescription, catclaw acacia coverage was greater on burned sites. The
changes in catclaw acacia cover are provided below [112]:

Burn seasonDormant (January-February)Growing (July-August)
FrequencyUnburnedAnnualBiennialUnburnedAnnualBiennial
Mean catclaw acacia cover (%)0.21.52.60.72.32.0


In the western South Texas Plains, some sites were burned for 2 consecutive
winter seasons (winter burn). Other sites were burned in the winter and burned
again the following summer (winter-summer burn), while other sites were unburned.
Catclaw acacia cover and density increased following the winter burn and decreased
following the winter-summer burn treatment. The longevity of these changes is unknown.
The changes in catclaw acacia given different patterns of burning are given below [133]:

Fire treatmentUnburnedWinter burnWinter-summer burn
Mean percent cover0.31.00.1
Mean density (stems/ha)3612125
Percent frequency3124
  • 1. Alford, Eddie J.; Brock, John H. 2002. The effects of fire on Sonoran Desert plant communities. Final Report: RMRS-99164-RJVA. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. [Alford's Dissertation]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [47514]
  • 112. Owens, M. Keith; Mackley, J. W.; Carroll, C. J. 2002. Vegetation dynamics following seasonal fires in mixed mesquite/acacia savannas. Journal of Range Management. 55(5): 509-516. [42240]
  • 130. Rogers, Garry F.; Steele, Jeff. 1980. Sonoran Desert fire ecology. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 15-19. [16036]
  • 133. Ruthven, Donald C., III; Braden, Anthony W.; Knutson, Haley J.; Gallagher, James F.; Synatzske, David R. 2003. Woody vegetation response to various burning regimes in South Texas. Journal of Range Management. 56(2): 159-166. [47629]
  • 145. Tewksbury, Joshua Jordan; Nabhan, Gary Paul; Norman, Donald; Suzan, Humberto; Tuxill, John; Donovan, Jim. 1999. In situ conservation of wild chiles and their biotic associates. Conservation Biology. 13(1): 98-107. [48993]
  • 150. Tratz, Wallace Michael. 1978. Postfire vegetational recovery, productivity, and herbivore utilization of a chaparral-desert ecotone. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. 133 p. Thesis. [5495]
  • 154. Ueckert, D. N.; Whisenant, S. G. 1980. Chaining/prescribed burning system for improvement of rangeland infested with mesquite and other undesirable plants. In: Rangeland Resources Research. PR-3665. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station: 25. [10178]
  • 158. Valone, Thomas J.; Kelt, Douglas A. 1999. Fire and grazing in a shrub-invaded arid grassland community: independent or interactive ecological effects? Journal of Arid Environments. 42(1): 15-28. [31026]
  • 173. Wilson, R. C.; Narog, M. G.; Koonce, A. L.; Corcoran, B. M. 1995. Postfire regeneration in Arizona's giant saguaro shrub community. In: DeBano, Leonard F.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo; [and others], technical coordinators. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico: Proceedings; 1994 September 19-23; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GRT-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 424-431. [26250]
  • 77. Leary, Patrick J. 1979. A study of vegetational reinvasion following natural fire in Joshua Tree National Monument. I. Preliminary report. Contribution Number CPSU/UNLV No. 019/01. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada, Department of Biological Sciences, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 34 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [40180]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Plant Response to Fire

More info for the term: top-kill

Following top-kill by fire, catclaw acacia sprouts from the base [34,53,57,91]. Postfire
sprouting is considered prolific by some [57,91]. Following a fire that occurred in early
August, Baldwin [9] observed basal sprouts as early as late November.
  • 34. Esque, Todd C.; Schwalbe, Cecil R. 2002. Alien annual grasses and their relationships to fire and biotic change in Sonoran desertscrub. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 165-194. [48660]
  • 53. Hibbert, Alden R.; Davis, Edwin A.; Scholl, David G. 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: water yield response and effects on other resources. Res. Pap. RM-126. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [1144]
  • 57. Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Forage production on Arizona ranges: III. Mohave County: A study in range condition. Bulletin 244. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 79 p. [4440]
  • 9. Baldwin, Randolph F. 1979. The effects of fire upon vegetation in Joshua Tree National Monument. Senior thesis report. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 76 p. [40113]
  • 91. McAuliff, J. R. 1995. The aftermath of wildfire in the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Quarterly. 49: 4-8. [46026]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

Catclaw acacia is typically top-killed by fire [34].
  • 34. Esque, Todd C.; Schwalbe, Cecil R. 2002. Alien annual grasses and their relationships to fire and biotic change in Sonoran desertscrub. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 165-194. [48660]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: adventitious, shrub

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [143]:

Tall shrub, adventitious bud/root crown

Crown residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
  • 143. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: cacti, fire frequency, fire regime, fire suppression, fire tolerant, forbs, frequency, nonnative species, shrub, shrubs

Fire adaptations:

Catclaw acacia sprouting following fire is well documented [9,34,53,57,91].

