Mycorrhizae and Root Morphology in Potted and Wild Artemisia californica and Eriogonum fasiculatum

References

1. ↵
   1. Appleton B.L.,
   2. Whitcomb C.E.

   1983. Effects of container size and transplanting date. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 1:89–93.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Bowler P.A.

   1990. Coastal sage scrub restoration-I:The challenge of mitigation. Ecological Restoration 8:78–82.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
3. ↵
   1. Bowler P.A.,
   2. Wolf A.,
   3. Pham H.V.,
   4. Archer M.A.,
   5. Bak A.S.,
   6. Bedaux. M.,
   7. et al.

   1994. Transplantation of coastal sage scrub seedlings from natural stands as a new technique in restoration. Restoration Management Notes 12:87–88.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bowler P.A.

   2000. Ecological restoration of coastal sage scrub and its potential role in habitat conservation plans. Environmental Management S1:S85–S96.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Carlson L.W.,
   2. Nairn L.D.

   1977. Root deformities in some container-grown Jack Pine in Southeastern Manitoba. The Forestry Chronicle 53:147–149.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Davis S.D.,
   2. Mooney H.A.

   1986. Water use patterns of four co-occurring chaparral shrubs Oecologia 70:172–177.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Fisher J.B.,
   2. Jayachandran K.

   2005. Presence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in South Florida native plants. Mycorrhiza 15: 580–588.

   OpenUrlPubMed
8. ↵
   1. Galvin P.

   2011. Mitigation Programs for the Vestar Development Company Portion of the San Joaquin Marsh Phase II Restoration Project. Prepared for Vestar Development Company by Harmsworth Associates. Unpublished report.
9. ↵
   1. Giovannetti M.,
   2. Mosse B.

   1980. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytologist 84:489–500.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Guerrant E.O.,
    2. Kaye TN T.N.

    2007. Reintroduction of rare and endangered plants: Common factors, questions and approaches. Australian Journal of Botany 55:362–370.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Halter M.R.,
    2. Chanway C.P.,
    3. Harper G.J.

    1993. Growth reduction and root deformation of containerized lodgepole pine saplings 11 years after planting. Forest Ecology and Management 56:131–146.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. ↵
    1. Harris R.W.

    1992. Root-shoot ratios. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 39–42.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Menges E.S.

    2008. Restoration demography and genetics of plants: When is a translocation successful? Australian Journal of Botany 56:187–196.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Moore G.M.

    1985. Getting to the roots of the problem. Combined Proceedings International Plant Propagators’ Society 35:105–111.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Prigge B.A.,
    2. Gibson A.C.

    2007. Researching a new flora of the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills, California. Physiologia Plantarum 99:673–679.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Wachtell J.K.

    1978. Soil survey of Orange County and western part of Riverside County, California. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
17. ↵
    1. Welch B.L.

    1977. Seeded versus containerized big sagebrush plants for seed-increase. Journal of Range Management 50:611–614.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Westman W.E.

    1981. Factors influencing the distribution of species of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:439–455.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Young T.P.,
    2. Evans R.Y.

    2001. Container stock versus direct seeding for woody species in restoration sites. Combined Proceedings International Plant Propagators’ Society 50:577–582.

    OpenUrl