FIRE REGIMES:
Across the range of habitats occupied by catclaw acacia, historical FIRE REGIMES vary widely.
Semiarid grassland communities likely burned often while extremely arid thorn scrub communities
rarely burned. European settlement and changes in land use have substantially affected the
likelihood of fire in these communities.

Grassland communities:
Early settlers and explorers described grasslands across large areas of the Southwest, while
descriptions of woody vegetation suggested its restriction to waterways and rocky hillsides
[141]. Decreased fire frequencies in grasslands are often considered the reason for dense
shrub communities in areas once dominated by grasses [2,27]. Frequent fires limited woody
vegetation establishment, maintaining grasslands [57]. Likely the fire frequency in desert
grasslands was such that shrubs were killed in the seedling stage or prior to reaching
reproductive maturity [60].

High numbers of cattle grazing these grasslands directly and indirectly
promoted the rapid conversion of grassland-dominated areas to shrub-dominated
areas [6]. Grazing animals likely dispersed shrub seed. The selective removal of
grasses decreased the "competition" between grasses and establishing shrubs and
decreased available fuels and eventually fire frequencies [6,58]. McPherson [93]
predicted future changes in the desert grassland fire regime. Decreases in
cattle grazing and increases in nonnative grasses may favor more frequent fires
than did the last century, yet a return to historic fire frequencies is highly unlikely
due to fragmented fuels and continued fire suppression efforts. However McPherson
recognizes that changes in climate, political agendas, and land use will
continue to affect desert grassland FIRE REGIMES [93].

Cactus and desert scrub communities:
In the Mohave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts, the dominant vegetation is widely
spaced, open-branched, and not prone to burning. Biomass production by native
perennial grasses and forbs is low and coverage is sparse, resulting in
noncontinuous fuels [60,159]. Historically in the Mohave Desert, the most arid of
the North American deserts, fires were extremely rare. Fires were also rare in the
Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts. The low-growing stature and dense shrub canopies of
the Chihuahuan Desert make this desert slightly more fire prone than the taller and
more widely spaced vegetation of the Sonoran Desert. Portions of the Sonoran and
Chihuahuan deserts that bordered desert grassland systems burned more frequently [60]. The
lack of fire-adapted vegetation in these deserts is further evidence of fire
rarity [2]. Paloverde, saguaro, and other small cacti (pincushions (Scabiosa
spp.) and prickly-pears) do not sprout following fire and are typically killed by even
low-severity fires. It may take a century or more for saguaro and paloverde to
develop from seed to large adult size [34,91].

As in grassland-dominated desert communities, European settlement and land use
have inadvertently altered FIRE REGIMES in desert scrub and thorn scrub
communities. Fires in these communities are more frequent than those that
occurred historically [1,34,159]. The introduction and subsequent expansion of several
nonnative species including red brome (Bromus madritensis spp. rubens),
cheatgrass (B. tectorum), mediterranean grasses (Schismus spp.), buffelgrass
(Pennisetum ciliare), and potentially ripgut brome (B. diandrus) increased
fire risk in many desert scrub communities [1,34,119,159]. The displacement of native ephemeral
species by these successful nonnative species creates easily ignited communities and supports
large fires [91,119]. Increased fire frequencies in these fire-intolerant communities will
likely alter their composition by removing fire sensitive species and increasing fire
tolerant species [34,159]. Alford and Brock [1] studied the postburn vegetation response
in fire sensitive Sonoran desert communities and found several native species (saguaro,
foothill paloverde, white ratany, creosote bush, wolfberry) decreased while purple threeawn,
senna, and red brome increased [1].

For further information regarding FIRE REGIMES and fire ecology of
communities and ecosystems where catclaw acacia is found, see the FEIS species
reviews for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below:


Community or EcosystemDominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
California chaparralAdenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp. 115]
bluestem prairieAndropogon gerardii var. gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium 74,115]
bluestem-Sacahuista prairieAndropogon littoralis-Spartina spartinae < 10
desert grasslandsBouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica 5-100 [115]
plains grasslandsBouteloua spp. 115,174]
blue grama-needle-and-thread grass-western wheatgrassBouteloua gracilis-Hesperostipa comata-Pascopyrum smithii 115,131,174]
blue grama-tobosa prairieBouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis mutica < 35 to < 100
California montane chaparralCeanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp. 50-100
paloverde-cactus shrubCercidium microphyllum/Opuntia spp. 115]
curlleaf mountain-mahogany*Cercocarpus ledifolius 13-1,000 [7,135]
mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrubCercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii < 35 to < 100
blackbrushColeogyne ramosissima < 35 to < 100
juniper-oak savannaJuniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana < 35
Ashe juniperJuniperus ashei < 35
creosotebushLarrea tridentata < 35 to < 100
Ceniza shrubLarrea tridentata-Leucophyllum frutescens-Prosopis glandulosa < 35
pinyon-juniperPinus-Juniperus spp. 115]
mesquiteProsopis glandulosa 93,115]
mesquite-buffalo grassProsopis glandulosa-Buchloe dactyloides < 35
Texas savannaProsopis glandulosa var. glandulosa < 10
oak-juniper woodland (Southwest)Quercus-Juniperus spp. 115]
oak savannaQuercus macrocarpa/Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium 2-14 [115,163]
little bluestem-grama prairieSchizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua spp. 115]

*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the
species review
  • 1. Alford, Eddie J.; Brock, John H. 2002. The effects of fire on Sonoran Desert plant communities. Final Report: RMRS-99164-RJVA. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. [Alford's Dissertation]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [47514]
  • 115. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 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-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
  • 119. Phillips, Barbara G. 1992. Status of non-native plant species, Tonto National Monument, Arizona. Technical Report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/46. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. 25 p. [20965]
  • 131. Rowe, J. S. 1969. Lightning fires in Saskatchewan grassland. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 83: 317-324. [6266]
  • 135. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064]
  • 141. Smith, H. N.; Rechenthin, C. A. 1965. Grassland restoration: The Texas brush problem. Temple, TX: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 33 p. [20742]
  • 159. Van Devender, Thomas R.; Felger, Richard S.; Burquez M., Alberto. 1997. Exotic plants in the Sonoran Desert region, Arizona and Sonora. In: Kelly, M.; Wagner, E.; Warner, P., eds. Proceedings, California Exotic Pest Plant Council symposium; 1997 October 2-4; Concord, CA. Volume 3. Berkeley, CA: California Exotic Pest Plant Council: 10-15. [44103]
  • 163. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 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]
  • 174. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
  • 2. Allen, Larry S. 1996. Ecological role of fire in the Madrean Province. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 5-10. [28059]
  • 27. Dick-Peddie, William A.; Alberico, Michael S. 1977. Fire ecology study of the Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National Park, Texas: Phase I. CDRI Contribution No. 35. Alpine, TX: The Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute. 47 p. [5002]
  • 34. Esque, Todd C.; Schwalbe, Cecil R. 2002. Alien annual grasses and their relationships to fire and biotic change in Sonoran desertscrub. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 165-194. [48660]
  • 53. Hibbert, Alden R.; Davis, Edwin A.; Scholl, David G. 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: water yield response and effects on other resources. Res. Pap. RM-126. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [1144]
  • 57. Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Forage production on Arizona ranges: III. Mohave County: A study in range condition. Bulletin 244. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 79 p. [4440]
  • 58. Humphrey, Robert R. 1958. The desert grassland: A history of vegetational change and an analysis of causes. Bull. 299. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 61 p. [5270]
  • 6. Archer, Steven. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, patterns and proximate causes. In: Vavra, Martin; Laycock, William A.; Pieper, Rex D., eds. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 13-68. [45592]
  • 60. Humphrey, Robert R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and desert grassland of North America. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 365-400. [14064]
  • 7. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]
  • 9. Baldwin, Randolph F. 1979. The effects of fire upon vegetation in Joshua Tree National Monument. Senior thesis report. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 76 p. [40113]
  • 91. McAuliff, J. R. 1995. The aftermath of wildfire in the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Quarterly. 49: 4-8. [46026]
  • 93. 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: climax, cover, mesic, succession

The concept of succession, in which community composition changes over time as a
site is modified by past and present species, was developed in mesic eastern
forests and does not apply well to southwestern desert ecosystem dynamics. In eastern forest
ecosystems, pioneer species are typically not present in climax communities. In southwestern
deserts, species that make up the predisturbed vegetation are the same species that make up
the recovering vegetation [103]. While true Clementsian succession does not occur in semiarid and arid
ecosystems, it is possible to see shifts in species dominance in relation to
disturbance [132]. The continued use of many traditional succession terms to
explain desert community change or development is likely due to the lack of more
appropriate terms.

In the case of catclaw acacia, the terms "postclimax", "disclimax", and
"subclimax" have been used to describe this species' response to
various disturbances. In the southern desert plains, mesquite-acacia vegetation
that increased in abundance and extent with disturbance is labeled "postclimax"
[170]. Others classified catclaw acacia as an "invader" species when it appeared
late in the stages of community degradation in the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico [169].
In the south Texas Plains, catclaw acacia is one of several species considered dominant
in the mesquite-granjeno disturbance community type [146]. Dick-Peddie and Alberico [27]
described vegetation dominated by beebrushes (Aloysia spp.), lechuguilla, tulip prickly pear
(Opuntia phaeacantha), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats grama, whitethorn
acacia, and catclaw acacia as "disclimax" vegetation maintained through grazing and fire
reduction. Whitfield and Anderson [170] considered sacaton vegetation, typically including catclaw
acacia, an edaphic "subclimax" community persisting on heavy clay or alkali soils of
washes and flood plains.

When studying different-aged debris flows in the Grand Canyon of Arizona, Bowers and others
[16] found catclaw acacia in almost all but the youngest and oldest communities. The percent
coverage and densities of catclaw acacia on different aged debris flows are presented below.

Time (in years) since last flow52828324347552402854853100
Percent cover 00.700.80.16.904.213.719.50
Density (plants/ha)0100020010040001002003000
  • 103. Muller, Cornelius H. 1940. Plant succession in the Larrea-Flourensia climax. Ecology. 21: 206-212. [4244]
  • 132. Rowlands, Peter G. 1980. Recovery, succession, and revegetation in the Mojave Desert. In: Rowlands, Peter G., ed. The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community processes with emphasis on off road vehicles: a critical review. Special Publication. Riverside, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Desert Plan Staff: 75-119. [20680]
  • 146. 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]
  • 16. Bowers, Janice E.; Webb, Robert H.; Pierson, Elizabeth A. 1997. Succession of desert plants on debris flow terraces, Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments. 36(1): 67-86. [27546]
  • 169. Wester, David B.; Wright, Henry A. 1987. Ordination of vegetation change in Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, USA. Vegetatio. 72: 27-33. [11167]
  • 170. Whitfield, Charles J.; Anderson, Hugh L. 1938. Secondary succession in the desert plains grassland. Ecology. 19(2): 171-180. [5252]
  • 27. Dick-Peddie, William A.; Alberico, Michael S. 1977. Fire ecology study of the Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National Park, Texas: Phase I. CDRI Contribution No. 35. Alpine, TX: The Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute. 47 p. [5002]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the terms: cactus, root crown, tree

Catclaw acacia reproduces sexually through seed production, and when top-killed,
catclaw acacia regenerates asexually through root crown sprouts [9,34,53,57,91].

Breeding system:
No information is available on this topic.

Pollination:
Catclaw acacia is considered an important honey plant [71,82,122], and likely bees
are the chief flower pollinators.

Seed production:
Seed predation is common for catclaw acacia (see
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
section).



Seed dispersal:
Dispersal of catclaw acacia seed can result from animal movements and abiotic
disturbances. In the Chihuahuan Desert of Arizona and New Mexico, researchers found
that plant material used by cactus wrens to construct nests often include seeds.
One of 12 cactus wren nests contained catclaw acacia seed. Collections are commonly
made greater than 65.6 feet (20 m) from the nest site making nest construction a seed
dispersal mechanism [97]. Likely grazing animals disperse catclaw acacia seed [6,58].
No studies addressed seed viability once passed through the digestive tract.



Following heavy rainfall (76% of annual average) in San Diego County, California,
612 catclaw seedlings per hectare occurred on a site void of mature catclaw acacia.
However, catclaw acacia occurred in washes upstream from the site. Most likely
the storm relocated seeds from the wash to produce the catclaw acacia seedling
population [175].



Seed banking:
Seed bank development by catclaw acacia is not well understood. While some suggest a
persistent seed bank [14], others recovered no catclaw acacia seed from 240 soil samples taken
from herbicide treated and control sites in the Chihuahuan Desert of Texas. Researchers
suggested heavy seed predation, reliance on a short-lived seed bank, and/or dependence on asexual
reproduction to explain the lack of catclaw acacia seed in
soils samples [160].

Germination:
Temperature and moisture requirements must be met for catclaw acacia seed to germinate.
Bowers [14] suggests that August and September seed germination is triggered by 1.2
inches (30 mm) or more of rainfall. Jordan and Haferkamp [69] suggest temperatures above 45
°F (7.2 °C) are required to germinate catclaw acacia seed. In California's Joshua Tree
National Monument, catclaw acacia germinated only in August and September [168]. However,
factors other than temperature and moisture may affect germination. Even when able
to control growing conditions, horticulturists were unable to germinate seed
collected from plants in 1927, while seed collected in 1929 germinated [35].



Seedling establishment/growth:
Site conditions and early disturbances affect catclaw acacia seedling
development. Perkins and Owens [117] found seedling growth was greatest when
plants were exposed to full sunlight. When defoliated early in development, catclaw acacia
seedlings had significantly (p<0.01) less total biomass than nondefoliated seedlings.

Many Sonoran Desert species including catclaw acacia are described in a seedling identification
key. Descriptions are provided for catclaw acacia seedlings from 1 to 45 days after emergence. A strong
nitrogen odor is given off when seedlings are uprooted. This same trait is
described for other Acacia spp. but not all Fabaceae species [177].

Asexual regeneration:
Catclaw acacia readily reproduces vegetatively following the removal of aboveground biomass
[9,34,53,57,91].
  • 117. Perkins, Steven R.; Owens, M. Keith. 2003. Growth and biomass allocation of shrub and grass seedlings in response to predicted changes in precipitation seasonality. Plant Ecology. 168(1): 107-120. [48986]
  • 122. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & 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]
  • 14. Bowers, Janice E. 2002. Regeneration of triangle-leaf bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea: Asteraceae): germination behavior and persistent seed bank. The Southwestern Naturalist. 47(3): 449-513. [43579]
  • 160. Vanzant, Thomas J., III; Kinucan, Robert J.; McGinty, W. Allan. 1997. Mixed-brush reestablishment following herbicide treatment in the Davis Mountains, west Texas. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 10: 15-23. [48995]
  • 168. Went, F. W. 1948. Ecology of desert plants. I. Observations on germination in the Joshua Tree National Monument, California. Ecology. 29(3): 242-253. [12915]
  • 175. Zedler, Paul H. 1981. Vegetation change in chaparral and desert communities in San Diego County, California. In: West, D. C.; Shugart, H. H.; Botkin, D. B., eds. Forest succession: concepts and application. New York: Springer-Verlag: 406-430. [4241]
  • 177. Zisner, Cindy D. 1999. Seedling identification and phenology of selected Sonoran Desert dicotyledonous trees and shrubs. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 32(2): 129-154. [39614]
  • 34. Esque, Todd C.; Schwalbe, Cecil R. 2002. Alien annual grasses and their relationships to fire and biotic change in Sonoran desertscrub. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 165-194. [48660]
  • 35. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
  • 53. Hibbert, Alden R.; Davis, Edwin A.; Scholl, David G. 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: water yield response and effects on other resources. Res. Pap. RM-126. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. [1144]
  • 57. Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Forage production on Arizona ranges: III. Mohave County: A study in range condition. Bulletin 244. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 79 p. [4440]
  • 58. Humphrey, Robert R. 1958. The desert grassland: A history of vegetational change and an analysis of causes. Bull. 299. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 61 p. [5270]
  • 6. Archer, Steven. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, patterns and proximate causes. In: Vavra, Martin; Laycock, William A.; Pieper, Rex D., eds. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 13-68. [45592]
  • 69. Jordan, Gilbert L.; Haferkamp, Marshal R. 1989. Temperature responses and calculated heat units for germination of several range grasses and shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 42(1): 41-45. [6083]
  • 71. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
  • 82. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]
  • 9. Baldwin, Randolph F. 1979. The effects of fire upon vegetation in Joshua Tree National Monument. Senior thesis report. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 76 p. [40113]
  • 91. McAuliff, J. R. 1995. The aftermath of wildfire in the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Quarterly. 49: 4-8. [46026]
  • 97. Milton, Suzanne J.; Dean, W. R. J.; Kerley, G. I. H.; [and others]. 1998. Dispersal of seeds as nest material by the cactus wren. The Southwestern Naturalist. 43(4): 449-452. [29454]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: phanerophyte

RAUNKIAER [126] LIFE FORM:

phanerophyte
  • 126. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the terms: shrub, tree

Tree-shrub

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

Timing of flowering and fruit set in catclaw acacia varies only slightly across
its distributional range. In Texas flowers are present from April through
October, and fruits set in July persist through the winter months [161].
In New Mexico catclaw acacia flowers from April to September [90]. Catclaw acacia
flowers from May through October in the Mojave Desert of Nevada [13]. Plants monitored
in San Diego County, California, produced leaves and flowers simultaneously and were
leafless for approximately 1 month's time in March and April [108].
  • 108. Nilsen, Erik Tallak; Sharifi, M. Rasoul; Rundel, Philip W. 1984. Comparative water relations of phreatophytes in the Sonoran Desert of California. Ecology. 65(3): 767-778. [49012]
  • 13. Bonham, Charles D.; Brown, Karla A. 2002. Feral burros and woody plants: an ecological assessment of risks. Rangelands. 24(5): 49-52. [42518]
  • 161. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
  • 90. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Acacia greggii

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Acacia greggii

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 1
Specimens with Barcodes: 1
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Management considerations

More info for the term: density

Catclaw acacia is able to withstand heavy grazing pressure. Defoliated plants showed
significantly more shoots (p=0.05), greater branch length (p<0.01), and leaf density
(p=0.02) in the current year's growth than did control plants. Following defoliation treatments,
plants were undisturbed for 1 year. Branch length of these previously defoliated plants was
significantly (p=0.03) less than control plants. Spine density was significantly (p=0.04)
greater on defoliated mature plants compared to undisturbed controls [21].

Many have researched the control of catclaw acacia in once grassland-dominated ecosystems.
Mechanical control [22,134], chemical control  [68,101,102,114,160], and combined control
measures are described [96].
  • 101. Morton, Howard L. 1984. Influence of tebuthiuron formulation on control of woody plants and forage production. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. [Volume unknown]: 129-138. [49107]
  • 102. Morton, Howard, L.; Metto, Paul; Ogden, Phil R. 1971. Catclaw control in southern Arizona. Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science. 24: 12-13. [12164]
  • 114. Parker, Robert, compiler. 1982. Reaction of various plants to 2,4-D, MCPA, 2,4,5-T, silvex and 2,4-DB. EM 4419 [Revised]. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension. 61 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture. [1817]
  • 134. Ruthven, Donald C., III; Krakauer, Keith L. 2004. Vegetation response of a mesquite-mixed brush community to aeration. Journal of Range Management. 57(1): 34-40. [47199]
  • 160. Vanzant, Thomas J., III; Kinucan, Robert J.; McGinty, W. Allan. 1997. Mixed-brush reestablishment following herbicide treatment in the Davis Mountains, west Texas. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 10: 15-23. [48995]
  • 21. Cooper, S. M.; Owens, M. K.; Spalinger, D. E.; Ginnett, T. F. 2003. The architecture of shrubs after defoliation and the subsequent feeding behavior of browsers. Oikos. 100(2): 387-393. [49003]
  • 22. Cross, B. T.; Wiedemann, H. T. 1997. Control of catclaw acacia and mimosa by grubbing. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 13(2): 407-410. [48998]
  • 68. 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; 1978 January 17-19; New Orleans, LA. In: Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society 31st annual meeting. Auburn, AL: Southern Weed Science Society; 31: 191. Abstract. [49106]
  • 96. Meadors, C. H.; Fisher, C. E.; Haas, R. H.; Hoffman, G. O. 1973. Combinations of methods and maintenance control of mesquite. In: Mesquite: Growth and development, management, economics, control, uses. Research Monograph 1. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station: 53-59. [4685]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Other uses and values

More info for the terms: fresh, fuel

Indigenous people found several uses for catclaw acacia. The Akimel O'odham or
Gila River Pima ate catclaw acacia seeds when better foods were not available;
the author considered catclaw acacia a "starvation food" [128]. The Chauilla
Native Americans of southern California utilized catclaw acacia wood as fuel and ate
catclaw acacia beans. The pods were eaten fresh, dried, or ground into powder; the
bitter taste of the pods suggests catclaw acacia was not preferred. However,
all Chauilla interviewed recalled catclaw acacia as a food source [10].

Moore [100] suggests several other catclaw acacia medicinal properties. Pods are
used to make an eyewash to treat conjunctivitis. Leaves and pods when ground into
powder will stop small amounts of bleeding and soothe chafed skin or diaper rash.
When this powder is made into a tea, it can be used as an antimicrobial wash or drunk
to treat diarrhea and dysentery. Native Americans used catclaw acacia to soothe sore
flank and back muscles of their horses. The flowers and leaves in tea can treat nausea,
vomiting, and hangovers. The thick, sticky catclaw acacia root when made into tea treats
sore throats, mouth inflammations, and coughs [100].

Wood Products:
Catclaw acacia wood is strong, hard, tight grained, and heavy [50,71,161]. It is used
for cabinets, turnery, and fencing [50]. The contrasting reddish brown heart wood and
yellow sapwood makes it valuable for making souvenirs [82].
  • 10. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Chauilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225 p. [35898]
  • 100. Moore, Michael. 1989. Medicinal plants of the desert and canyon West. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of New Mexico Press. 184 p. [25027]
  • 128. Rea, Amadeo M. 1991. Gila River Pima dietary reconstruction. Arid Lands Newsletter. 31: 3-10. [18255]
  • 161. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
  • 50. Havard, V. 1885. Report on the flora of western and southern Texas. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 8(29): 449-533. [5067]
  • 71. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
  • 82. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites

More info for the term: natural

Catclaw acacia is valuable in reclaiming asbestos, mining, and other disturbed
sites. The use of catclaw acacia seedlings predominates in revegetation efforts,
but catclaw acacia was in a seed mixture used to successfully revegetate a pipeline corridor
in Arizona. Using tillage, mulch, and site-adapted seed, the revegetated site
closely resembled nearby undisturbed sites 10 years after planting [63]. On an
abandoned asbestos milling site in Globe, Arizona, catclaw acacia transplants were
100% successful even given rodent herbivory in the area [118]. Catclaw acacia
seedlings survived on a gold mine spoils site in the Mohave Desert. Survival rates
were not reported [37]. Catclaw acacia was one of many species used to revegetate
disturbed sites (road side cuts, mining sites, eroded hillsides, and gullies) by
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and other cooperators. In southern
desert shrubland areas, catclaw acacia established well when transplanted,
spread well by seed, and survived on alkaline or acidic soils. In categories of
natural vegetative spread, growth rate, soil stability, and disturbance tolerance,
catclaw acacia received mid level ratings [121].

As transplants are favored over seed, the following insights regarding catclaw acacia
seedling production may prove useful. When growing catclaw acacia seed in containers,
a tall container is recommended to house the rapidly developing root system [35].
Heydari and others [52] found the root length of catclaw acacia seedlings was greater
than 23.6 inches (60 cm) 4-5 months after planting on watered sites. Fidelibus and Bainbridge
[37] found seedling growth and survival were not compromised when bareroot seedlings were
transported to the field site in moist fabric rather than in greenhouse containers.
  • 118. Perry, Hazel M.; Aldon, Earl F.; Brock, John H. 1987. Reclamation of an asbestos mill waste site in the southwestern United States. Reclamation and Revegetation Research. 6: 187-196. [2918]
  • 121. Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337. [171]
  • 35. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
  • 37. Fidelibus, Matthew W.; Bainbridge, David A. 1994. The effect of containerless transport on desert shrubs. Tree Planters' Notes. 45(3): 82-85. [49006]
  • 52. Heydari, Hossein; Roundy, Bruce A.; Watson, Carolyn; [and others]. 1996. Summer establishment of four Sonoran Desert shrubs using line source sprinkler irrigation. In: Barrow, Jerry R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Sosebee, Ronald E.; Tausch, Robin J., compilers. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment; 1995 May 23-25; Las Cruces, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-338. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 129-134. [27039]
  • 63. James, Richard D. 1998. Use of native species in revegetation of disturbed sites (Arizona). In: Tellman, Barbara; Finch, Deborah M.; Edminster, Carl; Hamre, Robert, eds. The future of arid grasslands: identifying issues, seeking solutions: Proceedings; 1996 October 9-13; Tucson, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 297-303. [29296]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Senegalia greggii

Senegalia greggii is a species of Senegalia native to the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, from the extreme south of Utah (where, at 37°10' N it is the northernmost naturally occurring Senegalia species anywhere in the world[citation needed]) south through southern Nevada, southeast California, Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas to Baja California, Sinaloa and Nuevo León in Mexico.

Common names include Catclaw Acacia, Catclaw Mesquite, Gregg's Catclaw, Devil's Claw, Paradise Flower, Wait-a-minute Tree, and Wait-a-bit Tree; these names mostly come from the fact that the tree has numerous hooked prickles with the shape and size of a cat's claw, that tend to hook onto passers-by; the hooked person must stop ("wait a minute") to remove the prickles carefully to avoid injury or shredded clothing. (Note: "Cat's Claw" is also used to refer to Uncaria tomentosa, a woody vine found in the tropical jungles of South and Central America)

The specific epithet greggii refers to Josiah Gregg, author, explorer, and amateur naturalist of the American Southwest and northern Mexico.

Ecology[edit]

S. greggii is most common in arroyos where its roots have access to deep water. Its seeds require physical scarification in order to germinate. This effectively prevents germination unless a flash flood disturbs the area and deposits enough water to increase the likelihood that seedlings will be able to establish deep enough roots to survive the dry season. Catclaw is fully drought deciduous and will usually lack leaves for most of the year. S. greggii has extrafloral nectaries, a trait shared with other senegalias. A tentative connection has been made between these glands and insects that would suggest a mutualistic relationship (as found in other Senegalia species). Ants are known to use the glands as a source of food and water, and may provide some defense for the plant against herbivorous insects. Like other arroyo trees in family Fabaceae, S. greggii is frequently afflicted with Desert Mistletoe, Phoradendron californicum. Unlike other legumes, S. greggii is not known to form root nodule associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Devil's Claw may be an example of an evolutionary anachronism, in which the range and renewal of the species is limited due to the extinction of the mammallian megafauna responsible for seed dispersal. Within this model, the scarification required to germinate the seeds would have occurred during the chewing and digestion of the fruit by a large mammal, who later passes the seed intact some distance from the original tree.

Description[edit]

It is a large shrub or small tree growing to 10 m (33 ft) tall with a trunk up to 20–30 cm (7.9–11.8 in) diameter. The grey-green leaves are deciduous, and bipinnate, divided into 1-3 pairs of pinnae, each pinna 2–3 cm (0.79–1.18 in) long with 10-18 leaflets that are 3–6 mm (0.12–0.24 in). Pinnae are most frequently in two pairs, with the proximal pair perpendicular to the petiolule and the distal pair forming a V at the tip. The flowers are produced in dense cylindrical spikes, each flower with five yellow 3 mm (0.12 in) petals and numerous yellow 6 mm (0.24 in) stamens. The fruit is a flat, twisted legume (pod) 6–15 cm (2.4–5.9 in) long, containing several hard, dark brown seeds. The seed pod is constricted between seeds (a loment), and seed dispersal occurs both through dehiscence and breaks at these constrictions.

Ethnobotany[edit]

S. greggii, even though it is used as forage for livestock, contains a potentially poisonous cyanogenic glycoside called prunasin.[1] Mature seeds are to be avoided, as the native people did. S. greggii young, unripe beans were gathered and eaten by desert tribes of North America, including the Chemehuevi of the Southern Paiute. Stems were used in construction and tool making.

Some chemical compounds found in Senegalia greggii[edit]

Gallery[edit]

References[edit]

General references[edit]

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

The currently accepted scientific name of catclaw acacia is Acacia greggii
Gray (Fabaceae) [28,67]. Accepted varieties are:

A. g. var. greggii Gray, Arizona acacia [28,67,70]

A. g. var. wrightii (Benth.) Isley, Wright acacia [28,67,70]

Throughout this review, catclaw acacia will refer to both varieties, A. g.
var. greggii and A. g. var. wrightii. When citing literature
that distinguishes variety, A. g. var. greggii will be referred to as
Arizona acacia, and A. g. var. wrightii will be referred to as Wright
acacia. When information is provided that pertains to the Acacia genus without
indicating species, it will be noted as Acacia spp.

Hybrid: A. greggii hybridizes with A. berlandieri to
produce Acacia × emoryana Benth. [66,83].
  • 28. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 66. Johnson, M. C. 1974. Acacia emoryana in Texas and Mexico and its relationship to A. berlandieri and A. greggii. The Southwestern Naturalist. 19: 331-333. [12238]
  • 67. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]
  • 70. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]
  • 83. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

catclaw acacia

devilsclaw

gregg catclaw

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Synonyms

Acacia greggii var. arizonica Isley [122]

  = Acacia greggii var. greggii [28,67]
  • 122. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & 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]
  • 28. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 67. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!